1976-05-28

THE LATE W. ROSS MACDONALD TRIBUTE TO FORMER MEMBER AND SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will be saddened to learn of the death this morning of a most distinguished Canadian, the Hon. W. Ross Macdonald.
Mr. Macdonald served Canada with great distinction for many years. He was a soldier in the first war, a member of this House, a minister, a senator, and finally, Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.
The particular aspect of his work that will be remembered by this House, was his illustrious career as Speaker of the House of Commons during which time he presided over our affairs with great dignity and wisdom.
I am sure all members would wish me to convey their sympathy to members of Mr. Macdonald's family.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter is explained in a letter to all members of parliament this week by the combined Pollution Probes of Ottawa, Nepean and Kanata. Waste paper accounts for over one third of solid waste in municipal garbage dumps at a time when there is a scarcity of solid waste sites which meet environmental standards. Newsprint consumption in Canada is roughly 66 lbs. per capita, and no more than 8 per cent waste newsprint without de-inking is recycled, and more de-inking plants are needed. The Canadian government endorses waste paper recycling as a means of conserving energy and our forests, but it has given no incentive to the paper industry to use more post-consumer waste paper in production, and it continues to overlook waste content in its paper purchases and discards 17,000 tons of waste paper every year.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House urge the government of Canada to adopt policies which would:
(A)	encourage industry to use greater amounts of recycled waste paper in paper production;
(B)	ensure greater use of recycled content in paper purchased for government use; and
(C)	require that government waste paper be recycled whenever possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that a report from Statistics Canada produced yesterday indicates that the number of full time and part time job openings available to Canadians during the first three months of this year was only 48,100, a drop by 22 per cent from the number available at the same time last year, and considering that more than 760,000 Canadians are unemployed, and notwithstanding the support given to the government by the official spokesman for the Conservative Party for its proposed change in the Unemployment Insurance Act, which he described yesterday in the House of Commons as a small step in the right direction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the government to withdraw its proposal to change the minimum attachment period for unemployment insurance benefits from eight weeks to twelve weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: And of the government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and, I might add, in the absence of many other ministers, I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
The revisions in the price and profit regulations of the anti-inflation program, announced in the budget presentation of the Minister of Finance Tuesday night, have been described by a Montreal panel of accountants as a three page memo loaded with dynamite. Regrettably, there has been further confusion added to the question as to how the controls apply to business generally, and as the statements of the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board on Wednesday did little to clear the air, would the Acting Prime Minister make a positive contribution to public understanding of the program by telling the House why the announcement of the new regulations has been delayed until June 7 when the government supposedly knew what its intentions were in the budget? In addition, could the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether any of these regulations will apply retroactively to pricing policies of business before May 25?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government made its announcement of the changes in the Anti-Inflation Board regulations as soon as a decision had been made by the cabinet. The first opportunity to make these announcements came in the budget.
The question of the applicability of these changes is to be found in the regulations themselves, and I would not presume in this House to answer the last part of the question. The purpose is to make the regulations apply in a fairer manner to all business and to buttress the efforts of the government to contain price increases.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With special reference to the latter part of the Acting Prime Minister's answer to my earlier question, as the chairman of the AIB stated that the new regulations will establish the type of program which was intended in the first place, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House exactly what the purpose of these regulatory changes is? Is it to help business, is it to clarify the program as far as business is concerned, or is it in fact to remedy the situation in the sense that the control program did not appear to be working and tighter regulations were required?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows-I am sure he has been following the course of events very closely; his many interventions in the House indicate that he has been-the purpose of these regulations is to make the rules with respect to prices fairer in their application as between companies of various kinds. Hon. members will recall that

there were various alternative ways of determining whether prices were within the guidelines. After review it was found more fair to apply a general rule than it was to provide for the alternatives that had previously been in effect. This is something that could only be determined by experience. The government makes no apologies for the review nor for the changes that have been made.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO FURTHER UNANNOUNCED CHANGES IN PRICE AND PROFIT REGULATIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question. Noting that the budget speech of the Minister of Finance summarized only the highlights of the changes to the price and profit regulations, would the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that all the changes to the regulations not announced in the speech of the Minister of Finance are really consequential to the highlights, that is, that no additional major changes to the profit control procedures are lurking unannounced in the forthcoming regulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I could not give an undertaking, and I am sure it would be most inappropriate if I did, that there would not be further changes based on experience. In his speech the Minister of Finance announced the purport of the changes that are to be made. These will be spelled out in the regulations of the Anti-Inflation Board. It may be that on the basis of experience we will find it necessary to make further changes. That is to be expected and, I hope, would have the co-operation of the opposition.


POSSIBLITY OF CHANGES IN REGULATIONS AFFECTING BANKS-REASON FOR DELAY IN REVISION OF BANK ACT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if it is planned to make any changes in the government's anti-inflation program, by regulation or otherwise, as it affects the banking community and could he indicate why the Bank Act revision has been delayed once again as indicated in the budget speech in that the Minister of Finance had indicated it would be tabled before the end of this month?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I cannot give any undertaking about further revisions in the program. Our purpose is to bring about stability in costs and prices. We will take whatever measures appear appropriate for that purpose. It is not our desire to produce any more uncertainty than is necessary, but some changes are bound to be necessary in a program of this kind which is without precedent. It is bound to be modified as we have further experience. As for the revision of the Bank Act, the Minister of Finance has found himself otherwise engaged and it is necessary to postpone the introduction of the bill until after the end of this session.
May 28, 1976


REASON FOR CHANGES IN PRICE AND PROFIT REGULATIONS- EFFECT OF CHANGES ON CAPITAL FORMATION
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance stated that the new Anti-Inflation Board regulations were being formulated to achieve greater equity and effectiveness. Can the Acting Prime Minister explain exactly what was meant by this action, especially noting the need for expansion of business capital base?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all these matters were taken into consideration when the decision was made to change the regulations. In our view they are more fair in their application to the business community as a whole. They remove anomalies that existed when there were various alternative ways of determining prices. The government is very much aware of the necessity of promoting capital investment and in our judgment these regulations are fair and equitable and will not interfere with the expansion of business.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Reports from the business community indicate that the capital base of business has been seriously eroded by inflation with only the government gaining. Can the minister advise if the government has studied the effects on the formation of the capital base of the change in the base period profit average from 95 per cent to 85 per cent, coupled with high interest rates? Have they studied the effect of this on the formation of capital which is required to expand business to offset inflation? Will that study be tabled? I think it is very important.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, inflation is causing disruption. The purpose of the government's policy is to stop inflation and, if it is necessary, to take unusual action. If the hon. gentleman is suggesting it is more important to achieve some other objective, I do not agree with that.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, based on the fact that the figures released yesterday by Statistics Canada indicate a 22 per cent drop in the number of jobs available in the first quarter of this year compared with last year, and that proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act which the government has announced will most seriously affect those parts of Canada which already have the highest and most persistent levels of unemployment, and keeping in mind that the government has not the support of one provincial premier, will the government reconsider its position and withdraw its proposed intention to change the Unemployment Insurance Act?
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as various government spokesmen, including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, have said the purpose of the government in proposing these measures is to reduce the number of people on unemployment insurance and to increase the number who have jobs. I wish to confirm the government's intention to replace any of these adverse effects with the creation of new employment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that if he reduces unemployment he will reduce unemployment insurance pay-outs, which is exactly what we in my party want. As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said in Montreal yesterday that he was opposed to the change on which the government has decided, I ask if he was in any way reflecting a change in the government's attitude? For example, will the government take the position that, on this important issue which affects Canadians from coast to coast, it will permit a free vote in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept such an interpretation of the remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. So far as I know, the minister did not say that. He will be here and can be examined on that question. I understand from his office that he has been misrepresented. The House will consider a government measure. We believe, and I hope the hon. gentleman believes, too, that it is better to have people employed than on unemployment insurance.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister suggests that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did not mean what he said. I suggest that the Acting Prime Minister has trouble distinguishing night from day. I ask, since the government adopted an earlier Conservative proposal for indexing income tax which has brought major beneficial effects to upper income Canadians, if the government got this brilliant idea for changing the Unemployment Insurance Act, a change which will have a negative effect on low income Canadians, also from the Conservative party?


REQUEST THAT PERIOD TO QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS BE REDUCED IN CERTAIN CASES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act extending from 8 to 12 weeks the eligibility period, and I am now referring to owners and seasonal workers, owners of summer hotels and farmers who will need temporary manpower for a period which very seldom exceeds 7 to 8 weeks, and also to students who will have to find a summer job, has the minister or his officials considered some kind of mechanism to cope with this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the government's policy in
95 568-48

May 28, 1976
Oral Questions
relation to the suggested revisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act has only been represented in one aspect. The government has also made it clear, I repeat, that it intends to replace any of the reduced benefits with the expenditures of public money, in order to create alternative employment.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I think the minister did not answer my question. I asked him if he had something in mind to remedy the situation which will soon arise with regard to seasonal workers, particularly students.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in so far as measures being proposed, for example, through the extension of the LIP program and in other ways to create useful jobs in areas of high unemployment. I think the policy we have announced will meet the hon. member's problems.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I am sure we are all pleased to learn that the air traffic controllers and Treasury Board have reached agreement on the outstanding issues involving the air traffic controllers' dispute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Will the minister tell the House what assurance he has given the air traffic controllers that there will be no extension of bilingual air-ground communications until the commissioner of the inquiry has presented his report to the government and the report is made public?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to some explanatory changes in the terms of reference, we have reached considerable agreement about the satisfactory progress that has been made on bilingual air traffic service in the five airports where it was first introduced, that the introduction would go on progressively at Val d'Or and Bagotville, that the air advisory radio service for VFR would continue to move forward, that the use of French in emergency situations would be permitted as under the current rules and that the commission work would go forward. We would not undertake any further introduction of bilingualism until after the commission has reported and the report has been made public, except with the agreement of the controllers and Transport Canada. I put it that way because we have found that a good deal of progress can be made by sitting down together and continuing to assure everyone that safety is our prime consideration and, when procedures are available which allow the introduction of the two languages with safety, they will go forward.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ON BILINGUALISM
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
In light of the current negotiations in St. John's between the Air Traffic Controllers Association and officials of his department, can the minister tell the House whether an agreement has been reached, not only on wage conditions, but also on the question of bilingualism in airground communications in Quebec?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as regards the second part of the question, the Minister of Transport just gave an explanation which clearly indicates that the government intends to proceed while ensuring that public security is fully protected.
As to the first part of the question, I should say that last night we were able to agree to the satisfaction of both parties on a labour contract between the Air Traffic Controllers Association and the Treasury Board.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. All of us are very pleased that this week he inaugurates "Canada on the Move". I would like to get him on the move with reference to removing rapeseed from being within the purview of the Crowsnest Pass agreement. All over western Canada there is strong complaint about this. I bring this to his attention and ask him whether he still intends to remove rapeseed, which my administration brought under or supported under the provisions of the Crowsnest Pass rate. Is he going to stubbornly stay with his present stand and lose western Canadian farmers millions of dollars?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that the right hon. member has given me this opportunity to make clear that I have no proposal to put before anyone to move rapeseed away from the Crowsnest rate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: My specific decision has been to indicate to the Canadian Transport Commission that they ought not to charge more than the compensatory rate, which is well below cost, on rapeseed oil. However, I did point out to the western premiers when they objected to that, that at that rate oil is at a higher cost, even though below cost, than shipping rapeseed. They asked for equity between oil and rapeseed. I asked them to state clearly whether what they meant was an additional subsidy on rapeseed oil instead of hiding behind the word "equity". I got some kind of a reply to the effect that they want equity but not subsidies and,
May 28, 1976

therefore, I am no further ahead. The dilemma is there. The low rate creates distortions. There is no doubt about the fact that with rapeseed at the low rate and oil at the high rate, there is a disincentive to processing in the west just as there is in the case of feed grain and meat, because of the discrepancy between the rates on those products. Those in the west have to face up to that situation in a very realistic manner. I ask them to do so clearly and honestly, instead of hiding behind generalizations that are meaningless.


John George Diefenbaker: I can only designate the minister's reply as an oily one. I ask him specifically: can he give an assurance that there will be no removal of rapeseed from the Crowsnest Pass freight statute? That is all I want to know, not this mass of words by way of explanation. Are we in Western Canada to be able to say that the minister from Saskatchewan is going to protect a major industry in our province?


Otto Emil Lang: I think my previous answer said exactly what I wanted to say and what I meant to say in that regard. I think I can say it would be impossible for me to see how we could justify asking the taxpayer to pay an additional part of the cost of the movement of either meat or rapeseed products from the prairies, even though that cost may be related to a rate which is compensatory and therefore not fully cost covering. I therefore say to the right hon. gentleman that there is a real challenge facing him and those in the West who have favoured the Crow as a low rate on grain to recognize that that will be a discouragement to processing there.
About a year and a half ago I said in Edmonton that while I would fight to try to preserve the benefit of the Crow rate I thought the farmers would be better off if they got the benefit of that rate in some other way, equally assured. I made that statement without having received the approval of my colleagues in the government for any such change; no such change has been put before them. I was, in effect, making an offer to the West about what I would try to fight for for the good of the West, hoping I could persuade my colleagues. But up to this point I have not been able to get the support from the West in favour of something which would, in my view, be extremely good for the West. I wish the politicians out there would recognize that now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Listening to the minister's answer, it is very clear that out go the rights of the western farmer growing rapeseed to be protected under the Crowsnest Pass Agreement.


Otto Emil Lang: The interesting thing, of course, is that there has been some growing realization in the West of the nature of this problem. Just recently I had the support of the Government of Alberta for the proposition that the Crow rate on domestic grain ought not to be continued because it discourages the production of meat in Alberta and is seriously to the disadvantage of Alberta. So at least some Conservatives in one province seem to know what the facts are, though I am not sure they all do.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statements made by Liberal backbenchers from Newfoundland-for Gander-Twillingate, Bonavista-Trini-ty-Conception, Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, from the member representing the New Brunswick constituency of Gloucester and by the hon. member from Cornwall, speaking on television last night, raising serious objections to the proposal with regard to lengthening the working period before people can qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, would the hon. gentleman assure members of the House and back bench members of his own party in particular that on this question, when the vote is taken, they will be given the right to a free vote?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot give that assurance. When the legislation comes forward the government will take full responsibility. I hope the hon. member, when he is dealing with this subject, will bear in mind what the Minister of Finance said and what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said, that the government's purpose would be to compensate for any particular disadvantages which might arise in any particular area of the country by a program of employment. I hope he agrees that this would be better than receiving unemployment insurance.


David Orlikow: Would the minister tell us why the government insists on coming forward with this proposal in the light of the fact that organizations such as the Economic Council have made it very clear that measures of this kind are counter-productive and that what is needed is not a clamping down on unemployment insurance but a massive job creation program involving expenditure in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars?


Mitchell William Sharp: While the government has not gone as far as the Economic Council has advised, we are moving in that direction and that is one of the purposes of the new policy which has been announced-to endeavour, by creating useful works of social value, to replace the benefits of unemployment insurance by wages.


FINANCE
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Finance. Since average annual wages are expected to rise by no more than 12 per cent and since personal exemptions are indexed at a rate of 11.3 per cent to neutralize the tax impact on individuals, how can the minister predict an increase of 26 per cent in revenues from direct taxes on persons shown in the tables attached to the budget speech?
95568 - 48 'A

May 28, 1976
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: May I
say on behalf of the minister that this is the sort of question which should be directed to him when the budget is under discussion and when the bills flowing therefrom are before the House?


INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister yet in a position to report to the House as to whether the government has been able to prevent the RCA research laboratories in Montreal from closing at the direction of the RCA head office in the United States? Inasmuch as such a closing would clash directly with the principles of international business conduct which when tabled in the House last July were stated as reflecting government policy, could the minister tell us whether the government will take steps to make a reasonable degree of compliance with these principles mandatory and to fully monitor the extent of such compliance on the part of all foreign-controlled enterprises in Canada, the firms to which the government has said these principles apply?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: On the specifics with regard to RCA, I advised the House a few days ago that I had already met with that company's chief executive officer and other officers and had expressed our disappointment over the decision. What action we may be able to take in law or what kind of enforcement measures we may be able to undertake are questions I am considering at the present time. But I am at present carrying on talks with the RCA company in an effort to see whether they can be persuaded to change the policy. The second part of the question was somewhat more complex than I could follow, since it was related to the RCA issue. Perhaps my hon. friend would wish to ask a supplementary.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since it is now obvious that the price of oil is going up, a situation which will result in people having to pay fantastic oil prices in Atlantic Canada, may I ask the minister whether he is considering suitable measures in order that firm proposals might be placed before the Atlantic premiers when they come to the first ministers conference in June?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as I have repeatedly stated

before in the House in reply to similar questions, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is certainly concerned with the impact of increased energy cost on the economy of the Atlantic provinces. It has provided for higher expenditures in that area for the current year. Indeed the department is now concerned and is doing some research, and it has been commissioned to a degree to submit alternative proposals to the cabinet. I hope soon to be in a position to propose, along with my colleagues, a solution which could help go through the difficult period with regard to energy in the Atlantic region.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES TO COUNTERACT EFFECT OF INCREASED PRICE IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister of energy. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, I think on Wednesday, in answer to the hon. member for Don Valley said that he was not sure exactly when a decision would be made as to whether there will be any proposals to meet this fundamental problem, which will completely destroy the effects of regional economic expansion in Atlantic Canada unless something is done about the situation, is the minister, with his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, in a position to put a firm proposal before the cabinet so that at the first ministers' meeting something firm will be offered the Atlantic premiers? In order that the Atlantic premiers will know that something will be offered to them, can the minister tell the House whether he will indeed say something that is firm, so that we will not be playing any cat and mouse games?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, work is indeed going on in a number of different areas. I should like to take this opportunity of conscripting the assistance of the hon. member in persuading his colleagues that Petro-Canada is doing one hell of a good job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FINANCE


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. The premier of Prince Edward Island has been quoted recently as stating that the federal government's influence through its fiscal and cost-sharing policies threatens-that is his word-to shape the course of events in the maritimes more than ever before. Is it the minister's intention to adopt a more favourable attitude to the maritime provinces, or is
May 28, 1976

the government's intention to continue to deny this part of Canada the opportunity of developing to its full potential; and will the minister do his part, in response to the premier of Prince Edward Island, and offer direct and immediate aid to the Atlantic provinces, where soaring energy costs are threatening the already frail economies of this part of the country, to which the minister of energy seems to be insensitive,


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as the spokesman for the Minister of Finance this morning, I wish to say that the problems of the Atlantic provinces are seriously taken into consideration by the government. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said that we are now studying the problems confronting the Maritimes in the field of energy. We hope to find short and long term solutions. I must say that the situation is very complex and it is not caused only by measures taken by the federal government. On the contrary, we continue to take great interest in those regions.



PENSIONS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether the government, in whole or in part, had exercised a right to defer a contribution to the pension plan of civil servants and members of the armed forces. Would he now have the information he indicated he would try to get?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give an answer to the hon. member today, but I hope to be in a position to do so on Monday.



FINANCE


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Because of the fact that this government continues to lend large sums of money at no or low interest rates abroad while those who form the backbone of our economic way of life-and I am referring, of course, to the small businessman-are in many cases fighting for survival as a result of high-cost lending rates, would the minister advise the House whether or not the government is contemplating any future improvement in interest rates both within the federal business development bank as well as our monopolistic chartered bank system; and more specifically, is there a possibility of having the Small Businesses Loans Act amended in such a way as to ease the way for the small businessman?
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will recall that very substantial measures are proposed in the budget for the benefit of small business. The question of interest rates is a very difficult and complicated one and I hesitate to give any undertakings about bringing in special measures in addition to those already being proposed in that field. What is quite clear is that the best way of reducing interest rates in this country is to get inflation under control, and I only wish we had a little more support from the opposition in those endeavours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INDUSTRY


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of the fact that the small businessman does in fact form the backbone of our economic way of life, and as a result of continuing disregard for this small firms sector by federal budgets, as witnessed earlier this week-regardless of what the Acting Prime Minister says-is the minister or his department considering initiating a comprehensive policy, with emphasis on incentives and stimulants, aimed specifically at the small business sector; and can he assure the House that such a policy will be backed by appropriate legislation to show the seriousness of this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, a number of special programs with regard to small business are already in place. There is a review of the nature the hon. member referred to underway at the present time, along with consultation with small business representatives in Canada. A number of proposals have been put forward and I have no doubt that those will be implemented. Whether it will be necessary to use legislation for their implementation or existing programs is not a matter on which I can give the hon. member a definite answer at the present time.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a relatively tranquil day in the House to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday in the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster strife broke out among members resulting in a reported flattening of the Sergeant at Arms and outbreaks of fisticuffs. Noting the growingly intemperate behaviour of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -would the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether he and Your Honour are studying contingency measures to deal with such a potential outrage in this House?
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS

May 28, 1976



DATE OF PUBLICATION OF HALL REPORT ON PENSIONS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should ask a supplementary following that last question: If not, why not?
May I direct my question to the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue is not here at the present time. It concerns the report of Dr. Noel Hall and railway pensions. Can the minister give the House and the country some indication of the progress in the preparation and completion of the report; and in particular, will the many, many people in Canada who will be affected by this report be able to look forward to completion within a very short time, since this process has gone on for a considerable period of years?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right; Dr. Hall has been working on this report for a longer time than either he or the government anticipated. I have talked to the various union officials involved, who are very concerned about this on behalf of their membership. I believe it is fair to say that they are entirely satisfied that Dr. Hall is proceeding in a very thorough fashion indeed and that the report will be a thorough one; so, for that reason, they understand the delay. In short, I hope to have the report soon; before the end of June was my last firm indication.



MANPOWER


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has done away with OFY, and with it two-thirds of the jobs that were available through the SSEAP program, in view of the fact that without this program unemployment among students last year would have been above 14 per cent according to the government's own evaluation of the program, and in view of the fact that the lack of summer unemployment will mean many students will be unable to return to school in the fall and this will hit hardest on working and low income families, making it even more difficult for them to send their children to post-secondary schools, is the government prepared now either to bring in an emergency summer employment program to allow these students to work and pay their way back to school or admit that they find an unemployment rate of 14 or 15 per cent among students acceptable, since it is clear private sector hiring will not pick up the slack?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this question should be put to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when he is here. There is a very considerable array of programs and I think he should have the opportunity of replying in detail.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services and has to do with the fact that Lockheed have indicated that they have put a new proposal to the government for the purchase of LRPA's. I know that the minister cannot give us the details of any proposal that has been put, but in general terms can he advise us whether it involves a renewed attempt on the part of Lockheed to borrow funds, or a proposal to delay the start of the project until the Department of National Defence has more funds available, presumably with some cost change, or is there now some sort of United States government backed guarantee on the viability of Lockheed against which the Canadian government might itself feel tempted to borrow? Would the minister advise us in general terms?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot give a specific answer to the hon. member because, to my knowledge, we have not received any new proposals from Lockheed. I have the same information as the hon. member that Lockheed is reported to be working out a new proposal. We have, of course, indicated that the previous proposal was turned down because Lockheed could not secure financing. However, if they want to submit further proposal in line with the budgetary requirements of the government and the military requirements for the implementation of the program, we would be quite willing to consider it as well as any proposal from other companies.



LOCKHEED CONTRACT-BASIS ON WHICH LETTER OF INTENT SENT TO COMPANY-ASSURANCE FROM NATIONAL DEFENCE OF NEW PROPOSAL

Walter David Baker: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the lack of communication between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Supply and Services with regard to this matter, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services has laid the blame pretty heavily on the Minister of National Defence for having entered into this large transaction on only a verbal assurance, could the minister advise the House of two things: When the letter of intent was sent in December to Lockheed-and that letter of intent was tabled here-was it on the basis of verbal assurance from the Minister of National Defence or did the Minister of Supply and Services make any attempt to back up that verbal assurance in any written way in the form of a commitment and, second, having regard to the attack the Minister of Supply and Services has publicly made in respect of the negotiating abilities of the Minister of National Defence would he assure us that he apprise himself that there had been in effect an offer made to the Minister of National Defence by Lockheed in respect of this matter because the minister's answer to the first question indi-
May 28, 1976

cates that apparently he does not know. Would he ask the Minister of National Defence what is going on?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I want first to clear up a point about which I believe the hon. member has some misgivings. I never blamed the Minister of National Defence. I said, as he said himself in the House, that a general had verbally accepted an offer from Lockheed for the financing of the project by that company. I feel it was a big mistake, and the general should obviously have asked Lockheed to put that offer in writing. That is quite clear.
It was also quite clear that if Lockheed had made a new proposal to the government, it would have made it to the LRPA project management group, and then I would have been informed at the same time as the Minister of National Defence. Therefore, if I say that we have not received any offer, it is because neither I nor the Minister of National Defence have heard of any offer.



GASOLINE-PRICE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since government policy has again resulted in a rise in the price of gasoline, and since these increases will soon be felt at the retail pumps, as well as the fact that in most areas of Canada there is a large spread in the retail price of gas between larger urban centres and rural areas-as an example, in Manitoba the spread in gas prices between Winnipeg and rural communities only 50 miles away is 16 cents per gallon at stations owned by major oil companies-has the minister had a discussion with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and is there an intention to take action against these oil companies because of this price discrimination against residents of rural areas.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the combines section of the Department of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs already has this particular industry under investigation.



THE QUEEN


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It arises out of the Prime Minister's apparently disinterested answer to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants question concerning Canada's efforts to celebrate Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee. I wonder when he will be ready to make a statement to this House and to the country concerning the way we as a nation will celebrate our sovereign's anniversary?
Oral Questions


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got his impression of disinterest. It does not seem to be based on fact. A statement will be made in June.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to a matter he has had under review as has his predecessor over the last two years. In view of the announcement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs of the cancellation of the sale of the CANDU reactor to India, is the minister able to tell us now what the position of the government will be in relation to compensation for those companies which have completed or partially completed the equipment for that reactor.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the hon. member with precision because the matter is now being examined and one or two of the issues involved are in fact before the courts. However, I think I can assure the hon. member that a satisfactory settlement will be achieved quite rapidly now that a decision with regard to any further shipments to India has been made.



GASOLINE-POSSIBILITY OF REDUCTION IN EXCISE TAX IN VIEW OF PRICE INCREASE

Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by my colleague the hon. member for Marquette and is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the fact that the extremely regressive effect of the government's 10 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline will involve complications for those people who have been forced to move out of urban areas because of the high housing costs and have to commute to the city from rural areas, can the minister indicate whether the government is giving consideration to a reduction in the excise tax which would be phased in at the same time as the government's announced plan for an increase in gasoline prices?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the budget was presented two nights ago.

May 28, 1976
Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY



ELIGIBILITY OF SINGLE PERSONS, WIDOWS AND DIVORCED SPOUSES BETWEEN AGE 60 AND 65 FOR OLD AGE PENSION

Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When can we expect the discrimination embodied in legislative changes in the extentions of old age pensions and the supplement that were passed last year to be corrected so that single persons, widows, and separated and divorced spouses who are past age 60 but not yet age 65 will be assisted under the old age security scheme?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to suggest to the hon. member that he refer to my speech on second reading of the bill as well as to what I said in committee. He will find there all the answers to the questions he put.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour who is in charge of multiculturalism. On May 17, 1976 the terms of one third of the members of the Canadian Multiculturalism Consultative Council expired. What steps is the minister taking to fill these vacancies?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, recommendations with regard to replacements are now being considered by the government and are being processed. I hope an announcement can be made shortly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, when will the minister take steps to correct this gross insult to the multicultural community and do we have to wait until 1978 before he will get off his backside and do something about it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a gross exaggeration on the hon. member's part. The fact of the matter is that many ethnic cultural communities are sending in recommendations concerning people who might fill these vacancies.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This government just does not care about the other third of the people of Canada.


John Carr Munro: I am sure the hon. member would want those communities to be given every consideration. I would be pleased to receive some suggestions from the hon. member.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that yesterday in the minister's response to my question he indicated-will you guys, shut-up?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should say to the hon. member that I was reluctant to intervene, as he did so forcefully, to quieten down his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I return to my question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister indicated yesterday there was close consultation on the DREE program with the Department of National Defence and with the Minister, will he now indicate why there is no provision in the supplementary estimates for DREE funding for the areas in which these military bases will be shut down, and why this issue has never been raised in discussions with reference to DREE programs?


Marcel Lessard: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in our budget we cannot provide for sums of money that might be required to face hypothetical or possible situations. We lined up our estimates for the coming 12 months. No decision has yet been announced, that I know, and if such decisions were taken by the cabinet they would be announced, at which time the effective date of any shut down of military bases, if any, would also be made known.
The government would also announce at that time what steps it has decided to take to remedy the negative effets of the closing down of the military bases in question. Discussions are now going on in cabinet in this regard. I am also in the process of discussing with my colleague for national defence what steps could be taken if we were to decide to close down a given military base or other. But until such time as a decision is reached, my department cannot announce programs nor provide moneys for such programs.



ATTITUDE OF DEPARTMENT TOWARDS PROGRAMS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is all theory, can the minister also say, in light of comments from senior officials of the provincial government of British Columbia dealing with economic expansion, that DREE is also applying lip service to British Columbia in that British Columbia has responded that it is apparently one of the have provinces and the DREE program is of no interest there. What is the minister's attitude towards British Columbia?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, once again, I should like to say that our department has not in the past been much

May 28, 1976

involved in the Western provinces, it is true and we admit it, but gradually it has become increasingly involved. British Columbia is now facing a new situation. Unemployment is on the increase. In recent years there have been more problems and that is why the Department of Regional Economic Expansion intends, this year as well as next year, to participate with the provincial government in a job-creating program in that province.
I mentioned this involvement to the hon. member when the estimates of my department were being considered by the committee a few days ago, and I intend to pursue this objective, that is to implement more of our programs in British Columbia.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday when dealing with House business, there have been discussions with the House leaders about the possibility of dealing with Bills S-34 and S-35 today. These discussions were continued yesterday and today. I understand it is now agreed that second reading of Bill S-35 will be the first order of government business today. This will be followed by Bill S-34. Because of the urgency of this piece of legislation which relates to airport security, and its non-controversial character, I shall seek unanimous consent to consider it in committee of the whole, rather than in the standing committee, and dispose of all the stages today. We shall then return to debate on second reading of Bill C-84.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there were some things happening around me. I should like to be quite certain that I understand the intention of the government. Are we to deal with the health and welfare matter first?


Mitchell William Sharp: Only the second reading.


Mr. Lumley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few moments ago, during the question period, in putting a question to the Acting Prime Minister the hon. member for Winnipeg North made reference to an interview with myself on the CBC national news last night. As usual, the opposition has distorted the facts. I think that a careful check of the record will show that this member of parliament endorses the government's change in the UIC policy based on the commitment that these funds will be reallocated into job creation and job training programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: The backbench of the government party is conscious of the fact that Canada is the envy of the western industrialized world in job creation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I think that a perusal of Hansard will show that I stated that the hon. members I quoted had expressed reservations and opposition to the proposals unless there were
Business of the House
certain conditions set. I think the record will show that I did not distort the facts.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services has come back to the House, in view of the answer he gave to my friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I understand the minister will be catching a plane, so my point will be brief. But it is very fundamental, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. As I understood the answer given by the minister to my friend, he did not agree with my friend that there was a difference of opinion between the Minister of National Defence and himself, but he spoke about some mythical general, I assume in the Department of National Defence, and it seemed strange in the opinion of the minister that he should have made a verbal commitment which got us into this whole fiasco-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -of financing the front end or the tail end of the Lockheed plane. I say this is fundamental, because when you speak about something called ministerial responsibility-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: What do you know about it?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for St. Boniface would not understand about ministerial responsibility, but his seatmate might. I am speaking about ministerial responsibility with regard to a public servant or a general in the Department of National Defence. I do not think the minister should stand in the House and evade a question from my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, by saying that there is some general who made a verbal commitment and yet there is no difference of opinion between the minister and the Minister of National Defence. I do not know what we can do about it today, but if such an answer is to be allowed, then, goodness gracious, we will be doing a great disservice. Perhaps the minister did not intend to give that answer, but he can certainly do a great disservice to the public servants, of whom a general is one, who obviously cannot come to this House and reply. Basically, if there was someone under the minister's responsibility who made a mistake, then certainly in this day and age the minister must take the responsibility, not some general or some corporal.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the hon. member's violent outburst, since the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) a few weeks ago had already explained to the House the circumstances which I pointed out myself where a general from his department had got the verbal assurance from Lockheed Corporation that the LRPA project financing would be borne by that corporation. He himself indicated that unfortunately the general had not got the written agreement and, of course, as the one responsible for government purchases I feel that was a serious mistake.
At that time, I heard no violent reaction as I just did from the hon. member about the ministerial responsibility or the revealing of this fact. This fact has been well known for a few weeks and I do not understand why today one

May 28, 1976
Business of the House
would want to make a fuss about it. I for one regret that the government was placed in such a situation. I can assure the hon. member that I was not made aware of such a possibility before sending a telex-which constitutes a letter of agreement-to Lockheed authorizing that company to start some preliminary work before the final contract.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the minister might be surprised at the violence of the intervention by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, but I hope he is not surprised about the propriety of the principle with respect to the point raised by the hon. member. I think it is an old tradition that one does not attribute to public servants the responsibilities which are those of the ministers who occupy a very special position.
However, the interesting thing about this matter is that at the time the transaction collapsed, the Prime Minister also indicated that the source of the problem was that the cabinet had been told that Lockheed could provide the money. Each minister seemed conveniently to forget that not only the Minister of National Defence, a brother minister and a member of the ministry who has responsibility, believed in the verbal commitment, but the whole cabinet apparently believed in it, too. Not one cabinet minister, least of all the Minister of Supply and Services, has said that he looked for a written assurance before Lockheed was authorized to start on December 2.
The point is being made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-and I think it is being made quite well-that there is a responsibility upon all ministers with respect to this matter. There may be the intervention of public servants who act within the course of their duty or outside the course of their duty, but I think the point has to be made, reinforced and hammered home here that the responsibility for what has happened, regardless of where the trouble began, lies with the ministry. The hon. member for Annopolis Valley is quite right in suggesting that out of the answer today and, indeed-as the minister said-out of the answers of his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, there has been an attempt to deny what is fundamental to our parliamentary practice, that is, the question of responsibility of ministers of the Crown for what their employees do in their name in the course of their duties.
May I say that that also applies to another affair in this House with regard to officials acting outside the course of their duties when those officials are directly responsible to a particular minister. I think it is a very important principle and it ought not to be forgotten in this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order, in so far as it goes beyond a disagreement with the interpretation of the minister's remarks, raises a question about the theory of ministerial responsibility, and perhaps it would be well for all hon. members to reflect, having received over the weekend the Hansard transcript of exactly what was said, and to see whether it does in fact attack that fundamental and important consideration, but it is a point too fundamental and too important to be given a rather cursory treatment on the basis of an oral answer today.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I think that in view of the fact that my intemperate outburst did not specifically point to any particular member or to a particular part of the House, it should be clearly understood that I was not labelling my fellow members on this side of the House as being noisy and intemperate but, rather, my hon. friends across the way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Robinson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a message which Your Honour read to the House and by which His Excellency the Governor General is transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) with regard to sums required for the service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1977.


Mitchell William Sharp: that supplementary estimates (A), 1976-77 tabled this day be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5,003, 5,014, 5,016 and 5,292.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
May 28, 1976


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	Does the public wharf located on the shore of Lois Lake, Privat Township, County of Abitibi West, belong to the government and, if so, in what year was it built?
2.	Does the government own the road leading to the wharf and, if so (a) by whom was it built (b) in what year (c) at what cost?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: In so far
as the Department of Public Works is concerned: 1. Yes, constructed in 1962. This structure was originally built by Department of Public Works and is now under the administration of the Small Craft Harbours Branch, Minister of State (Fisheries).
2.	No. (a) Unknown; (b) Unknown; (c) Unknown.
Re: (a), (b) and (c), The Department of Public Works obtained a 4500 foot long x 66 foot wide right of way from Mr. Patrie Cloutier on May 31, 1961 at no cost to the department.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired federal civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to 149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired civil servants and also the number of widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of federal civil servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a) Less than $20.00 per month; (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month; (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month; (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month; (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month; (n) $300.00 per month and over.
1.	Annuitants	2.	Widows(a)	159	(a)	232(b)	183	(b)	884(c)	493	(c)	1,361(d)	896	(d)	1,491(e)	1,247	(e)	1,454(0	1,407	(f)	1,439(g)	1,445	(g)	1,366
Order Paper Questions
1. Annuitants	2.	Widows	(h)	1,467	(h)	1,188	(i)	1,525	(i)	1,173	(j)	7,474	(j)	5,226	(k)	6,719	(k)	3,739	(1)	5,438	(1)	2,426	(m)	4,805	(m)	1,231	(n)	25,640	(n)	1,934	3.	Annuitants Widows	Newfoundland	774	322Prince Edward Island	417	173Nova Scotia	3,594	1,519New Brunswick	1,964	804Quebec	9,464	4,891Ontario	24,769	10,636Manitoba	2,762	1,106Saskatchewan	1,755	695Alberta	3,447	1,305British Columbia	9,028	3,251North West Territories	76	19Yukon	103	194. As at March 31,	1976,	61 orphans	were receiving	
average of $272.12 per annum.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid out under the said Act?
3.	In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the said Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others?
4.	In each of the last five years, either calendar or financial, for which statistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows of public servants or widows of'retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of the superannuate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. How many persons have received payments since Act of 1959?
Year	Number
1959-60	14311
1960-61	13885
1961-62	12533
1962-63	11709
1963-64	10852
1964-65	10077
1965-66	9078
1966-67	8162
1967-68	7483
1968-69	6860
1969-70	6651
1970-71	6474
1971-72	5793
1972-73	4647
1973-74	3901
1974-75	3253
1975-76	2706

May 28, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	In each of the above years-total amount paid out under the said Act
Year			Amount
1959-60			$3,112,231
1960-61			$2,956,515
1961-62			$2,817,263
1962-63			$2,657,706
1963-64			$2,504,503
1964-65			$2,344,711
1965-66			$2,236,212
1966-67			$2,038,329
1967-68			$1,905,478
1968-69			$1,777,869
1969-70			$1,641,304
1970-71			$1,515,000
1971-72			$1,368,879
1972-73			$1,000,941
1973-74			$ 838,715
1974-75			$ 697,981
1975-76			$ 501,691
3. In each of the above years-average amount paid			
under said Act; (a) to retired widows; (c) to others.	public	servants; (b) to(a)	(b)	(c)Year Public Servants	Widows Others	1959-60	$226.72	$124.88	$12.321960-61	$225.43	$124.42	$11.791961-62	$222.01	$123.92	$10.351962-63	$220.60	$123.59	$10.061963-64	$220.26	$123.75	$ 7.991964-65	$217.94	$123.08	$ 6.191965-66	$216.03	$122.69	$ 7.131966-67	$212.52	$122.64	$ 5.931967-68	$210.27	$121.27	$ 6.111968-69	$208.19	$119.21	$ 4.561969-70	$196.52	$125.05	$ 5.791970-71	$184.83	$127.87	-1971-72	$177.51	$130.19	-1972-73	$174.19	$128.47	-1973-74	$163.05	$114.27	-1974-75	$161.17	$102.98	-1975-76	$158.27	$101.01	-4. In each of the last five years-	-pensions paid under the	P.S.S.A. which have been discontinued because of death.	(a)	(b)Retired Public Ser-	vants	To widows1968-69	1751	1968-69 5141969-70	1899	1969-70 5081970-71	2060	1970-71 5771971-72	2269	1971-72 5881972-73	3081	1972-73 6871973-74	2488	1973-74 7501974-75	2250	1974-75 5321975-76	2367	1975-76 681


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what basis is Mr. Richard O'Hagan associated with the Prime Minister's Office including (a) term of employment or contract (b) exact annual salary?
2.	What is a full description of his duties and (a) does this include improving public relations of the Prime Minister (b) was the last Gallup poll a factor in determining Mr. O'Hagan's duties?
3.	Did Mr. O'Hagan schedule an interview with the Prime Minister for Allan Fotheringham of the Vancouver Sun and MacLean's Magazine and, if so (a) was this cancelled at the last minute by the Prime Minister (b) was one of the reasons for the cancellation complaints about the pending interview from British Columbia Liberal Members of Parliament and, if so, does this indicate a new policy on the part of the Prime Minister to grant interviews only to members of the news media approved in advance by Liberal Members of Parliament?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. A copy of the public communique announcing Mr. O'Hagan's nomination and functions is being sent to the honourable member, (a) and (b) Mr. O'Hagan is on loan from the Department of External Affairs and will be appointed to the Prime Minister's staff under Section 37(1) of the Public Service Employment Act in the salary range $35,500-$47,500.
2.	See communique referred to in 1.
3.	Arrangements that may lead to interviews with the Prime Minister with representatives from the media is not of public record.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-35, to amend an act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will no doubt recall that approximately one year ago
May 28, 1976

parliament enacted Bill S-9, an act designed to repeal the Propriety or Patent Medicine Act. The PPM Act, as it is commonly termed, has served Canada well for over half a century, but certain of its provisions-notably, that relating to the secrecy of the ingredients contained in patent or proprietary medicines-were considered anachronistic.
Accordingly, Bill S-9 provided for repeal of the PPM Act effective July 1, 1976, with control of proprietary or patent medicines then to be carried out under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. Royal assent for Bill S-9 was received on April 24, 1975. On the basis of the best information available then, it was believed that the period of time allowed to both industry and the provinces was adequate to ensure the orderly transition from control over proprietary medicines under the PPM Act to the Food and Drugs Act.
During the intervening period, industry has found considerable manufacturing difficulty in achieving the necessary labelling changes in order to meet the July 1, 1976, deadline. Problems related to the availability of labels, the need to have new registration numbers and adequate production lead time have created a situation whereby manufacturers of proprietary medicines have advised the government that they would be unable to continue having their products available to the general public unless the date of repeal was extended.
There are various classes of drug products and differing legislation controlling their sale. Prescription drugs may only be sold on the authorization of a prescription issued by a practitioner, and the medication can only be sold in pharmacies. Non-prescription drugs may be sold without the authorization of a practitioner, and by virtue of provincial legislation, non-prescription drugs not presently registered under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act can only be sold in drugstores or pharmacies. By virtue, also, of provincial legislation, exemptions are made for proprietary medicines presently registered under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act so that they may be sold in non-pharmacy outlets. In consultation with the provinces, there has been general agreement that the public should continue to have access to products for the self-medication of the symptoms of minor, self-limiting ailments.
Repeal of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act requires, therefore, that the provinces amend provincial pharmacy legislation to refer not to the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act but to proprietary medicines in division 10 of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. The federal government, based on assurances at the official level, had expected that the necessary changes in provincial legislation would be undertaken in time to accommodate the change in federal legislation. Some of the provinces have not as yet made the changes necessary to permit the sale of these products as proprietary medicines. Barring unforeseen circumstances, it is expected that all the required changes in provincial legislation will be enacted by the proposed repeal date of April 1, 1977.
These two factors make it necessary to extend the repeal date. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there would develop a situation in which the general public, after July 1-which is only one month away-could not legally obtain products
Patent Medicines and Trade Mark for self-medication to which they have normally turned for treatment of minor ailments such as headaches, indigestion and other symptoms of minor disorders. The bill before this House today is designed to ensure that there is an orderly and appropriate transition period in which continuity of availability of proprietary medicines is assured.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was before the House about a year ago and we expressed agreement at that time. I am now a little sorry that we rushed it through all stages at one sitting, I believe, on the assurance of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his parliamentary secretary that they had done their homework and all was in order. It now appears that was not the case, for we are dealing with the same bill again. We have to ask ourselves why this is necessary and, Mr. Speaker, we can come to only one conclusion: the gross incompetence of this government or at least its arrogance and failure adequately to consult with the drug manufacturers.
I am sure some information must have been available about how long it would take to change the labelling and get new materials printed. On the basis of the general behaviour and attitude of this government, I am inclined to think there was no real consultation with the drug manufacturers a year ago which would have enabled the government to make a better prognostication of the time required. We have seen this attitude in its dealings with the provinces in the past.
The parliamentary secretary carefully worded his comments so as not to say whether there had been consultations with the provinces when the bill was first proposed and passed a year ago, or whether there has been consultation now. He said he has reason to believe it will be ready by April 1, but did not say that he had consulted the provinces and did not give any assurance that April 1 is a satisfactory date. On the basis of the government's past performance, we cannot tell that it is a suitable date. There is no evidence that the drug manufacturers will be ready by then, or that the provinces will have amended their pharmacy acts by that time.
Before passing this legislation we would need to get some assurances from the people involved so that next April we will not, again, find ourselves pressured to pass all stages in a matter of two or three seconds. If the government is to put legislation through in a responsible and serious way, it should do so after a good deal of forethought so that it does not have to come back for amendment within a year, as is happening now.
I should like to conclude by indicating that I am very dissatisfied with the approach the government has been taking in pretty well all spheres of its activity. Its approach consists of a good deal of arrogance-


Steve Eugene Paproski: What else is new?


Paul Yewchuk: -and no consultation with the people of the provinces or their governments. Unless the parliamentary secretary can give us some more information, I think we will have to insist on calling witnesses before the committee to clarify matters so that we will know that if

May 28, 1976
Patent Medicines and Trade Mark this bill, as it is now presented to us, passes it will satisfy the needs of the people affected by it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. As the previous speaker said, we debated this bill, or a similar one, approximately a year ago. At that time we indicated our support for the intent of the legislation, which was to remove the secrecy aspect of proprietary medicines, a move long advocated by members on this side of the House. I see no objection to prolonging the period to introduce the legislation, but I think that the parliamentary secretary or the minister could provide more information on the reasons for this.
I just want to raise two points, Mr. Speaker. During the previous debate I raised some serious questions regarding regulations that would flow from this particular bill to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. I wondered how it would be encompassed in the total program of the Food and Drugs Act. To date I have not seen any information with respect to that matter, and I think it is pertinent.
With much of the legislation that comes before this House, the regulations are in fact more important than the actual principle of the bill. I make a strong plea to the parliamentary secretary and the minister that far more information should be provided with respect to the ultimate regulations and how they will be intertwined with the Food and Drugs Act.
The second point I want to make is that it is unfortunate the government has only dealt with one small aspect of the many recommendations made in the past regarding changes to the Food and Drugs Act. There have been many reports over the years, the most important being the report of the Le Dain commission which met over a long period of time at a cost of several million dollars. When one reviews the report carefully, one finds numerous recommendations that would improve the Food and Drugs Act. Unfortunately, we have seen only one small aspect of those regulations improved.
In closing, I would say that we support the principle of this bill and the extension of the period for a short time. I emphasize, the government has tended not to make known the extent of the regulations, without which it is difficult to evaluate the thrust of the bill. These regulations are most important. Second, and equally important, I feel that the government has not acted on some of the comprehensive recommendations made in the past by the Le Dain commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with Bill S-34. When I was dealing with the business of the House for today, I indicated that I would seek unanimous consent for two propositions: first, that the bill should be referred to the committee of the whole House rather than to the transport and communications committee, which now appears on the order paper; second, that if it is agreeable and the House gives unanimous consent, the House should consider the bill at all stages today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AERONAUTICS ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-34, to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Turner in the chair.
On clause 1-Security Measures.
Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at the outset I might usefully touch sketch the gist of this legislation. May I say that we appreciate the co-operation of hon. members in expediting consideration of this bill. Hopefully, we shall finish all stages by one o'clock.
Canada has been one of those countries which has expressed growing concern about the threat to international air transportation posed by unlawful interference with civil aviation. This concern is, of course, heightened by the approach of the summer Olympics in Montreal and the UN conference on human settlements which is just beginning in Vancouver.
A security program for civil aviation in Canada has been developed over the past few years in co-operation with air carriers. This program follows closely the standards and recommended practices for the protection of civil aviation as set out in annex 17 of the International Civil Aviation Organization. It began with the amendment of part 5 of the Aeronautics Act which was passed in the House of Commons on July 27, 1973.
In effect, the Aeronautics Act now authorizes the governor in council to make regulations requiring the owners or operators of aircraft registered in Canada to establish, maintain and carry out such security measures as may be prescribed by the regulations. Accordingly, regulations have been enacted imposing the obligation of security measures on the owners and operators of aircraft registered in Canada. The act, however, does not authorize
May 28, 1976

regulations which would impose the obligation of similar security measures to be established and carried out by foreign air carriers operating into and out of aerodromes in Canada.
Under the present wording of the act, security measures in respect of flights by foreign air carriers from aerodromes in Canada can only be established and carried out by the Ministry of Transport itself, the result being that Canadian air carriers are burdened with the expense of establishing and carrying out their own security measures, while the Ministry of Transport must bear the burden of establishing and the expense of carrying out security measures in respect of passengers departing Canada with foreign air carriers. This is, obviously, somewhat discriminatory.
In addition, the absence of security measures by foreign air carriers transporting passengers into aerodromes in Canada is of considerable importance as many European countries do not screen passengers or goods leaving their country by aircraft. The coming international events in Canada point out the necessity of requiring foreign air carriers operating into aerodromes in Canada to adopt a security program in respect of all passengers and goods intended to be carried into and out of aerodromes in this country.
The amendments to section 5(1) as proposed in Bill S-34 are to clarify the authority to require all owners and operators of aircraft, whether registered in Canada or otherwise, to comply with security regulations in respect of flights into or out of Canadian aerodromes. The foreign air carriers would be required to use security measures equivalent to those now followed by Canadian air carriers. As I have said, the operators of Canadian registered aircraft are now required to comply with security regulations at their own expense, whereas foreign air carriers are not so required. The amendment would correct that situation.
The amendments also authorize the Ministry of Transport to institute, on its own, security measures at airports applicable to all carriers, both domestic and foreign. This would enable the ministry to impose charges for any such security services provided. If this service had to be provided without a charge to the carriers, the cost to the department is estimated at approximately $200,000 annually. This provision would only be used on the failure, particularly of foreign air carriers, to adopt a security system equivalent to that used by Canadian air carriers.
The amendments also make it an offence for a foreign-registered aircraft to land at an aerodrome in Canada without having subjected its passengers to security measures equivalent to those followed by Canadian operators. This provision will provide a measure of enforcement. It would, perhaps, be interesting for the House to note that over the past year the government of the United States has similarly moved in this direction through its anti-hijacking act of 1974 and subsequent regulations which came into effect on October 9, 1975.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, in a broad way we welcome Bill S-34, amending the Aeronautic Act, which is to provide, by way of regulation, that foreign air carriers using Canadian airports shall operate under the same security procedures as those applying to Canadian carriers. As
Aeronautics Act
the parliamentary secretary mentioned, our concern for security is heightened by our knowledge that in the next few days many thousands of people from all over the world will visit Canada for the Habitat conference.
Our reservations with respect to the bill have not to do so much with the intent of the bill as with the principle inherent in it, namely, that the user of the service shall pay for protection. Clearly, under the bill the airlines must accept the additional cost of security measures connected with visitors who will come to this country for Habitat and the Olympics. We contend that security is the business of the RCMP in this instance. We note, from our own figures, that RCMP security measures will account for between 60 cents and 70 cents of the cost of each air ticket. We wish to voice our reservations about this aspect as we think security is, and has always been, the responsibility of the state. It is up to the state to provide adequate security and police protection for Canadian citizens and visitors to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: We argue that at any Canadian international airport at almost any time of day there might be
1,000	emplaning or deplaning passengers and up to 4,000 friends and relatives seeing them off or welcoming them to Canada. Clearly, friends and relatives are not users of the airlines, but the security measures are there for their protection as well as for the protection of shopkeepers and others doing routine business near our airports.
The Minister of Transport deferred announcing the new regulations with regard to the security aspect at our airports. We understand he will be making an announcement early next week. In order to comply with certain undertakings, that will have to be by June 1 or 2. As that is only a few days away, perhaps it is a bit premature for us to be required to do something today with regard to something that is not already in place. I hope we turn a blind eye to it. I understand the pressures. We do not object to it on that particular ground. However, we urge upon the parliamentary secretary our concern with regard to what the regulations will be and how they will be applicable to foreign carriers.
We hope that foreign carriers will not have to bear the security costs for their own policing at international airports in their countries. We hope the minister will heed this representation with respect to these costs and continue, as is right and proper, to require that the general revenues of Canada bear the cost of security and police protection.
I wish to make one comment that has to be made every once in a while. We are constantly faced with the question of why there is a $5 add-on per airline ticket for screening of passengers and baggage at our airports. At Seattle, for example-the parliamentary secretary will be very familiar with this-the cost is only 20 cents per ticket. Even if the cost here is as high as 70 cents, what happens to other $4.30? We are concerned about this in these days of inflation. Any add-on costs have a tendency to be inflationary.
In conclusion, we welcome the bill. It is required if there is to be uniform integrity with regard to security of people moving in and out of our airports on our national carriers

May 28, 1976
Aeronautics Act
as well as carriers of foreign nations. This bill goes a long way toward that, and we welcome it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I wish to echo the comments of my colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax East supporting the principle of the bill, and to concur with the reservations he has pointed out. Naturally, we have always supported the principle of security at our national airports. Indeed, many of us were instrumental in the passage of the amendments to the Aeronautics Act to, in effect, put this into force. The parliamentary secretary alluded to the fact that this necessitates the co-operation of the air carriers and, indeed, the support and co-operation of all passengers. However, we must point out that the costs for this service have escalated far in excess of that which we were led to believe the costs would be at the time we considered the bill.
I took issue with this particular point on March 11 at the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I questioned the minister about the proposal to impose an additional 66-cent charge for RCMP persons at airports, in addition to the 26 cents per passenger which the airlines already collect to cover their security. I asked him to rationalize and justify a cost of that magnitude when evidence indicates that the cost of similar armed guards and security persons at border airports in the United States amounts to something in the area of 14 cents. The minister indicated at that time that negotiations and consultations were going on with the air carrier industry. I understand that a counterproposal has been advanced to the industry. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary is at liberty to advance that information to the House at this time.
Our fears have not been unfounded. We took it upon ourselves during the committee hearings at that time to emphasize the fact that this should not be another burden placed upon the shoulders of the air traveller. That falls in line with our view that security at our national airports is indeed a matter for a national over-all approach. It is part of total national security, not necessarily security attributed to air travellers, which was elaborated on by my colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax East. We continue to hold that view. The minister gave some indication that he was prepared to reassess the policy of the government in that regard. That is recorded at page 4115 of the proceedings of March 11.
I certainly do not want to hold up the passage of this particular piece of legislation. However, I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us that information at this time. The minister did indicate last March that a definitive position would be arrived at within a couple of months. Therefore, I hope the parliamentary secretary will provide that information to the committee at this time.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a few moments to respond to the concerns expressed by the two hon. members who have just spoken. I will try to deal as specifically as I can with some of the precise issues they have raised.
The first general question had to do with the expense of RCMP operations at airports in Canada, and the concern that the total burden of that kind of operation should not be borne by the air carriers and, through them, by the air

travelling public in Canada. I want to assure both hon. members that the charges with respect to the RCMP operations are only in relation to the actual security work which they do in connection with boarding passengers. The other functions that they might have in an airport dealing with the ordinary policing function is not paid for by the air carriers and, through them, the travelling public. It is the security aspect only that is dealt with in that way. I hope that will alleviate some of the concern which those hon. members have. The expense incurred in connection with the RCMP is an expense directly related to the security of passengers boarding aircraft. Whatever else they may do in their normal policing function elsewhere at airports and aerodromes in Canada is not a matter that is covered by the particular issue before us today.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East made reference to a $5 fee or charge. That is not related to security costs of airport operations. The hon. member for Vegreville asked questions specifically with regard to testimony which was put forward earlier this spring in the transport and communications committee. The charge referred to in that instance was 60 cents or 66 cents. It is my understanding that the actual cost factor is considerably less than that. I am afraid I cannot be more definite today, but I will undertake to provide this information to the hon. member as quickly as possible; indeed, I will try to give a breakdown showing exactly what the security costs are and how they accumulate to the final total, whatever that total is.


J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to draw attention to the principle involved here. Some Canadians, for example, find offence in the fact that members of the Canadian armed forces are employed on services in penitentiaries. Our military forces are established to defend all Canadians, whether they happen to be law-abiding or not. The principle with respect to the employment of the security services of our national police force should not be diluted so as to change the character of those services for all Canadians. It should not be diluted by using the services of that national force for a specific purpose or a specific reward.
The protection of all Canadians is the responsibility of the state, and it seems to us that if from time to time we impair the purity of the principle to which I have referred, at some time in the future it will be a lot easier for abuses to take place. This should be kept in mind when considering whether or not any portion of the charge proposed should be set against the cost of our national police force. In our judgment, there should not be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understood the parliamentary secretary to say that the cost in relation to the RCMP presence covered only the boarding of passengers. Is it not true that the proposal involving the suggested cost of 66 cents was to include the presence of the RCMP on the ground as well as air side?


Ralph Goodale: That is not my understanding, but in order to clarify the situation further I think it would be more informative if I could provide the kind of breakdown to which I have referred. I will bear in mind the question just asked, so that we can be satisfied about which costs are directed to each particular function.
May 28, 1976


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If my interpretation is correct, it reinforces the argument we have been advancing. Surely the presence of RCMP personnel on the ground should not be a cost attached to air passengers. If that is the case, and it is my understanding that the 66 cents per passenger boarded would go to defray the cost of RCMP personnel both on the ground and air side, we believe the air traveller is being taxed rather heavily in the interests of national security.


Ralph Goodale: Again, I hope I can resolve that dispute or argument, whatever it might be, arising out of information which was given earlier to the transport committee, by means of the material which I shall be bringing to the House and in particular to the two hon. members who have spoken. I assure the committee that it is neither our desire nor intention that the proper function or role in Canada of the RCMP should be in any way impaired. That function is, of course, primarily one of ensuring peace and security. The questions we have been discussing are really questions of government accounting, the bookkeeping necessary to pay for the kinds of services which are provided, and to ensure that payment comes from appropriate sources. I do not think there is abuse here of the proper function of the RCMP. There is certainly no intention to dilute or downgrade the important role they play in Canadian life. I hope this question can be resolved at least in part by the information on the monetary aspects which I shall be providing.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Steve Eugene Paproski: By leave, now.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend
Capital Punishment
the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I have the impression of having to fulfill a very difficult duty. It is perhaps the heaviest responsibility I have had to carry out since I had the privilege to attend the debates of this House and to represent a federal constituency.
In my opinion, it is extremely important to know the environment in which I live and the category of citizens I represent in this House to understand the way I intend to fulfil my responsibility. It is also important that hon. members be aware that my constituents are largely workers. Most of my electors are honest people who work for two large companies, Alcan and Price. The other citizens are small businessmen and I must unfortunately point out that I have to face extremely difficult social conditions because the unemployment rate is 20 per cent and because a large number of citizens, far too many, are poor.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the decision I have to make today must be based on the mandate I received on the category of people who will be affected by our decision. How can the death penalty influence those people who gave me the terms of reference to represent them? Mr. Speaker, a few years ago already I had the opportunity to take a particular interest in that extremely important debate on capital punishment. On many occasions I met citizens from all walks of life. I discussed with them. I explained to them that the decision I had to make should not be emotional; in other words, I should try not to make a decision after reading newspapers featuring a sordid crime committed the day before, I should try not to react when meeting a group of people who are in an emotional state of mind, which is quite understandable sometime, because of a tragedy some place in this country.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, one also has to recognize that with such an important decision, my personal opinion should not prevail. It is known and admitted-and I never hesitated to say so-that I never believed violence could solve any sort of problem, either in my family or in my province, my country or within the government. It is a stand that I am prepared to take any time, anywhere and in anyone's presence.
However, as I have said, this personal opinion does not necessarily reflect the decision I must take.
Mr. Speaker, in order to make a valid, thoughtful and responsible decision I should not follow an emotional reaction of mine nor my own view on this matter.
Above all, I must ask myself where lies the real interest of all the citizens I represent in this House and how I can uphold and protect it. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the only way to deal with the issue of capital punishment is to consider scientifically the effects of its retention or its abolition. Indeed, one cannot overemphasize the danger of false conclusions based on of vague terms and inaccurate figures found in reports on crime, particularly when such reports can lead to changes in the policy on crime.
The five major questions which, in my opinion, should be asked and which influenced my position are the follow-

Capital Punishment
ing: first, are murders on the increase in Canada, and if so, is it due to the suspension of the death penalty? Second, is the death penalty effective as a deterrent? Third, how effective is the death penalty as a means to control and prevent crime? Fourth, what is the age and profession of the people charged or convicted of murder? Finally, the fifth question, what relationship is there between murderers and their victims?
Is it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to specify that the problem of capital punishment will not be solved, I admit, only through scientific research with moral and theological aspects related to the only basic question: Is life the most precious of all possessions? Does society have the right to take it away from a human being considered undeserving? Does the action of the state doing away with a criminal for good become revenge? Is it an act of violence by society against someone blamed of having been violent?
Regarding the first question, Mr. Speaker, about the impact of the increase in murders and criminality, I would like to make one point clear. Some rather interesting statistics in this regard show that the number of murders as such has increased at an average rate of 0.5. In other words, between 1965 and 1974, the average increase in murders has not been what certain people say. This average has been constant. What has gone up, though, is the number of criminal offences, and an important distinction must be made. Aggravated thefts, assaults and attempted assaults have increased. This indicates, Mr. Speaker, that violence is on the increase in our society, all forms of violence, verbal violence, written violence, violence in families, in society everywhere. This is where the real problem is. This violence, which we foster about everywhere, leads to murder. But when we want to control murder, we do not come to grips with the root of the problem but only with its head.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question I was asking myself a few minutes ago is this: did the abolition of the death penalty increase crime in general? I would like to remind you of a very important and useful comment of the British committee in the conclusions to its studies of the death penalty.
The general conclusion that they have reached is that, in all the figures which they have studied, there is no definite proof that the abolition of the death penalty may have led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its re-establishment may have led to a decrease.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to study very important statistics. I do admit that statistics are not sufficient indications, but they are very useful. For example, between 1970 and 1974, a study was made in the United States in various abolitionist and non-abolitionist states. These statistics are extremely precise and interesting. You can notice than in ten abolitionist states, where the death penalty does not exist, the crime rate varies between 4.6 and 5.8 per cent, which means that it is rather low. The same study has been made in 40 non-abolitionist states, where the death penalty does exist. In these 40 states, the murder rate varies between 7.8 and 8.8 per cent. This is an indication that the death penalty has such, and this is what I assert, does not have a real effect on the crime rate. For

example, in Georgia, which is a state where the death penalty exists, the crime rate is 17.8 per cent. If we also look at the statistics in other countries of the world, we can notice, for example, that in Europe in general, the countries which have abolished the death penalty have rather low homicide or murder attempt rates. For example, among these nations are Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. This means, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be mistaken about the real significance of the death penalty.
The second question is: is the death penalty a useful deterrent. The arguments of those who claim that the death penalty has a deterrent effect are usually based on common sense rather than on empirical data, for these data tend to the contrary. Schuster asserted that the statistical studies always came to the conclusion that the death penalty has no important deterrent effect and that the relative frequency of murders in a given population depends on the cultural conditions in which this population lives.
The proponents of the death penalty claim that it is the most powerful of deterrents. They reason this way because of the fear that can influence human behaviour. This reasoning is based on the theory that when man can predict the consequences of his actions, he will deliberately choose between two opposite behaviour patterns and that personal reward will be the criterion of his choice. Schuster notes that such a conclusion is not in accordance with modern psychology and sociology that believe that human behaviour, far from being calculated and conscious, obeys to a large extent to habits and inspiration of the moment.
I also have here a very interesting quotation from Dr. Roche: "The argument that the death penalty intimidates criminals can be valid to the extent that it is based on the hypothesis of a state of mind that we imagine to be unchanging, but experience has shown rather that a given community always includes a group of people with criminal tendencies which transcend the intimidating effect of any penalty."
The argument of retentionists gives much too much importance to the power of fear. Fear does not prevent people from doing what they want, Mr. Speaker. The attraction of immediate pleasure wins easily over the far away possibility of death. We must not forget that the life of everybody involves all sorts of risks. You can be injured or killed by a car or killed accidentally in certain professions like the mining or construction industries.
The threat of lung cancer does not stop our friends from smoking. Certain people drink themselves to death or entertain other vices which will cause their downfall. In one word, Mr. Speaker, to shorten my comments, which I now find are taking more time than I had expected, I shall simply say that deterrence, in my opinion, is not a factor in the case of the great majority of criminals in our society, since, and those are the last two questions that I want to answer, how are murders committed and by whom?
Mr. Speaker, the one thing that should not be overlooked is that statistics on murder include those committed by the underworld, by people who believe that violence is the answer. There are also murders committed by mentally ill people, those committed on impulse; the latter make up the
May 28, 1976

greatest number of murders. Statistics indicate that 70 per cent of murders in Canada are committed by people who know one another through a financial, romantic or any other type of relationship.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in considering the way murders are committed in Canada we must conclude that if the death penalty were enforced, it would not apply in most cases, it would apply only in 2 or 3 per cent of cases.
I am not coming to my main argument. What type of people commit murders in our Canadian society?
If we examine the statistics, Mr. Speaker, we note that 50 per cent of murders in Canada are committed by workers, by those who are in difficult social circumstances, who have been living in a divided family, in a climate of uncertainty and affliction and who are left alone, when their parents are divorced, or drunkards, people who have not assumed their responsibilities. Those people now commit murders in society.
Let us examine the list of murderers. People like Cotroni and Obront who have some standing never appear on the list of murderers. Is it because those individuals are more intelligent than others? No. It is because they were given some advantage by society, because their living conditions were more normal and their education, training and their circumstances did not prompt them to commit reprehensible acts.
Mr. Speaker, the death penalty is an action taken against the worker, the underprivileged, the one who does not have a lawyer competent enough to get him a fair trial, to defend him and get him out of trouble. As concerns the worker, whatever the seriousness of his crime he is unable to defend himself. The punishment is unfair as it is never applied in a rational, real and fair way. This measure is against workers and in a riding where most people are workers I shall never accept to vote for a measure which is against the majority of the people. I think I have to make those people understand that if I vote for that kind of measure I vote against their interests.
I recognize that there are sordid crimes. I recognize that we all have the same reaction: let us eliminate those people. But who are they? They live in difficult circumstances. Criminals are created by society, by everyone of us. There should not be scapegoats of our own mistakes in every field.
I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: as a member of the House of Commons I think I have the responsibility of not choosing the easy way out, not following the trend before people whose first reaction is often to say: We want capital punishment! My duty is to explain to those people that we must help each other-eliminate crime, we must help the less privileged, people with problems and not depend only on government legislation. Every individual at any level from any government on any side of this House, whether man, woman, professional or worker, is part of a big family and we are all responsible for each others' actions.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will be passed. However I am a Democrat and what ever the result I shall be ready to accept it. But I am convinced that if we provide stricter measures to go with capital punishment, because if there were no strict measures going with it I
Capital Punishment
would not agree, as criminals can be released in the streets after two or three years and the people are very concerned and that is what they want. We should not necessarily take the life of those individuals but they should be excluded from society long enough to pay for their mistakes.
Mr. Speaker, I close on this wish: I trust that, regardless of the result of the vote, we will understand that the real interest of the citizens lies in the fact that we work with them, for them, by placing at their disposal all our resources as members of Parliament, to help them solve the basic problems; when those problems no longer exist, I expect that the crime rate we deplore at this time will have lessened considerably. At least, that is the hope I cherish. I offer all those who want to work with me towards that ideal-I know they are the vast majority if not all hon. members-my co-operation. As for me, I am willing to help them, that we might truly help the people in the right sense of the word.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will abide by what most hon. members have been saying at the beginning of their speeches, and that is to be brief. My intention is to be brief because practically everything that has to be said has been said in this debate. However, I think it is essential that on issues such as this members of parliament go on record so that their constituents will have an opportunity to judge their stand, because this is an extremely important issue. It is not an issue upon which parties can take a stand, but we as individual members will have a free vote, or a supposedly free vote. I hope to speak a little more about that later in my remarks. Let me state at the beginning that while I believe in capital punishment for all premeditated murder or planner murder, which makes up approximately 1 per cent of the murders committed, I also believe a more humane form of execution should replace hanging.
Violent crime in Canada increased 90 per cent in the ten-year period 1965 to 1974, and the murder rate doubled in that same period of time. In 1965 there were 243 murders, and in 1974 there were 545 murders. As I stated, the murder rate doubled in that period of time from 1.2 per
100,000	population to 2.4 per 100,000 population. Despite the fact that 38 policemen and prison guards were murdered in this same ten-year period, no convicted murderer has been executed. In essence, what we have had for a number of years is the abolition of capital punishment, and the murder rate has doubled.
Evidence is inconclusive as to whether capital punishment is a deterrent. Any discussion of the merits or otherwise of capital punishment goes beyond the area of politics and each person makes up his own mind according to the dictates of his conscience and his judgment. It has also been shown that few people will change their mind or their opinion as a result of reading statistics, studies or reports on this subject; and the shame of it is that far too often we, as individuals, are concerned with justifying our own reasoning when we should be searching for a just reason.
The abolitionists claim that capital punishment is not deterrent to would-be murderers. In my opinion this is an empty argument and completely beside the point. There is

May 28, 1976
Capital Punishment
no way to determine how many murders were not committed by those who wanted to commit the act but did not for fear of execution. The question should be, does the supreme crime demand the supreme penalty? In effect, do we place the highest possible value on the life of the victim?
The abolitionists say capital punishment has no deterrent effect. There are no facts to prove it one way or the other. But to say that the death penalty is no deterrent is to say that men do not fear death, and I find that to be a rather incredible assertion. Fear of death, in my view, is an instinctive reaction. I ask, how many of us in this chamber do not value or fear for our lives? Life is regarded by man as a precious possession which he wishes to preserve more eagerly than anything else. He would therefore defend it to the utmost against every threat, including the threat of capital execution. Every such threat arouses his fear, and as a rational being he would try to conduct himself in such a manner that that threat would be avoided. It is assumed that the potential threat is made vivid to him by the fact that he knows the death penalty exists. If capital punishment is never carried out, it loses its deterrent effect. There must be a serious and real risk of execution for the death penalty to be an effective tool, because crime will not decrease until being a criminal becomes more dangerous than being a victim.
In my view, fear of death is an instinctive reaction, and to conquer or subdue that fear is a feat some people are not capable of. In wartime, fear of death operates on the battlefield itself. No one who has seen death in its many forms can say, and be believed, that fear of death is not a powerful factor in determining any course of action.
The abolitionists usually state as an argument in favour of abolition that a mistake can be made in carrying out capital punishment. Although this is a valid comment, it is not a valid argument in a debate on capital punishment, because what we are discussing now is what the price should be for an individual who commits premeditated or planned murder. We are not arguing or discussing the merits of our judicial system. If there are errors in that area, they must be safeguarded against; but that statement is not a valid argument in this debate because, as I said, what we have to resolve here is what to do with individuals who have been found guilty of taking another individual's life intentionally.
The very individuals we ask to give us protection deserve protection themselves. If what is known as capital punishment today is done away with, they will have no protection. What will a criminal imprisoned for life have to lose if he kills a prison guard? In reality, he will gain his freedom if his bid for escape succeeds; if it does not, he has lost nothing if capital punishment is done away with, even though he has killed a prison guard.
I believe it is the prime duty of the government to offer its citizens protection against violent crime, and in my view capital punishment is a necessary tool to ensure this protection.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to register a few other comments. There was a debate on capital punishment in my constituency in which I participated. Assisting the

stand on retention was an extremely capable man, Tom Forgrave, the city's intergovernmental officer, while Edmonton lawyer, Robert Newton and the Reverend George Rodgers of Sherwood Park United Church supported the abolitionist view. A vote was taken from the audience before the debate began, and again afterwards, and I should like to record it in Hansard. The meeting was sponsored by the Pembina Federal Association Zone Two of the Progressive Conservative party. An audience poll showed 35 in favour of retention, 20 for abolition, and 17 undecided. Two hours later, after the debate, 37 backed the death penalty, 7 were still undecided and 27 favoured abolition.
I should like to pay tribute to the individuals who debated for abolition, Mr. Speaker, for, as the figures show, they gained votes in this debate. It is also noteworthy that in a questionnaire I sent out to the constituency in the fall of 1975, the results showed that 6 per cent of those who returned the questionnaire were in favour of abolition, 20 per cent were in favour of the law as it now stands and 74 per cent were in favour of capital punishment for premeditated murder. A report of the meeting I referred to previously appeared in the Edmonton Journal and referred to Mr. Forgrave's participation as follows;
"My father tells me-Canadian people-are generally right" on social issues, Mr. Forgrave said. That's why there is such massive support for the death penalty at this time.
Mr. Forgrave said capital punishment is "almost always more humane" than capital murder. "Somehow or other there has to be a way of dealing with premeditated murder," especially of policemen and prison guards", he said.
My sentiments are very much the same, Mr. Speaker. When I hear members of this House debating on the side of abolition, I am puzzled to know what makes them think their individual conscience is so much wiser than the collective conscience of their constituents. I think far too many members are trying to hedge their bets by taking both sides of the argument so that they can send something out to their constituents which will make good reading for both points of view.
I have personally found this to be a very trying issue, as I am sure all hon. members have; I must commend my colleague and good friend, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), for making his views known in this debate. I can imagine how trying it must have been for him, and when I compare it with my own experience, I respect him all the more.
Yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) said that in reality there will not be a free vote in this chamber. I am inclined to agree with him. I have the record of the last three times this matter came before the House and have examined the voting pattern of some members. There is one member, now in the cabinet, who voted for retention in the past. If members opposite are ambitious and wish to gain a place in the cabinet, I suggest they vote for abolition-the possibility of a reten-tionist gaining admittance into the cabinet is very slim.
It will be of particular interest to see how the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, votes. In the previous three debates he voted for retention each time. Now he is a member of the cabinet. Did he have to sell his soul to receive that position?
May 28, 1976


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) on a question of privilege.


Mrs. Appolloni:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I object to this kind of debate. The hon. member on the other side is imputing to those of us who are abolitionists a complete loss of integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member should stick to Bill C-84.


Peter Elzinga: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is amazing to see the hon. member rise on a point of order, and interesting to note what she said after my good friend and colleague spoke in this debate. She called him a Pontius Pilate, yet she feels she can object to what I have to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: What I am trying to get at-and I mean no reflection on any member of this House-is that if we were to have an honest and free vote in this chamber it would have to be, as it was in 1966, upon a motion sponsored by various private members. That is not the case today, because this government wishes to push abolition down the throats of the Canadian people whether they like it or not. In 1966, when the motion was introduced by four private members, Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott and Stan-bury, six members of the present cabinet voted for retention. That is the only time they voted for retention. The subsequent votes were on government-sponsored bills and cabinet members felt compelled to vote for it. Is this not a clear indication that this will not be a free vote?
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that I feel it is a prime duty of the government to offer the citizens of this country protection against violent crime. In my opinion, capital punishment is a necessary tool to carry out such protection.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, a member of Parliament does not often have the opportunity to take part in such an emotional and attention-getting debate as the one on Bill C-84.
Is it any wonder, since everyday some media feature the most loathsome and sordid crimes. As a result, many people feel that our society does not know any other law than the law of the jungle and that only stronger action on the part of the government would bring criminals to their senses. No one can deny that our country is going through an unprecedented crime wave. One needs only mention that violent crimes of all kinds have increased by 90 per cent in the past 10 years. As regards the worst of all crimes, murder, its rate has gone from one per 100,000 in 1961 to 2.4 in 1974.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canadians are justified in calling for strong government action in order to stop such raving madness. That is precisely what this government
Capital Punishment
intends to do and after close consideration, I cannot but agree with the plan of action they are submitting to Parliament and the Canadian people for this purpose.
Many Canadians think that the retention of capital punishment is essential to public security. I can understand myself their position because sometimes some murders are so revolting as to prompt us to seek a revenge that would probably be as cruel as the murder itself. It is precisely this public indignation at the vileness of some homicides which explains why a large number of Canadians would be in favour of the death penalty, according to public opinion polls. However, I do not think that the legislators' decision in this regard should be influenced by such feelings. Mr. Speaker, in this case it would be too easy for a member of parliament to hide behind the results of public opinion polls in order to evade his responsibilities.
Indeed, his first duty is to see that his constituents are well informed of the intentions of the government and then to explain to them why the government deems advisable to take such action and try to meet their objections. It is only after having exhausted all those means that a member of parliament can really come to the conclusion that his constituents are against the bill.
Shortly after the law and order program was introduced in this House February last, I sent to all residents in my constituency the main lines of Bills C-83 and C-84, urging them to tell me about the changes they favoured. Furthermore, I invited them to public meetings which actually took place in March and April, so that each and everyone could make their views known on the subject. Following those consultations, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the people first want the government to wage an all-out war against crime and they accept that the death penalty be replaced by life imprisonment provided the Parole Board does its work seriously and competently.
Mr. Speaker, nothing illustrates more the will of the government to ensure the security of all the people than the 27 per cent increase this year in the estimates for the federal administration of justice-from $61 million to $78 million. That such a substantial increase should be provided at the very time when the federal government must resort to severe budgetary cut backs is the best proof that law and order is a vital concern of this government.
But is it true to say that peace and security will be more easily protected if we retain capital punishment? Reten-tionists believe that the death penalty is a deterrent which can bring a potential murderer back to better feelings. It goes without saying that I would unconditionally support the retention of that penalty if it had been shown that the fear of death really deterred murderers from committing their crime. Now, there is no evidence that such is the case.
Mr. Speaker, in 1962, a total of 11 policemen on duty were killed, even though at that time the death penalty was in force and in spite of the fact that during that year two hangings took place in Canada. In 1975, only two policemen we killed on duty although for all practical purposes capital punishment was abolished during the last few years, since the cabinet systematically commuted death sentences into life imprisonment.
And what about the fact that in 1974, Mr. Speaker, the ten American states that abolished the death penalty had a

May 28, 1976
Capital Punishment
homicide rate of 5.81 per 100,000 population while that of the retentionists states was 8.85? Mr. Speaker, the case is often mentioned of the two criminals who, having kidnapped someone in an American abolitionists state, crossed two other abolitionists states to finally end up by killing their victim in New Hampshire where capital punishment still applied and where in fact they were condemned to death.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, whoever is familiar with the workings and officials in the world of justice and its courts, knows that the individual stands a chance of being found guilty if the possibility of the death penalty is not there to influence the decision of the jury. So, as noticed in Great Britain, after abolition of the death penalty the number of accused found mentally unsound decreased considerably. We must therefore conclude that before abolition juries were more inclined to find a murderer insane and thus spare him the supreme penalty. It would also seem that the existence of capital punishment too often inhibits punishment of the murderer at the hands of the law.
We also know that a large number of Canadian police officers oppose abolition because they feel retention will mean less danger in their work. Quite the contrary, I believe that a murderer will be much less reluctant to kill a policeman attempting to arrest him, if he knows that his earlier murder entails death anyway. In other words, that murderer has nothing to lose, he is facing the same ultimate penalty no matter how many murders he commits.
Mr. Speaker, we must also remember that our system of justice is not above error, that the risk of judicial errors can never be totally eliminated. No one has forgotten the case of Wilbur Coffin who was hanged in 1956, although in the eyes of many his guilt was never clearly established. Similarly, there was the case in Alberta of Raymond Cooke, who was executed in 1960, although his guilt has been seriously questioned since then. For these reasons, it is not sensible in my view to retain such an irreversible punishment, which has never been proved to deter potential murderers anyway.
Abolition is so much the more acceptable that Bill C-84 substitutes punitive measures that should adequately protect society. It does not seem to me that many Canadians believe life imprisonment does not protect society as much as capital punishment. However, many want safeguards, in the fear that the National Parole Board may show unwarranted clemency. Bill C-84 provides that an individual convicted of planned and deliberate murder, or of the killing a police officer or a prison or penitentiary employee is eligible for parole after 25 years' imprisonment.
Under the new legislation, when reviewing parole applications the National Parole Board will be bound to invite to its proceedings two citizens from the area concerned who will be entitled to vote and will be chosen among local policemen, municipal executives or professional or business association members. The board will then be able to rely on sensible advice from people representative of the local community, who are especially concerned about their fellow citizens' security. The contribution of those people, deep-rooted in their community and

known for their good judgment, should eliminate to a large extent the errors of judgment too often made by the board and allow the latter to regain the confidence of the population.
Mr. Speaker, the act also provides that an individual condemned to life imprisonment may, after serving 15 years, ask three judges of a superior court to declare him eligible for parole. One can assume that such applications will only be agreed upon in exceptional cases. Be that as it may, the National Parole Board may still deny parole even though the applicant has been declared eligible by the court.
Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation should have provided for parole. Indeed, we should not refuse any hope to the inmate who sincerely wishes to get rehabilitated and whose goodwill is above suspicion. Moreover, such provision should encourage prisoners to behave correctly and this in turn would appreciably reduce the violence which may be directed against prison guards and prison staff in general. One must keep in mind indeed that the proposed legislation provides that any remission will have to be deserved through model behaviour. Thus the prisoner will keep hoping to be released before the end of his sentence if he behaves decently during his imprisonment. In refusing him such a hope, the inmate would have nothing else to loose and could become dangerous for his guards and the prison staff.
Mr. Speaker, one often hears that it would be better to execute murderers rather than keep them at the expense of the taxpayers at an estimated annual cost of $14,000. It should be pointed out, I think, that this is the average cost per prisoner, including the fixed costs of the overall operation of penitentiaries. But, those fixed costs would not be reduced at all if the 13 people now on death row in federal penitentiaries were executed tomorrow morning. In fact, studies have shown that the marginal or additional annual cost incurred for the presence of each of the 13 prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries is about $1,300.
Mr. Speaker, some retentionists like to quote from the Bible to support their position. I would like to remind those people of the message of the Canadian Catholic Conference issued on January 26, 1973, in which Canadian bishops said, and I quote:
We believe it is an abuse to turn to the Bible-and particularly to the Old Testament-to justify the retention of the death penalty. The Bible where it recommends the death penalty must be analysed in the light of the historical background in which it has been written; it cannot be applied to the letter in Canada today. As a matter of fact, each of the quotations from the Old Testament must be examined in the light of the numerous parts of the New Testament where Jesus Christ condemns this habitual tendency in man to react to an insult by another insult and invites us instead to be magnanimous. Violence and hostility are not offset by measures of violence and hostility.
Furthermore, on March 4, the same group stated in a press release, and I quote:
The Board of Directors of the Canadian Catholic Conference states that it is in favour of the abolition of capital punishment in Canada and at the same time urges the government to undertake immediately the fair reforms needed in our penitentiary system and in the whole area of justice.
Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of my fellow citizens whose sincerity is beyond doubt are convinced that the well-being of our society requires the retention of capital
May 28, 1976

punishment. I urge them however to consider the arguments put forward by those who do not share their views. I want them to know especially that abolitionists want just as much as them that order prevail in our country, that violence disappear from our streets and our homes. As for me, the dictates of my conscience compel me to support Bill C-84, and I could not do otherwise.
I trust my constituents who might not agree with me on this issue, and I know that they will judge me on my parliamentary work as a whole when I stand for re-election, and not on the position I have taken during one debate, however important it might be.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I do not welcome participation in this debate. It is a debate which for many of us raises many questions. I recall in 1972, shortly after my election to this House, we were faced with the bill that initiated the second five-year moratorium on capital punishment, with the exception of the killing of police officers and prison guards. I recall the agony a number of us went through at that time. That agony today during this debate does not seem to be any less, especially in view of the fact that the bill now provides for the permanent abolition of the death penalty where before it was for a five-year period only.
I also recall from the 1972 debate the divisiveness that was in the House. Sad to say, I see that divisiveness, that dividing one member from another just underneath the surface in this House at the present time. While I might not agree with many people who feel that Bill C-84 warrants their support, I will respect them for their decision and for the conclusion they have drawn after, I am sure, as much soul searching as I have done.
Possibly I should give a bit of background and the reason why I have come to my conclusion. I find it somewhat difficult to begin to discuss this whole issue in view of the fact that in 1972 many of us voted for another five-year moratorium, thinking at that time the five-year period would in fact be implemented and that the government would observe the provisions of the bill it itself introduced. That has not been the case.
After but a short period of time we are now faced with an abolitionist bill. I can only conclude that in 1972 the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) was biding time in a minority House. The first five-year moratorium had ended. Knowing that complete abolition would not carry at that time, he brought in another five-year moratorium hoping that would carry in a minority House, The government, having gained a majority, we now have before us a bill to abolish capital punishment.
Looking at my participation in 1972, and again today, and also at the comments the Solicitor General made at that time, I can come to no other conclusion than that was the best he could get in 1972. He did not have any intention of finding out whether during that second five-year period capital punishment was a deterrent or not. We will now never know because since 1962 the government has chosen to commute all death sentences.
One can only conclude that the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), knowing that by the end of 1977 the second
Capital Punishment
five-year moratorium would have ended and, faced with a possible general election in 1978, did not want this issue bouncing around at that time. While that might sound somewhat cynical, there may be a fair bit of truth in that statement.
There is another reason why I am somewhat cynical. We have before us the so-called peace and security package, Bills C-83 and C-84. The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice both stated that the provisions of Bill C-83, the gun control legislation, will not reduce the incidence of crime in Canada. However, they persist in combining Bill C-83 and Bill C-84, stating that once those two bills are passed there will be peace and security on Canada's streets, and the incidence of crime, especially violent crime, will diminish. Again taking the words of the Solicitor General, that is absolutely false. He himself has said on many occasions that Bill C-83 will not affect the operations of the criminal element, so there is justification for the feelings now prevailing that the government has failed to protect society adequately. Many law-abiding citizens believe more attention is given to the person who commits a crime than to the person who suffers as a result of it.
The point which is to be made is that all of us would like to live in a society where punishment is not necessary but we just do not happen to be fortunate to live in a society of that kind. I agree that no one can prove conclusively, by using statistics, that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. Nor for that matter can the abolitionists prove that the peace and security bills, C-83 and C-84, will act as a deterrent, though on one hand they claim that the arguments of the retentionists, who say capital punishment is a deterrent, are not valid, but on the other they claim that the longer prison sentences will be.
Up to the present the government has seen fit to commute every death sentence despite the legislation brought in by the Solicitor General in 1972 which provided for the death penalty in certain cases. What we have no means of knowing is the number of murders which would have been prevented had the death penalty been exercised. Criminals knew, and they know today, that if they are given the death sentence it will automatically be commuted. They know that in effect abolition does prevail at the present time.
One thing is crystal clear. We have seen the murder rate double over the last ten years-I am talking in terms of the rate per 100,000 of population. We know for sure that the suspension of the death penalty and its replacement by the use of the prison system has not been an effective deterrent. We know it has not reduced the incidence of murder; in fact there has been a doubling of the murder rate. As a result there is a restive mood in society; citizens feel the law has been too lax and are calling for the return of the death penalty.
Much has been said in this debate about opinion polls. I find it interesting to hear it argued that members of this House should not be influenced by the results of polls on capital punishment. Yet every four years or so we go out on the hustings to engage in what amounts to a general poll across Canada and to ask for continued support. That poll, Mr. Speaker, is a conclusive one because whoever gets

Capital Punishment
most votes is able to sit in this House and represent the people. I hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) mention the name of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert. I am quite sure he can speak for himself and will do so at the appropriate time.
I may say that I conducted a poll in my own riding on this question. I am not a scientific pollster but when I get a return in which 90.3 per cent are in favour of the death penalty in the case of premeditated murder I draw the conclusion that a large majority of the people in my constituency are not happy about the way in which the cabinet is commuting death sentences passed on people who have killed prison guards and police officers.
The opposition likes to portray those of us who are retentionists as being bloodthirsty, as being unsophisticated or as being less educated than others in society. I do not know how this reflects on the opinion of the electorate if the electorate is also in favour of capital punishment. No, Mr. Speaker, I believe retentionists have the same sense of responsibility as the abolitionists claim for themselves alone.
What about the length of the prison term proposed in the legislation? The bill before us would replace the death penalty with a fixed term of 25 years for first degree murder-there are provisions for parole which I shall not go into at this moment. The penalty for second degree murder is 15 years imprisonment. The question which immediately occurs to me is this: is a fixed minimum sentence less barbaric than the death sentence? What happens to a person who is placed in prison for 25 years?
We know that the rate of recidivism increases with the length of time a person is in prison. I thought I should go to an authority on this aspect so I turned to an authority the Solicitor General likes to quote-I call him the high priest of the movement in favour of abolition of capital punishment. My authority is Dr. Fattah, and I understand he did a fair amount of research for the minister before coming to the conclusion that capital punishment was not a deterrent. In an article contributed to a weekly publication put out by Simon Fraser University on March 11, he wrote:
On February 24, 1976, the Liberal government tabled one of the most retrogressive pieces of the legislation ever presented in the House of Commons-the so-called peace and security program. Abolition of capital punishment is in itself a very commendable move, a move long overdue, but substituting a mandatory life sentence with a minimum of 25 years imprisonment is, to say the least, illogical, irrational, inhuman, arbitrary and unscientific.
A minimum of 25 years creates a distinct category of men without hope and a man without hope is capable of doing anything and everything to draw attention to his cause and to his condition, as has been amply demonstrated in two recent incidents in the B.C. Penitentiary at New Westminster.
On the last page there is this paragraph:
I still remember back in January, 1973, when Marcel Prud'homme, MP for Montreal St. Denis and James Fleming, MP for York l^est, suggested that the government bill be amended to imprison killers for a minimum of 25 years. Solicitor General Warren Allmand and other members of the cabinet were the first to declare their opposition. It is disconcerting and disenchanting to see the government, after only three years, adopt the same retrogressive suggestion it once condemned.
[Mr. Epp.)
Abolitionists often say that those of us who are retentionists are swayed by opinion polls. Yet the very man who presented the background papers to the Solicitor General's peace and security package calls the bill irrational, inhumane, and uses various other appropriate expressions.
The United Church of Canada, which has taken an abolitionist stand-and I respect them for it-in a letter dated May 18, 1976, a copy of which I received on May 28, wrote to the Solicitor General and stated that the mandatory sentences were not acceptable to them. I should like to quote Nos. 5 and 13 of their reasons:
5. What happens to the inmate when he gets out of prison after serving 25 years? Most sociological data in this regard would say that the person would be more dangerous coming out than going in.
13. In your publication entitled "Highlights of the Peace and Security legislation", in the introduction on page one is the following statement: "In a society that places such a high value on the dignity of the individual the use of the death penalty must be viewed as an unacceptable and essentially purposeless form of punishment". It is our view that the proposed legislation does nothing to uplift the dignity of such individuals. We seem to be substituting one indignity for another.
The last point to be made on that sentence is that if a person who is convicted of first degree murder is placed in prison for 25 years with minimal hope, we are asking our fellow citizens, those who serve as prison guards, and other personnel in our prisons, to take care of this person. We are asking them in the course of duty to put their lives on the line, so to speak, every day because a person without hope, as it has been expressed by the various people I have quoted, is liable to engage in further killing. We are really asking prison guards to give a service well beyond that which I think should be expected of them.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the United Church letter goes on to refer to the prison system and the negative effects that they see resulting therefrom. Let me quote reasons 4 and 12 in their letter:
4. There will be an increase in prison population and therefore increased human pressures as well as increased cost.
12. This will of course lead to far greater institutionalization of human beings who would be unable to function without the institution.
Putting those arguments aside, Mr. Speaker, the main reason that I am a retentionist is that I take a moral or theological position. In entering that argument I am not trying to say for one moment that those people who are not abolitionists do not take a moral position on which to base their argument. Neither am I saying that in their conscience they have not looked at the theological question in coming to a decision different from mine. In fact one of the best pieces of work that I have seen on this very dilemma is by Rabbi Plant of the Holy Blossom Synagogue in Toronto who, being an abolitionist, after looking at both the abolitionist and retentionist arguments, concludes that the one thing we must remember is that we come to our conclusions honestly and sincerely, and that a luxury we cannot afford is to try to say, "I am right and you are wrong".
One issue should be clarified immediately, Mr. Speaker. I do not like to get personal in this House but I feel that to a point I have to because of my background. The conclusion has been automatically drawn that I am an abolitionist. I imagine that this has given rise to certain press releases by the Canadian Council of Churches, some of which I should like to refer to briefly this afternoon. In a press release
May 28, 1976

dated January 16, 1975, a little better than a year ago, the Canadian Council of Churches stated that the Mennonite Church had taken a position on capital punishment, namely, an abolitionist position. I wrote to the Canadian Council of Churches on February 6, 1975, in response to that press release and I should like to read in part the letter I wrote to them:
While the Anabaptist view generally opposed capital punishment, most churches adhering to the concept of Anabaptist faith and, specifically, Mennonite doctrine, have not officially endorsed abolition of capital punishment. Particularly the denomination that I am a member of is divided on this issue and has not been able to formulate a policy which has widespread acceptance in our Brotherhood. Therefore, I would suggest to you that you correct the press release that you have issued with the hope that a wrong impression will not be created by the material that you have published.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I did not receive a reply to my letter. In an almost identical press release a little more than a year later, on March 2, 1976, the Canadian Council of Churches stated that certain bodies had spoken in favour of abolition of capital punishment, and they listed among them the Mennonite Church. I know this press release went to all members of parliament, obviously to create the impression among members of parliament that a number of churches, among them the Mennonite Church, were in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.
In response to that press release I wrote to the Canadian Council of Churches on March 10, 1976, and in part I said:
Further, in my letter of February 6, 1975, I stated that I found in view of the fact that your press release was incorrect that it would be in your interest to correct the false impression that you had created through the press release. Unfortunately, I have not received a reply to my letter of February 6, 1975.
In your letter of March 2, 1976, you again stated that the Mennonite Church has spoken in favour of abolition of capital punishment-no such thing has happened. Again I repeat that the General Conference of Mennonites which is but one denomination among a number of Mennonite circles has passed a resolution opposing capital punishment. While the debate on capital punishment is taking place in most Mennonite Churches as I am sure it is being carried on in other Churches, I would like to point out that your letter of March 2 is wrong and in fact needs correction. I know that the letter has caused wrong impressions among members who have come to me and inquired as to the position the Mennonite Church took in its stand against abolition of capital punishment.
On April 23 I received a letter from Reverend R. J. Scott, who is the secretary to the task force on the abolition of capital punishment for the Canadian Council of Churches. He wrote in part, after first stating that he had not received my letter:
Our reference to the Mennonite Church may have been inaccurate in view of your reference to the different independent sections of the Mennonite Church. We included the name in our list as we had a representative on our Committee from the Mennonite Central Committee, Kitchener, Ontario. We were not aware of other groupings.
So the wrong impression has been created.
In his speech on May 19, 1976, as reported at page 13681 of Hansard, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) used the argument that among other churches the Mennonite has also spoken out in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. But he made what I imagine was an innocent mistake, because although there are a number of denominations in our background he used the following words:
Capital Punishment
I think of a wonderful statement by the Mennonite Brethren-
He continued:
-who are convinced abolitionists and who, at the risk of worrying those who profess to be followers, make clear and unequivocal statements in favour of abolition.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a member of the denomination about which the hon. member speaks. He was confused in that our denomination never passed a resolution. We are debating that resolution now, so, unhappily the wrong impression has been created by the press releases which have been brought before the public by the Canadian Council of Churches.
As I say, I do not question the abolitionist stand that such a person has an honest conscience. However, I think it should be very clearly pointed out for the record that what some people take to be facts are in fact not facts at all. The main issue for me, and I imagine for many other members of this House, is a moral one. All of us have already heard the quotation from Genesis 9:6. The quotation "thou shalt not kill" raises the question: are we justified in taking a human life? Are we justified in taking the life of another human being in judgment for the crime he or she may have committed?
Quite frankly I cannot accept the humanistic view of society which seems to argue that man from his own position, from his own innate goodness, can inject a will to do good. I cannot accept that. We are agents of a free will; but the very fact that we are debating this subject today gives mute evidence to the fact that man is exceedingly wicked and that man does not stop at anything in respect of raising his hand against his brother. I do not think any of us should be so smug or complacent that we feel we are exempt from that possibility.
It is true that in our present society there are many countervailing forces which, to my mind, debase society. I need only mention the violence on television. This is a medium which affects virtually every Canadian. Day after day violence is pumped into the homes of Canadians to the point where it seems almost to take on real life at tributes for many Canadians. We have seen a tremendous increase in pornographic material of various kinds. I submit all this diminishes the moral fabric of society.
I do not wish to sound as being holier than thou, but I think it is important to place before this House and the people of Canada the suggestion that if society is to survive it will survive only if it accepts a moral basis for its existence. While I realize that as a legislator one cannot legislate morality, I do not accept the argument that one cannot show moral leadership. In fact I believe it is our responsibility, so I reject the so-called permissive or humanistic society in which every man is allowed to do his own thing, the only qualification being so long as it does not hurt someone else, because then it is no business of yours or mine. The fact that we are brothers precludes a situation in which the actions I take would not in some form or another affect if not the major society of which I am a member, the closest society in which I am intimately involved.
Many social engineers today seem to think that by behavioural changes, in one form or another, society will
13956

May 28, 1976
Capital Punishment
almost attain a Utopian quality. That just is not the case. I realize that in the Old Testament many crimes are mentioned for which capital punishment was prescribed, and therefore the argument is made that if that be the case in respect of the Old Testament why should it not be prescribed for present society if we are to use Biblical quotations. I have also heard the argument of people who say that because of the New Testament we do not now live under the law, that we now live in a period of grace. That is true. They argue that because it is a fact we live in a period of grace the death penalty no longer is necessary, because we are creatures who have a high regard for human life. But, Mr. Speaker, although the God is a God of grace and love he did not lose the attributes of justice or holiness. He retained those attributes. Today the state is God's agent in making sure that people in today's society can in fact live out their lives in peace and harmony, so the state has a responsibility well beyond that of the individual.
It is not right for me as an individual to ask for retribution, an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, but the state has another role because we must keep in mind that setting the brakes on law drags down everyone in society. In fact in the Old Testament there are references to the fact that crime pollutes the land. Judgment and punishment are not retributive. Punishment must follow actions in which God's laws are broken. We hear so much, for example, of Romans Chapter XII in which the Apostle Paul speaks of the God of Love, the God who is willing to bless his people, the God of forgiveness; but so often we do not read on to the early verses of Chapter XIII in which the same apostle writes:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers- namely, the government.
it is there by God's appointment. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. For civil authorities do not frighten those who are doing right, but those who are doing wrong. The government is the agent of God for your good. But if you do evil, you should be afraid. For the civil authority does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. It is God's agent to execute his punishment and vengeance on the wrongdoer.
I know reference has been made in the House to the crucifixion story. As we recall, there were two malefactors who were crucified with Christ, one rejected the salvation, the other one did not. But what is significant is that Christ did not offer physical salvation from pain of death but today he offers spiritual salvation. So while I would like to live in a society where punishment is not necessary, where reconciliation of man and his God can take place, that is not the society in which I live. I must finally come to the conclusion that the state is an agent of God, responsible to him to see that justice is carried out and that those who obey the laws of the country are in fact protected. It is on that basis that I cannot support Bill C-84.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion since 1972 that I participate in a debate on capital punishment. I would like to say at the outset that I am a retentionist. I believed in capital punishment before I came to Ottawa, I spoke in favour of it in the 1972 and 1974 election campaigns, and my position has not changed.

Despite the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) says that capital punishment is not a deterrent, I firmly believe it is. The Solicitor General referred to various statistics and suggested that they are conclusively in favour of the fact that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I have examined these statistics and I suggest they can be used either way. If you an abolitionist you can use the statistics to support your argument, and if you are a retentionist you can use them for the same purpose.
The Solicitor General in the debate on this subject on May 3, as recorded at page 13089 of Hansard, said the following:
The burden of proof is on those who propose retention of the death penalty. They must show that retention does some good in society and has positive effect. Furthermore, I do not think retentionists can logically or ethically discharge that burden of truth.
I find that statement rather illogical. Why should the burden of proof be on the retentionist and not on the abolitionist? What the minister is saying is simply that he is right and the rest of us are wrong, and he will be right unless we can prove that he is wrong.
In March of 1975 the Solicitor General sent out a document entitled, "The Prevention and Control of Violent Crime in Canada: Some Comments on Violent Crime, Capital Punishment and Other Related Issues". At page 5 of this document we find the following statement:
One or more of the following factors are usually present:-
He is referring to murder.
-quarrels or a history of quarrels between friends and family members; situations where alcohol or drugs are present; situations where immediate access to firearms exists, situations where the eventual offender feels threatened by others present in the situation, and cases of mental or emotional instability and derangement. Given the sudden, unplanned nature of most homicide it appears unlikely that most individuals who commit murder take into account the existence or non-existence of capital punishment before carrying out the act.
The Solicitor General is not really being fair when he makes that statement because the type of killings he refers to in this paper do not and never have called for capital punishment. Generally speaking they have called for life imprisonment or imprisonment for a period of time. These killings to which he refers are not premeditated murders, and I believe that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the public according to the polls, and some 87 per cent of the people in my constituency believe in capital punishment for premeditated murder. They are not calling for capital punishment in situations such as were described by the Solicitor General.
I believe that in instances of planned murder, in cases of contract murder, and in cases of killings during the commission of a crime, capital punishment is a deterrent because in these particular situations the individual is fully aware ahead of time what he is doing. If he goes into a bank to rob it and takes a gun with him, he knows perfectly well that the circumstances may be such that he will use that gun. What I am suggesting is that if the individual is aware of the fact that because of his action he might have to face capital punishment, that is certainly a deterrent.
To some people capital punishment is abhorrent. I listened the other day to a member on the other side of the House when he described a hanging in some detail, sug-
May 28, 1976

gesting it was cruel, bloodthirsty, and revengeful. But he did not look at the other side of the coin; he did not consider the terror experienced by the victim, nor did he consider the heartbreak and the effect of a killing on the victim's family. I suggest to that particular member that he talk to members of a family who have lost someone in a killing, as I have. He would have second thoughts, I am certain. If his argument is simply that he is opposed to the particular method of capital punishment, hanging, I would suggest that this is not a valid argument for an abolitionist. The answer is that that particular individual should press for changes in the law which will provide for a different method of execution, for example, the injection of a drug or the giving of some particular type of poison by putting it in the guilty person's food.
In the same report put out by the Solicitor General in March, 1975, to which I already referred, the minister had this to say:
The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" is part of our Judaeo-Chris-tian heritage. It emphasizes the value of human life and should make us ponder whether we should take yet another life in retribution.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who preceded me, discussed the religious aspect in some detail. Over the past four years I have received a great deal of correspondence on the subject of capital punishment, and much of this correspondence has come to me from religious organizations, the Council of Churches, and individuals who have religious backgrounds who have made studies of the Bible. It is very interesting to note that the theologians themselves are divided on the interpretation of the Bible as it refers to capital punishment. It is interesting to note that both sides make use of quotations from the Bible to support their argument for or against, but a few days ago I was interested to receive in the mail a bit of correspondence which indicated to me that the American Revised Standard Version of the Bible in translating from the original, rather than saying "thou shalt not kill" says "thou shalt not murder." In other words there is a distinction between the act of killing and the act of murder.
A short time ago I had occasion to read an article in one of the Toronto newspapers written by a rabbi of the Jewish faith. It was referred to by the hon. member for Provencher, and I was impressed by that article. It went into some detail and gave arguments both pro and con. In summing it up the rabbi said that he himself believed in the abolition of capital punishment, but I found the final sentence in the article very interesting because he concluded by saying, "Who is to say that I am right and you are wrong?"
Finally, I say this to the abolitionists: because one is a retentionist does not mean that he is cruel, coldblooded, hardhearted or has utter and complete disregard for human life. I suggest that it is much easier to be an abolitionist than it is to be a retentionist because, if capital punishment is retained, when an execution does take place each of us who has voted in favour of retaining capital punishment must bear part of the responsibility for the carrying out of that execution.
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it four o'clock?
Education


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand that there has been some agreement to stand motions Nos. 2, 15, 19, 20, 4 and 9 and proceed with the consideration of motion No. 47 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreed by unanimous consent that all other motions stand in their place on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At the request of the government.


EDUCATION
John R. Rodriguez: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a national office of education for the purpose of (a) collating and disseminating education research and information throughout Canada (b) arranging inter-provincial and territorial exchanges of teacher-personnel and/or students (c) providing a focus for Canada's contribution to the improvement of educational opportunities in other countries (d) providing the agency through which educational concerns, affecting the Canadian people, may be brought to the attention of the Council of Provincial Ministers of Education.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, but I just want clarification as to whether there is a difference between notice of motion No. 45 and notice of motion No. 47. I understood it was to be No. 45, and I just want clarification from the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in that regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, as far as I am concerned, it is too late. I have put the question, with consent, on motion No. 47.


John R. Rodriguez: It is No. 47.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No papers reached the Chair and, unless there is some agreement, we will proceed with this debate. The motion before the House at this time could be withdrawn only by unanimous consent, and then the other motion could be put. Whatever change we want to make at
95568-49V2

May 28, 1976
Education
this time would have to be made by unanimous consent, so I will call upon the hon. member for Nickel Belt for his point of view on the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is to be motion No. 47 which stands in my name, a motion to establish a national office of education, and I am prepared to debate that motion this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Besides, motion No. 45 stands in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and it has already been debated. However, the hon. member not being in the House, we will have to proceed with the motion as suggested unless there is agreement otherwise, so the motion having been put to the House I am calling upon the hon. member for Nickel Belt to make his presentation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I am prepared to debate this afternoon calls for the government to consider the establishment of a national office of education. Maybe I should first explain the aspects of the current situation in education that led me to consider the need for a national office.
When I was first elected to this House in 1973 I introduced this motion, and again in 1974 when I was re-elected. Having come from a background of education I felt there was need for such an office. As you know, Mr. Speaker, education is primarily a provincial matter, but several federal departments are involved in educational schemes. The Department of the Secretary of State funds much of the post-secondary education in Canada. All government concerns are facing a strong financial squeeze at precisely the same time that we have reached a watershed period in education. At the same time that governments are cutting education budgets there is a questioning among educators, students, and parents about where education should go. There is no national focus on this question nor has a national defender come out in defence of education budgets.
We have just finished a major expansion of post-secondary education to the point that we now have over 600,000 students in colleges and universities. Secondary school enrollments have expanded to include a greater proportion of the age group and a far greater total population as the baby boom passed through the system; vocational education has mushroomed.
The system will have fewer students after the baby boom and there may have to be cutbacks. Meantime there is a widespread questioning of educational goals in Canada ranging from those who want to see the return of the three Rs to those who still want to implement the free spirit of the individual and creativity of the Hall-Denis report in Ontario as set out in "Living and Learning".
Recently several perennial problems have occurred that still must be faced and solved. Regional barriers to good education still exist; economic barriers abound, and equity demands that these be removed.
When I began teaching in 1957 the community I was in experienced great mobility. I was amazed to learn that

when students came from the east coast, for instance, to Ontario their grade VI was not evaluated in the same light in Ontario. The reason given was that their curricula were not the same as those of Ontario. Teacher training was not co-ordinated and teachers coming into Ontario were not accepted on par with Ontario-graduated teachers.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And vice-versa.


John R. Rodriguez: Exactly. Out of all these considerations came a judgment that a national office is necessary to focus attention on this national issue and to provide coordination and information to a national debate on these issues.
I should like to explain some of the details of the motion before the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. One might ask why the federal government should get involved. I have already said that this is a national issue. To those who say that the federal government has no jurisdiction or interest I would point out that the federal government is already involved in several ways through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of National Defence, the Department of External Affairs, CIDA, the National Museums, the National Library and Public Archives, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of the Solicitor General, and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Let us not kid ourselves that we are not already into it up to our necks.
We hide behind the facade that the federal government has no place in education, but we are certainly involved in terms of finance, training programs, and upgrading programs.
The recent OECD report on Canadian education estimated that over 20 per cent of all expenditures on education come from the federal government. I am not arguing that we should immediately get into it more deeply, but primarily that we should establish a national office to allow the provinces, the educators, and ourselves to make more co-ordinated decisions about the future education of our children. If we do not have this co-ordination on a national level the education questions of direction and budget will be decided willy-nilly in over ten different bureaucracies across the country.
Incredible as it seems to non-Canadians who visit Canada, we do not have a national office to administer even the minimal dissemination and collation of research into education. The result is often a tragic ignorance in one province about what goes on next door. The result is also major knowledge gaps for planners. What is the demand for adult training going to be in ten years so that we can plan for it? No one has the answer. What is the critical age at which economic disparity will lead to decisions to curtail education in a student's mind? We do not know. But we do know that in poor working class areas the number of high schools per capita is much lower than in affluent areas, and that the proportion of age groups in school varies greatly. What are the implications for vocational schools if more students attend regular high schools? What are the job training needs that we must anticipate for 15 years from now?
May 28, 1976

Without national co-ordination of the effort to collect and disseminate basic information, decisions will continue to be made in ignorance of future trends and possible solutions that are being tried in other parts of the country.
Similarly I have recommended in this motion that the national office arrange for staff and students to travel to other parts of the country to learn first-hand about the practices outside their own areas.
The third function of the national education office would be to focus the contribution we make towards improving educational opportunities in the Third World. At present we have students applying from these countries to universities and colleges in every province, facing a variety of different educational requirements and offerings. At the same time our federal agencies work with the countries concerned to assist them in improving the level of education of their students and, ultimately, their society. The provinces take no part in this nor do they assist the federal government in determining which programs are more suitable, or in providing financing for those students. So we have the recent situation where Ontario announced an increase of fees for students on visas at the same time that the federal government is trying to increase the number of students from abroad for training in our universities.
Finally, the education office could act as a channel for bringing educational issues to the attention of the Council of Ministers of Education of the provinces. I have said earlier that I believe that the discussion of the educational goals for our country is essential, that it is of immediate concern, and that it must be done nationally to be most effective and equitable. It is my hope that by bringing the issues to the ministers they would be encouraged to discuss them more seriously and more frequently than they have up to the present.
It seems to me, for example, there is a need to set some kind of national goals for education. One major example is the whole question of bilingualism. Recently we had the Director of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, telling us that we should have started with the schools. Mr. Speaker, that is one very obvious area. Parliament having adopted a national policy of bilingualism, it seemed to me and many Canadians that the best place to have began implementing that program was in the school system. If bilingualism is to be a national goal, a federal office of education ought to provide national direction. One of the great short-comings of the present program lies in the lack of such direction. The lack of national direction has hampered considerably our efforts with respect to bilingualism.
It seems to me that if we bring this issue to the attention of the ministers of education, through a national office of education, we could encourage more frequent and wide-ranging discussions of the subject; hopefully, provinces could co-ordinate their actions. Hopefully our aims in education could be co-ordinated and provincial hopes fulfilled. Without a national office to co-ordinate the collection of such information and to arrange that the appropriate material is circulated to those who need it, I believe decisions will continue to be made in isolation from these national goals.
Education
Notice, Mr. Speaker, that my proposal calls for coordinating and encouraging the dissemination of educational information. You will notice that it would provide the national education office with no real powers apart from the ones I suggested. In truth I should like to see a stronger office. This will not be possible unless the provinces wish to strengthen their role in the field. I see the establishment of this national office as a first small step. Establishing this office would establish a body which can ensure that discussion proceeds on the basis of proper information. The office could act as a catalyst to stimulate discussion. It would go no further without the willing co-operation of the provinces, and could not go much further owing to the limited jurisdiction of the federal government in this field.
As I say, I see the establishment of such an office as a first step. Hopefully we could proceed beyond that stage in terms of a national educational policy. Some, I know, feel that the establishment of this body would be beyond the scope of section 93 of the British North America Act, but such people ignore the major role the federal government already plays in the field. Its activities go far beyond the degree of involvement proposed in the motion before the House. I therefore suggest that any who say the federal government should not set up a national educational office are hiding behind what I call the flim-flammery of the constitution, particularly section 93.
My view that the constitution is not a block to the setting up of a national education office or policy in the field of federal action is supported by the constitutional authority, Mr. J. A. Corry. He has stated:
... so whatever the dilemma about education in the Canadian federation is, it is not a constitutional one. Indeed s.93 becomes a model of flexibility. Whenever it becomes clear that special educational provision is needed to carry out responsibilities undertaken by parliament in the exercise of its exclusive powers in section 91, parliament is entitled to manage that provision by whatever means and instrumentalities are required in the circumstances. As so often turns out in this country, obstacles to action that are declared to be formidable constitutional barriers turn out to be merely political.
Our children and their education are too important to be played with politically. Until we treat education as a national priority and work with the provinces to eliminate national disparities, economic barriers to educational advancement, poor distribution of resources, ignorance of new advances, and fear and confusion in the discussion of educational goals there will be no solution of the problem. Not until we stop treating education as a tool of an economic stabilization policy will it be given the high priority it deserves in our cultural and social priorities. I hope that the formation of a national office will allow the provinces and federal government to do something they have never done before in the absence of a national focus on these issues, think in terms wider rather than narrow jurisdictions about the real educational issues which face us now and will face us in the future.
Finally, I hope the next time an international team of experts evaluates our education they will not be able to say, as was said in a recent OECD report, that:
Canada has trodden down its own path with an array of exceptionally active programs for quantitative expansion and significant qualitative change of education systems that are however derived from no explicitly stated over-all national conception of the country's interests . .. The general tone of (provincial) policy-making appears to be adaptations to

May 28, 1976
Education
short-term pressures doing a little more than what already has been done and above all pressing for economies and reductions of expenditures.
I hope government members will not talk out this motion but accept what it represents, the initial, official federal thrust in this area, a thrust which will be given recognition by the establishment of the particular office alluded to in the motion.
I do not make my comments in isolation. The Canadian Teachers Federation, which represents a federated body of teachers right across this country, since 1971 has consistently recommended to the federal government the establishment of an office along the lines outlined in the motion now before the House, Indeed not only the Canadian Teachers Federation supports such an office; the Canadian Trustees Association, an association of school trustees of this country, has also urged the government to move in this direction.
Surely, if we concede that in a democracy the people ought to have some say in these matters, if we concede that there ought to be some dialogue, then the group which is elected to represent the best interests of education in the country ought to carry some weight with the government. Surely their attitude ought to indicate to the government their willingness to work actively within the kind of framework suggested this afternoon.
As I say, I hope hon. members opposite will not talk out this motion but, instead, accept its concept and let it come to a vote. Let us set about the business of establishing national goals in education in this country.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the Canadian Teachers Federation as well as the Canadian School Trustees recommended setting up such an agency. Does this include the CEQ and the Quebec School Board Federation?


John R. Rodriguez: No, Mr. Speaker. CTF does not include CEQ for reasons best determined by its members. When I speak about CTF and the Canadian Trustees Association I am referring to all teachers and trustees in Canada except those in Quebec. Who have freely chosen to remain outside these national bodies.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak on the motion proposed by the hon. member on my extreme left. I was once a member of the Canadian Teachers Federation. In my relatively early youth I became a member of the Canadian Trustees Association. Now, of course, I am in that most omniscient of all groups, the parents of the products of our educational institutions.
The hon. member is to be commended for bringing forward a suggestion that is reasonable, reasoned, and timely. If I may say so, I think he was wise to discuss a national office rather than a national department. As he points out, to suggest the establishment of a national department might involve too direct an attack on well-established constitutional principles and patterns. I believe that much can be gained if there is a more informed, active, and

uplifting role on the part of the national level of government in the important field of education.
The strengthening of national ideals and national purpose surely involves the educational process most heavily. The one level of government whose goals are national, not regional, not provincial, and not local, surely must be and is indeed the national government.
It is clear that much has happened since those years when we assumed from the provisions of the British North America Act that education was solely and purely a responsibility and function of the provincial jurisdiction. Federal presence has been felt in many, many ways in education, and nearly always in beneficial ways.
I believe that the university grants established, if I remember right, under the Prime Ministership of Mr. St. Laurent were one of the most forward steps ever taken by a national government. Who can say how many universities and how many thousands of university students were enabled to obtain a better life through that move, which was regarded by some of that time as an improper invasion of provincial jurisdiction? I am convinced that nothing but good came from that initiative.
If we look at the matter carefully we see that the federal presence, the federal fiscal presence in particular, is omnipresent. How many of our scholars depend upon assistance which emanates from Ottawa? How much research is encouraged from Ottawa? Indeed it is our claim that there has been a diminution in the national contribution to this important field.
I agree profoundly with the hon. member when he directed our attention to the role of our young people in the international scene and vice-versa. It is a matter of most profound concern that Canada and its educational institutions should be open to the young people of the world. We should encourage young people from different cultures to come and participate with our young people in the learning process. I suppose one of the most worthwhile endeavours in the last generation is the activity of the CUSO program-excellent ambassadors of this country, a world contribution to what one might call the Canadian outreach abroad.
I agree too with a view that is now becoming acceptable; that in the whole question of language training we must begin at the elementary school. There were many who thought that the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages was breaking new ground in his recent report. However, it was a quarter of a century ago that one of the greatest Canadians, Dr. Wilder Penfield, with his great learning and scientific and medical background, suggested exactly the same thing. Therefore this aspect of the hon. member's argument commends itself to me most strongly.
I think that it would be better to have an even stronger presence than he suggests, but I am pragmatic on this which shows that both Conservatives and socialists can be pragmatic if they put their minds to it. If they want to accomplish things, it is just as well that they both do.
I am never given to long speeches. I think that brevity is the soul of wit, as a great man once said. I will simply say that this is a positive contribution. It is the kind of subject
May 28, 1976

that our national parliament, on a sunny Friday afternoon, should be directing its thought and attention to. I commend the hon. member for his initiative and the well reasoned presentation with which he brought it forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has done a service by raising for discussion the matter of the federal presence in education.
I am not sure that the national office of education which the hon. member proposes would, in fact, do anything which is not now being done by the education support branch of the Secretary of State. I also think that the establishment of such an office might be perceived by the provinces as a direct assumption of their responsibilities as opposed to the collaborative sharing of responsibilities that now occurs in the field of education.
I think that the discussion of federal-provincial roles in education is very timely, particularly in view of the fact that the Fiscal Arrangements Act is due for review and that letters from the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) to the ten provincial ministers of education were tabled in this House yesterday. I hope, therefore, that today's discussion will be useful in this broad consideration of the federal role in education.
The Secretary of State, in a speech in Toronto in March, 1974, said:
One of the dangers of the current attention being focused on federal-provincial relations is that it makes for such sensational copy. As so often happens, the debate that rages around some initial question eventually comes to obscure that question altogether. Our attention is turned from what we are fighting for (if that is not too belligerent a term) to the fighting itself, and we as a nation can ill-afford to pay the social and political costs which such recklessness must surely entail.
The motion before us today allows us an opportunity to consider in a dispassionate way some of the arguments for or against direct federal involvement in education; the non-partisan atmosphere of private member's hour may assist us in assessing alternatives and trying to arrive at solutions on the ground of what Aristotle called "reason free from passion".
In the history of federal-provincial relations, education has been a central concern for a long time. The British North America Act of 1867 defined legislative jurisdiction over education "in and for each province" as exclusively a provincial matter. But the Fathers of Confederation could not anticipate the changes in education-both adult and childhood education, part-time and full-time-needed to deal with technological and other changes in the last century.
What the Fathers of Confederation did realize, however, was that the unity of our nation might not infrequently be subject to stresses and strains, that there was need for vigilance if the federation were to survive, and that the primary responsibility of the federal government was to protect the interest of the nation. In order to respond adequately to the needs of all Canadians the federal and provincial governments developed a continuing working relationship out of which came a series of formal or tacit agreements to deal with specific areas.
Education
It has been said that federation is the most difficult and inefficient of all forms of government, that every time attempts are made to reach agreements our national strength of purpose is tested more or less severely. However, in our great nation there are very great regional differences and, while the effort to reconcile differences is often difficult, it is also true that as a nation we have learned a good deal about reconciling differences and working together in ways that use our collective energies most productively. The task of establishing in Canada an education system which will enable Canadians to respond creatively to the demands of the present and of the future is a task which calls for the fullest and most effective use of those energies.
Although the terms of the BNA Act of 1867 defined education as a provincial responsibility, direct federal support came quickly, beginning in 1874 with the creation of the Royal Military College. The Agricultural Instruction Act of 1913 similarly applied federal moneys to specific educational purposes. During World War I the federal government of the time recognized that a national research effort would be essential for post-war development of Canadian industry and the growth of the national economy and in 1916 the National Research Council was created, although it was not until the 1930's that the National Research Council set up its own laboratories and began its extensive program of research grants to universities.
With the reduction in provincial expenditures in education during the depression years, universities turned to the federal government with requests for direct financial assistance. The difficulties of the universities elicited in 1940 a sympathetic response from the Rowell-Sirois Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations which, while re-emphasizing the provincial responsibility for education, recommended small per capita federal grants to universities in order to ensure "equal participation of all regions in the national life". This recommendation was not in fact implemented at that time and universities continued to be largely self-financed and autonomous and increasingly concerned about their ability to survive. With the anticipated post-World War II influx of war veterans into universities the federal government enacted the Veterans Rehabilitation Act of 1945 which provided institutions of post-secondary education with temporary relief only. By 1949 the universities had renewed their appeal for federal funding.
There seem to have been two main issues raised by the universities at that time-the possibility of damage to the country's economy if the universities' financial crisis forced them to reduce the training of professional manpower, and the possibility of raising fees to a level which students from lower income families could not meet, thus threatening the principle of equal opportunity for all Canadians to which the national government has always been committed.
In 1951 the Massey Commission on the National Development of Arts, Letters and Sciences recommended that a small per capita grant of 50 cents be made to the universities, and this recommendation was immediately implemented by the federal government. The Massey Commission, however, was concerned with much more than

May 28, 1976
Education
financial rescue on an ad hoc basis. The preamble to the Commission's terms of reference included the following: "It is in the national interest to give encouragement to institutions which express national feeling, promote common understanding and add to the variety and richness of Canadian life, rural as well as urban". The report recommended continued active involvement on the part of the national government to ensure the cultural and intellectual development of the country as a whole. I quote from that report as follows:
... all civilized societies strive for a common good, including not only material but intellectual and moral elements. If the federal government is to renounce its right to associate itself with other social groups, public and private, in the general education of Canadian citizens, it denies its intellectual and moral purpose, the complete conception of the common good is lost, and Canada, as such, becomes a materialistic society.
Implementation of the recommendations of the Massey Commission from 1951 on saw the federal government develop its current role as patron of arts and culture and patron of education and research.
The activities of such national institutions as the CBC, the National Film Board, and the Canada Council represent part of the federal involvement in education in the broad sense of the word. The activities of the Medical Research Council and the National Research Council are two examples of more specific clearly defined efforts to ensure the advancement of knowledge and the development of Canadian technology.
Adult education has been supported by the federal government in a variety of ways for a long time-grants to such organizations as Frontier College, the Canadian Association for Adult Education, the training grants administered through the Department of Manpower in collaboration with the provinces, are all part of the continuing effort to provide Canadians with education and training appropriate to a variety of situations and needs.
In 1966 the Secretary of State was assigned the task of advising cabinet on post-secondary education, and an education support branch was established in that department. It later became responsible for the administration of that part of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1967 which relates to post-secondary education.
In 1973 the Department of the Secretary of State was designated by cabinet as the agency within the federal government responsible for co-ordinated development, formulation, implementation and review of federal policies and programs relating to education. The responsibilities of the branch are broad and appear to me to include all the functions which the hon. member for Nickel Belt proposes for a national office of education. Areas in which the branch now has responsibilities include:
1.	Federal policies and programs in support of postsecondary education generally;
2.	Communication with provincial governments, the academic community and national organizations on matters of education;
3.	Co-operating with the Department of External Affairs in co-ordination of Canada's effective participation in international fora on educational questions;
4.	Evaluating the effectiveness of federal policies and programs in support of education against national goals.

Among other activities the staff of the branch participated in the OECD review of education policies in Canada and the preparation of a federal-provincial report entitled Education in Canada for the International Bureau of Education-UNESCO. I shall refer later to that UNESCO document which raises exciting new prospectives in education.
In the international field the staff of the branch have participated with Department of External Affairs officials in meetings of major international organizations and agencies-OECD,	UNESCO and the Commonwealth
Secretariat. The branch was represented on Canadian delegations to the OECD Education Committee and the Biennial Conference of the International Bureau of Education- UNESCO-as well as in preparations for the Commonwealth Conference on Educational Broadcasting.
At the present time one hears two conflicting opinions on the issue of direct national or federal involvement in education. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, for instance, has claimed that ".. . national involvement of Canadian universities requires a federal presence ... " and, "The universities wish to deal directly with the federal government in matters of national interest". The Canadian Association of University Teachers has expressed a concern at the current tendency to view postsecondary education from a purely regional perspective, arguing that a wider viewpoint is necessary if universities are to be allowed to make their full contribution to Canadian life. On the other hand provincial governments are now seeking to play a greater role in the distribution of educational moneys. In times of restraint, questions of priorities and resource allocation arise, and educational objectives that were largely unexamined during the period of unrestrained growth are now being questioned and re-evaluated. We probably had unrealistic expectations of education, but certain there is a fairly high degree of disillusionment in the country because education has not provided a better social and political order and the realisation of many ideals.
Because education enjoys so large a proportion of public funds there is increased concern about accountability. The Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1967 ties federal contributions for post-secondary education to the operating expenditures of each institution which, in turn, are dependent on the allocation of provincial resources. This means, in effect, that certain provincial disparities in the provision of postsecondary education across Canada continue and this is certainly an area that should be examined in anticipation of the expiry of the present arrangements in 1977.
Apart from the federal government's concern about equality of opportunity for Canadians, the federal government also has a particular interest in education, particularly in post-secondary education in terms of preparation for the job market. It is the national government that has the responsibility for keeping in view the manpower needs of the whole nation. Since 1964 the Canada Student Loans Plan has represented an important source of assistance to provide Canadians with equality of opportunity to further their career goals.
The UNESCO report to which I referred earlier, published in 1972 and entitled "Learning to be", suggested a
May 28, 1976

very radical transition in our traditional views on education. Modern technology, it suggests, has made the mere aquisition of information the function of the computer and has released man from the routine of mental labour. In the light of these advances the report claims that "liberating the energies of the people, unleasing their creative power, heads the list of future prospects for the development of education in the world of tomorrow." Demographic changes in Canada will impose other changes in education. As future populations include fewer children and proportionately more adults who may need to retrain and re-adapt a number of times in their career lives, changes become implicit in childhood as well as in post-secondary education, if, the words of the UNESCO report, people are to "learn to live, learn to learn, so as to be able to absorb new knowledge all through life, learn to think freely and critically; learn to love the world and to make it more human".
As we approach this exciting and difficult task I think that the solutions will be found, not in establishing one new agency as the motion before us proposes, but rather in a very sensitive working out of formulas which neither infringe on provincial jurisdiction nor deny the responsibility of the national government in this area.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on his excellent recitation. Unfortunately, while I find it intellectually extremely timely, because of our present restraints program I think it is hardly economically feasible, and this I regret very much. However, I am so enthused by many of his thoughts that I might suggest that this be put on our agenda for our post-AIB controls program.
I should like to refer to some of the points he made with which I thoroughly agree. He spoke or the unequal educational opportunities that exist for the youth across Canada. This is a fear that haunts every concerned parent in this country. Is a child who has to move from one province to another, especially during mid-term, going to have equal opportunity because of the move? It is not only moving from one province to another; it is also moving from one board of education to another. The riding that I have the honour to represent has two different boards of education, each with quite a different system. If a child moves just three blocks away in the same city, he goes to a different system of education with different opportunities offered. As I say, this is a fear that haunts parents.
The hon. member also referred to the long-term demands of the labour market. This too is of extreme importance. It is often foolhardy, even cruel, of us to insist that youngsters stay in school and become highly educated, only to have them pushed into intellectually bankrupt jobs. Then there are questions like job satisfaction, pride is one's activity, and so on. Which of us at this moment would dare criticize the youth of this country because they are dissatisfied with their jobs, since we have not prepared them perhaps for the right job? We just tell them to get educated; we do not have the foresight to proper jobs.
The hon. member also mentioned national goals. Obviously bilingualism should receive high priority. I should like to mention some of my own priorities. For instance, Canadian studies. I should like to refer the House to a test
Education
that was conducted, I believe last year, by Mel Hurtig among 3,500 final year high school students across Canada. It was quite a simple test on Canadianism, yet 62 per cent of those students failed and 61 per cent did not even know that the British North America Act is the Constitution of Canada. Many of these students believed that Toronto or Montreal was the capital of Canada. After receiving the results of his test, one student said, "After going through this I found myself wondering what it was that I had learned in 13 years of school". Another said, "I can't believe how ignorant I am about Canada".
Is it not reasonable to expect that Canadian children should be learning elementary facts about their country in Canadian schools? A research group at Glendon College, York University, showed that only one third of Canadian schools surveyed had courses in Canadian literature.
As for the matter of text books, a study by the Independent Publishers' Association of Canada shows that 88 per cent of school library money goes to foreign books. Some Canadian school boards spend every cent of their money in the United States. What I am preaching is not narrowminded nationalism; I am asking that Canadian children should have some knowledge of this country and its history, how government works, world issues and how they affect Canada. They should be taught pride in Canada, and concern for its survival as an independent country. Our children should be taught concern for the rich multicultural heritage that Canada enjoys. Here again, why is it that only children lucky enough to live in the bigger centres of Canada can really appreciate the rich multicultural heritage that is now ours?
How many Canadian children know about native rights? How many of them know how our native people live and what their aspirations are? As I said, these are some points that personally I should like to see added to this list of things to which an office such as the hon. member suggests could dedicate itself.
Coming back to the subject of textbooks I shall quote from the "Canadian Journal of Studies" for May, 1975, a statement by William Clarke, President of Clarke-Irwin & Co. Limited:
While the federal government may not have direct involvement in the process of determining curriculi, the federal government of course is directly involved in many aspects of education through grants to provincial governments for French language instruction, metric conversion and so on, and of course the federal government has a role to play in stimulating if nothing else the creation of Canadian educational material in co-operation with provincial governments. This is a role which is desperately needed.
I first became interested in the question of federal cooperation, shall we say, in education in our country when I received a letter shortly after my election in 1974 from the Canadian School Trustees' Association. One paragraph of this letter reads as follows:
.. . we believe that there is a national context to education; one that must be recognized to a far greater degree than at present if we want students in all schools of Canada to be able to compete on equal terms for the good life this country can provide. We further believe that recognition of the national context of education can be given without offence to the British North America Act.
13964

May 28, 1976
Education
I am not a constitutional expert and therefore I do not intend to go into those aspects. It is interesting, however, to note that further to my expression of interest the Canadian School Trustees' Association further elaborated their aims and objects. They state:
The values are as follows:
1.	There is a growing national complex to education in this country. It requires a recognizeable office of the federal government to assist in the co-ordination:
a) national objectives whereby we want the children of Canada to become Canadians and not Alberta Canadians, Quebec Canadians, Ontario Canadians, etc.
(b)	levels of equivalencies whereby parents can move from one province to another and feel assured that their children will encounter educational requirements that are similar from one grade to another.
(c)	assistance in the co-ordinating and effective use of the newer media available, especially in programs that can be used in any one province at any time. There is not only a need for materials to use in the newer media, but also for effective methods of distribution.
(d)	there is a need to develop instructional technology that school boards can use in any province.
(e)	bilingualism is a fact of life in Canada now, but the children in the schools must be prepared for a bilingual Canada in terms of cultural values, and in terms of competing for employment. There is a need to provide for some co-ordinating agency, and instructional materials that are effective and quick.
(f)	leadership and co-ordination in all facets of education.
(g)	Canada is really handicapped in its communications with other countries who have federal offices of education of various kinds. We need to be equipped with an office that can speak for Canada in educational matters at UNESCO, OECD and other international meetings.
(h)	there is not equality of opportunity to education in Canada at the present time, despite many attempts to provide same. If Canada is to be one country from sea-to-sea, the children in this country must have such equality of opportunity. The parochialism of Canada needs to be tempered considerably, and an Office of Education in Ottawa could assist materially in such matters.
2.	There are constitutional problems that inhibit the formation of an Office of Education-but such problems have not presented the massive
sums of money that the federal government contributes to post-secondary education. The provinces agree to the federal government being involved, in fact are seeking more involvement in financial terms at the post-secondary level. There is no reason why such co-operation could not be developed in the interests of Canadian children who are entitled to inherit a country that is Canadian first.
3.	Federal government policies, especially in programs that require contributions from the provinces, affect the over-all budgets in the provinces, and hence the budgets for the provincial departments of education. There is no office in Ottawa at the present time to remind the federal government that social programs of cost-sharing nature will affect educational resources both financial and human. The situation has grown to the point where we feel that there must be an official office in Canada to speak for education and protect its interests in every part of Canada.
4.	There is also a very great need for research and development of education in Canada, and we have just witnessed the cancellation of an educational technology department which was doing valuable work in giving counsel and leadership to education in such matters as audiovisual aides, videodiscs, computer assisted learning etc. If there had been an Office of Education the cancellation could have been averted.
5.	Generally speaking, we are a growing nation that needs to have a well prepared generation to take over-a generation that will be understanding, co-operative and compassionate to the very great diversities of this country in cultures and languages. Without leadership in such matters through an Office of Education the requirement is not being adequately met. The future of this country calls for such an office.
6.	The Secretary of State is involved to a great degree in education, and the work being done by him is appreciated-but more is necessary-the Secretary of State has many matters of concern. The fact that the Secretary of State is in education, with the consent of the provinces, is a strong argument in favour of a national office.
The fact that the ministers of education in Canada have formed the Council of Ministers of Education/Canada is another strong argument-there was a need, and they are trying to fill the need.
Trustees, teachers, administrators and parents all have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 31, 1976