1976-06-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. While all Canadians understand the necessity of economic restraint, there should not be government restraint on patriotism. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has withdrawn funds from Festival Canada, and in view of the fact that the traditional fireworks display on the Hill and the national televised concert have also been cancelled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Secretary of State take immediate steps to restore celebrations on Parliament Hill that are consistent with and representative of the national pride and patriotism jealously guarded by all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the members of this House extend to the members of the United States Congress and the people they represent best wishes et felicitations on the occasion of their two hundredth birthday on Sunday, July 4, 1976.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required to put the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED PROTEST OF EXTENSION OF UNITED STATES FISHING ZONES INTO CANADIAN TERRITORY-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On June 20, 1976 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio program, called "Maritime Magazine" reported that for purposes of effecting their 200-mile fishing zone the United States of America are claiming ownership of Seal Island, some 18 miles off the western coast of Nova Scotia. In view of the fact that the United States territorial claim comprises an area between New England and Nova Scotia, and includes important fishery grounds such as Georges Bank, and in view of the fact that the south shore fisheries of Nova Scotia could be severely affected, I move, seconded by the hon. member from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Canadian government make it clear to the United States government that they are treading on Canada's sovereign jurisdiction.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSAL TO BAN ADVERTISEMENTS THAT FISH FROM ENGLISH AND WABIGOON RIVERS ARE SAFE TO EAT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent of the House to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I make reference to the disturbing fact that mercury poisoning is crippling many people who are eating fish from the English and Wabigoon River systems and that in one instance Minamata disease is highly suspected.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House request the Minister of Justice, in collaboration with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Indian

June 30, 1976
Oral Questions
Affairs and Northern Development, to seek whatever methods are necessary to bring about a cessation of advertising by some tourist operators that the fish are safe to eat until a thorough and comprehensive study has been completed so as to ascertain whether or not safety can be assured to those eating fish from water systems with high mercury pollution.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is pursuant to the contents of a motion under Standing Order 43 which I had the pleasure of putting to the House last Wednesday, June 23. In view of the minister's remarks and the very orderly demonstration that is presently taking place on the hill, I want to ask when he intends to make an announcement regarding the changes in the 1976-77 dairy policy. There is an urgent and pressing need for the minister to take immediate action. Can he give the House, and particularly the dairy farmers of this country, some indication when such an announcement might be made-tomorrow, a month from tomorrow or not at all?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we met last Friday with the minister of agriculture for Quebec, the minister of agriculture for Ontario and the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission to discuss the proposals they had made to us. Today we have received further proposals from the National Farmers' Union and they have to be considered as well. These will be considered and I would hope that if we are going to make an announcement it would be made next week some time.


John Wise: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give consideration to the removal of at least a percentage of the $8.60 penalty and the return of at least a portion of the resultant holdback to producers in extremely difficult financial circumstances? I suggest this particular return could be based on the same relevant proportion by which production actually declined.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that last year we asked for curtailment of production several times through the Canadian Dairy Commission and the market supply and management committee and did not receive it. They made the decision that they should take the drastic action to curtail production and
(Mr. Malone.]
production seems to be coming into line at the present time. We have not got the figures from all the provinces. Before we make any change we have to notify and discuss this with every province concerned with the dairy issue. This takes time. We cannot make it just because of the two major provinces wanting us to make changes. If this had taken place last year when we asked for curtailment of production, we would be in the position where we would not have had to take the drastic action that we took this year.
I want to make it clear that even if we do lift the monthly quotas and change the $8.60 levy, that does not mean that there will not be some unfairness or inequities still existing because of the way that the provincial boards allocate their quotas. I am sure that the hon. member is aware of that.


POSSIBILITY OF SHORTAGES IF NO CHANGE MADE IN DAIRY POLICY
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the minister. Does the minister not realize that if immediate changes are not made we run a high risk of being short of product by as early as September?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I read-I was going to say what the "wise member of parliament" has said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What did the dumb minister say?


Eugene Whelan: Our reports show that even with the dry conditions in Europe they will probably just meet their targets for production. The last four months show that in Europe they have increased their surplus of skim milk powder by 200,000 tons. We met with the Australian minister of agriculture last week and discussed the same problem that they have. I say it would be wrong to intimate to the people that there could be a shortage of dairy products. We certainly know that there will not be any shortage of dairy products in this nation. One of our people from the dairy commission has just returned last week from Europe where he made a personal survey and contacted people there, and he gives us the report that there is not going to be the scarcity of dairy products that some people think there will be. If we could forecast as accurately as the hon. member suggests, then we probably would not have to be as harsh with the quotas as we are, but we cannot take the risk of just piling it up and hoping that somebody will buy it.


REQUEST TO DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF DAIRY POLICY TO ALLOW ADJUSTMENTS BY PRODUCERS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture.
According to the statement he just made that if all industrial milk producers had reduced their production last year we would not have the difficulties we are now facing, the minister is fully aware that, in the present
June 30, 1976

situation, many farmers will go bankrupt if the government does not approve a new dairy policy. Under such circumstances, and in view of the recommendations made to him, is the minister prepared to delay the implementation of this dairy policy for a while to give industrial milk producers time to adapt to the new guidelines?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this representation was made to us by the minister of agriculture for Quebec and the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario, but I repeat that our doing that alone will not alleviate the horrible situation that exists as a result of the way they allocate quotas within the provinces. It will not eliminate some of the problems of individual producers. I am sure that the hon. member is aware that there are producers who have not established quotas who have been producing milk for two years on the advice of the provincial milk marketing board, which told them: "Don't worry about a quota, you will be granted one". They have allowed them to get in debt by doing these things and now they want me to bail them out. If the hon. member is suggesting that I am totally responsible for this, then I hope he is suggesting as well that I have total authority. This I do not have now because we are letting them run their own business.


INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT PLANNING TO REDUCE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
As the minister is fully aware that the government's objective is to lower production and that it means that a number of producers will go bankrupt, would the minister tell the House whether this is really how the government intends to meet its goal?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has misconstrued the facts. I wish he would study how the Canadian Dairy Commission operates. It is the producers organizations themselves that make these decisions as to how quotas are to be distributed and they have not done all that good a job. That is why the farmers are complaining about inequities. We have dairy farmers who increased their production less than 5 per cent last year; we have others who increased their production as high as 80 per cent, and that is the unfairness of the situation. We asked for a 5 per cent increase in production and we got a 15 per cent increase in production, with no market or no home for it. We were spending millions of dollars on interest and storage charges because we had to pile it up. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that we continue to do that. If the hon. member wants authority vested in the Minister of Agriculture, let him say so and tell the provinces to vest that authority in the federal government.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR DAIRY PRODUCERS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also supplementary and is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It is in relation to his announcement next week. In view of the fact that many farmers are facing bankruptcy, and the Farmers' Union said this morning that farmers are now suffering a net loss of anywhere between 20 per cent and 100 per cent of their incomes, will the minister assure the House that in his announcement next week he will be outlining some steps that will in essence provide immediate financial assistance to the dairy farmers of this country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member means well in what he is stating. Again, I do not have the authority to get rid of all the inequities there are. He has eliminated part of it. The most important thing is if the dairy farmer is producing within a quota. They are doing what they were asked to do, and they are still the best paid industrial manufacturing milk producers in the whole world. We have a system of provincial allocation of quotas and how these quotas should be distributed, but we are faced with the fact that some provinces were encouraging production without any consultation, contrary to what we have been suggesting since last April. Those provinces have to bear some of the responsibility. It is not totally my responsibility, and any decision I might make would not alleviate that problem. If we completely eliminated the monthly quota system on which we are operating, and completely eliminated the $8.60, this would not mean there would still not be some in dire straits.
We have lent farm credit money to a total number, I believe, between 1,200 and 1,400, someplace in that area. This is in the minutes of the agricultural committee. We tabled this before the committee and it gives a list of the number of people to whom we have loaned these amounts of money. We have made the agreement that there will be no collections of these funds. I am sure if we all work together, the producer organizations, the provincial governments and the federal government we can solve this, but not in the way suggested, for instance, by the consumer critic of the official opposition, who said I paid the dairy farmers too much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Grafftey:: That is wrong and you know it. I never said that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I heard that same speech outside a few minutes ago.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you listen?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have listened many times and have not had the answer to my question. In view of the fact the minister is to make an announcement next week, I should like to know whether he can assure the dairy farmers in this country that there will be some immediate financial assistance for them. In view of the fact that many of them have debts they have to meet, some in respect of farm
14978

June 30, 1976
Oral Questions
credit and with other organizations in this country, will there be any immediate financial assistance?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have already made a statement about the debts in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation, and have said that if their income has been affected as a result of something that was not their own doing the Farm Credit Corporation will not even collect the payments and not collect the interest. There will actually be a moratorium in respect of those debts. If the lifting of the monthly quota program we have at the present time will alleviate any of the responsibility we have said we will consider it. We are considering that. The government has put $86 million more into this program this year than it did last year. We put in more money and that was contrary to what the dairy farmers of Canada had agreed to. They said they would get more in their returns from the market prices, and instead of that we are following a policy which is contrary. We increased the subsidy to dairy farmers and increased the total amount of money available for borrowing, thereby jeopardizing other agricultural programs in Canada, because we feel the dairy industry is that important.


PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should direct my find supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I would ask that right hon. gentleman, if I may, whether, as a result of the over-supply of milk in this country and the drop in consumption of some dairy products, his government would give serious consideration to the introduction in this country, in conjunction with the provinces, of a school milk program, and at the same time reinstitute the five-cent subsidy that was on fluid milk until about a year and a half ago?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, any suggestion having to do with children of school age is worth considering. I just want to point out to the hon. member that this is essentially an area within provincial jurisdiction, and since it calls for an increase in spending I am not sure I would have the support of the provinces in advancing such a program. I will ask that it be considered.


PROPOSAL MINISTER CONSULT PROVINCES AND PRODUCER
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister does not get his feet wet by saying that the blame rests either with the producers or with the provinces, but he still is the one who advocated this dairy policy. Given the fact that he has partners for the application and implementation of that policy, which are provincial governments and federations of fluid milk as well as industrial milk, instead of looking for someone to blame, would the minister be prepared today to undertake positive discussions with his partners in the application of that policy, in order to find, as the hon. member for Joliette said, positive solutions, since several thousand producers

will have to give up that production if they do not receive some assistance? The minister, Mr. Speaker, has recognized the problem by freezing certain mortgage payments on some farms.
Is the minister prepared to take positive steps, along with his partners, to find a solution as quickly as possible?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that we met with the provincial ministers of the two largest dairy provinces last week and discussed this problem in great detail at a lengthy meeting shows the concern we have for this problem. I am ready to accept that part of the problem which happens to be mine, but the suggestion that it should be 100 per cent the responsibility of the federal government and myself, as some people suggest, I do not accept. That is not a fact. We did not encourage all-out production when some of the provinces told the producers to produce all they can because they will have a quota next year. We never suggested that. We can prove what we told them to do last April when we announced the program.
The policy is a good one. It is one they agreed to, and if they had adhered to that kind of policy they would have no problem. We are going to try to solve it as I said in a fair and equitable manner between the producers and the provinces and ourselves. I do not blame producers solely for that, as the hon. member said, because I said the producer organizations certainly knew well we wanted 100 million hundredweight of milk and no more last year. We said we had no money for any more milk than that and that to produce any more would be a waste of product. They had excellent growing conditions. A cow is a biological entity and responds to all good things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: All these things compounded a situation that would be the envy of many of my colleagues in the cabinet if they could get the people they are responsible for to become so productive.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO PROBLEM OF OVERPRODUCTION OF MILK
André-Gilles Fortin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Agriculture keeps on repeating that there is significant overproduction from which stems the disastrous policy that we must endure now. Is the minister in a position to order today or very shortly a very extensive and serious inquiry conducted by independent people into the real situation of that so-called surplus production in our warehouses? At the same time, could the minister determine the cost of warehousing the quantity in stock because, according to our sources of information, the government allegedly paid much more than needed for stocked surplusses, and is he prepared to let the House check on the facts that only the minister possesses?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I recently answered a question of an hon. member
June 30, 1976

in this House in which I outlined the storage facilities for storing surplus dairy products in Canada and all dairy products in Canada. It is on the record. So far as I am concerned, when he refers to "so-called surplus production", I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that 103 million pounds of skim milk powder unsold is not a surplus production.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON FEDERAL CONTROL OF DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. May I ask the minister whether it is his personal belief-it may not be government policy at this stage-that the milk producers and milk consumers would be better served if the control, including quota allocation, were at the federal level whether it be producer-elective or government control. Is it the minister's view of the milk industry that those two groups, the producer and consumer would be better served by federal rather than provincial control of that industry.


Eugene Whelan: I can only say that at the meeting I had last week with two provincial ministers I said if you want us to disband the Canadian dairy policy and the Canadian Dairy Commission say so. They said, "Mr. Minister, the reason we are here is that we believe in it; we believe it can work and we want to make it work". I repeat, if they want to blame me for all this, let them give me the authority to run it and I can run it a hell of a lot better than it is run now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: That is my question. May I ask the minister if he is presently of the opinion that federal government control of the dairy industry is in the best interest of producers and consumers alike, and did he advance that argument to the two ministers when he was having this discussion last Friday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With due respect, that is a repetition of an earlier question.


Some hon. Members:: He did not answer it.


DELAY IN RECEIPT OF MILK SUBSIDY CHEQUES FOR MONTH OF APRIL-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: I hope the minister will not say that this problem is partially provincial. The federal milk subsidy cheques for the month of April should have been received by the producers this month. According to producers in my area, they have not received them yet. Can the minister advise us when they can expect these cheques, because that would help the situation to some extent?


Eugene Whelan: I talked to the chairman of the dairy commission. I understand that the cheques have been mailed. If they have not been, I will want to know why. Also, the supplemental cheques, the final payment for the dairy year 1975-76, have been mailed.
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF CHANGES IN PRICES AND PROFITS REGULATIONS IN VIEW OF OBJECTIONS FROM SOME SECTORS OF BUSINESS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the Minister of Finance and the Anti-Inflation Board have requested submissions from businessmen affected by the new draft regulations as foreshadowed in the May 25 budget, and considering that the substantially changed regulations, many of which are retroactive, could be unnecessarily disruptive to orderly business operations, would the minister tell the House to what extent he is prepared to modify the draft regulations in response to the objections of business? Specifically can he tell the House whether termination of the cost pass through method and the reduction of allowable margins to 85 per cent are policies on which the AIB and the administration are prepared to negotiate, at least with respect to certain sectors of the business community where there appears to be particular inequity if the new rules go into effect?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: In
general terms we would like to have the regulations affecting everybody in the same way, so far as possible. We recognize that there are different types of businesses and different types of institutions as, for example, the financial institutions which must have necessary changes in regimes. Prima facie our preference is to do away with the cost pass through rule and to put all firms on the profit margin basis with 85 per cent as the percentage for the base year. I cannot be certain that in the finality there may not be a variant on that, but substantially that will be the principle to which we will adhere.


REQUEST FOR EXAMPLES OF INEQUITY THAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED HARSHER PRICES AND PROFITS REGULATIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Noting that the minister in his budget speech indicated that the changes in the regulations were in response to perceived inequities in the control program, would the minister provide the House with an example of the sort of inequity which would have moved the administration and the AIB to impose a harsher regime on all firms?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Without mentioning specific firms, it was found that within the same competing parts of the industry there were some firms which, because of computer facilities or otherwise, were able to put their business on a cost pass through basis and therefore develop a profit margin that was much greater than the profit margin that the competing firm would have under the profit margin rule. That was the kind of inequity that was occurring, and it was to overcome that difference in treatment that we sought to move to a total profit margin rule.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF PRICES AND PROFITS REGULATIONS TO COMMITTEE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Since many sectors in the business community have expressed dissatisfac-
95 5 70-471/2

June 30, 1976
Oral Questions
tion with the revised draft AIB regulations, would the minister consider a reference of the regulations to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that the objections may be heard in an open forum?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am
not sure how valuable that kind of reference would be at this point, with the anticipation that the House will soon be completing its work for the summer.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no; we are here for a while.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the appropriate thing is to take account of the various representations that are made and to issue final regulations to meet the representations we have received from the business community. I would have to say ultimately of course that we should not be surprised to find that the system is more restrictive from the profit standpoint than perhaps the corporations would like. The point we would make is that they, as well as all other sectors of the community, must help to contribute to a reduction of inflation in Canada.


ALLEGED ADVANTAGE TO DISTRIBUTORS TO PURCHASE FROM FOREIGN SOURCES BECAUSE OF PRICES AND PROFITS REGULATIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the new AIB regulations, particularly the abolition of cost pass through, make it financially advantageous for distributors to purchase from manufacturers located in other countries rather than from domestic manufacturers, is the minister not concerned that the regulations will have a detrimental effect on output and employment in the Canadian manufacturing sector? If he is concerned, as he should be, what definite steps does the government intend to take to avoid further deterioration within the manufacturing sector in terms of employment and productivity?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is
because we are concerned about the impact on the economy that we have gone to such trouble to consult with the business community before making the regulations definitive.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him if the government intends to outline, perhaps in the forthcoming throne speech expected in the fall, definite long-range policies in respect of our nation's manufacturers and, may I add, to the often forgotten small business sector, as well as a policy that would replace the present harmful ad hoc attitude which has been in existence for some time in this

regard. Would the government be prepared to back any such policy proposals with appropriate legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question has an implication concerning ad hockery with which I disagree. The hon. member is making a suggestion for the Speech from the Throne. To the extent that the Speech from the Throne will deal mainly with the session which is to begin, I cannot promise to insert in it what the hon. member calls long-range policies presumably over a period of several sessions. But with this reservation, of course we will want to have the Speech from the Throne deal with matters to improve the economic situation in our country.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can he assure the House that the settlements or agreements in the rail dispute and the Lakehead carriers dispute fall within the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, I
cannot, Mr. Speaker. However, I am very happy to see that the parties have come together in a settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I might say that the settlement was based by and large on the recommendations contained in the report of Mr. Justice Emmet Hall. His conclusions were that his recommendations were within the guidelines. We will have to await a ruling from the AIB on that matter.
While I am on my feet I would like to advise the House also that the lake carriers on the St. Lawrence seaway arrived at a tentative settlement last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Indians in northwestern Ontario are suffering from mercury poisoning because of the failure of federal and provincial governments to enforce proper environmental standards, is the federal government prepared to pay direct compensation to native people on reserves who have symptoms of mercury poisoning?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, of course, we pay social assistance to all Indian
June 30, 1976

people on reserves who are unable to earn incomes. In addition, we are working with the two chiefs involved on Whitedog and Grassy Narrows to develop what has been termed a band work program based on the work development program to try to create work for all people who have been affected by lay-offs and loss of employment resulting from the closing down of the commercial fishery.


ASSISTANCE TO ENABLE NATIVES TO SUE POLLUTERS OF RIVERS
Reginald Cyril Symes: I was not asking about the general social welfare compensation payments but about direct payments because of the sickness that has resulted. However, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to assist Indian bands financially-I think a precedent can be seen in the James Bay case-so that they may hire legal counsel to sue polluters of the river system on which their livelihood depends?


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Following the pressures exerted this morning by the members of his caucus, especially those from Quebec, and also by other people, does the Prime Minister intend to change the terms of the order in council ratifying the agreement between the Minister of Transport and the representatives of CATCA and CALPA, which agreement has been interpreted in Quebec as a complete surrender and a step backward to appease the extremists as concerns the bilingualism issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is not an order in council. The agreement between the minister and the officials of CALPA and CATCA has not been ratified by an order in council. In reality, the minister had the authority to negotiate settlement of the strike. It now remains for the union people to see if they will support this agreement in a vote which will take place in about 10 days. We shall then know if they are in agreement. For the moment, it is obvious that the minister has done his best to do a difficult and thankless task in a particularly difficult situation. The government is glad that the strike is over. The principle involved in the government's committment to promote bilingualism everywhere, and in the case of the airline, everywhere this can be done while ensuring safety, remains intact. I believe we have the support of members on the other side of the House in this issue. It now remains to see whether CATCA and CALPA will sign the agreement. This is the situation.
Oral Questions
I have no doubt that support from the other side of the House would help solve this difficulty. But I do not know in what sense the hon. member would want to speak on behalf of his party.


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH CALPA AND CATCA TO PROTECT INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In the light of this agreement concluded by the Minister of Transport, obviously in the name of the government, has the Prime Minister been informed of the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court aiming at protecting the independence of the judiciary, and is the Prime Minister willing under the circumstances to amend the agreement concluded to better protect the independence of the judiciary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member must know that if we amended this agreement, the people with whom we have negotiated, that is to say the pilots and the controllers, would be justified in saying that there is no agreement, that it has been modified unilaterally, and what the hon. member is suggesting would risk causing a new strike. I do not know if the hon. member has thought about these consequences, and if this is really what he is suggesting.
As concerns the premise of the question, I have seen in the newspapers allegations concerning a letter from Chief Justice Deschenes. I have not seen this correspondence. If it exists, I am surprised that it has been published in the newspapers since this must be a matter between judges, and I would find it deplorable if such a letter from a Quebec Chief Justice to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had been given to the newspapers, probably by indiscreet people.
*	4	*


BILINGUALISM
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary.
In view of the general reaction in Quebec and in view of the reaction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wants to protect the independence of his judges, and in view of the pressing representations made by the Quebec caucus of Liberal members, does the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of all those extremely serious reactions, feel it would be advisable to carry out immediately his threat made a few days ago to call an election on the topics of bilingualism and national unity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry that the hon. member has interpreted in such a way the interview I had recently when I was asked whether the situation was as serious as it appeared and whether the next election could again be held on this problem. I answered that unfortunately that could still be possible,

June 30, 1976
Oral Questions
but that it has never been contemplated to launch a general election on this topic.
As for the attitude in Quebec to which the hon. member is referring, surely there must be people who agree with the settlement. We do not know yet what the Progressive Conservative Party nor even the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe think about it. It might be interesting if, on behalf of his party, he were to suggest a solution to this dispute. And at the same time, I might remind the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe that when he tells us about Mr. Justice Deschenes and his judges, those are not his judges since no judge appointed to the commission comes under the jurisdiction of Chief Justice Deschenes.


SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR TO ARGENTINE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF NEW FINANCIAL TERMS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the Associated Press report from Buenos Aires yesterday that Canada and Argentina have concluded "a satisfactory" agreement on inflationary adjustment for the supply of a Canadian nuclear reactor, the cost of which is now to be $500 million as against the original estimate of $160 million, will the minister table the new financial terms of this nuclear reactor sale so that we can see just what kind of commercial deal the government has negotiated in this regard?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to present the details of this new agreement to my cabinet colleagues very shortly. At some appropriate point in the future, perhaps before the standing committee or earlier, I will seek an opportunity to make as large a disclosure of the details as I can with respect to the mathematics of that particular transaction.


BROADCASTING
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that CTV has the exclusive rights to telecast the Canada Cup series this fall, and in view of the fact that there are parts of this country which have only CBC, would the minister ensure that all Canadians, particularly those in northern Canada, will get a chance to see this important series?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had several representations from the hon. member for Restigouche and others on this side of the House who are concerned about this matter. I am not certain what can be done about it, but I will certainly look into it.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. My question last week had to do with bringing any type of television to people in northern Canada and Newfoundland, and the minister had no details. Would he explain why some communities in northern Newfoundland will never have television unless the people responsible for the accelerated cost program in the CBC get off their fannies and do something?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was given an answer, although perhaps not to his full satisfaction, last night. I draw to his attention the fact that in the answer it was indicated to him that instead of 1977 being the date for television in his part of the world, the time has been moved forward to the fall of 1976. He should be grateful for at least that.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some days ago in answer to a question I put in the House the Minister of Public Works informed the House of the strict regulations under which polychloride plastics could be used. I then put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the effect that if this serious fire hazard product was only used under strict regulations, as pointed out by the Minister of Public Works, why was it not labelled under the Hazardous Products Act. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said he would inform the House in a few days about this, and I wonder if he now has an answer.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy in contacting me on this subject some weeks ago.
Under our present regulations these flammable substances are not regulated, but as a result of the representations of the hon. gentleman and those of the Minister of Public Works we have been meeting with the plastics industry, and the polyurethene type of insulation will now come under a new set of regulations. In the meantime many manufacturers are voluntarily labelling their products accordingly.

June 30, 1976


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has Canada taken any steps to contact big Idi Amin to see what he is doing about protecting the Canadians on the hijacked French airliner, or is the Prime Minister planning to make a statement today on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no to the second question. As to the first, I would have to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to report.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General inform the House if the agreement with Canadian philatelists providing for withdrawal of new stamp issues 12 months following the original issuance applies to Olympic stamps?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, yes. The hon. gentleman has raised an important question. It is customary in Canada, after 12 months, to withdraw these types of commemorative stamps from circulation. After that they can be obtained through dealers and various private outlets.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Postmaster General's remarks, would he investigate why the Olympic statue stamp, which was originally issued on March 14, 1975, is still available at post office philatelic outlets?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I should have been more explicit. I meant, one year from the event. Olympic stamps, as we know, are designated by law for a specific purpose.The net revenue derived from those particular stamps is part of the financing of the Olympics themselves. That is one of our reasons for still selling them. But one year after the termination of the Olympic Games all Olympic stamps will be obtainable only through private outlets.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the galloping increase in the incidence of tropical diseases even among native born Canadians, proving that present controls are not controlling, may I ask what percentage of the 40 million people who visit Canada are
Oral Questions
from tropical countries and what small percentage of those remain for longer than the normal holiday? Also, may I ask if Canadians who have served thefr country for any length of time in tropical countries are checked medically when they return to Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to obtain for the hon. member the statistical information he has requested. I think he is aware of recent measures involving the medical examination of visitors to more carefully monitor the possibility of such diseases being brought into the country. As for the final part of his question to do with the return of Canadians, that is not in my jurisdiction.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been in touch with his provincial counterpart with regard to the strike by miners which has continued for six weeks in the southeast Kootenay area of British Columbia contrary to the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, during the latter part of last week I met with the minister of labour for British Columbia. We reviewed all strike situations which were then troublesome in the province from the point of view as to how the federal department could co-operate and be of assistance to the provincial department in resolving these outstanding disputes.


SUGGESTED REVIEW OF APPEAL PROCEDURES AGAINST RULINGS OF ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the number of similar strikes concentrated in the mining industry, is the minister taking steps directly to review with representatives of the industry, both management and labour, appeal procedures provided against rulings of the AntiInflation Board, or is he awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the board itself?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, since many of the labour disputes in question including questions of labour relations and resolution of labour disputes fall within provincial jurisdiction, we are co-operating with the province to ascertain both from unions and companies the best way to work out practices-I am speaking in terms of resolutions-so that we can be constructive with regard to resolution of disputes. We are doing that in an active manner at present.

June 30, 1976
Oral Questions PARLIAMENT HILL


COST OF REPAIRING DAMAGE CAUSED BY ANCHORING BARRIERS ON DRIVEWAY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works, if somebody could wake him up. Having regard to the new security measures on the Hill, particularly the new method of anchoring barriers on the driveway in front of the House of Commons, I wonder if the Minister has an estimate of the costs to be incurred by the government to repair the many holes punched in the pavement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must rule that question as being beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. It is the responsibility of the Speaker.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM JURISDICTION OF BOARD OVER PRICE OF MEALS IN MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that a Montreal daily reported this morning that the cost of meals will allegedly jump by 40 per cent, especially in the Montreal area as the result of the 1976 Olympic Games, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to ask the Anti-Inflation Board about those increases exceeding the allowable percentage and, if he has already done so, can he tell the House what control mechanisms will be developed in that connection?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that small businesses do not come under the Anti-Inflation Board or the anti-inflation legislation. Large businesses such as hotels of railway companies, are under the control of the board and the kinds of control are indicated in the regulations proceeding from the anti-inflation legislation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with the data provided by the Royal Bank's tredicator, which shows that the economy is growing more slowly than earlier estimated and showing the smallest quarter to quarter increase since the index resumed its upward trend in the first quarter of 1975. As the trendicator also shows that there is weakness in housing and consumer spending, may I ask the minister, in light of the disappointing indications in the economy, whether he has taken additional steps to increase construction of housing and consumer spending in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the trendicator would appear to be directly contradicted by the national accounts for the first quarter which showed a growth rate of 2.7 per cent in the quarter.


Mr. Stanfield:: No, no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, please? Since it is apparently the will of the Canadian parliament that capital punishment in Canada is to be abolished, does the government intend to ask the government of Angola to commute the death sentences of the foreign nationals who were mercenaries there?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take it upon myself to make remarks on the abolition of the death penalty in other countries. The fact is that, upon first reading newspaper reports on the condemnation to death of four mercenaries in Angola, some of us may find it revolting. We recognized the government of Angola and I shall convey the request of the hon. member and see if it might be possible to make representations, but I am not sure at all that we can.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of reports coming from the Vancouver post office to the effect that there is a backlog of at least one month's first class mail, that there is no indication of when or if it will be delivered and even if it is finally delivered, it will be delivered on a random basis, I ask what steps the Postmaster General plans to take to clear up this backlog and when he expects to be able to announce normal delivery of mail in Vancouver?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we are reading different reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling routine proceedings, I might indicate that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham raised a point a moment ago by way of a question which I set aside because it was addressed to the Minister of Public Works. In fact, what the hon. member raised is the responsibility of the Speaker. I do not by any means want to indicate that the decision taken today with respect to preparations outside was taken lightly or that hon. members ought not to be encouraged to seek information about those preparations. The decision was
June 30, 1976

based on previous experience. It is an experiment. The barricades will be removed as quickly as possible, as soon as it is seen they are not needed. I think that moment has arrived already. It is an experience which I hope we will be able to assess collectively, to see whether the same kinds of precautions are necessary in future, but it is not possible to put questions of the kind the hon. member raised here. I do want the hon. member to know, however, that his question was a very important one.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I directed a question to the Prime Minister. I had forgotten that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs was in the House. I understand she has an answer for me. This is a very important question about Canadians on the French airliner hijacked in Angola. As we will be recessing for a long weekend, I hope that she will be permitted to make some kind of statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a procedure requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Monique Bégin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the House and the hon. member. All I can add, Mr. Speaker, is that we are indeed very happy to be able to confirm that Mrs. Pearla Bitton was among the 47 hostages that were freed by the hijackers. I can also say that in addition to the four Canadian citizens being held, we believe there are five other persons who are connected with Canada, that is who are said to be landed immigrants or who have close relatives in Canada.
I believe the hon. member also wanted to know whether the right hon. Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been in touch with the president of Uganda. We have not operated that way to date. To protect the lives of all hostages still being held, the policy of the government has naturally been to say as little as possible about the transactions underway and for which the government of Uganda has assumed all responsibility.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Outside the House of Commons today and again inside the House, as he has done repeatedly, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stated that I said that under his dairy policy the farmers were being paid too much. The minister seems to think there is a conflict of interest between consumer rights and producer rights. What I did say in the House of Commons some weeks ago was that the Minister of Agriculture had attained-
Income Tax


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Up to this point the hon. member is expressing a difference of opinion with the Minister of Agriculture. It is significant, of course. However, the trouble I have is whether it constitutes a point of order. If the hon. member has a point of order, I would ask him to please state it.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to take the time of the House, but this is most serious. The Minister of Agriculture said that I said that under his program the farmers were being paid too much. I challenge the minister to find out within the next three or four days where I said that, inside the House or outside the House. At no time did I state that the farmers were being paid too much under his program. I challenge the minister to stop playing petty politics and produce that statement that was made inside or outside the House, because it was not made by me.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts in both English and French-Mr. Crouse.

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker on behalf of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. If the House gives its consent, I will move concurrence in this report later this day. The report is in French and in English.
[Editor's Note: For text of above Report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-97, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, (No. 3).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicated earlier that he would be seeking the
14986

June 30, 1976
Order Paper Questions
unanimous consent of the House which of course would be necessary to move concurrence in a report tabled earlier this day. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: that the ninth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[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. 5,176, 5,180, 5,516, 5,517, 5,518, 5,557, 5,742 and 5,785. '
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the Prime Minister's visit to Toronto on or about April 2, 1976 (a) what specific means of government transportation was used from Ottawa to Toronto and from Toronto to Ottawa and what was the cost per hour of same including, while in use and any waiting time (b) what are the names and job designations of all those on the public payroll who were with the Prime Minister at any point and what was the entire cost of their presence to the taxpayer (c) what are the names and addresses of any persons other than the Prime Minister or members of the news media who travelled on the trip in the Prime Minister's party (d) were any of the Prime Minister's personal expenses paid from public funds and, if so, what are the various items and the cost in each case?
2.	(a) Did the trip include attendance at a meeting in York-Scarbor-ough under the auspices of the Liberal Party (b) will the Party be asked to reimburse from party funds an appropriate share of the cost of the trip and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Are such expenditures of public money extended by the government to the Leader of the Liberal Party only and, if so, for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned: 1. (a) A MOT Jetstar was used at $970 per flying hour; (b) Bob Murdoch, Colin Kenny, Peter McGuire, Ralph Coleman; Prime Minister's Office $188.50. Senator R. Stanbury (Ottawa-Toron-to); (c) See (b) above. Mme Trudeau and Sacha Trudeau were on the return flight only; (d) No.
2.	See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976. (a) Yes. (b) No.
3.	See reply to question 69 answered February 3, 1976.


Mr. Cossitt: Was the Prime Minister's trip to Toronto on or about April 2, 1976 publicly financed and, if so (a) did he confer with any Liberal Party
[Mr. Speaker.)
officials during the trip (b) is he prepared to make public the names of those with whom he conferred and the subjects discussed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certain expenses of the trip were. See reply to question 5,176, part
1.	(a) Yes; (b) No.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Have there been any export loans concluded with Chile since the $5,000,000 agreement of January 29, 1974 and, if so (a) on what date was the agreement entered into (b) who was (i) the borrower (ii) the Canadian exporter (c) what was the product being,financed (d) what were the (i) repayment terms (ii) proposed amount of financing?
2.	Are there any applications currently under consideration by the Export Loans Division for exports to Chile and, if so, what is the (a) date of the application (b) name of the (i) borrower (ii) Canadian exporter (c) product being financed (d) proposed amount of financing?
3.	At what rate of interest have loans to Chile between 1970 and 1974 been arranged and under what terms for repayment?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned; 1. No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable; (d) Not applicable.
2.	By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown Corporations have not been required by Parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operations. This is of particular importance to EDC because of the need to protect the competitive position of Canadian companies bidding in world markets. In certain instances an announcement may be made when an export sale supported by EDC has been finally consummated. Those transactions appear in EDC's Annual Report. Otherwise in the interest of trade EDC does not publish.
3.	EDC made one loan to Chile in the first half of 1970 and one early in 1974. Repayment terms were 21 semiannual instalments in the first case and 10 semi-annual instalments in the second; it has not published the rate of interest on loans. To do so would impair its negotiating position in subsequent transactions.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What is the government's and/or Export Development Corporation's policy toward Foreign Investment Insurance Programmes for Canadian investments in Chile?
2.	Have any Canadian investments been insured since 1970 and, if so, what (a) were the investments (b) is the name of the investor (c) was the project (d) was the total value of the investment?
3.	Have any applications been made for Foreign Investment Insurance in Chile since 1970 and, if so, what (a) were they (b) is the name of the investor (c) was the project (d) was the total value of the investments?
4.	Are there any applications currently being considered by the Foreign Insurance Division for Canadian investments in Chile and, if so (a) who are the possible recipients (b) what are the projects (c) what is the total value of the investments?


Marcel-Claude Roy: In so far as EDC is
concerned: 1. Its policy is established by the Board of Directors on the merits of particular cases as they arise,
June 30, 1976

and upon the Board's assessment of the economic factors and risk at the time.
2.	EDC does not publish the particulars of its foreign investment insurance because of the nature and the confidentiality of many of the projects; the aggregate amount and the geographic areas covered are published in each of its Annual Reports.
3.	By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown Corporations have not been required by Parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operations. When an export sale supported by EDC has been finally consummated an announcement may be made. Those transactions are described in EDC's Annual Reports. Otherwise in the interest of trade EDC does not publish.
4.	Please see Part 3.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1 Have there been any Export Development Corporation Export Credits Insurance Division credits granted for exports to Chile since 1970 and, if so (a) on what date was the credit granted (b) what was the name of the (i) borrower (ii) Canadian exporter (c) what was the product financed (d) what was the amount of the financing?
2.	Are there any applications currently under consideration by the Export Credits Insurance Division for exports to Chile and, if so, what is the (a) date of application (b) name of the (i) borrower (ii) Canadian exporter (c) product to be financed (d) proposed amount of financing?
3.	Have there been insurance claims submitted to the EDC for export credits to Chile since 1970 and, if so (a) on what date was it filed (b) what was the name of the (i) borrower (ii) Canadian exporter (c) what was the product financed and, if the claim was paid, the amount paid?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Export Development Corporation states: 1. The Export Development Corporation's Export Credits Insurance Division does not grant credits; it does insure for exporters risks of non-payment for credits granted by exporters. It has written such insurance for exports to Chile since 1970. (a) Information as to the credit extended by exporters relating to EDC's insurance is received by EDC from them as confidential information and may not be published without the consent of the exporters concerned; (b) As indicated in the foregoing there is no borrower in such transactions and EDC may not disclose without the consent of the exporters, the names of buyers to whom the exporters extended credit; (c) Please see Part 1 (b); (d) As indicated in the foregoing it is the exporter who provides financing in such cases and EDC's information thereon is received as confidential information. From 1970 to 1975 EDC insured exports to Chile on which EDC's contingent liability was an aggregate of $8.8 million.
2.	By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown Corporations have not been required by Parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operations. In certain instances an announcement may be made when an export sale supported by EDC has been finally consummated. Those transactions appear in EDC's Annual Report. Otherwise in the interest of trade EDC does not publish.
3.	Yes, (a) Please see the answers to Part 1; (b) Please see the answers to Part 1; (c) Please see the answers to
Order Paper Questions
Part 1; EDC has paid in insurance claims arising from sales to Chile since 1970 an aggregate of $3.1 million.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture recently travel to Mexico and was he accompanied by his wife and, if so, on what date and by what means did the Minister's wife travel?
2.	Did the public Treasury pay for her transportation and, if so (a) in what amount (b) did the Minister reimburse the public Treasury and, if so, by how much and on what date?
3.	What is the total of all expenses, if any, paid by the taxpayer for the wife of the Minister of Agriculture other than transportation?
4.	Will the Minister reimburse the public Treasury and, if not, for what reason?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
Minister of Agriculture recently travelled to Cancun, Mexico to attend the First Annual Meeting of Consultation of the International Group for Agricultural Development in Latin America and the Caribbean accompanied by his wife. The duration of the trip was from May 12 to 16 inclusive. Mrs. Whelan travelled with the Minister via DND aircraft.
2.	As the Minister of Agriculture travelled by DND aircraft, there was no additional charge for his wife to travel on the same aircraft.
3.	Mrs. Whelan paid for her own additional expenses..
4.	As there were no additional expenses, there is no need to reimburse the Treasury.


Mr. Matte: Have historical houses been bought in Quebec by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so, in each case, what (a) is their name and address (b) was the amount proposed?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes. Details as follows; 1. (a) Sir Wilfred Laurier House, St. Lin, Province of Quebec; (b) $50,000.
2.	(a) Sir George Etienne Cartier House, 456-462 Notre Dame Street East, Montreal; (b) $50,000.
3.	(a) Lot 1, Sainte Jeanne de L'Jle Perrot, Province of Quebec; (b) $60,000. This property has been transferred to the Province of Quebec.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the inception of the fund to create new crops, how many different research groups in Canada have (a) requested (b) been granted subsidies from the government?
2.	For each year, what was the (a) name and address of those who received such grants (b) object of their research?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a) 14;
(b) 14.
2. 1974: (a) (i) University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (ii) University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario,
(iii)	Les Fermes Leclair et Freres Limitee, Sherrington,
95 5 70-481$

June 30, 1976
Capital Punishment
Quebec, (iv) Palliser Wheat Growers Association, Regina, Saskatchewan; (b) (i) A Program for the Establishment of Sunflowers as a Major Crop in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Research on the Production, Utilization, and Marketing of Field Peas, (ii) The Agronomic-Economic Feasibility of Peanut Production in Southern Ontario, (iii) A Study for the Establishment of Agronomic Practices for the Growing of Baby Carrots, (iv) A Study of Utility Wheats. 1975: (a) (i) University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, (ii) Foothills Forage Co-op Association, Calgary, Alberta, (iii) Minas Seed Cooperative Ltd., Canning, Nova Scotia, (iv) Rapeseed Association of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, (v) Colonial Florists Ltd., St. Catharines, Ontario, (vi) Ontario Wine Council, Toronto, Ontario, (vii) CSP Foods, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (b) (i) Nutritional Evaluation of Barley Cultivars. Nutritional Evaluation of High Fat Oat Cultivars as Animal Feed, (ii) Forage Oat Evaluation Study, (iii) An Evaluation of Machinery and Cropping Systems for Larger Scale Grain Crop Production in Nova Scotia, (iv) Rapeseed Varietal Development, (v) The Development of Nucleus Geranium Stock, Free of Fungi and Bacteria, (vi) Investigation of Possibilities for Expansion of Grape Production Beyond Current Grape Area, (vii) Investigation of Utility Type Wheats in Saskatchewan Agriculture. 1976: (a) (i) University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (ii) Continental Grain Company (Canada) Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, (iii) Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology, Kemptville, Ontario, (iv) Nova Scotia Blueberry Growers Association, Truro, Nova Scotia; (b) (i) A Project to Expand the Production of Winter Rye in Saskatchewan. A Program to Expand the Potential of Flax as a Major Prairie Crop, (ii) The Establishment of Mustard Crops in Eastern Canada, (iii) Mustard Seed Production in Eastern Ontario, (iv) The Establishment of Lowbush Blueberries.
He *	*


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 29, consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Stand-

ing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motions Nos. 4, 9, 18 and 38 (Mr. Halliday).
Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your Honour indicated yesterday that you would be dealing with the grouping of the motions. I was wondering if Your Honour is prepared to do that at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I prepared a draft of groupings which I circulated to the House leaders. If hon. members have any comments on it, I would be prepared to receive them at this time. It may be, however, that since we are into one grouping which will no doubt take us through this afternoon and into Monday, possibly a discussion on the matter ought to take place at that time, unless there is some discussion on the first couple of groupings which would follow the one with which we are involved at the present time.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make some comments on the groupings, but the grouping of motions on which I will have comments to make are Motions Nos. 35, 36, 37, 45 and 46. I am sure we will not reach those before Monday. The reason I suggested that Your Honour's suggestion should be agreed upon is that I have to absent myself in about five minutes. I hope those in the other parties who might be addressing themselves to this particular matter will permit me to speak to the questions that are of concern to me on Monday.
[DOT] <1510)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. First of all I have already made a decision in respect of the motions that are before the House at the present time when debate will resume, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) having the floor.
I doubt there would be much disagreement that motion No. 7 should be considered separately-that would follow these considerations-and motions Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 might be the subject of comment at this time. That would take us through until Monday, I think, and give us an opportunity to reflect on the groupings and to comment upon them.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to agree with your suggestion that this discussion be deferred until Monday. I simply want to say that there are two of the proposed amendments on which I should like to raise points of order. One is motion No. 35 to which the hon. member opposite already referred, and the other is motion No. 40, but as Your Honour pointed out all this can wait until Monday.


Mr. Jones:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, not being represented by a party leader or whip I wonder if I could be privy to this grouping to which you have referred.


Mr. Speaker:: In line with the suggestion raised I have the intention before leaving the chair this afternoon of calling on the Solicitor General to resume the debate, but I should perhaps read into the record the suggestions that are here in order that hon. members will be able to read them in Hansard.
Following the discussion on the grouping that is on the floor at the present time, which is motions Nos. 4, 9, 18 and
June 30, 1976

38 it is suggested, subject to further discussion, that motion No. 7 should be debated and voted on separately; motions Nos. 10 and 11 could be grouped for purposes of debate, and a vote on motion No. 10 would probably dispose of a vote on motion No. 11; motions Nos. 12 and 13 would be grouped for debate but voted separately; motions Nos. 21 and 22 would be grouped for debate and would be voted together; motion No. 23 would be debated and voted separately; motions Nos. 24 and 25 would be grouped both for debate and for voting; motions Nos. 26 to 32 inclusive would be grouped for debate with only one vote being required; motions Nos. 33 and 34 would be grouped for debate and one vote; motion No. 35 would be debated and voted separately, again subject to discussion according to the caveat that has been put forward; motions Nos. 36 and 37 would be grouped for debate but a separate division would be required on each motion; motions Nos. 40 and 41 would be debated and voted separately subject to comment; motions Nos. 42, 43 and 44 would be grouped for debate and vote, and motions Nos. 43 and 44 might depend on the result of a vote on motion No. 42; motions Nos. 45 and 46 would be debated and voted separately.
Those are general suggestions and as we move along, after hon. members have had an opportunity to reflect and we might have an opportunity to engage in further discussion, the Chair would be more than happy to receive suggestions on any particular question. It would appear there is ample work for the House between now and Monday and this will give hon. members an opportunity to bring forward suggestions.
Order, please. The hon. Solicitor General.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I have finished my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan).


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, last night in this House I had the honour to second the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). He is an abolitionist and I am a retentionist. Last night he spoke to these amendments on the basis of compassion. I should like to speak as a reteri-tionist, and as one who, while he might not be so presumptuous as to lay claim to the virtue of compassion might say at least that he aspires to it. It is on the basis of compassion that I support these amendments and urge abolitionist and retentionist alike to join in supporting them.
These are very straightforward amendments, three of which will allow inmates in particular circumstances to elect for the sentence of death by himself choosing it. Of course it would have to be carried out by the state but there is this essential difference which allowed Mr. Speaker to rule these amendments in order. The fourth amendment is conditional upon the other three and has to do with the means of capital punishment.
It might be said that my support for these amendments goes back some time even though they were only introduced yesterday. It goes back to the summer of 1973 when I was a member of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which was established to investigate the Canadian penitentiary system with particular reference to the matter of escapes and the need for
Capital Punishment
security. Other members of the House who participated were Doctor Reg. Stackhouse, who was then the member for Scarborough East, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who was co-chairman with the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), and two other Liberals, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes (Mr. Fox) and the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). I was privileged to serve on that committee along with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and although a member of the Social Credit party was named I do not believe anyone actively participated.
We travelled from the Maritimes to British Columbia looking into the situation. The subcommittee was set up because my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), recognized a failure in the Canadian penitentiary system to provide adequately for the security of the Canadian population as was shown by the number of escapes which occurred. He moved a motion during the minority parliament to establish a subcommittee to investigate the Canadian penitentiary system, and the motion was accepted by all parties.
I have mentioned the people who served on the subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, and none of us had any professional experience within institutions. For all of us, therefore, the experience was an eye-opener, and I want to place on the record today some of the experiences we had so that I can put forward the case of compassion and of human decency in support of the argument of the hon. member for Oxford that his amendments to the bill should carry.
I should like to quote from a report of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes to the Solicitor General in which he stated:
In spite of the fact that the subcommittee had begun its work with much energy and vitality, the subcommittee was not able-due to the magnitude of the task it was entrusted with-to complete its work within the period set by the House of Commons. Subsequently, the co-chairmen of the committee ... have attempted to obtain an additional delay which would have enabled us to complete our work and submit a report to the House, as a committee. Unfortunately, the co-chairmen were not successful in obtaining this.
Along with the hon. member I regret that we were not allowed to report to this House because we had put together individually, and we had hoped collectively to give in a committee report, documentation of the serious situation which faced the Canadian people if measures were not taken to protect them adequately, and also the serious situation within the prisons. The prisons offered no hope for those inside, and very limited protection for the innocent Canadian population on the outside.
I think of the impressions of the beginner and I refer to the words here of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes which I think every member who saw the prisons would go along with. We visited the prisons without prior notice; we just knocked on the door and announced ourselves. He said that his very general observations were based on the first impressions of a beginner where visiting prisons is concerned. He went on to say this:
If Lord Durham in his famous report came to the conclusion that in Canada there were "two nations warring in the bosom of one country", one has partly the feeling that in the Canadian penitentiary system there are not two but three factions whose relations, if they cannot be

June 30, 1976
Capital Punishment
called bellicose, are far from being harmonious. Obviously, it involves the inmates, the guards and the administration.
What were some of the findings of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes? In the report that he prepared, which unfortunately was never tabled in the House, he said this:
The extent of idleness among the inmates is also striking. The work they are able to do is often repetitive and not very likely to inspire them. The almost complete lack of motivation for the work available in the institution is astonishing.
He was particularly upset by what he termed the "Chinatown" cells in a detention unit in the Kingston area.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It was at Collins Bay.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) reminds me that it was at Collins Bay. They are used at the discretion of the penitentiary administration in order to physically isolate from the main body of the prison population those individuals who cause particular disruption that brings about a threat either to the lives of themselves or of other inmates, or far too frequently, to the lives of the guards and the administration. The hon. member had this to say in his report:
-the isolation cells known under the name of "Chinatown" in a detention unit in the Kingston area are a shame upon the Canadian penitentiary system. This kind of cell would be more suitable in a war film like "The Bridge on the River Kwai" than in a Canadian prison.
He then recommended to the Solicitor General:
I would recommend that you investigate the matter, and the destruction of those units.
The hon. member went on to talk about the women's prison at Kingston, a visit that none of us who went there will ever be able to erase from our memories. The hon. member said this in his report:
Nobody can visit the women's prison in Kingston without leaving it with the feeling of being morally impoverished by the visit... One finds in this institution students arrested for drug trafficking, inmates guilty of acts of violence ... in short, people with extremely different mentalities.
In view of this great disparity and the atmosphere of potential tension which exists, at the very least, life must be almost unbearable for many inmates of this institution.
Those words of the hon. member who accompanied us on this special study tour reflect, I think, the feeling of the majority, if perhaps not all, of the members of the special sub committee. During the study we came to appreciate the difficulty that the Solicitor General and his officials face, a difficulty that all of those in the Canadian penintentiary system face, namely that of trying to balance, on the one hand, the need for the protection of Canadian society and the right of the Canadian people to the maximum amount of personal security and, on the other hand, the goal of rehabilitation, realizing that some day those inmates may be returned to Canadian society. It is in society's interests as well as the interests of the inmates that they be returned to society in a frame of mind, and equipped with an outlook and with skills, that will make them citizens who play a very active and positive role and who will not return to a life of crime. That is the goal of rehabilitation, and it is an admirable aim.
The search so far has been in vain. We have had a policy of rehabilitation that has not worked. That, quite simply,

Mr. Speaker, is what we found. But trying to balance one against the other, we had to come down foremost on the side of ensuring the protection of the Canadian population. If you can meet both those aims, then you have achieved perhaps one of the most difficult quests in any society.
We learned from prison officials, as well as from talking to their counterparts in other countries, that there are no magic solutions. You cannot at one time ensure the safety of Canadian society and at the same time ensure that everyone will be rehabilitated and returned to society in a manner that makes them productive citizens, citizens who will not return to a life of crime. The recidivism rate running at over 80 per cent is alone proof of that statement. That is why we came to the conclusion that the emphasis must be first and foremost on the protection of the innocent population, people who are not behind bars since they have not committed any crime. We are obligated to ensure their safety and protection, their lives, their liberty, and their right to go about their daily living, not breaking any law but with security under the law. If there is some means whereby at the same time we bring about the rehabilitation of prisoners, it is also in the interests of society that we seek that means.
As we travelled about the country we conducted discussions in camera at three different levels. We talked with the administration of the prison, with the guards of the prison, and for the vast majority of the time with the prisoners themselves, with no guards present in the room. I recall vividly one scene where we were faced by "lifers", prisoners serving a life sentence, obviously for a capital crime. We were in a room with 20 of them and there were no guards nearby; that was one of the conditions we ourselves set. We did not want anybody listening in. We wanted them to be as free and open with us as they could, and they were, Mr. Speaker, I assure you.
It became apparent to us in our discussions with people at the three different levels that there exists, whether we like to admit it or not, an element within the population that is simply unable-unwilling perhaps, but certainly unable-to come to grips with personal problems and to make a positive contribution to society, and more basically, unable to live within the constraints of the law that is set down by society. These people represent a dangerous and incorrigible element.
I am sure most of us were brought up on the notions espoused in such movies as "Boys Town" with Spencer Tracy-all accolades to the contrary. Nevertheless there do exist such people as incorrigibles, people who are somewhat demented. It is a sad realization to come to, but any chance that these people will be safely and healthily returned to society simply does not exist.
I wish time would permit me to quote from the findings of other members of the sub-committee, Mr. Speaker. I filed a report, and a particularly moving report was filed by one of the co-chairmen, the hon. member for Louis-Heb-ert. As all hon. members know, she is a remarkable woman and has served in this House with great distinction. She went into that sub-committee with all the enthusiasm, dedication and compassion which we know her to have in abundance. Hon. members should take the time to read her report. She went into this study with an open mind, having had no previous experience, as was the case with other
June 30, 1976

members of the committee, and she reached the same conclusions we reached-that the present system does not work, that it does not allow for rehabilitation, that it does not provide the maximum amount of security for the Canadian people, and that all these goals must be pursued with more vigour.
Let me now turn from the sub-committee findings to the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Oxford. As he stressed last night, we are not talking here about a large number of people. We are talking about a very few cases of repeaters. We are talking about those convicted of high treason, or convicted of the stange crime in this day and age of piracy. These are people who obviously have shown they are not capable of living within society as we have set it up. We have established society and set up its rules, but these people have determined of their own will that they cannot or will not live within those constraints or those laws.
What we are saying to those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment is that if they so elect they may choose to be sentenced to death. Some may argue that technically you cannot sentence anyone to death, or a person cannot choose to be sentenced to death just after you have abolished capital punishment. There is another law still on the statute books which will not be affected by this bill, that comes under the jurisdiction of National Defence, which provides for the death penalty. It does not spell out in what way the death penalty will be carried out. It just says there shall be the death penalty. There are many bills passed by this House that do not spell out in chapter and verse how they will be carried out, but rather there follows the passage of a bill a set of regulations which allow for the interpretation of the bill and its being carried out.
Having visited prisons, I would argue that if a person chooses to be sentenced to death, perhaps having spent weeks and months living in horror, it may be a more compassionate thing to allow that person to make such a choice than to sentence him to a death that is surely more cruel and more inhumane, a sentence which would allow him to suffer the consequences of his actions by spending the rest of his life in prison. What I am saying is that if you have visited prisons, as we did, and you tell a man that he really is going to spend the rest of his days there, you will realize you are committing him to a sentence of death far more cruel and more outrageous than allowing him to decide to end his days on this earth. I would stress that I could only agree to this in terms that the sentence would be carried out in a way the governor in council would decide.
This brings me to the fourth amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Oxford, that the sentence to be pronounced against a person sentenced to death shall not be that he be hanged by the neck until he is dead, but in conformity with any humane method of execution the governor in council may establish or regulate.
Those of us who seek capital punishment propose that there are more humane methods than the admittedly outmoded method of hanging. All of us who propose the return of capital punishment, or at least its reinstitution, and we appeal to all hon. members for its reinstitution in
Capital Punishment
these particular cases, suggest there are more humane methods, such as my colleague who is a doctor has put forward. We should not continue with this system of hanging which admittedly is outdated.
All of us who support capital punishment, at the same time see no inconsistency in saying that we hope it will never have to be used. That is the very basis for having it. It offers a deterrent which may prevent some people from taking innocent lives. That is the reason for it, not for revenge or for getting even, and not for the purpose of inflicting some barbaric-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity given me by the House to complete my remarks, and I will attempt to do so briefly. Let me say simply that we have reached that point in society where we have to reconsider whether there should be capital punishment. A little over a week ago this House voted in principle that it wanted to do away with hanging. The hon. member for Oxford, who is an abolitionist, proposes that the bill should carry, but in certain particular circumstances capital punishment should still be allowed. All those who share in his compassion, be they retentionists or abolitionists, should support these amendments.
These amendments will allow a choice to the person we are committing to prison for the rest of his life, a sentence, I repeat very briefly, to a death far more cruel, more unusual and more inhumane than the termination of his life quickly and, given modern methods, with dignity.
Those are the reasons put forward by the hon. member for Oxford as an abolitionist in proposing these amendments. As a retentionist I second these amendments, sharing as I do his belief that whatever the decision of this House we must foremost ensure the Canadian people that their basic right to life is being given the maximum protection and, secondly, that if we are to have capital punishment there are more modern and humane ways of carrying that out. Thirdly, when you sentence a man to life, that is, to spend the rest of his days in one of those institutions we call penitentiaries, and really there are no words to describe adequately the nightmare they are, you are imposing upon that individual a far worse punishment than by allowing him to elect to end his days on this earth.


Mr. Stanbury:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) would permit a question?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Yes.


Richard J. Stanbury: Let me say first, Mr. Speaker, how moving the speech of the hon. member has been, and how impressed I am as one member with his sincerity and his humanity in supporting the motions of his colleagues, although they raise some rather difficult questions. It does seem to me that the amendments suggest death by choice or, as the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth might call

June 30, 1976
Capital Punishment
it by analogy, suicide on demand. What I would really like to know in trying to assess this suggestion is whether the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, as a declared reten-tionist, would feel that he could support the bill now before the House if the amendments moved by his colleague were accepted?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, I might first say that the question posed by the hon. member is one that he might wish to have put to the mover, the hon. member for Oxford, who has said that as an abolitionist he could not support the bill if these amendments are not carried. I must say that I will want to know the outcome of the other amendments being put forward by other members of my party before looking at the over-all bill and making that decision. If only these amendments were to carry I would have to say the bill does not, in my estimation, go far enough to protect the innocent lives of our Canadian population. However, recognizing what happened here a week ago with the vote, and the potential outcome being the same, I would say to the hon. member that, recognizing I was in the minority then and may be in the minority again, I would feel so much better about the bill being passed with these amendments, even though I cannot support it. This is the way I think Canadian people would generally feel.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on motions Nos. 4, 9, 18 and 38 I should first of all like to draw the attention of the House to the actual clauses in Bill C-84 that are affected by these motions.
Motion No. 4 affects the clause in Bill C-84 dealing with treason. As I read my colleague's motion he in effect is saying that some person convicted of treason as now defined in Bill C-84 should have the option, instead of accepting imprisonment for life, of accepting the sentence of death. In the case of motion No. 9 my colleague suggests the same option in the case of someone convicted of piracy. In motion No. 18 it is suggested that the option be open to a person who is guilty of either first degree murder or second degree murder. This is something I wish to go into more fully. I see that my colleague is in the House and perhaps he might be prepared to accept an amendment with regard to motion No. 18.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, motion No. 38 deals with a subject about which I think all of us in the House are undoubtedly concerned, that is, assuming the death penalty should continue would it be wise to choose a different form of execution than hanging. I think I am fairly safe in saying that virtually all members of the House would be sympathetic to a more humane method of execution than hanging.
I mention this because I think that unfortunately when we deal with this very serious question of life and death, and whether or not capital punishment should continue, people become overly emotional about the form of execution. In a sense I think abolitionists often play up this emotion and make the noose virtually a symbol of capital punishment. That is why, if I may, I should like to say first of all that I support the position of my colleague in respect of motion No. 38 without any question.
I believe that if the death penalty is to continue in this country it would be wise to change the method of execu-

tion and, as my colleague suggests, let it be set by the governor in council through regulation. This is not a unique suggestion. My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), indicated that under the National Defence Act the death penalty is prescribed in certain cases. I should like to direct the attention of the House to section 175 of the National Defence Act. It states:
The execution of a punishment of death under this Act, whether the sentence was passed in Canada or elsewhere, shall be as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the regulations may make provision for ...
Then the custody and treatment of the person under sentence in that case are specifically set out. In short, motion No. 38 suggests that in the Criminal Code we should have the same provisions with regard to the method of execution as now exist in the National Defence Act.
Perhaps I might go back and touch in order again the motions to which I have referred. The reason I have drawn the attention of the House to the clauses dealt with in these motions, particularly motion No. 4 and motion No. 9, is that I believe it is important that we honestly realize that the bill before us, Bill C-84, is not an abolitionist bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to emphasize this because in effect I think there has been a misrepresentation in this regard to the House and certainly to the Canadian public.
I should like to draw attention to the speech given at second reading by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in support of Bill C-84. At page 13088 of Hansard for May 3, 1976, the Solicitor General said:
... if we attack this question objectively, then we must, from a logical, ethical and public policy point of view, conclude that capital punishment must be abolished once and for all.
At the conclusion of the minister's speech as recorded at page 13091, he stated:
When we examine the question objectively, and when we study the evidence closely, logically, and with an open mind, then the conclusion we must reach, if we are to discharge our responsibility to the Canadian people as legislators of sound and effective laws, is that capital punishment must be abolished in Canada now, and that this bill should be passed.
I suggest that many people who have voted on this bill that is before us took the minister's words literally, and voted believing they were voting for Canada to become an abolitionist state. They had every reason to believe that was the case. Did the minister point out that while he proposes abolition there are already in existence in the National Defence Act, so far as I can make out, 36 separate offences which call for the death penalty if someone is convicted? When we look at some of these offences I would say that we would become the laughing stock of the nation in that we pretend on the one hand that we are an abolitionist nation, that by passing this bill somehow capital punishment is rubbed out totally, when on the other hand there are 36 other offences for which the dealth penalty is still the prescribed punishment.
Let us look at some of the things one could be executed for in this country and that the Solicitor General is doing nothing about. I would refer hon. members to section 65(h) of the National Defence Act. It states:
June 30, 1976

Every person who
(h) when acting as sentry or lookout, leaves his post before he is
regularly relieved or sleeps or is drunk; is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if he acted traitorously, shall suffer death ...
Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, it is well that that provision does not apply to this House. Again subsection (g) states that every person who improperly occasions false alarms is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if he acted traitorously, shall suffer death. Subsection (f) states that every person who, without authority, alters or interferes with any identification or other signal is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if he acted traitorously, shall suffer death. I could go on to cite the other 33 offences that are covered by this section of the act relating to the death penalty, but I would only be substantiating the point I am making.
I believe that in asking that this bill be passed the minister misrepresented the facts in the way I have indicated in order to win support. I would ask members to reconsider their position. If they, in sincerity, were hoping that this nation would become totally abolitionist, that is not the result of this legislation.
I should like to return now to more specific comments in respect of the motions before us. As I have stated, motion No. 4 deals with treason. While I am generally sympathetic with my colleague's proposal I should like to ask him-and if he is in the House he might reply to my question- whether he has thought of the possibility, if in the case of treason we gave the option of imprisonment for life or a sentence of death, there would be the danger or the possibility, particularly if we were dealing with some type of terrorist, that that person would opt for death feeling that somehow he might become a hero if he died in the name of whatever cause he was trying to support? We should consider that possibility in respect of the suggestion the hon. member makes here.
I would also like to mention, with respect to both motions Nos. 4 and 9 as they read at present, that in my understanding the person would have this option after conviction. He will have gone through the judicial process and presumably the jury would have found him guilty. If I read these two suggested motions correctly, presumably the judge would turn to the convicted person and ask "Do you wish me to prescribe the sentence of imprisonment for life or death?" In that connection I would ask the hon. member if he thinks that is the proper time at which the option should be put to the person charged?
Would it not be better-and I am not saying it is-to have the charged man asked whether he wishes to have his eventual sentence be imprisonment for life or death at the time when the trial is initiated? At that point I think all concerned, the jury, the judge, and the courts of appeal, know that they have either a case which will result in imprisonment for life or in death. That would be the more significant time at which to give the option to the charged person rather than after his conviction. I say that because I would hate to see the House pass a measure which would inadvertently be like euthanasia.
It may well be that after a person is convicted he would ask for the death penalty because he is in a state of
Capital Punishment
depression or despair, but then upon reflection he would ask for life imprisonment. On the other hand, I think the person charged could weigh the two alternatives more objectively, with the advantage of counsel, at the time of the initial trial rather than waiting until he is convicted.
If I may, I should like to comment on motion No. 18, and again put a question to my colleague. As I read it, the present wording would affect not only first degree murderers but also second degree murderers. I wonder if my colleague would consider a subamendment which would make it clear that only in the case of first degree murderers this option would be given, and that those who are guilty or convicted of second degree murder would have no opportunity to opt for the death penalty as opposed to imprisonment for life. I say that because if we read the full section-and a clear distinction is made between the two types of murder-we would find it rather inconsistent to have both first and second degree murder treated the same so far as the suggested option is concerned.
The wording that I had in mind would be at the beginning of subclause (b). We would insert the words, "in the case of first degree murder" so that it would read; "In the case of first degree murder for a second offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for life or, if the convicted person so chooses, be sentenced to death".
I believe the motions that have been put before us are particularly helpful. I hope that others will join in the debate on these motions because I was frankly disappointed at the rather preemptory treatment given the bill in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Those who were present at the committee meetings know that the first step of the government after expediting the bill to the committee was to say that we would hear no witnesses other than the minister himself, which I think is totally inconsistent with a bill that is so controversial and with measures to which I would say 80 per cent of the Canadian public object. First the government says it will refer the bill to committee for full study, and then right off the bat government members use their voting majority to require that no witnesses be asked to appear before the committee. I say this was most unfortunate.
Again that majority was used to terminate the deliberations of the committee, and that is why the committee reported on Monday of this week. I believe that that is one reason why those who are concerned about this measure and those who feel that the bill, not only in its intent but also in its specific provisions as these amendments would alter it, is inadequate, have no alternative but to speak now at the report stage in the House and make their anxiety felt. In that connection I think there is considerable questioning among the public as to why various members have voted in the House in the way they have. I hope that during the report stage, and certainly at the third reading stage of this bill, members who, for some reason or other, have confused their constituents as to their voting pattern would try to put on the record why they happened to vote in the way they did or, to put it mildly, have voted in such a way as to create great surprise among those who elected them in the last election to sit in the House.
I notice the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) is in the House today. I read an article in the Hamilton Spectator which referred to the hon. member and

June 30, 1976
Capital Punishment
mentioned that the hon. member sent a letter to a constituent in which he stated:
I do believe that criminals convicted of the murder of policemen should receive the maximum penalty which is capital punishment.
The article implies that many people are now questioning why that hon. member happened to vote for abolition in support of the government bill. I believe that is an example-


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I am rather shocked that the hon. member, like the reporter, is reading my mail of one and a half years ago written at a time when I returned from the funeral of two policemen in Moncton and pointed out to my constituent that I supported the law as it existed. As the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) could tell you, I have lived that way since I was eight years old. I have always been a law abiding citizen and an abolitionist, but if the retentionists carry the vote and that becomes the law, I will certainly support the law. I resent that being brought up by the hon. member, who should be more intelligent.


Mr. Kaplan:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At the conclusion of my remarks I will be very pleased to hear the hon. member's question and to answer it.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: The reporter withdrew; why don't you?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am pleased the hon. member has tried to clarify the article which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator. May I mention that the other quote appears in the same article. When the hon. member was questioned as to why he had taken the action he had, his answer was:
I had only been in parliament at that time (at the time of the letter) for six weeks. I was very new at the game.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I think the hon. member should be extremely careful when quoting parts of a conversation which he did not hear himself. The reporter was not able to give me the name of the party whose letter he had, but since he had the date, I was able to go back in my files and discover that it was indeed January 22, 1975, we were talking about, and not January of this year.
In addition to that, the remark of the hon. member at the end referred to something I said about having written a letter when I had been in parliament only six weeks. It had nothing to do with my purposes, decisions, or anything else. I think the hon. member is complicating the matter further. I do not want to be as rude or as evasive as he is being by making accusations, but I think it is quite improper for a person who comes from a strange town a great distance away, after reading a strange newspaper, to make comments about a strange writer and a strange letter he has not seen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) that his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would like to say to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) that his point is not a point of order or a question of privilege, but a personal disagreement, and I would suggest that we get back to the terms of the amendment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know that there are many who wish to speak this afternoon, and I will simply conclude my remarks-


An hon. Member:: You have.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -by stating that I would be pleased to hear from my colleague with regard to the three questions I raised concerning motions Nos. 4, 9 and 18, and perhaps if it is in order, after the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) puts his question to me, my colleague could be given the opportunity to answer the three questions I raised during the course of my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Due to the fact that the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) has already spoken in this debate, he needs unanimous consent to answer the questions. Does the hon. member for Oxford have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: He will follow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggested that certain prisoners who have committed serious crimes ought to be given the choice of life imprisonment or capital punishment. I could hardly believe what I heard when he said that, and I want to ask him if he does not consider that a form of suicide and the kind of immorality which should not be condoned by the laws of Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I believe if the hon. member had heard my remarks in full he would know that that question was raised, and I said in reviewing the motions of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), which provide for this alternative option in the case of persons convicted of various offences such as treason, piracy, and first and second degree murder that the timing of the option is most important. If a person has that option at the initiation of his trial, I think that is much more removed from any suggestion of a suicidal type of state enforced approach than if the option is taken at the time of conviction when the person is in a state of depression or despair. Perhaps at that low point the prisoner might say that he would rather be put to death than be sentenced to life imprisonment. That was really the point I was making, and that is the basis of one of my questions to the mover of the motion. Just what is his attitude with regard to the timing of this option? Should the option be at the beginning of the trial, or should it be operative at the conclusion of the trial when the man is convicted?
June 30, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the hon. member for Oxford going to answer the questions now?


Mr. Halliday:: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer them now if that is your pleasure.
I appreciate the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), brought these three questions before the House because they are indeed significant. In attempting to answer those three questions I should first state very succinctly what my two objectives are in moving this amendment. The first objective is to provide a form of protection for the public against second offenders, those who commit treason and those who commit piracy. The House might wish to add to those. My second reason for moving this amendment is to provide some form of punishment which is adequate for the protection of society and which at the same time is as humane as possible. It was with that in mind that I chose to offer as an alternative death by some means other than hanging, at the choice of the convicted person. That is my prelude in answer to the three questions.
The first question related to the matter of punishment for treason, and the hon. member for York-Simcoe raised the question as to whether a hero complex or a martyrdom complex might be produced. I accept the fact that this might happen, but I submit that if in fact the people of Canada, as appears to be the case, by a majority favour capital punishment, I cannot think that that same majority would look upon this as an endeavour on the part of a criminal to be a martyr because the people think that that should be the natural course of events anyway.
On the second point regarding the timing of the option a criminal has for deciding whether he wishes imprisonment for the balance of his natural life or death, I introduced this part of the amendment for the simple reason that I thought this was a humane option to offer. I recognize the fact that there are many ways this could be presented, and I welcome suggestions from hon. members as to how this might be put into action. I commend the hon. member for York-Simcoe for making this suggestion.
The hon. member suggested that possibly the prisoner could make his election before his trial. An alternative would be that he might make the election after the trial, and I think there should be provision to allow him to review the matter years later. I will leave that to hon. members to consider because each alternative has some merit, and none of them should be turned down out of hand.
The third question raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe related to-if I recall his question correctly, and perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong-the intent of motion No. 18, having to do with second offences. It was my intention in the wording of this, with the help I had from legal authorities, to have this apply to second offenders, whether they be second offenders for first degree murder or second degree murder. I hope that answers the questions of the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, those hon. members who we like to think grace and distinguish the fifth row on this side have a great spirit of camaraderie. Indeed there is some solidarity among us, but unlike some other sections of the House we
Capital Punishment
do not allow our camaraderie or our closeness to overcome legitimate differences of opinion. I have great respect for the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and his colleague on this occasion, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) and their views. I have considered the speeches both hon. members made in support of the thrust of this set of amendments, which I describe as death by choice. That would be the simple way I would refer to the basic intent of motion No. 4, which governs the thinking behind all the motions we are now considering.
Because I feel that a very important principle has entered into the debate, I feel that I would be remiss in doing my own duty not to make some comments with regard to death by choice. I thought the presentations both hon. members made reflected the deep sense of humanity and concern they bring to this issue. With respect to them, I feel at this point need to distinguish between the right of the state to take life and the right of the individual to take his own life, or to give instructions for his own life to be taken.
Let me put it this way. There is an important distinction to be made. I want my comments on these motions to be focused as sharply as possible so that the distinction between the right of the state to take life and the right of the individual to take his life should not be lost sight of or obscured by consideration of related issues.
Although the hon. member for Oxford did not spell it out in precise terms, I felt that his message, or rationale, was that the state did not have the right to take life, or that it should be of such restricted limitation as not to apply to the bill before the House. I suggest that the thrust of debate on Bill C-84, whether one is a retentionist or abolitionist, has been with respect to the usefulness of capital punishment as a deterrent. I understand that not many of us question the actual right of the state to take the life of a convicted criminal. Surely there cannot be any theological or moral argument to support the claim that the state has not the right to take that life. In this tortuous debate we are considering whether the state ought to exercise its right, and whether by so doing it would prevent crime or cure the escalation of crime about which members on all sides are concerned. I am dwelling on this point because I want to make it clear that I judge that the state possesses the right to take the life of a criminal convicted of capital murder.
I turn now to the right of the individual to take a life, including his own. The moral base underlying our thinking, thinking directed toward the common good of society, is that each individual has the right to life. That argument has been widely used in the abortion issue, but I will not go down that alley. I only say that the individual has the right to life, but an individual does not have the right to terminate his own life.
This leads us to the question of euthanasia, a question on which the hon. member for Oxford touched last night. Although the hon. member did not declare himself as a proponent of euthanasia, and I am sure he is not considering positive euthanasia, that is to say, steps taken to end a patient's life, he left the impression that because of his humanitarian concern for suffering it is his view that a

June 30, 1976
Capital Punishment
person may wish to take his own life. I interpreted the hon. member as saying that a criminal who faces 25 years in jail for murder, or the remainder of his life in jail for a second murder, should be allowed to terminate his own life by transferring the right to his own life to the state or to the representative of the state who would actually carry out the deed. The state would then end the life of that individual.
No matter how you look at it, you are considering an individual's surrender of his right to life; or, putting it more explicity, you are considering allowing an individual to end his own life. No matter how humanitarian the motive for allowing this might be, I have great reservations about the wisdom of bringing such a provision into the Canadian law. If such a motion were adopted as part of the bill and written into law, that first step which would allow an individual to take his own life would no doubt be followed by other, similar steps. One hon. member referred to this process as a kind of legalized suicide. I am most concerned about such legalized suicide. I am most concerned about the euthanasia aspect of the motion.
If this motion were included in the law, it would not be long before other groups would come to this House claiming for humanitarian reasons that euthanasia is a logical step forward for our society. All of us know of people who endure great suffering during their terminal illness, and they or their families, with the best of motives, want to end it all. I have no doubt at all that no matter what we decide with respect to this motion, before long this House will be asked to decide whether enthanasia shall become part of our law. The publicity surrounding the Karen Quinlan case in the United States is one illustration of the intensity of people's feelings on this subject. Several legislative assemblies in the United States have provided for the enactment of what is called the living will. Under such provision, a person may say in his will that if he reaches a certain point in illness, he gives permission for his own life to be taken.
There is no doubt in my mind that many people in society think euthanasia would be a step forward. I will not indulge in any deeper consideration of euthanasia, because I think I have illustrated how accepting motion No. 4 could open the door to euthanasia.
I will close on this note. The moral base of human life is extremely complicated. It will become much more complicated because of the distinctions that have to be made between positive euthanasia and negative euthanasia. Surely we as legislators would not want to be in the position of holding physicians accountable for the maintenance of an artificial life support system merely to keep a person alive when there is a natural decline and where a person should be able to go with dignity through the physical motions leading to death.
I am sure the hon. member for Oxford and other members have encountered situations whereby the artificial prolongation of life under the guise of humanity has been harmful to the patient. Therefore a distinction has to be made between negative and positive euthanasia; negative euthanasia being not doing something that artificially prolongs a life, which in my judgment is permissible and

ought to be within the domain of physicians to decide, positive euthanasia the taking of a deliberate step to end a person's life.
I am using the illustration of negative and positive euthanasia to show the complexity of the morality involved. Taking motion No. 4 and allowing death by choice to become part of our law would be a dangerous step. It would be dangerous in writing the law of this country to create that precedent whereby an individual would be given the legal right to end his life when in fact he does not have the moral right to do so.
That is the thrust of my argument in trying to make the distinction between the right of the state to take a life, a right that I maintain the state has, as against the right of an individual, and I maintain the individual does not have that right.
The other parts of these several motions deal with life imprisonment for a second offence, treason, piracy and other heinous crimes. In deciding the validity of that side of the hon. member's set of motions, that brings us back to our fundamental reason for voting the way we did on second reading. During the report stage as well as on third reading each of us will have to consider whether we believe that at this moment the right of the state to take the life of a convicted murderer ought to be maintained.
The more I have reflected on this question in the agonizing way that I and other members of this House have done, the more I have maintained my conclusion that the state ought to maintain that right. It ought to maintain it at this moment in our history because of the prematurity for total abolition.
It is to be regretted that such a serious subject such as this is being rushed through the House and the Committee in such a heavy handed fashion. The manner in which the subject of abolition is being dealt with does not do parliament credit. It cuts to the core of our feelings about life itself, safety in society, and the escalating crime rate. All of those things should have been recognized by the government as being far more important than rushing this through in order that it will not have to face up to the existing law. I will not continue on that line of argument. I advanced it on second reading. If circumstances arise, I will advance it again on third reading.
I conclude by saying that we are facing a most difficult situation as we go through many of these amendments. I appeal to all members to look beyond the immediacy of the motions before us and see how they truly enter into our own well considered interpretation of the validity of the bill and the wisdom of the government in maintaining the right of capital punishment at this moment in our history.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in connection with the amendments proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). He is to be congratulated on the presentation that he made to this House on his motions yesterday. The motions were well thought out.
I realize that the hon. member is an abolitionist. It must have involved some considerable soul searching on his part to bring forth these amendments. However, Mr. Speaker, he is a concerned individual. He is concerned about the safety of citizens in this country as well as the safety of
June 30, 1976

police and prison guards. I am not satisfied that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the government are concerned about the safety of this country.
I note with considerable interest some remarks that the Solicitor General is reported to have made to the John Howard Society in Ottawa on April 8 last. It is my understanding that he was asked whether the 25 year prison term was too harsh. Apparently his reply was to the effect that the object of the exercise was first to obtain the abolishment of capital punishment by providing the alternative of a life sentence, and the authorities would then work toward the reduction of that sentence once abolition had been achieved.


William Warren Allmand: That is not true.


Douglas Charles Neil: I hope that after I have completed my remarks the Solicitor General will rise on a point of order or question of privilege to clarify his position.


William Warren Allmand: I will send you a copy of the speech.


Douglas Charles Neil: I would welcome a copy of the speech.
I should also like to quote briefly from a report in the Hamilton Spectator of remarks made by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane). I assume it was after second reading of the bill that the hon. member was reported as saying:
Now that we've passed this bill we can move on to produce a more effective law and order bill.
It seems that if those remarks that are attributed to both these individuals are correct, the Solicitor General and the government have been less than honest with the citizens of Canada. I think it is important that, if the Solicitor General has a plan to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code some time after this bill passes, he should make this information available to this House and the public.
I am a retentionist; I voted for retention in 1973, I voted for it again on second reading of this bill a short time ago, but I have no hesitation in supporting these amendments of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). From observing the vote that took place on second reading, while it was proclaimed to be a free vote, I realize it certainly was not a free vote on the other side of the House. There is no doubt in my mind that the same situation will exist when we reach third reading stage, and that the bill will probably pass. For that reason I think it is important that we make whatever improvements we can to this bill, and I see the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Oxford in that light. I shall vote for these amendments but, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the bill.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) and I should like to compliment him on his presentation. He had the opportunity of travelling to various penitentiaries in Canada with a committee which observed at first hand the conditions that exist in the institutions, and he tabled a report afterwards. Two other reports were also tabled, one by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), who unfortunately is not with us to participate in the debate on
Capital Punishment
capital punishment, but I should like to quote briefly from her report which began:
It has been said time and again in the past that it was very difficult to "experience" the true climate of a penitentiary and understand all the pressures that seem to exist there.
Later she said:
During the 15 visits we made to the various penitentiaries across the nation, we could not help but notice the great lack of activity that exists in nearly all of these institutions.
And further:
Yet evidence that has been collected points to the fact that this inactivity and idleness are a constant problem and lie at the root of all penitentiary discontent and dissatisfaction.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was also a member of the committee that toured the penitentiaries, and he had this to say:
Though the committee travelled a great deal and discussed prison problems with a great many inmates, both staff and lay people, it is almost impossible to develop any kind of consensus about the obvious malaise in the system.
His report finished as follows:
I would like to go on record as saying I am most unhappy with what we found generally. We continue to operate maximum security institutions that are a disgrace to any civilized country and the continuing excuses that we haven't got the land, we haven't got the money to replace these archaic dungeons such as Prince Albert and the B.C. Penitentiary, are just no longer acceptable.
What these reports point out, and what the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth was pointing out, is that penitentiaries are inhumane; that the individuals who are confined to them for a long period of time become vegetables, people who are almost impossible to deal with. Yet these people who are sent to prison for a long period of time are people who have committed the most heinous crime of murder and, in my opinion, are deserving of capital punishment, but to the mind of the hon. member for Oxford deserve life imprisonment with the option he proposes.
It has been suggested that to allow the individual who has been sentenced to life imprisonment the option of asking the state to take his life is in fact suicide. I disagree with that, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that this option is in fact suicide. Suicide is the taking of one's own life. There is no question that the state has the right to take life under certain circumstances. Under these amendments the individual would not be taking his own life; he would be asking the state to take his life.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: A great distinction!


Douglas Charles Neil: A life that he has forfeited by committing murder. Mr. Speaker, to me this is not suicide. I do not see either how such an amendment can lead to euthanasia.


Mr. Cafik:: It is a subtle distinction not worth making.


Douglas Charles Neil: Euthanasia is a different situation entirely; it involves taking the life of an innocent person. In the case of euthanasia I am certain there would be a long drawn out debate in this House, much longer than the debate that has taken place on capital punishment over the years. I do not agree with the argument of the previous speaker that by passing these particular motions we would be opening the door to euthanasia.

June 30, 1976
Capital Punishment
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment on motion No. 38 which provides that the governor in council may by regulation establish a means other than hanging to effect or carry out the death penalty. It is unfortunate that during this debate and prior to the bill coming into the House the media used the symbol of the rope to try to encourage people to oppose the death penalty.
Retentionists, in the majority, are not asking that the death penalty be carried out by use of the rope. People are more humane than that. There are many, many ways that the death penalty could be effected in this day and age. It could be carried out by the administration of a drug or a rapid-acting poison in the food in some manner so that the individual would not know what had taken place. This is an amendment that all retentionists support, I think, and one that many abolitionists in the House should support, along with the other motions presented by the hon. member for Oxford.


Richard J. Stanbury: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Charles Neil: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Richard J. Stanbury: I asked the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) this same question. In expressing support for the death by choice, or suicide on demand, option, is the hon. member who has just spoken indicating that he would support the bill if that amendment were accepted by the House?


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question in the course of my speech. I indicated that I was a retentionist and I was concerned about the fact that the vote on third reading might go a certain way. I would therefore support this motion for the specific purpose of improving this particular bill. But having supported the motion and voted for it when it comes before the House for decision, I will vote against the bill regardless.


Richard J. Stanbury: Then would the hon. member explain to the House how this option or choice would be operative if his preference is carried out and the bill is defeated? How could a convicted murderer who has been executed have the choice that the hon. member wants to give him?


Douglas Charles Neil: I do not quite follow the hon. member's question. Is it that the person who had been executed would have the choice?


Richard J. Stanbury: If I understand the hon. member who has just spoken correctly, he expresses support for the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Oxford that provides that a person convicted of murder may have the choice of either hanging or not hanging, or being poisoned or not poisoned, or being put away quietly or not. I wonder how, if the bill is defeated and capital punishment is imposed, this option would be available to convicted murderers who, under those circumstances, would have been executed.


Douglas Charles Neil: I would hope that if the bill is defeated the government would bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide a more humane method of execution.


Richard J. Stanbury: I asked about the exercise of the option that the hon. member seems to support.


Douglas Charles Neil: I support the motion which gives the option to the individual which presumably, if the motion passes and the bill passes, will be effective. If the bill does not pass, of course we are back to the old situation where there is capital punishment in the case of murders of policemen, prison guards, and prison officials. As I say, I hope if we do go back to the old system the government will see fit to bring in an amendment to change the method of capital punishment.


Richard J. Stanbury: Then I take it that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I find it difficult to allow an interrogation of a speaker. Hon. members have the chance of getting together and I am sure they can do so outside the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few minutes of the House's time to say a few words on this particular set of amendments. First of all, I hope there is not one member of the House of Commons who does not admire the sincerity and conscientiousness of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), a medical doctor, in bringing forward this particular set of amendments. Certainly there should be no question or any nit-picking or quibbling with respect to the intention and the purpose behind the hon. member's amendments.
In case there is any member from Scarborough here today who may want to question me about my statements of support for the amendments, let me say quite bluntly that I had hoped that this whole bill would never be brought before the House. I had hoped we would not have to go through the exercise we are now going through, simply because I relied upon the undertaking and promise of the government made in 1973 that we would have another six year period of trial to see what effect the current law, had it been enforced, would have had in respect to criminal statistics in this country.
My purpose in speaking this afternoon is to indicate my support for these amendments. However, I have of course a qualification or condition in respect to my support. I hope that the bill is defeated, if not in its entirety certainly in some of the more critical and crucial clauses that are being dealt with on report stage. If that is not to be, then I wholeheartedly support the amendments put forward in such a sincere and conscientious manner by the hon. member for Oxford. I must admit that in saying this I think this is a second best approach, but nevertheless it is a better approach than anything I have yet heard from any member on the government side in regard to this question. This is why I am indicating my support for the amendments this afternoon. I do not intend to go through each one of them line by line; I think that has been properly done.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not rule me out of order if I refer to one matter which was in order when the hon. member who moved these amendments spoke, and this is

June 30, 1976

the question of compensation for the dependants of the victims of homicide. When the Solicitor General spoke, both in committee and in the House, he attempted to brush off this problem. First of all he said that the matter of compensation was not really a matter he had anything to do with because it more properly came under the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford); and in any event even the Minister of Justice did not have that much to do with it because it was a matter of provincial responsibility.
Unfortunately it is a matter of provincial responsibility. I think that if the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, and for that matter the whole of the ministry, got off their apathy some changes could be made in this regard. I think that the whole question of compensation for the victims of crime, especially compensation for the dependants of those who are murdered in this country, is a subject that should be discussed here at the national level.
I give the federal government some commendation in this matter since a slight contribution has been made by the government in respect to various provincial criminal injury compensation plans that exist across the country. I must say to you though, Sir, that the federal government had to be forced into taking that position. It was the provincial government of Ontario which in 1967 first came along with a compensation plan for the victims of crime and showed the way. They pioneered this field in this country, and it was only later, when the then federal government saw the wisdom of such a compensation plan, that the government got into it and changed a number of the then provincial statutes in this country to try to bring about more uniformity-I am not arguing with it-across the country for compensation for criminal injuries.
I think we would all agree that the various compensation plans which exist, administered at the provincial level and mainly paid for out of provincial taxpayers' funds, are simply not sufficient. I think this should be tied in with this whole package of Bill C-83 and Bill C-84, peace and security and capital punishment. If there is to be a package point of view, an over-view or a global view by the government in respect of this matter, one of the things it should address its mind to is the whole question of compensation to the dependants of murder victims. This really should be a federal responsibility. It is a very onerous financial yoke on the shoulders of the various provincial governments across the country, and the whole matter should really be handled by the federal government.
Certainly in most of the provinces there is now compensation for the dependants of murder victims, but this is a pretty piddling effort on the part of governments, provincial and federal. Because we are here dealing with a capital punishment provision and amendments to the Criminal Code, I must merely say to this particular minister that with his jurisdiction in respect of the Criminal Code and law enforcement agencies I do not see how he can escape or evade his responsibilities by not getting into this field as well, and at least exerting some pressure on his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), so that this matter can be clarified and, hopefully, taken over by the federal government. At the very least the ratio of federal grants or contributions to the various provincial funds should be drastically increased.
Capital Punishment
I merely point out to hon. members that I have not been an advocate of capital punishment in this country based solely on economic grounds; by no means. I merely say this to you, that we are talking here about substituting life imprisonment, 25-year prison terms or 15-year prison terms, for capital punishment. I merely ask members of this House who are here this afternoon whether they have thought of the cost to the taxpayers that such prison terms entail? Are we really not crossing something somewhere along the line, and are we not being misguided in our efforts when we suggest the expending of huge amounts of taxpayers' funds looking after those who commit the crimes, when we contribute darn little to the dependants of the victims of those crimes?
I merely suggest that, if we want to get down to a dollars and cents approach, which I admit is not necessarily the right one, as hon. members vote in respect of these particular amendments and this bill in its entirety they should do just one thing-compare what it costs the taxpayers of this country to house and look after those who commit these crimes with what the government contributes in relation to compensation to the dependants of the victims of those very same crimes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to an order made yesterday, Tuesday, June 29, 1976, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. At the same time the divisions on motions Nos. 9, 18 and 38 stand deferred.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Those of us who have attempted to propose amendments at the report stage of this bill have been very appreciative of the hard work, the long hours, and the great efforts of the gentlemen at the Table as well as of the parliamentary counsel and other draftsmen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 30, 1976
Capital Punishment


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I must admit that motion No. 35, standing in my name, which I first submitted to the parliamentary draftsmen for submission to this House as an amendment at report stage, somehow or other got lost in the shuffle. At a very late hour yesterday morning, before the 12 noon deadline, I realized it had not been reprinted in the Order Paper. I therefore got after the parliamentary counsel who very hurriedly got to work and redrafted the matter, and it appears now as motion No. 35 standing in my name. On sober second thought the parliamentary draftsmen contacted me. As a result I find that the amendment is a bit long. There are parts of it which are quite redundant and unnecessary and should not be included, in the draftsmen's point of view. As well, there should be three small lines at the very beginning in relation to the heading. In no way does this change the operative words. With your permission, Sir, and with the unanimous consent of the House, I would seek to amend my motion No. 35 so that it would read:
That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by (a) adding immediately after line 17 at page 8 the following new clause 21:
"21. The heading preceding section 669 and section 669 of the said Act
are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'Sentence of Death
669. The sentence to be pronounced against a person who is sentenced to death shall be that he shall be executed by drug or gas for euthanasia'."
As you will see, that deletes three paragraphs in respect of the matter and adds three inconsequential lines at the very beginning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). In looking at the suggested change it appears it is not a change in the substance of the amendment, but is merely putting things into order, and making the amendment much easier to fit into the bill. Is it agreed that the correction be made?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not object to the hon. member's request to
reword his motion. After all, he did file it originally in time. However, I wonder if he does not mean "after line 18" instead of "after line 17"? But I rise mainly to re-assert the caveat I entered earlier today, namely that I should like to raise a point of order about Motion No. 35 as a whole. As for changing its wording in the Order Paper, I certainly give consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This means it would be after line
17	which comprises the words "in a probation order".


Stanley Howard Knowles: It should be after line 18.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It should be added immediately after line
18	on page 8. The hon. member is perfectly correct. I cannot count and the draftsman cannot count. That is the problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so agreed that the changes will be made accordingly.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 7.


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that some of the members who would want to participate in the debate on this item and any others that might be called today would like to leave this afternoon. I feel members of the House would be very happy to accommodate them. We hope this is an example of the co-operation we will have in the future. Therefore, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council that we should call it six o'clock with unanimous consent at this time. I do so call it six o'clock and wish everyone in this House a very long, restful, and enjoyable weekend on the occasion of our national holiday.
This House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 5, 1976