1976-05-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering the enormous decrease in the employment level in the textile industry in Canada and considering that this is one of the most important industries, in particular in the eastern part of the country because of the policy concerning textile imports which affect our own jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That this House urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to take position openly in favour of the Canadian people who are in the textile industry and to propose to the House a new set of regulations governing textile imports, the first objective being to protect jobs in Canada and have Canadians consume Canadian rather than foreign products, so that our own investments are protected by our legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the massive use of chemical insecticides in eastern Canada, especially in Quebec, to control the spruce budworm thus seriously threatening the ecological balance and giving rise to disastrous effects since the infestation of our forests by the budworm is increasing in spite of all the
efforts made, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House discuss at once that problem and order that a thorough study be made and published on present conditions to take the necessary decisions to preserve the environment while controlling that evil by other means such as biological insecticides.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR, MR. ENDERS, AND MR. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency and His Excellency Thomas Enders, Ambassador of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Following yesterday's cabinet meeting the Minister of National Defence said on four occasions in the House that he would be making a statement today on the LRPA contract. Our understanding now is that no such statement will be made. I should like to find out just what profound reason has forced the minister to break that commitment. I should like the Prime Minister to tell the House whether he was directly a party to yesterday's decision and is the decision
95568-27%

Oral Questions
taken yesterday, which the Minister of National Defence said he would announce today, now under review by the government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, essentially, what happened is this: the financing of the purchase of the long-range patrol aircraft from Lockheed was planned with the banks acting as intermediaries. We heard over the weekend that the banks could not put this financing together and the government is presently looking at other methods of proceeding with its plan to participate in NATO and other general defence areas with the purchase of the long-range patrol aircraft.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government has changed its mind yet again on this matter between yesterday and today. Can the Prime Minister say whether a decision was taken yesterday that the government itself would provide interim financing on this matter, and whether that decision taken yesterday, the announcement of which was promised today, is now again under review?


Mr. Fairweather:: It is in escrow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of finding the necessary funds for purchasing this aircraft, it was decided by cabinet yesterday that the government would try alternative schemes to borrowing money from the banks. Such schemes have not been produced yet. We are still looking at the proposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Was the statement the Minister of National Defence promised to make today simply to be a statement that the government was looking at other means of interim financing, or-and I am sorry to repeat myself but we have not had an answer-had a decision been taken yesterday to the effect that the government itself would provide the interim financing on this matter? If that decision was taken, was the Prime Minister himself party to it and has there now been a change in that decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the decision had been that the government would provide the interim financing in ways which had to be arrived at and put together. That has not been done yet.


Charles Joseph Clark: So that we might put a stop to what is rapidly becoming a Marx Brothers comedy on the other side-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -can the Prime Minister tell us why the government was in a position to make a decision yesterday about an announcement, or why the minister said that a sufficient but firm decision had been taken that there would be an announcement today, and now there is not to be an announcement. What has changed overnight?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should realize that to put together a package of a few hundred million dollars is not as easy as he assumes.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: How about smiling Jim Richardson? Did he think it was easy?


Mr. Paproski:: Where is he, back on the reservation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, either the opposition wants a serious discussion of this subject or they do not. If they do,
I suggest they should listen; if they do not they will continue interrupting.


Walter David Baker: I cannot believe my ears.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what changed overnight?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my answer a few minutes ago, the government is determined to live up to its commitment to NATO and our other partners, and to proceed with the purchase of the long-range patrol aircraft.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because of our restraint program, Mr. Speaker, the decision was made-


Walter David Baker: Here is the Defence Minister now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are you still smiling, Jim?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should wait for a supplementary question.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REQUEST FOR TABLING ASSURANCE OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF VIABILITY OF COMPANY
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence repeated the commitment of the Prime Minister to table assurances by the United States government about the economic viability of Lockheed Corporation. Will the Prime Minister now table these assurances so that this House can make a careful assessment of how solid the ground is for whatever decision the government ultimately makes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I missed part of the question. If it concerns the purchase of the long-range patrol aircraft from the Lockheed aircraft company, let me say we told the House that when the deal is signed, sealed and delivered, the government would table the relevant documents in the House. I am trying to get the opposition to understand that it had become apparent over the weekend that the money which was supposed to be forthcoming from the Canadian banks will not be forthcoming.


An hon. Member:: They are smart.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that the hecklers on the other side are indicating we should not buy this long-range patrol aircraft.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: You will not get away with that one.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would rather be a heckler than a hyena.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of some hon. members, they are both.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON BANKS WOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN FINANCING
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of National Defence. I would like to point out that this side of the House does not object to cabinet ministers looking foolish, either singly or collectively, but this has reached the stage where they are making the country look foolish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Will the minister inform the House if the Canadian banks backed out because of the financial risks involved with Lockheed, or because they were uneasy about the government's apparent readiness to circumvent the Financial Administration Act?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations were between the banks and the Lockheed Company. Therefore, it would be for either the banks or the Lockheed Company to explain why they backed out.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON SOME CABINET MEMBERS ALLEGEDLY AGAINST GOVERNMENT FINANCING
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put this question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In answering, he might tell us if that contract has been signed, sealed and taken out of escrow because of the well-known objections of some of the cabinet against government financing of the Lockheed deal which are based on the fact that if Lockheed goes bankrupt at the worst possible time, just before completion of the 18 aircraft, it is true that the Canadian taxpayers will have paid some $375 million and have nothing to show for it.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this question is very hypothetical. It is obvious that if Lockheed were ever to go bankrupt we could consider various possibilities to make sure that the contract is completed. We must consider that Lockheed is not a small company, that Lockheed has some very important defence contracts with the U.S. government which would surely look after its own interests. In the eventuality of a contract from the Canadian government, we would see to it that we get the best guarantees from the U.S. government in order that our interests be protected. Having said this, we do not have for the moment any contract with Lockheed which would prevent us from putting an end to this project under its present form.
Oral Questions


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBILITY OF FINANCING WITH PUBLIC FUNDS-ALLEGED FAILURE OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO GIVE GUARANTEE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. If the banks, which are experienced financial institutions, find that this particular $1 billion deal is something they do not want to assist or take part in, why does the government not take this advice, or does the government propose to finance this particular deal out of public funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot interpret the feeling of the banks as has the hon. member. I was not at the negotiations with them. I understand the reason they do not want to finance this particular deal is that they do not feel they have the same type of guarantee from the Lockheed Company as the United States banks have from the Lockheed Company. The hon. member is free to draw from their refusal the inference he wishes. I cannot speak for them.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is it not also a fact that the United States government has failed to give the guarantees sought for in respect of this particular deal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the United States government is concerned, they have been very forthcoming and co-operative with the Canadian government. They, of course, have not been asked for any form of financial assistance. The guarantees they have given are of a different order. It is one of seriousness in their support of their intention to buy from Lockheed and to see that Canadians are treated just as well as they, the United States government, are treated should some failure occur in the Lockheed industry. Certainly, the United States government has given us every cause to proceed.


U420) LOCKHEED CONTRACT-SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE TO &quot;ORION&quot;
Francis Andrew Brewin: In view of all these circumstances and the fact that the option to purchase these Orion aircraft has, I presume, expired, will the government, bearing in mind that the role of the Orion is one which is completely out of line with the defence policy announced by the government a few years ago, reopen the whole subject and consider whether refitting the Argus and perhaps purchasing Dash-7 aircraft at half the price of the Orion deal does not constitute an option which should be taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has put forward a possible course of action should we not proceed with the LRPA Lockheed deal. I am explaining to him that we are now in the process of trying to follow up yesterday's cabinet decision to see whether we can proceed with the Lockheed deal without the help of the banks. Using the hypothesis that we should not succeed, we should consider other alternatives such as those suggested by members of the House.

Oral Questions


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADIAN BANK LOAN NOT USED TO PAY DEBTS IN UNITED STATES
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister reassure the House that the money that could be advanced by a consortium of Canadian banks will not be used by Lockheed to reimburse debts to the American government, but rather for implementing the eventual contract that could be made between Canada and the United States? In other words, did Canada get a formal assurance that money that might be advanced eventually will be used only for the purposes of the contract and not for the reimbursement of debts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member on this point, since the money earmarked for this eventual contract would not come from Canadian banks.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-AMOUNT OF BANK LOAN AND INTEREST RATE
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to put another supplementary question. What is the amount of money and the interest rate considered?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just explained to the hon. member that it is now excluded that the banks finance the undertaking; therefore, no amount of money or interest rate is under consideration.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the minister told the House, and I quote-
The CLC has been and I think will be in the future co-operating with the government and with the business representatives on the Canadian Labour Relations Council in reforming and changing some of the institutions which we have found not to be working too satisfactorily... I am referring to the free collective bargaining system.
Since Mr. Morris has referred to the CLRC as a "Mickey Mouse" institution, is it still the position of the minister that the CLRC will fulfil the reform of the economic order which the CLC envisages for labour, government and business interests?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I do not
believe the hon. member is quoting me correctly in the context within which the question was asked by the labour critic for the Conservative Party. That hon. member expressed concern about the emphasis on the change of institutions and I indicated that the CLRC, with which labour co-operated, was endeavouring to change the insti-

tution of free collective bargaining and that was the context in which the answer was given.
To answer the question in terms of my own views as to whether labour is going to participate in some tripartite fashion, perhaps it is too early yet to say whether it will be through the Canada Labour Relations Council, but the manifesto issued the day before yesterday clearly indicates that labour itself does wish to participate more fully with government in social and economic decision-making. We in the government have been encouraging such a position and we interpret that as a hopeful sign.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To press the matter a little further, the special committee of deputy ministers set up to advise the cabinet on post control policies reportedly wants to promote tripartite talks on economic efficiency and productivity. Can the minister advise the House what form these tripartite talks will take and the role to be played by both himself and his department, given Mr. Morris' predilection for the leaders of governments, especially this government and industry.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could best indicate the form that the talks will take by repeating what has already been said in the House. It is our hope that the Prime Minister and certain members of the government will be meeting with the CLC some time in June; the precise date is yet to be determined. We will no doubt be discussing the recent manifesto and position with respect to post controls and other items that will be developed by the government prior to that time as matters for discussion. Other colleagues in the government are carrying on and will be carrying on discussions with the business community over the course of the next month or so.


PARTICIPATION OF LABOUR IN FINDING METHOD OF AVOIDING STRIKES
Robert Muir: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The anti-inflation white paper indicated that the CLRC had been established to improve labour-management relations, including the critical aspect of strikes in essential services. Will the minister advise what progress has been made in resolving the problem of strikes in essential services and how he intends to reach such a solution in conjunction with labour, since its withdrawal from the CLRC seems assured for at least three years?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in the House, the CLC has not resigned from the Canada Labour Relations Council. It has withdrawn. The president of the CLC himself has emphasized that distinction. If and when he feels it is appropriate, since his option is open by the CLC withdrawing rather than resigning, it will be up to him to rejoin. In the meantime certain things have been accomplished by this body. For example, there is the broader based bargaining concept which hopefully will reduce the incidence of strikes both in essential services and the private sector generally. This concept was endorsed and agreed upon both by labour and by management through the aegis of
May 18, 1976

the Canada Labour Relations Council at a time when labour was participating.
I would also indicate that we hope to have discussions of this nature on a broader basis in the context of the discussions that we are having in June with the Canadian Labour Congress. I imagine this question will be brought up along with other matters across the whole broad front of social and economic considerations.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about Canadian ratification of the United Nations covenant on human rights which is now ten years old. He replied that he had sent a telegram to the last of the provinces requesting agreement to this ratification. I wonder whether he would now report on any answer to that telegram and confirm whether or not Canada can now finally ratify that covenant?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that consultations with all provinces have now been completed and that Canada's instruments of accession to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the international convention on civil and political rights and to the latter's optional protocol will be deposited with United Nations headquarters in New York tomorrow, Wednesday, May 19.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I just add that our becoming party to these extremely important international human rights instruments will enable us to play a still more active role internationally in the human rights field and will moreover strengthen our credibility in urging other states also to become parties and to implement their provisions.



CRIMINAL CODE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Everyone knows my view respecting capital punishment for murder. The bill that is before the House, on which we can get no answers while it is before us, provides not only for abolition of capital punishment for murder, but added thereto as well is abolition of capital punishment for high treason, for killing or attempting to kill Her Majesty, and other offences such as using force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or of a province. In view of the security situation at the Olympics,
Oral Questions
which must be serious when the estimated expenditure by Canada is to be some $90 million, and this would indicate that security there is regarded as very insecure, will the Prime Minister consider removing these sections from the bill that is before the House, namely Bill C-84, because to remove the punishment for offences to which I have referred could not be but an inducement to the commission of lawlessness during the Olympics?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am passing this on most seriously as I know that many members are deeply concerned that those sections regarding treason and the violent offences should not be dealt with at this time, but the law should remain as it is now in that regard until December 31, 1977.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the number of various amendments which can be proposed when this matter reaches the committee would include the one suggested by the right hon. member. I put it to him that many abolitionists in general would be retentionists in particular, and this is the case with much of the correspondence I have received from people who do not like capital punishment but feel it should be kept in this or that case. In the case of the right hon. gentleman, he is concerned, and rightfully so, with the overthrow of the government of the nation, and he added, by unlawful means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Other people are concerned with other forms of crime which, to use his words, would be induced by the abolition of capital punishment. Surely, that is the essence of the debate. On this side we have taken the position, in so far as this bill is a government bill to be voted on freely, that you are an abolitionist or you are not, and if you are an abolitionist you should not start making particular exceptions, because the list would grow indefinitely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In answer to the Prime Minister I would say this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, such frivolity is scarcely in keeping with the seriousness of this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest this to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. No matter what amendments take place in the committee, the bill that will be voted on on second reading is the one that is before the House and it includes these terms. I suggest that in order to make it possible for a clear vote that these particular sections be removed, particularly in view of the danger-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.

May 18, 1976
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Get to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are, after all, getting into representation as opposed to a question. If the right hon. gentleman has a supplementary question I would ask him to put it.


John George Diefenbaker: You have heard the preamble to my question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister this. Speaking from conscience, will he not remove these particular sections to which I have made reference in connection with security so there can be a clear vote, with those of us who believe in doing away with the death sentence for murder being able to vote for the bill? As it is, with all the rest of provisions therein, that is almost impossible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer that question completely I would have to know whether the right hon. gentleman is speaking on behalf of his party.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: It is a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is a free vote on this side, Mr. Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: But we don't know about your side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You better be careful; you need a few of us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not need a few of you. Perhaps those people who might be hanged need a few of you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Yes, you do need a few of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You will have to resign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, in order to answer-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You don't need us? Well, that is an announcement we will remember. Wait until second reading.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal is grumbling a bit too loudly.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am grumbling because it is a free vote, and you need every vote you can get.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Have you lost touch?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised that the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: Warren can't talk to his boss. He hasn't got his leather jacket on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the comments on both sides of the House it is impossible to hear the right hon. Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: You are not missing a whole lot.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal is going on a personal question rather than on the question of the issue as I think the issue is much more important. As to the question of the right hon. gentleman, I repeat that it would be interesting to know if he is making representations on behalf of his party-


An hon. Member:: Oh, get off it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or is he speaking on behalf of a group of members of the other side who might be either abolitionists or retentionists according to whether or not we accept the suggestion. My question to him is a serious one, because the government-


An hon. Member:: You are not asking questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the government's position is that it wants to see this bill voted on freely and passed, and we obviously cannot begin to make exceptions to it.


An hon. Member:: No exceptions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now the right hon. gentleman says "no exceptions". He has just been asking for an exception in his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD GUIDELINES FOR DEALING WITH MEMBERS' COMPLAINTS ABOUT PRICES

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and concerns the report released today that the Anti-Inflation Board is inviting consumer complaints and placing a form in supermarkets and financial institutions for this purpose. Considering the record of the AIB in respect of letters from members of parliament which are not being replied to when we bring price complaints to the attention of the board, and that the best we receive is a phone call saying everything has been looked after without our really knowing what has happened, may I ask the Minister of Finance what guidelines have been laid down by the AIB regarding members' complaints about price increases? If the AIB does not have such guidelines, does the minister have some? What action will the minister take to assure the House that today's announcement is a serious attempt on the part of the AIB to deal with prices and listen to complaints rather than just being another public relations job?
May 18, 1976


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines with regard to price increases of course have been set out at length before parliament and are incorporated in the regulations. They will depend directly upon the nature of the business dealings carried on by the firm. But in general with regard to the distribution business, they are related to the gross profit margin of those businesses. With regard to the hon. gentleman's complaint that his letter has not produced a letter, I wish to reflect on that. It seems to me the more important occupation for the Anti-Inflation Board should be in scrutinizing the price questions the hon. gentleman has raised rather than engaging in correspondence.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I sort of anticipated that the minister might be assisting the AIB in its public relations job. I am not interested in the AIB sending out letters or making phone calls. The information I am interested in getting from the minister is whether the Anti-Inflation Board will follow through in some serious way with the complaints that are laid before it or whether it will get some lady or young man on the telephone with a nice voice saying: "Don't worry about it; everything is under control; you can trust us". That is all we have been getting up until now. In asking my question the purpose is not to increase the correspondence between the AIB and members of parliament but to get some documentary evidence of good faith on the part of the AIB that it is following through with suggestions placed before it and is handling them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the board is following through, particularly with regard to particular patterns of price increases which indicate a practice in this regard. Indeed, there have been a great many investigations of this kind.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of what occurred at Laval Penitentiary after recent negotiations would the Solicitor General care to clarify a statement he made on February 23, 1976 in this House when he gave his assurance that the province of New Brunswick would not become a haven for those individuals who tend to hide behind hostages?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that commitment. As I said in answer to a later question, from time to time the penitentiary service breaks up cliques and gangs in a penitentiary and distributes them to other penitentiaries around the country but always at the same security classification; in other words, maximum security inmates go to maximum security penitentiaries. This will have to be done and will continue to be done in the future.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS



THREATENED STRIKE OF COAL MINERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AVOID

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the imminent shutdown of the entire coal industry in British Columbia and Alberta, and in view of the fact that their contract calls for only 4 per cent over the AIB guidelines, will the minister seek an early meeting with the management of the coal industry, the AIB and representatives of the United Steel Workers, ACTE, and the United Mines Workers in order to prevent this imminent shutdown of the industry in those provinces.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if that is a representation on the part of the hon. member, certainly if the employers or the unions in question want to approach the Department of Labour or myself so that we might become familiar with their concerns and make any useful suggestions, we have been and will be very ready to do so particularly in the instance to which the hon. member is referring.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ALLEGATION COMINCO HIDING BEHIND GUIDELINES DURING NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Labour for that responsible answer. Now, I shall turn to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether he will come up with a similarly responsible answer. In view of the small percentage of 4 per cent over the AIB guidelines and in view of the fact that COMINCO will not negotiate for any amount over the AIB guidelines, will the minister examine the charge of labour that COMINCO in fact is hiding behind the guidelines and report his conclusions to the Anti-Inflation Board, to labour and to management as well as the Minister of Labour.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has created the Anti-Inflation Board for the purpose of exercising scrutiny in particular cases and for carrying out the regulations that are provided which incorporate the guidelines. It seems to be a course of common sense for both management and labour everywhere in the country to obey the guidelines which have been set down by law. In particular, it is the role set out for the Anti-Inflation Board to apply those guidelines. Under the circumstances, the notion that I might examine and dictate a course of action to the AIB would seem clearly to be contrary to what Parliament has decreed the board should do.
13612
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT

May 18, 1976



REQUEST FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF INQUIRY INTO SAFETY OF USE OF BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Transport. They are related to the air traffic control inquiry and against the background of a possible strike this week of the air traffic controllers. In view of the minister's announcement on May 12 to the effect that the Public Commissioner would be asked to inquire into "the safety implications of the introduction of bilingualism into air traffic control under IFR conditions in the Province of Quebec", and the apparent contradiction to that in his statement of the same date and in view of the reply given by his colleague the President of the Treasury Board yesterday to a question on this matter in which he said,
... as far as the terms of reference are concerned if there is something to change, we would be prepared to do so.
My question for the minister is, is the minister prepared to consider enlarging the terms of reference of the commissioner so as to include all aspects of the matter as recommended by the conciliation board and thereby place safety as the prime consideration for the inquiry?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the apparent contradiction to which the hon. member refers really is related to the fact that so far as I was concerned all aspects of safety which were in any way at issue were in fact before the commissioner. If there is a real desire to have those words broadened to make sure that all aspects of safety are before him, I am certainly willing to consider that. I say that I considered all aspects at issue were before him because there really has been no controversy or issue over the extension of VFR bilingual controls at five airports. It was clear from my statement that any possibility of VFR extension to such airports as Dorval and Mirabel required the first establishment of satisfactory procedures with regard to IFR. Therefore, I thought the thing was clearly covered. But I am certainly prepared to consider extensions if that is required.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, one of my supplementaries concerns the statement to the effect that the commissioner was to inquire into the implications of the procedures and methods being developed by Transport Cahada and the Canadian aviation community. Part of the aviation community does not seem to be in agreement with the minister at the present time. I am wondering what part of the Canadian aviation community is developing these methods.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the statement went on in rather more detail to list them including the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, the Canadian Transportation Association and a couple of others and indicating in addition that CALPA and CATCA had both indicated that they were prepared to co-operate with the simulation exercises and therefore I consider we have the sensible co-operation of the whole of the aviation community in connection with the exercise.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Article 16 of ICNAF states that at any time after the expiration of ten years from the date of entry into force of this convention any contracting government may withdraw from the convention on December 31 of any year by giving notice on or before the preceding June 30 to the depository government which shall communicate copies of such nature to the other contracting governments. Since ICNAF will be meeting in Havana, Cuba, June 6 to June 24 and the United States will have a 200-mile limit by March 1, 1977, is it the minister's intention to soon meet with U.S. delegates to see whether a common front can be established concerning how ICNAF may be changed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is very relevant. I did have a discussion with Dr. Kissinger on the common position we might adopt at ICNAF, and the necessity of relating very closely, in the course of that meeting.
Since my meeting with Dr. Kissinger I understand that there have been further recent meetings between Canada and United States officials on the broad question of fisheries. That collaboration will continue with respect to the meeting of ICNAF at Havana, and I believe that before that meeting opens it will be possible to state more explicitly the positions the Canadian delegation will take at the meeting. I believe a statement to that effect will be made in the House of Commons.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Is it the intention of the government to set the over-all quotas in its 200 mile zone, allot the required amount for Canadian fishermen and have ICNAF allot to the foreign nations the remainder of the quota which is surplus to Canada's needs? If so, when can we expect Canada to declare its authority over its own management zones?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first part of the question obviously is a matter which will have to be discussed and upon which detailed instructions must be given to the delegation at the meeting. Before the meeting takes place, as I indicated, information along those lines will be given to the House.
With respect to the second question, I have nothing further to add to the statement I already made, that this year is the year of decision for Canada with respect to extended jurisdiction.
May 18, 1976



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Considering that following the revelations made by former RCMP officer Samson last March concerning the raid on APLQ premises in Quebec, the Solicitor General had committed himself on April 2 to report to the House the findings of an inquiry he proposed to order, and considering that he has had the opportunity to meet with the Quebec Solicitor General to determine the parts played by the Quebec Police Force and the Montreal police in the affair, can the Solicitor General tell the House whether in fact such an inquiry was ordered, who took the initiative of organizing the raid on the APLQ offices and what was the role of the RCMP in all that?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP did give me a full report with respect to their role in this particular raid, but following my meeting with the solicitor general for Quebec, Mr. Lalonde, he, in his role as the minister in charge of law enforcement in Quebec, asked if he could not deal directly with the RCMP to determine whether something illegal had taken place and whether further action should be taken. As a result, I have asked the RCMP to co-operate fully with the law enforcement officers and the minister in Quebec, and Mr. Lalonde in Quebec will be taking action following the completion of his investigation.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. The minister is aware that a contract was awarded to a company by the name of Pacific Rim Management of Vancouver for $602,000 by the Department of Supply and Services to hire Yukon residents for work on the Alaska Highway. In view of the fact that this company has since made arrangements with the Canada Manpower Centre in Whitehorse to do its hiring, will the minister say why this was done by Canada Manpower, since the private firm was contracted to perform these duties and thus has violated its contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. In fact, through this contract this company will supply the government with survey crews for the proposed construction of highways in Alaska. The company has also been asked to go through Manpower Centre to recruit and select the best candidates available, who will be chosen in the area where the work will be performed.
Oral Questions



PUBLIC WORKS


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Public Works, and I would like him to respond. In view of the fact that this contract was awarded to a Vancouver firm which did not even have an office in the Yukon, will the minister say why this was done, why an outside firm had to be contracted when Canada Manpower apparently had the resources and the experience to do the hiring?
In addition, perhaps the minister would be good enough to tell us whether, in the words of one of his officials, it was a way in which the Department of Public Works could get around the government freeze on hiring, and if this is the case, will the minister say what he intends to do about it?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have the name of the individual-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: A former Grit.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: who has been misinforming the hon. member. That was not the purpose nor the intention. I think the hon. member will be as well aware as I am of the shortages of surveyors and quantity surveyors in the Yukon, and it is necessary for the accomplishment of this work to go outside the Yukon. In the past, the Department of Public Works endeavoured to do this recruiting, assisted by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and we have come to the conclusion that contracts can be more efficiently and more economically arranged by this agency than by the staff which would have to be taken on by the Department of Public Works.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I would like to ask the minister what capabilities this particular firm and these private firms have that the Department of Manpower and Immigration does not have.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think probably there is an expertise in this particular field-


An hon. Member:: They have never done it before.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -which is perhaps beyond the generalized qualities of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. As the hon. member knows, the Department of Manpower and Immigration tends to be a responsive rather than a recruiting agency in itself.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he is acquainted with the
13614

May 18, 1976
Oral Questions
Jack Henderson Report recently published in the Washington Post and if he can assure hon. members and the Canadian people that every possible step will be taken to ensure the security of all those who want to attend the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games, so as to avoid the damages incurred in similar circumstances in the past, which some people fear in certain quarters?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence to support or to justify the allegations made by Mr. Anderson in the Washington Post. On the other hand, the RCMP and all the other security agencies are taking every measure of precaution against any type of terrorism which might take place at the Olympics.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Solicitor General. Are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police taking steps to make sure that no weapons enter Canada from abroad before the games are held or even after?


William Warren Allmand: That does not appear to be necessary at the present time. As I said, every precaution is being taken by the four agencies-the RCMP, the Quebec Provincial Police, the Montreal police and the armed forces-to provide a strong security team, and we are gathering intelligence on any threat, but so far there is no threat as described by Mr. Anderson in the Washington Post.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the minister advise if Canada will be participating in D-Day anniversary ceremonies in France on June 6, and if not, why not?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the landing committee is now studying the situation for June 6, and my information is that Canada will be represented by our ambassador in France.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that this is the golden anniversary of the Canadian Legion, I wonder if the Minister could indicate if any veterans organizations or legion organizations have approached the minister about a visit to commemorate the thirty second anniversary of D-Day; and, in view of the shortage of time, would he ensure that the ambassador is contacted to make sure that this day is recognized by Canadians and those in Europe for Canadians?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I understand it will be recognized by Canadians in Europe and also people who have a desire to go.
I would like to add that the main ceremony will be held in the American sector this year, and that is one of the reasons Canada is not playing a leading role. With regard to veterans organizations or legion commands across the

country, if they desire to send representations to this very important function, they can very well do so.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on May 13 the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the hon. member for Yukon alleged that I had improperly made certain changes in the Hansard "blues". That is not correct, and in accordance with your request I should like to provide information for the House. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred to my answer to him on May 12 at page 13440, where I said:
The reason for the warrant was not because we wanted to find out the contents of the letter-obviously we had copies of it-but to get the exact copy that was sent to the Toronto Sun so that we could get evidence as to where it was produced, how it was produced and who might have sent it.
The hon. member alleged that I had said "whether" it had been produced, rather than "where" it had been produced, and that I had changed the "blues" from "whether" to "where". I should like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that it is true I changed the "blues" from "whether" to "where" because I had in fact said "where". In the context, "whether" would not have made any sense. We knew that the letter had been reproduced but we did not know where it had been reproduced. So I did change Hansard, but I changed it to say what I had in fact said in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: On the other point, Mr. Speaker, hon. members said that I had changed my answer on page 13441 where I said "that the letter might have been destroyed". They said this had been changed to "had", and then back again to "might have". Again, Mr. Speaker, when I got the "blues" on that day, someone had written in-I do not know whether it was done in the Hansard office or not- the word "had" over the typewritten words "might have", and since I had said "might have" I changed it back to the original text. Again, I made the final version of Hansard correspond with what in fact had been said.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to correct something I said yesterday in answer to the hon. member for Central Nova. He had asked me about a report from the RCMP with respect to the SIU investigation. I said that there had been no final report or interim report. I was incorrect in that. There had been an interim report, but it had not said much more than I said in the House, that is, that this would be a long investigation and there was much more work to be done. But there had been an interim report which said more or less that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Solicitor General for making a statement outlining the historical aspects of this matter. We are grateful for it, and I want him to know we accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should add only that, as I indicated to the House the point was first raised, I would seek-and I have now received-a report from the editor of
May 18, 1976

Hansard. That report conforms in every way with the description of the events that has just been given by the Solicitor General. The fact is that editorial changes were suggested by the editor in respect of the language that was used in attempting to make it conform with what was the impression of the editor. Those copies were returned to the House, and therefore the initial change in respect of the words "might have been" as opposed to "had" were made in the editorial office. It is true that the Solicitor General changed those words back to the language he had used in the House. The same thing seems to apply to the second change that was made, and indeed that does appear to conform in every respect to the description that has been given by the Solicitor General.
It would not appear, therefore, that any point of order arises in respect of this matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates in both official languages (Mr. Langlois).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling copies, in both official languages, of order in council No. 1976-1146 ordering the issuance of a writ for a by-election in the electoral district of Ottawa-Carleton on October 18, 1976.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill, 1976, otherwise known as the housekeeping bill.
Nuclear Relations with India ENERGY


STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR CO-OPERATION WITH INDIA
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that the government has decided that further nuclear co-operation with India is not possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The decision has been difficult. It has challenged the government, as indeed it has challenged all thinking Canadians, to review a number of fundamental principles.
Canada's nuclear co-operation with India began in the context of the Colombo Plan. It has, as its basis, the belief that nuclear power could be vital to the equitable economic growth of a number of developing countries. The energy crisis and the serious dislocations it has brought with it have tended to reinforce this belief, and the genuine success achieved by Indo-Canadian co-operation in the development of nuclear power for energy, agriculture and medicine has proved the practicality of this approach.
India's detonation of a nuclear explosive device in 1974 made it evident that Canada and India have taken profoundly differing views of what should be encompassed in the peaceful application of nuclear energy by non-nuclear weapons states. Canada is one of the earliest and most vigorous proponents of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. A basic element of the treaty, which guides Canadian policy in the field of nuclear exports and safeguards, is that it recognizes no technical distinction between nuclear explosives for peaceful and non-peaceful purposes.
Canada has forgone the possible benefits of developing so-called peaceful nuclear explosions on the basis that, pursuant to the NPT, nuclear explosive services would be available from a nuclear weapons state at such time as need and feasibility are demonstrated. India, however, does not accept what it views as discrimination between the nuclear powers and other states and insists that all countries should be free to use all phases of nuclear technology for whatever they view as peaceful purposes.
Notwithstanding these differences, both countries agreed to explore together a negotiated termination of nuclear co-operation. These negotiations had, earlier this spring, reached a point where both sides decided that governmental decisions were required. The decision now taken by cabinet takes into full account the issues that I raised when I spoke in the House on March 23. Canada has insisted that any co-operation in the nuclear field be fully covered by safeguards which satisfy the Canadian people that Canadian assistance will not be diverted to nuclear explosive purposes. This Canadian objective could not be achieved in these negotiations.
Both sides have made a concerted effort in good faith to reach a basis for agreement. However, the Canadian government has decided that it could agree to make new nuclear shipments only on an undertaking by India that Canadian supplies, whether of technology, nuclear equipment or materials, whether past or future, shall not be used for the manufacture of any nuclear explosive device. In the present case, this undertaking would require that all

May 18, 1976
Nuclear Relations with India
nuclear facilities, involving Canadian technology, in India be safeguarded. We would be prepared to reach agreement with India on this basis only. In view of earlier discussions, however, we have concluded that the Indian government would not be prepared to accept safeguards on other than the RAPP reactors, which are already under international safeguards.
In making this statement regarding our nuclear co-operation with India, I should like also to refer briefly to the other aspects of our relationship. There is no question that our nuclear differences are profound; nevertheless, nuclear affairs form only one part of what has been a broad and important relationship. The decisions reached by the government relating to one aspect of our relations are not intended to preclude the pursuit of other elements of mutual interest in our over-all links with India. The Canadian government remains prepared to review these elements and to pursue our common objectives in both bilateral and multilateral fields because we feel that our ties with this important developing Commonwealth nation must not be allowed to lapse through any lack of will on our part.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement today is one small step toward a world policy of nuclear sanity, and for this reason we welcome it. Our party, and indeed many Canadians from all walks of life, believe that a moratorium on the export of nuclear technology is imperative until such time as world conditions are more stabilized and countries are willing to accept the authority of a transnational institution with the power to protect the global environment. The Canadian government has by no means implemented such a policy today. But we must hope that the cancellation of the nuclear agreement with India will lead to a reassessment of our current and prospective agreements with other nuclear purchasers.
We need to know precisely why the negotiations with India were terminated and we call on the government to table the relative papers. Without them we cannot judge the real reason for the breakdown. On March 23 the minister posed the dilemma that Canada faced in these terms:
Would it be better for us to suspend completely the nuclear negotiations with India, or should we go on to complete current negotiations, applying to the prospective deal the strictest sanctions possible-
We believed then, and we believe now, that the moral dilemma was falsely posed by the government. For as General E. L. M. Burns, the respected head of Canadian disarmament teams has said so often, it is the Canadian government's duty to do nothing which may lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that this obligation-which is explicit in article III of the non-proliferation treaty-takes precedence over Canada's desire to assist, through nuclear technologies, the underdeveloped nations of the world.
I think that the many members who have initiated debate from this side of the House can take some credit for this decision. In particular, this House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) who has for the last two years pressed home this matter in parliamentary debate and in the question period. No one

should be under the illusion that this decision has been achieved without much effort both on the part of members of this House and individuals outside it. Yet while we applaud this first step we must realize that it is only that. This decision does not, in itself, form a moral policy with regard to nuclear sales. We still have far to go before our policy measures up to current United States legislation in this area.


Mr. Gillies:: And British legislation.


Claude Wagner: Parliament still has no control over sales, as does the U.S. Congress. Parliament is not even consulted; it is merely informed. Unlike Congress, which has had the opportunity to mould the formation of U.S. policy on safeguards, parliament has been pushed aside. As William Epstein, a Canadian who formerly served as chief of the United Nations secretariat on disarmament, said:
Canada, as is its practice, held no public inquiry or committee investigation into the problem. It heard no experts other than its own government employees with no opportunity for them to be heard in public. The debate in parliament was all too short and of insufficient depth for such a serious and complicated matter.
I might add that debate was called by the opposition making use of the scarce resources of parliamentary time available to it. I can only quote the leading saint in the Liberal pantheon, Mackenzie King, who nearly 50 years ago-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You were in that pantheon.


Claude Wagner: And I quickly got out of it. Mackenzie King said, nearly 50 years ago:
Parliamentary approval should apply where there are involved political considerations of a far-reaching character.
Those words are in Hansard for April 12, 1928. What could be more far-reaching than nuclear proliferation, a horror undreamed of at that time?
We must also recognize that although this decision will, hopefully, have very far-reaching moral implications, it will have little impact on India's nuclear program. I understand that the RAPP II station is 85 per cent complete and that the Indian department of atomic energy will be able to finish it, albeit behind schedule. India is now completely self-sufficient in nuclear power; therefore, we are a decade too late to change that.
I should like to close with a few questions for the hon. gentleman. Will he now release the agreement initialled by Mr. Head in India? How will this decision affect the rest of our nuclear exports program? Finally, what was the precise point of difference between India and Canada which could not be resolved?


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my party also welcomes the government's decision. We think it is a fairly small step in the direction of nuclear sanity, to use some of the words of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). I suppose one can say that there is more joy in heaven if but one sinner repents.


Walter David Baker: Ask Mackenzie King.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There may yet be hope. The decision is a small step in the direction of a sane over-all nuclear policy.
May 18, 1976

The decision, as the minister said in his statement, has challenged all thinking Canadians to review a number of fundamental principles. Yet we are concerned since other fundamental principles have not been reviewed; they have been given only cursory consideration. The present decision relates to only one arrangement with India. That is not enough to give the Canadian people any confidence in a nuclear policy which does not lend itself to an appalling proliferation.
We have had two years to examine the problems of India. However, within that time we have also had the opportunity to agonize over South Korea, Argentina, Pakistan and Taiwan. What this decision really shows is the impossibility of preventing diversion, short of some absolute control process, short of an international agreement in which there is a minor degree of the surrender of sovereignty so that an international agency has the power to enforce an international agreement. Anything short of that does not give reassurance to the nations of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Canada has an opportunity to provide moral leadership on this subject. It should be the first nation to go to the United Nations and make that kind of an offer in order to try and snowball other nations to move in the direction of internationalism. There would then be some confidence that the awesome risk of terrorism or unstable governments having control of the nuclear trigger would be reduced or eliminated.
As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe said, the moral dilemma that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) posed is phony and false. I want to add some support to that. The United States called for a special study in terms of the nuclear program under the energy research and development administration. I want to quote from that study in terms of the need for less developed countries having the nuclear option. This is what they found after very extensive research:
There are no truly compelling economic reasons for a vast commitment to nuclear power in lesser developed countries. There are other ways to develop more consistent with the history, their culture, economics, that are just as efficient. Military power and national prestige are the big causes of the nuclear choice for the LDC.
Therefore, it is not a moral dilemma that we should risk the question of proliferation against the need to peddle peaceful nuclear reactors in the way we have been peddling them. We have been peddling them like used cars, without any sense of responsibility in terms of a peaceful world. I want to again quote General Burns. This is a recent quote from the Globe and Mail:
Once CANDU reactors are built, and producing plutonium, there will be nothing to stop an Argentinian or South Korean government abrogating the inspection agreement, and proceeding on the road to "peaceful nuclear explosions".
That is exactly the dilemma we faced with India, and exactly the dilemma we will be faced with in spite of the agreement with South Korea. In spite of all the pieces of paper the minister can table in this House, those agreements can be abrogated. There is not a sanction in the world to prevent it. Once they are abrogated, these countries can go into what they euphemistically call peaceful
Nuclear Relations with India
nuclear explosions. They then become a part of the nuclear problem, having the nuclear trigger in their hands.
It is time for a nuclear policy that says no more sales abroad, a total moratorium, and a meaningful offer at the United Nations as the first country willing to give up a piece of sovereignty in terms of a world of sanity and safety.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the only role a country such as ours can play is to set an example for peace and thus prevent anything that could be interpreted as military action. Of course, we agree with the decision contained in the minister's statement because we cannot participate, particularly directly, in any endeavour which might have dire consequences.
Mr. Speaker, that reminds me that as a country dedicated to bring peace in the world we should stop any trade which could be the cause of conflicts or wars. And one of the examples we should set is to avoid arming ourselves.
Of course, we should finally understand that given Canada's low density of population spread over such a vast territory as ours, it is quite ridiculous to arm ourselves as much as we do. And it is also ridiculous to see that such huge amounts of money are spent for our national defence.
So not only should we refrain from supplying arms to other countries but we should also seriously think of reducing significantly our expenses for our defence.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the minister. Because this is, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe indicated, a belated and very hesitant step to sanity on the part of the government-and I am sure it came about only as the result of representations made in this House by the opposition-would the minister indicate if he and the government are now completely re-examining the projected deals with both South Korea and Argentina? I ask this question in view of the opinions held by many people, even within the nuclear association of Canada, that the Canadian nuclear industry is going to have its hands full over the next few years in supplying the technology and the facilities in Canada alone for domestic needs. Will the government indicate whether the South Korean deal and the Argentinian deal are being re-examined by the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Because India has boasted, and still is today, that the two reactors being built in and near Madras are being built completely on the Canadian design and the Canadian system, is the government taking any steps to protect the obvious Canadian interest in both the international design and the international CANDU system in respect of those two reactors and other reactors in India?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it was because of our failure to reach an agreement with India on the application of safeguards to the Canadian-supplied system in India that we decided that further nuclear co-operation was not possible. Of course, one of the items involved is the transfer of technology. I want to make careful inquiries on the precise character of the situation with respect to the trans-

May 18, 1976
Nuclear Relations with India
fer of technology. However, it is my understanding that that technology is now available to India. It is because we were unable to safeguard all installations, including the Madras reactors, the Cirus reactor and a further new reactor proposed by India, that we decided we could not go further.
It is clear from my statement that India was prepared to accept safeguards on the Rajasthan reactors, but in our view that was not consistent with the broad policy that is supported by the government and, as is obvious, supported by every spokesman for opposition parties today.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I clarify my last question because I think there has been a misunderstanding. I do not think the minister understood. As I understand it, India is building two separate reactors, one in Madras and one just outside Madras, completely using her own resources. India has boasted that she is building those projects to the Canadian CANDU design and in accordance with the Canadian CANDU system. There are international legal safeguards protecting a propriety interest in matters such as this, and I am asking the minister whether he will consider the legal remedies which are open to the government of Canada to protect our interests in these systems and designs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I now understand more clearly the point of the question. I will follow it up.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I should like to tell the minister that while I welcome the decision he has announced today, I very much regret his further comment that he is not prepared to undertake a review of all the nuclear commitments Canada has made abroad. I think that is a sad state of affairs.
When this subject was raised some time ago, on March 5, I posed a question to the Acting Prime Minister about negotiations which were taking place, and the Acting Prime Minister said on that occasion:
The government has every reason to want full disclosure of all the facts.
Given that statement, would the hon. gentleman be prepared to tell us to what extent his change of heart, since the position he took a month ago during the debate initiated by the opposition on the subject, has been influenced by restrictions placed on Canada by the nuclear exporters' consultation group in London? Did these restrictions have anything to do with the decision announced today? Could full disclosure be made of the circumstances surrounding this particular aspect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not believe I have had a change of mind.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I said "a change of heart".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Since March 23 maybe I have had a change of heart, but not a change of mind. I think it was perfectly clear, from my comments in the debate, that with respect to India I was gravely concerned about the implications involved in the decision which has now been announced. Obviously, the contribution made by hon. members during that debate was one of the factors in

reaching our decision. But I would add that the decision taken by the Canadian government in the case of India was an independent decision, arrived at on our own, and it was not forced on us in any way by other members of the London club.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is because of the secrecy which surrounds the discussions which have been going on with the London group and decisions reached there that I raise this question. Would the minister make a point of tabling, on motions, far more detail with respect to the arrangements which have been agreed to by this group, so that we could determine whether they apply to the nuclear commitments Canada has undertaken with regard to Argentina and South Korea? It is of great concern to many of us to know whether any enforcement procedures have been worked out by the London group to ensure that all members comply with the safeguard system which has been agreed to. We cannot determine this until we know all the details of the decisions taken by that group.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The statement which I made on March 23 was a serious attempt to disclose fully the terms of the commitment which we voluntarily notified to other members of the London group, in the same way as each member has voluntarily notified its own adherence. I will examine the transcript of my statement again to see whether it could be expanded or made more detailed in the sense of indicating more precisely what undertakings Canada did make.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: One final supplementary. I refer the Secretary of State for External Affairs to a statement made by the Prime Minister on May 4 in response to a question by the hon. member for Egmont. He said, then, that part of the London group's agreement was reached in secrecy on the understanding that no one country would make its terms public, but that if the terms were made public in a general way he was sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would not object to making it public here. The Prime Minister undertook to ask the hon. gentleman to do that. That is really what I am asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do. Would he look into this matter and make sure that if possible we can be told the terms of the agreement in relation to this country's nuclear commitments to South Korea and Argentina?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have undertaken to look at the record of Hansard for March 23 to see whether more detail can be provided. But I assure the hon. member that our safeguard agreements with both Argentina and South Korea are certainly consistent with the London club arrangements-probably a slight step above.


Mr. Speaker:: With the approval of hon. members, in order to conclude the questioning on this subject I propose to recognize the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, the hon. member for New Westminster and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would put this question to the Minister. In view of the fact that David Lilienthal, a very famous scientist who had a great deal to do with the
May 18, 1976

original production of nuclear weapons and who was later president of many important organizations such as the TVA in the United States, together with our own General Burns-who has been twice mentioned here already-have both expressed the view that the very best safeguards we have devised are inadequate and that they can be evaded fairly easily, would the hon. gentleman accept the principle put forward by my hon. friend from New Westminster that Canada should be willing to limit its sovereignty by accepting, as far as CANDU is concerned, complete and effective international inspection and control of all nuclear installations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that in terms of the nuclear proliferation treaty Canada has done precisely that. All nuclear installations in Canada are under the inspection system of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have limited our sovereignty. Under the terms of the treaty we have renounced the undertaking of explosions, so to speak, and we have opened all our facilities to NPT inspection. It seems to me there comes a point at which any particular country, after making some solemn undertaking-as we have done-can, acting on its own, abrograte those undertakings. That applies to all forms of international law. The world has not yet devised a system of enforcement that will overcome the problem posed by any country that abrogates its international undertakings. Nothing the hon. member for New Westminster said provided a solution to that problem.
To undertake to limit your sovereignty is binding for the duration of the period that you live up to your commitment and not a moment beyond. We have no international force that I know of that can enter a country with armed forces and say, "You must now live up to your international commitment". Is that what the hon. member is advocating?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the hon. member for New Westminster to speak for himself.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the minister acknowledged the contribution made by members on this side of the House on March 23 as one of the factors in the government's decision in this matter. In order that we may continue to make a contribution to a sane policy in this regard, would the minister table in the House the relevant documents in connection with the proposed Canada-India agreement, so we can study precisely the points on which there was a breakthrough and make a judgment as to whether existing and prospective agreements with other countries will lead to the same situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have grave doubts about the desirability of tabling documents which have not been accepted but are purely negotiating papers ad referendum. I have explained quite clearly the basic difference between us and India on this question. The ad referendum paper referred to safeguards solely on RAPP and to no other part of the Canada-India supplied nuclear system.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider tabling the documents initialled by Ivan Head early in March when he was conducting preliminary negotiations, and were the negotiations
Nuclear Relations with India
being conducted with the authority of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the documents I have been referring to are the ad referendum documents initialled by the Canadian authorities.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasant change to have the minister ask me a question rather than the reverse. If I can briefly respond to the question, Canada's initiative does not deal merely with the obvious position under NPT with inspection of our facilities. It also means we have to move in terms of accepting sanctions as a result of failure to meet the commitments made under NPT which are not inherent in that agreement, and consequently in doing so we initiate the beginnings of the kind of police force that will provide the only safety that will be effective.
The minister might respond to this question, Mr. Speaker. Is he willing to say that Canada will submit to an international police force, and the sanctions inherent therein in terms of inspection of its own nuclear facilities, provided other countries will do the same in regard to their facilities, so we can take the matter one step further?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear what the hon. member has in mind in mentioning sanctions. It seems to me that the existence of the London club of nuclear suppliers and the possible addition of other members is a very effective method of applying sanctions, because if all suppliers agree on the same standards and are willing to enforce them, a very important sanction comes into play-the withdrawal of supplies and materials. That, to me, is an extremely major sanction to apply and is, indeed, the purpose behind the suppliers' club.
With respect to the question about an international force, I hope the hon. member will give more thought to this and make a more detailed proposal at a later date, hopefully before the General Assembly of the United Nations meets so I can have the benefit of his further reflections.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. I understand Canada has been in negotiation with Pakistan in regard to supplying that nation with a reactor. Would the minister advise the House what effect the decision relating to India has had on the proposed sale of a reactor to Pakistan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that it is bound to have an effect on the negotiations. Certainly, I am not clear at the moment what the effect will be, but it was open to Pakistan to conclude an agreement with us prior to this particular announcement and that did not take place. Obviously, this particular decision is bound to affect the Canadian attitude on further negotiations with Pakistan, but I am not precisely clear how. I am quite clear in my own mind, but I have no authority since the matter must be considered by my colleagues at an early date.


Mr. Wenman:: Mr. Speaker, I express my pleasure at this announcement. Although further co-operation with India has been refused on the basis that a moral obligation with regard to nuclear proliferation has not been met, I feel Canada is taking a strong moral position of which we can

May 18, 1976
Business of the House
be proud. I also suggest we must be careful to see that this strong position is not eroded. It may well be interpreted as being hypocritical and discriminatory unless it is universally applied by all nations. I hope this is just the beginning of that moral stance.
In discussing the matter earlier today, reference was made not only to safeguards and to nuclear proliferation but to another important area, namely, the environment. Storage and disposal of nuclear waste remains a problem. Is the minister accepting, in his statement, the moral obligation and responsibility to ensure that in future agreements adequate safeguards will be provided to protect the environment from the proliferation of nuclear waste material such as plutonium 239? Would the minister also refer the question of Canada's policy on the sale of nuclear reactors abroad either to the external affairs committee or to a special joint committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the application of Canadian policy is non-discriminatory. We have been able to secure the same provisions in our negotiations with India that we secured in the agreement with, for example, the Republic of Korea. We have been able to continue our nuclear co-operation. I believe the case of India is extraordinary because it is the only case where an explosion took place using Canadian-supplied materials and technology, contrary to the understandings we had reached with India. However, I will let my statement stand. I do accept an obligation toward the environment with respect to nuclear transfers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels and there is consent by all parties to reverting to routine proceedings at eight o'clock this evening in order to receive a statement from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). With consent, I would request a House order to the effect that the House shall revert to routine proceedings at 8 p.m., May 18, 1976, in order to permit the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make a statement and table a document.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, as my friend has indicated, and we are agreeable.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Léonel Beaudoin: D'accord.


Mr. Speaker:: Such an order can be made at this time, of course, with the unanimous consent of the House. I take it there is unanimous consent that such a motion be put, and that it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Wenraan.)


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, and it is so ordered that the House shall revert to routine proceedings at eight o'clock later this day in order to permit the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to make a statement and table a document.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 3,841, 3,847, 4,582, 4,584, 4,588, 4,590, 5,011, 5,032, 5,101, 5,245, 5,326, 5,376, and 5,400.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Has any agency or department conducted a feasibility study on the creation of a single marketing agency for Irish Moss in (a) Prince Edward Island (b) the Maritimes?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: No.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, has any cost-benefit analysis been done for the programmes in Phase 1 and, if so (a) for whom (b) by whom (c) on what date (d) will it be made public?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: No. Cost-benefit analysis is just one of a number of tools for the analysis and evaluation of development projects. In the case of the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development, Plan, the need to build up a more detailed community information base and the importance of nonquantifiable social factors has led to the conclusion that a cost-benefit analysis would be of little value at this stage.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	For each year since 1970, what was the average number of showings in Canada, as a whole, for a feature film made in (a) Canada (b) the United States?
2.	For each year since 1970, as an average per feature film shown in Canada, for (a) all films (b) films made in Canada (c) films made in the United States, what was the number of persons viewing such films across Canada?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: In so far as the Department of the
May 18, 1976

Secretary of State is concerned: 1 and 2. The information requested is not available through government sources.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): As an average, for each five year period since 1930, what was the (a) dollar amount (b) percentage of all (i) gross (ii) net revenues from motion picture distribution in Canada earned by non-Canadian distributors?


Coline M. Campbell: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: The information requested is not available through government sources.


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
2.	Are the parameters and goals for each study different and, if so, in what way?
3.	Was it necessary to have two separate studies on the Canadian film industry and, if so, for what reason?
Coline M. Campbell: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1. The budget allocation for the study of the film industry, undertaken by the Bureau of Management Consultants is $185,000. This is the only study underway.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): Does the definition of a Canadian film, for such purposes as capital cost allowances or CFDC funding, include films produced (a) under the official co-production agreements Canada has with three foreign countries (b) in co-operation with any other country or its citizens?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: (a) Yes automatically; (b) Yes, in so far as the producers adhere to the regulations for capital cost allowance or produce a film judged significantly Canadian by the CFDC under the CFDC Act.



BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR STUDY ON CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation granted loans to the Province of Quebec for the construction of senior citizens' homes in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, how many?
2.	For each such grant to what (a) location was it directed (b) what was the amount (c) what was the year it was granted?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: See Table following.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1. What is the budget allocation for the study on the Canadian film industry conducted by (a) Sydney Newman, advisor to the Secretary of State (b) Robert Tompkins of the Bureau of Management Consultants?
Note: Data on lending activity under the NHA are compiled by municipal county in Quebec, and not by Federal electoral constituency.
Loans for Elderly Persons' Housing, Approved Under the NHAll) in the Municipal Counties of Champlain and Portneuf
Municipal County of Champlain	Municipal County of Portneuf
Year	Loans	Units	Hostel Beds1964-1967 <2>	-	-	-1968	2	12	1211969	4	9	1751970	-	-	-1971	1	32	-1972	-	-	-1973	1	100	-1974	-	-	-1975	-	-	-Total	8	153	296
Hostel
$000	Loans	Units	Beds	$000879	1	4	z	3171,357 88 334	-	-	-	56-	-	-	-1,353	-	42	1	30	-	4504,053	2	34	-	823
<*>
Includes New and Existing Housing.
<2>
Activity for these areas between 1964-1967 inclusive was CBC RADIO NEWS-VANCOUVER, B.C.

Question No. 5,032-Mr. Reynolds:
1.	Is the 10.00 p.m. news, CBC Radio, produced out of Vancouver to be cancelled as of April 1, 1977?
2.	Will this Vancouver produced news which is presently geared to the whole Pacific Region be replaced by a news cast out of Toronto?
nil.
3.	Who in CBC made the decision that as of April 1, 1977 the only news worth reporting in British Columbia should come from Toronto?
4.	Will CBC Radio news staff in British Columbia be reduced because of this move?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The format of the 10 p.m.

May 18, 1976
Order Paper Questions
radio news will be changed on April 1, 1977, and it will become a truly national program instead of being distributed, as is now the case, in the following pattern: Toronto production for the Atlantic provinces and central Canada; Winnipeg production for the CBC's Prairie and Alberta Regions; and Vancouver production for British Columbia.
2.	The 10 o'clock news will be lengthened, and a section on sports news will be added. The program will make use of the extensive facilities of the CBC Radio central newsroom in Toronto: it will have international and national news prepared by network staff and regional news prepared by staff in the appropriate locations. The British Columbia news will be provided by Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert news staff.
3.	No such decision was made. The English Services Division of the CBC decided that the resources available in the British Columbia Region would be better devoted to improving British Columbia newscasts and British Columbia contributions to national newscasts than to the largely editing job involved in the present 10 p.m. news.
4.	No.



CMHC-FEDERAL HOUSING ACTION PROGRAM, CONSTITUENCY OF CHAMPLAIN

Mr. Matte: In 1974-75 and 1975-76, did the government participate in the Action Housing Programme in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so (a) to what extent (b) what municipalities were involved (c) how many housing units are being built?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: The Federal Housing Action Program was announced in 1975, and covered Assisted Home Ownership, Assisted Rental, municipal grants and loans for water treatment facilities and mains. The first two have been in operation during the past year, and data reflecting this activity are shown in the following table. The last two had not become operative by the end of 1975.
Note: Data on lending activity under the NHA are compiled by municipal county in Quebec, and not by Federal electoral constituency.
Loans approved under the NHA <[DOT]>, 1974-1975-Federal Housing Action Program Municipal Counties of Champlain and Portneuf
Municipality and Year	Assisted Homeownership Section 34.15 Loans Units $000			Loans	Assisted Rental Section 14.1 Units	$000
Champlain						
1974	131	131	2,544	-	-	-1975	189	189	4,431	1	10	127Total	320	320	6,975	1	10	127Portneuf 1974	13	13	301	1975	42	42	1,070	-	-	-Total	55	55	1,371	-	-	-
<*>
Includes new and existing housing.



LOANS GRANTED IN CONSTITUENCY OF CHAMPLAIN UNDER THE FARM IMPROVEMENTS LOANS ACT

Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the Department of Finance ever granted loans under the Farm Improvements Loans Act to farmers in the Constituency of Champlain and, if so, how many?
2.	What was (a) the minimum and maximum amount (b) the maximum rate of interest?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1 and 2. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act which is administered by the Department of Finance the government offers guarantees for loans provided by banks. The banks decide whether an applicant qualifies and are required to take the same care that is required of a bank in the conduct of its normal business and to use normal banking practices in drawing up agreements and servicing the loans. Statistics respecting such loan guarantees are not maintained on a constituency basis.



CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BANK OF CANADA BUILDING

Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	What will be the approximate global amount, if any, given by the government for the construction of the new Bank of Canada building in Ottawa?
2.	Were any loans involved and, if so (a) on what date were they accepted (b) what was the amount in each case (c) what was the interest rate in each case (d) what were the terms of the loans?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: I have been informed by the Bank of Canada as follows: 1. Nil.
2. No.



LAND ON SUSSEX DRIVE, OTTAWA, SOLD TO JAPAN

Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How much land on Sussex Drive was sold to Japan in 1972 for the construction of an embassy?
2.	What price did the Japanese government pay?
3.	What was the appraised value of the land at the time of the sale?
4.	Who appraised the land?
5.	Who was the real estate agent in the transaction?
May 18, 1976

Capital Punishment



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

['Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have taken part in and listened to debates in the House on this subject. It is not an easy decision to make. I think everyone has to ask himself; What is my position? He should then set it out immediately. My position is somewhat refined, in a sense, since I am a partial retentionist. I believe some form of capital punishment should be retained, and I ask hon. members to bear with me when I say "some form". Too often the principle is confused by consideration of the method of execution for planned, premeditated murder where conviction is based on direct evidence rather than on circumstantial evidence. There are many such cases and I shall refer to them.\nWith regard to this type of offence, I say there should be no exception. On the other hand, the Criminal Code provides for commutation in certain circumstances, and in exceptional cases where there is doubt or where any uncertainty arises at the trial-and it is always difficult to get a new hearing-it is possible for the cabinet to commute sentences, but this procedure should be used properly and always in accordance with the law.', "May 18, 1976\nCapital Punishment\nI have in the past supported the idea that the death penalty should apply in the case of the murder of a police officer or prison guard. I also support the idea that it should apply to all persons convicted of premeditated, planned murder in cases where the verdict is based on direct evidence. Under the former terms of the Criminal Code there is a division between capital murder and noncapital murder. From my experience, I can say that defence counsel would tell the jury, before any evidence had been presented either by the Crown or by the defence, that much of the evidence to be presented would be circumstantial in nature, and in such cases the accused would be tried only on the charge of non-capital murder. I believe that system worked very well. I believe the death penalty should also apply in cases where a person is found guilty of treason, by which I mean treason in its real sense, the undermining of the country by unlawful insurrection, and that it should also apply in the case of the assassination of the monarch.\nThis afternoon, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with reference to the abolition of capital punishment for treason, the unlawful overthrow of the government of Canada, or the assassination of the monarch. He stated in the preamble to his question that it might be very difficult for some abolitionists to vote for a bill which contained no provision for capital punishment in such cases. I do not think anyone who knows my right hon. friend would question his philosophy on this subject-we all know where he has stood with regard to it over the years. But this is an aspect which he has questioned.\nI would call the attention of the government to the fact that we are living in times when violence is on the increase, when it does seem that violent groups can get together. I do not know whether the stories we have read recently with respect to threats to the Olympics is an exaggeration or not, but we do know what happened on another occasion when the Olympics were held. I suppose the answer given by the Prime Minister was the best he could do under the circumstances. He said, to paraphrase his words, that there should not be exceptions made in particular cases. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would remind you and other members of the House that on the three occasions in recent times when this subject has been discussed in the House, he himself voted for the provision of exceptions; he voted in favour of the application of capital punishment in particular cases. In other words, on those three occasions the issue before the House was not complete abolition; it was partial abolition and partial retention.\nThe government undertook to give that arrangement a trial for five years. Now, 2M>\nyears later, we are at it again. I would point out, though, that the right hon. gentleman has commuted all the sentences passed by the courts since he became minister of justice and prime minister of the country. The situation in Canada has been one of abolition de facto, if not de jure. Members of the government have flaunted the law which they themselves developed and which was agreed to upon a vote in this chamber.\nThe position of the Progressive Conservative party, without any evasion or equivocation whatsoever, is that all\n\nour members will have complete freedom of thought and action in respect of this highly controversial and emotional matter. There will be no direction given to our members by our leader. All of us will speak freely as individuals and will vote freely. On the other hand, when asked whether members of the Liberal party will be given the opportunity to vote freely, both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) wiffle and waffle before finally admitting that though the whip will not be on as far as ordinary members of parliament are concerned, it will certainly be on for members of the cabinet.\nThe excuse given is that since this is a government bill, it must be supported by the cabinet. Let us consider this proposition. The government could easily make it clear that whatever way the vote should go-in particular, should it go against the government, in support of retention-it would not constitute a vote of non-confidence in the government. Then Liberal members of the cabinet as well as those on the backbenches could vote freely. Not only is there control in the sense that 27 members of cabinet will not be allowed a free vote, but influence is effectively used in other ways. In an article written during the days when this party formed the government, the prime minister talked about the power to appoint parliamentary secretaries. They were told to toe the line.\nMr. Speaker, I see it is five o'clock. I will continue my remarks after supper."]
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. 0.91 acres or 40,077 square feet.
2.	$410,403 (including $5,000 for cost of demolishing existing building).
3.	$405,403
4.	National Capital Commission.
5.	No real estate agent involved.



Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the total national debt for 1976?
2.	What will be the total amount paid in 1976 for carrying charges on the national debt?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. The gross public debt was $69,111 million as at December 31, 1975. The net debt on the same date was $22,312 million. During the year the gross debt will vary as outstanding debt is retired, new debt issued and as the balances in the superannuation accounts and other liability accounts change.
2. Gross public debt charges are recorded in the budgetary accounts and are forecast in the Main Estimates on an accrual basis. The difference between the amount paid during a year and the charges accrued, depends on the timing of interest payments to the holders of government securities. In the case of Canada Savings Bonds, the timing of interest payments is dependent upon the public's timing of bond and interest coupon redemptions. The Main Estimates forecast of gross public debt charges for 1976-77 is $4,650 million while tabled estimates for 1975-76 amounted to $3,930 million.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was discussion at one time about the document which is sent to the official opposition and others covering the answers to questions and containing the names of the members to whom the particular questions pertain. I have the document here today, and it does not contain-


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is on the second page.


Walter David Baker: I beg your pardon. I am sorry; I stand corrected.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I had just begun my few remarks concerning this bill. I intend to be fairly brief. I have listened very carefully to many other members who have preceded me, many of whom have had a great deal of experience in this House and others who are here, as I am, for the first time following the last election. Let me say I have respect for all sides of the question. I have found little I can criticize, and I am not prepared to challenge others for their points of view as to whether capital punishment should be restored or should be abolished. It is necessary for me, I believe, to answer this question for myself in a free and open way, and it is for me to state my case so that those in my riding will have a clear understanding of what I have to say on this issue. I do not intend to question the statistics put forward by others, and in no way do I wish to call them into account. I am sure all hon. members have attempted to be honest and fair in their approach and in informing their constituents of the facts as they see them and as they have researched them.
I found it very difficult, as I imagine other members did, to answer the tremendously important question: Do I represent myself, or my constituents who elected me, in the free vote on this bill? Indeed, it will be a free vote on this side, and I think that will be evident when two people who work as closely together as myself and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) vote differently on this matter, as I am sure we will. This will clearly indicate that no instructions have come from the whip on this side, nor from the leader of our party. We have been enjoined to review the situation and to vote as free members of this House on the basis of conscience.
As to the matter of representing my constituency, I have taken this very seriously. It is an honour to attempt to follow the example of many other members of the House, particularly those of my own area around Hamilton, Brantford and the Pensula municipalities, whether they be members of the Liberal party, the Conservative party or the NDP. I have noted how carefully and how sincerely they have made their decisions and showed an interest in the feelings of their ridings. I have tried in some way to imitate them because I do feel that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. If I come out of this as well as they have in making up their minds, I will feel honoured and will at least be able to look at myself in the mirror.
The constituency I represent is a very interesting one. I have asked myself how my constituents think in respect of this issue. I have done all the normal things, including sending out surveys. I made certain my constituents

May 18, 1976
Capital Punishment
received an every-constituent mailing which indicated to them the details of the peace and security package, without any editorial comment, just the details of the bill. At the same time, I assured them I would listen to them at open meetings, would meet with them in supermarkets, as I came out of the church, on the streets, and at sporting events: I would listen to what they had to say to me on this matter.
I set the stage for them to comment by setting forth the peace and security package of this government which contained the bill which first of all attempted to give peace of mind to the Canadian public, a public which at this moment seems to be very fearful of what is happening on our streets. The peace and security package indicated that our law enforcement agencies are important and that it may be unfortunate that we send people to prison, but that we felt we must in some way give the Canadian public adequate protection. Also, in proposing the legislation concerning the licensing and holding of guns we attempted to say, not that we could deal with the criminal element but at least in some way we might prevent some of the tragedies which occur because of the possibility that people handling weapons might use them in a way to hurt those they love.
It is my belief that through bail reform and our efforts to deal with prisoners, rehabilitation and parole-making certain parole is earned, and not automatic-we are saying to the Canadian public that this is the moment we are strongly behind our law enforcement agencies which serve us so well, and this is the moment we are strongly behind our courts in an attempt to give adequate security to the people.
If it is correct that we are providing this kind of security to Canadians, then at this time we recommend this bill which would once and for all put aside the death penalty as a means of punishment in respect of capital murder, substituting instead a penalty which would confine the convicted person to prison for a period of time to ensure that he or she will not be a danger on our streets. This is the context in which we have talked about abolishing capital punishment.
The bill concerning the peace and security package is now before the committee, where amendments can be made if it falls short of what we require and is not acceptable to certain people in Canada. We are now debating the principle on second reading of the capital punishment issue. I have heard from the people in my riding, having received about a 14 per cent reply to my survey and having listened to the people on the street, but I cannot say only what was contained in those replies to my survey. I cannot say just what somebody said to me in the supermarket. I cannot say just what somebody said to me coming out of church. I have now to reply in some informed way concerning what I believe is the best way I can serve my constituency and the Canadian public for the benefit of all concerned at this moment in casting my vote.
I believe that when I talk about my constituency it is like holding up a mirror. I have to hold a mirror up to them to indicate to them what they see themselves as. If I hold up the wrong image, then they will say that I do not know

my constituents. What is the image I see: what do I see in that mirror of Hamilton Mountain? I see a group of people who enjoy living in a community which is part of the larger community of Hamilton and is part of a large province, Ontario, which is a province of Canada. But although they are citizens of the world, they feel very much part of Hamilton Mountain as an area served by its own small newspaper, served by its own cable TV, and an area that has its own junior Fincups although they were for all of Hamilton in the Memorial Cup.
This is an area which has its own recreational areas, its own churches and its families living and joining together among the various ethnic groups. This is the Hamilton Mountain I know. I know there are some people there who would say that we must retain capital punishment because this is the only way we can deal with the ultimate crime. I know there are others who would speak out and say no, who would say they are for the right of life theory, the theory of the right of children, the right of man and woman, the right of the aged, and therefore the right to life. So when I hold up the mirror, all those images come forward and now I must try to interpret how I can best serve all my constituency, remembering that included with that fine community, ultimately, is Ontario, Canada and possibly the world.
We must remember that poisonous weeds bloom well in prison air. We have to remember the simple thought that the people in prison sometimes nurture the foulest and most evil thoughts. Very little good grows within prison. When those who are in prison see the person who is described as the one who killed the thing he loved, knowing that all hope is taken from this person, knowing that this person now must indeed dance the dance that has no floor, knowing that this person will have his life taken, they find that quite often something dies in them, too. Something in them dies in respect of their feeling for society. Something in them is completely gone when they think about a society which will not take upon itself responsibility for the evil that exists and which will not accept its own face in the mirror, but will take a life and say, "There; it is solved and gone".
I have to say, for my side of it, that I cannot believe that. I believe that all men in some way kill the thing they love. Some, as it is said, do it with a bitter word, some use flattery, and some use a kiss. All of us share in any crime that exists in society. There is no need to ask for whom the bell tolls, for indeed it always tolls for thee or me. I am involved in mankind. I have no right to be a peninsula, sitting all alone. I am part of a society which kills. I am part of a society which takes life. I do not want a state which decides it will use that right. I do not want capital punishment to be legalized, even if criminals use capital punishment on one another.
I make it clearly emotional. I make it clearly straightforward. I claim no statistics to back up my argument. I have no desire to argue concerning whether or not it is a deterrent. I have to stand so that I represent in some way that constituency so that they can take a clear look at me. This is what they will do, and this is what they will see-a person who believes that those in his constituency of different persuasions have a right to state their case and be respected for it. But for my side I will stand firmly for
May 18, 1976

realizing that when, indeed, we decide to take life, then we have decided to go the same route as the person we are condemning. I still feel there will be those who might think that this is the soft way, that this is a way which will not serve us well.
I feel that if we were, indeed, to take lives and were to hold at our disposal the power to do that, then we would have done nothing but commit capital punishment which is what those people had committed. I cannot feel that this is correct. I cannot believe it is right. I will not accept that the only resort we have is to turn to the ultimate taking of a life and to admit that in our society we have to say it is all over, that if we get rid of that weed we will get rid of the next one that grows up.
I have heard it all before. They take the young and send them off to war. But killing does not stop killing. I think that must be said in very strong terms. I really am not interested in the comments of those who want to take life. I am really not interested in saying that they are right or wrong. I am interested in telling you that I believe I represent my own riding, the Canadian people, the young and the old, the young who represent our future and the old who represent our past. I say no Canadian government should ever again take life in the name of legality. Therefore, I will support the bill and strongly support the abolition of capital punishment.


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate today on behalf of the constituents of Hochelaga who elected me six months ago already. It is my first opportunity to take part in a very important debate. I shall express the views of my constituents on this very important issue, capital punishment. At the outset, let me say that I consulted the people in my riding in a sort of referendum to find out whether they favour the abolition or the maintenance of the death penalty. Out of 24,000 questionnaires sent out, I received more than 2500 replies. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that when the vote will be taken, I shall vote according to the wishes of the majority of my constituents because, to my mind, it is a way for them to take part in such an important decision.
Mr. Speaker, through my intervention, I would like to make two points: first, without repeating what all my colleagues have already said, it will of course be the matter of upholding the death penalty, but with the possibility of commuting this penalty to life imprisonment.
The second point I will deal with is prevention which in the long run will have concrete results. Of course, if we should adopt the principle that capital punishment should be maintained for the time being, such a decision would surely curb the impulses of certain individuals who will have to think about it twice before committing a crime. But, on the other hand, what might solve the problem in the long run is the second point I have just mentioned, namely prevention, but I will come back to that.
Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a remark of one of constituents when he answered my referendum. That person is a retentionist who would agree to a possible commutation to life imprisonment. I will quote what he said and it should be noted with due
Capital Punishment
respect for the opinions of all other colleagues who could have a different view:
The abolitionist trend points to human dignity; the abolitionist trend seems to ignore, alas, that not only criminals but also victims are human beings and that citizens should be entitled to maximum protection since we claim to be civilized; let us see this happen in reality without being naive about it.
That is the way, Mr. Speaker, I will deal With the subject.
Let us look at the first part of my speech, that is the upholding of capital punishment. Of course, my conscience says I will not kill but perhaps we should ask ourselves the following question, namely if the one who killed asked himself that very same question. I do not know whether he asked himself that question, yet he commited a crime. So, Mr. Speaker, our first duty in this House is to make sure all Canadians have the maximum protection possible. An individual who goes into a bank or elsewhere with a gun and deliberately kills someone, knew beforehand that if he were in a difficult situation he would shoot. So we must take all appropriate means that is drastic means to protect society, just like the criminal takes drastic means to achieve his purposes. And the immediate means is the upholding of capital punishment, not in all cases, of course.
When you consider passionate crime or second degree murder, there are of course some lower degrees to consider. If someone has killed someone else, that does not necessarily make him an habitual criminal. But in many cases, he is a criminal.	*
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are presently in some way held as hostages by a minority of citizens we call criminals. I will give here some examples not to repeat what the previous speakers have said. There is the manager of a jewellery or of some business on his way to the bank for a deposit: he is attacked, shot down and falls to the ground; his assail-lant shoots him once more to make sure he will move no more. This criminal has had no thought for the respect of human life. Let us consider the child who gets killed by a bullet when a criminal gets hold of a school bus and races through a town; after a while, a shot is fired, a child is hit and killed; yet that child was not responsible, and yet he has been killed. Has this individual stopped to wonder whether to the best of his knowledge and belief he would not kill? Yet, those are things which happen and are often seen. Several examples could be found.
I can quote here also from another of my constituents and I shall read more of these comments in the course of my speech. He says this:
"A member of my family, a father of eight children, was horribly murdered for a mere $88."
Mr. Speaker, when things get so bad that people can, for minimal sums of money, take the lives of our fellow citizens, it is our duty here in this House to ensure maximum protection to the people of our country. Of course, I am willing to respect the views of those who would rather abolish capital punishment. But unfortunately, we know very well that things are pretty bad. We need only think, for instance, of organized crime. We have seen the inquiry of the Quebec Police Commission, how drugs are given to young people, how they are lured, caught and how they become total wrecks. That is crime and it is just as criminal, in my opinion, as killing somebody.

May 18, 1976
Capital Punishment
Mr. Speaker, when I was working in a hospital in Montreal before my election to the House of Commons, within six months I saw two young people of about 20 dying from absorption of mescaline. Who had supplied them that drug? It seems to me that this also is a crime, but in this case, the criminal kills by inches. Nevertheless, that criminal, the one who provides the drug, when caught, is sent to the penitentiatry for 10, 15 or 20 years maybe, but he knows he will be able to get out of there. However, he killed some people, but this is not taken into consideration. Mr. Speaker, these criminals are guilty of killing these victims of drugs. These are the ones who supplied them and I think they would deserve being hanged. Unfortunately, they are convicted for several years of mprionmnt, when we manage to catch them.
Mr. Speaker, we must bear in mind that a few years ago, when the government amended the law, we could read: "Anyone killing a policeman or a prison guardian will be hanged." Never did it happen so far. These are comments made to us by the population. They tell us: "We do not trust the government. It will not keep them in, not even for 25 or 35 years." Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what does he have to lose, the one who is convicted for 25 or 35 years, without any chance of being paroled? Killing one more person, two more, three more? He has nothing to lose. He will not feel uneasy if he gets a few extra years. This criminal has absolutely nothing to lose. Therefore, he will start again and the hazard will still be the same, and the population will no longer have any guaranty of protection.
At this stage, I would also like to mention some of the remarks made by my constituents, in my inquiry. I quote this one who is in favour of the retention of capital punishment and who says this: "Lets us get rid of hardened criminals before you and me are the next victims." Another tells us: "Now justice is encouraging crime more and more, at the expense of honest citizens who will soon have to take the law into their own hands."
Mr. Speaker, these few remarks lead one to think, and we see that people tend to have a feeling of insecurity. Today, when we go to a restaurant or elsewhere, we do not know any more if we will come out of it alive. An individual can come in, make a holdup, fire at those who are in this restaurant or elsewhere, and make a few innocent victims. However, these victims are innocent. We must consider those things and be consistent. It is our duty to warn potential murderers, through this legislation, to think it over before they decide to take another person's life, for it is up to them to choose whether they want to take the chance of being hanged. It is their own risk and their own life which will be at stake. In my view, if we elect by majority vote to retain the death penalty, we are giving the would-be criminal a warning and if he does not heed it, that is too bad for him.
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to quote from a letter which was sent to me last week by an inmate of a maximum security penitentiary. Here is what he says:
Really, I would rather be hanged ten times than serve 25 or 35 years here but on the other hand it does not make sense to me that I should get 25 years or the death penalty for murdering a policeman and only a few years for a private citizen.

Mr. Speaker, that is the testimony of a person now in detention who talks about himself. There is also the other side of the problem, that of prevention: it is the one that, in my view, should have been adopted, however, the one for which I would have voted. On the other hand, I will give my reasons later on. But before discussing that, it might be appropriate to ask each of my colleagues whether they have wondered why an individual has reached this degree of criminality. How did he get to that point? And certain examples should be given.
I am not saying that all those who are in prison have committed murders or thefts, what we call in general terms a crime, but rather I will give here an example of how a young person can come to juvenile delinquency and, eventually, to criminality, while keeping in mind the environment where he lives.
Let me give you as an example the head of a family who may be 40 or 45 years old, who has no formal education to speak of, who has just lost his job and lives off unemployment insurance while trying to find work. He cannot find a job because he does not have any diplomas, or else he is told he is too old.
Consequently, having exhausted his unemployment insurance benefits, he ends up at some point living off social welfare. That man just has to ask for welfare, and his request is complied with. He has children who are going to school and, at some point, as we know, with the high cost of living we are all aware of, the wife, who manages the family budget fairly efficiently, finds that the bills are too high for the money she gets. In time, she becomes nervous, irritable and rightly so. All of a sudden, all hell breaks loose in the family. The wife starts nagging her husband. And what does the husband do? In some cases he goes to the tavern to drown his frustrations, his problems and everything else, and the home continues to fall apart.
The child who lives in that atmosphere may be 15, 16 or 17, or even less. He goes to school and then comes a day when he wants some pocket money. What will he do? He will quit school to find work, to get a job. At some point or other, for some reason or other, he loses his job, tries to get a new one and then realizes that he does not have enough schooling. But for him going back to school is useless for he would rather work to earn some money.
Then, if he is no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, he will go to the welfare office. As soon as he gets the chance, this youngster will begin stealing here and there and he will finally get caught. Then he will be sent to prison and from that moment, mixed with habitual criminals, he will become a true criminal. This is one of the aspects of the problem. Instead of paying about $14,000 a year for a prisoner, if we had given $1,000 and $2,000 more a year to this family, not only would we have saved money, but we would have saved an individual who, instead of living an abnormal life behind bars could have lived like anyone else in society an honest and ordered life.
Mr. Speaker, we must review our social and economic policy, particularly as regards families which, in unprivileged classes, are the victims of this system. Parents cannot always be held responsible for the present situation and they did not want their children to end up that way.
May 18, 1976

Yet we have reached this point due to circumstances. Of course, Mr. Speaker, everything will not be solved overnight, but I am satisfied that through a review of our social legislation, we could substantially reduce juvenile delinquency and crime rates within the next five, ten or fifteen years. We must nevertheless be honest to the worker who is honest. Those who work for minimum wages, for instance, will be deprived of electricity or gas if they do not pay their bills. Yet the inmate does not face such problems. I do not say he is living like a king in jail, not at all.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to another case on the human view point. What the individual has done is obviously illegal but what prompted him? A few years ago, a married man, the father of a number of young children who was living on welfare with a minimum income, decides at a given time to register with the Canada Manpower Centre because he does not have the education level that is usually asked for. Therefore, he gets by during a few years. He receives both welfare benefits and allowances from the Canada Manpower Centre for a retraining course.
His goal in doing so is to improve his situation, but at the same time, of course, to provide his family with a basic income of about $125 a week. Of course, after a few years, he is caught, prosecuted and accused like a vulgar criminal, being sentenced to two years for defrauding social welfare and two years for cheating the Department of Manpower and Immigration. That is four years altogether, two consecutive years for each charge, though he has only been convicted nothing more than getting payments by cheating and lying.
This individual had, of course, obtained the necessary diploma but when he was caught he was put in jail where he did a number of months and was released on parole for his good behaviour. This individual cannot find a job because he has a record so now he lives on social welfare.
Mr. Speaker, it has cost more to the state to convict him and support him in a penitentiary than if he had been forced to reimburse or to pay the fine. Of course I do not want to review the trial, because it is an example I am giving, a living example which is, in my opinion, inhuman, and for that reason I wanted to point out to what extent our social laws can sometime create circumstances in which someone is likely to commit that kind of offence and then encourage him to return to crime and live in it. Fortunately, this very individual did not go back to crime. So, Mr. Speaker, we will have to review our criminal system because there again, we can find examples which can help us understand why some individuals cannot be rehabilitated. There are several reasons for that. Even if he is rehabilitated, why is it in our present system, he has to return to crime.
I remember a former inmate told me once that the first time he went to prison, a big guy introduced himself and greeted him with both fists, stating he was the boss and not the inmate. That kind of welcome to prison certainly does not lead the way to rehabilitation. Of course I do not imply by that that all those looking after inmates act the
Capital Punishment
same way, I suppose this is only a minority and I would not like to generalize.
There is also the matter of parole. There are individuals who went out on parole, committed another offence, came back to prison and got a second parole, while another who committed one offence only, is almost rehabilitated, offers every safeguard as far as job and family are concerned without any apparent problem, he has everything to live a normal life in society but is denied parole. It is discouraging for a young fellow almost rehabilitated, when he knows another inmate goes out on parole after a second offence.
There is also the matter of parole, and I am quite familiar with that. Here is an individual who stole a car some ten years ago. After all this is not such a serious offence, he did his time, or least part of it because he went out on parole, and since then he has never committed another offence. He asks for pardon. He is married with growing children, he is an honest citizen, he wants to get a better job to ensure his family's future with higher wages, but for unknown reasons the pardon officials constantly delay the decision. Why? Mr. Speaker, in cases where offenders who are fully rehabilitated without any question meet with refusals for so small an offence, they being are being marked, they are prevented from living a decent life, they are pushed back on the way to crime. Those organizations should absolutely not be tolerated. They should be reformed, and the sooner the better in the interest not only of inmates that can be rehabilitated, but also of our institutions and the Canadian people as a whole.
There is another point that I would like to make. In certain areas, youths purchase glue in restaurants or stores. These are the youths who may become juvenile delinquents, and later on criminals. We must put a stop to this. Of course, I am not saying that tradesmen do this consciously. Young people may need glue for their school work, but I say that the government should control the glue market immediately to prevent our young people from continuing to sniff glue to drug themselves. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there will always be criminals, but when I speak about prevention and results which will be felt in five, ten or fifteen years, this is a fact, and I am certainly not alone in thinking and saying this.
If we want to considerably reduce the crime rate, prevention must start with our young people. We must invest the sum required in these young people and the groups that truly want to help young people and prevent them from becoming delinquents, to show them something different from hanging on street corners in the doorway of certain restaurants, either to smoke drugs or sniff glue or what have you.
Mr. Speaker, instead of thinking about building prisons for future needs, we should think of our youths as the men of tomorrow instead of as the criminals of the future who will fill these prisons. Mr. Speaker, before closing, I would like to tell the House that I shall vote for the retention of the death penalty, not because I want to take the life of someone else; far from it, Mr. Speaker. My first duty is to protect the majority of citizens, and to do so, I must maintain my position.
Moreover, the great majority of my constituents are for retention, and I shall vote according to the wishes of my

May 18, 1976
Capital Punishment
fellow citizens, whom I am proud to represent. I shall close on a comment of one my constituents who favours abolition of the death penalty. His comment supports what I said earlier about improving our social legislation on the one hand, and improving our penitentiary system on the other hand.
I would like to close, Mr. Speaker, by quoting the words of one of my fellow citizens from Hochelaga: The death penalty is not the only way to kill a man, he can die of a sick society.


Mr. William Andres (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to take part in the controversial debate on capital punishment, a subject we are debating while our country goes through serious times. Let me make one thing clear: I am not taking part in this debate just to let my constituents know my position, because they know my position very well. They sent a delegation to the House this afternoon. Actually, some of my younger constituents are in the gallery this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Andres: Much has been said about capital punishment. Members have argued in favour of outright retention, retention for certain offences, and outright abolition. We have heard many statistics mentioned. You can prove almost anything with statistics. But I take another position, a position on which our constitution is based. Mr. Speaker, our constitution is based on Christian principles. I maintain that we should consider the Christian principles on which our consitution is based and see what the Scriptures have to say. Members have based their arguments on what the Scriptures say. The House has heard arguments about the deterrent aspect of capital punishment, about the need to protect society, and so on. We all want to protect society: there is no argument in that regard.
Some members have talked about punishment and retribution. To support their arguments they have quoted from the Bible passages such as: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Still another passage quoted is: "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Mr. Speaker, I insist that members who rely on the Scriptures to make their argument have not gone far enough. They stop short, not telling the House all that the Scriptures say. If one is to base one's position on what the Scriptures say, one should cite all 16 instances in which the Scriptures prescribe capital punishment as punishment for an offence. The Scriptures prescribe death for such things as adultery, cursing one's parents, false worship, and working on the sabbath-and which one of us is not guilty under at least one of these offences?
Therefore, if members want to rely on passages in the Scriptures, let them quote all pertinent passages; let them not be selective. Too often people will quote passages from the Scriptures because those passages support their position. Such people say to themselves, "This passage meets my criterion; therefore I will quote it."

We must consider the moral aspect of the question. In the end, the murderer is responsible to his Maker, his God. He is also responsible to society and the state. The state must deal with the murderer and with the criminal. The question is, how shall the state deal with the criminal, and what are the responsibilities of the state in relation to the criminal? Also, can responsibility be laid at the feet of society. I suggest that yes, society has a responsibility. We are all guilty. Therefore, let us consider the alternatives to death.
All the retentionist arguments I have heard are reminiscent of revenge. I submit that vengeance cannot be regarded as a solution to violence. True justice is devoid of any element of revenge. Unfortunately, judging from what I hear and read in the media and from what various people have said, the element of revenge colours people's thinking. I do not believe in revenge, yet constantly one hears arguments smacking of revenge. I have heard arguments about deterrence. You can support your arguments on the deterrent aspect of capital punishment with statistics, which have been used. You can talk about countries which have abolished the death sentence and compare their murder rates with the rates of countries which have retained it and, no doubt, recite most interesting figures. But I have not been able to find conclusive proof showing that the death penalty is a deterrent. I submit that it is not a deterrent. Many factors influence the murder rate in a society, factors such as our present social instability, the influence of TV-depicted violence and the increased pressures of coping in a fast-moving, technologically complex society.
The use of drugs and alcohol is a crutch when we are unable to cope. There is also the aspect of overexpenditure and gambling. You can bring all this together. When society is not able to cope, it turns to violence. The deterrent aspect has never been proven. Sir Robert Mark, commissioner of metropolitan police in London, England, spoke in Toronto recently and said:
The best deterrent to crime is the likelihood of detection followed by the certainty of conviction, rather than reliance on savage penalties unlikely to be applied in many cases because of a proper finding of guilt prevented by the operation during investigation and trial, of safeguards rightly designed to protect the innocent from a sentence of death.
He further stated:
-the continuance of the death penalty prevents the reforms necessary to increase the effectiveness of criminal justice.
I do not believe that our citizens are looking for blood. They are looking for the protection of society. As I listened to the arguments to both sides of this question I found that everyone is looking for the protection of society. We need this protection today even more than before. However, the death penalty is not a solution for the protection of society. Protection can be better achieved through revamping our judicial and penal systems. We must promote speedy arrests, certainty of arrest, speedy trials and severity of punishment. Stronger and more rigid enforcement of sentences, bail and parole laws will work better for the protection of society. This will also allow for the possibility of reform and more equitable justice than the mere act of retribution.
May 18, 1976

The protection of society can be better served by facing the problems that breed crime and violence in our society. Society will be better protected when we all face our responsibility for the type of society we have and for the elements perpetuated therein. Juries are often reluctant to convict if the death penalty is retained. They are more likely to acquit the offender. That is another reason why abolition is of greater protection to society.
We must take a positive approach. The death penalty is final and does not allow for any chance of reform or rehabilitation. Capital punishment is an irrevocable decision without any hope of redemption. A mistaken verdict can mean an irrevocable tragedy, and judicial error is always possible. This means that ultimate injustice could be performed by the state. We would be naive to believe it is very rare to sentence the innocent. Between 1889 and 1927, 50 of the 406 persons sent to Sing Sing for execution were found, upon reconsideration, to have been sentenced in error. We have moved from that day, but we still have error. Error still creeps in because we are human.
The possibility of such costly error must make one question the morality of capital punishment. There are verifiable inequities in the application of the death penalty. More often than not it is the wretched of the earth, made more pitiable by the despicable crime of murder, who become the victims of capital punishment. The well-to-do, the educated, the respectable who commit capital offences rarely forfeit their lives. While it is difficult for a rich man to get into heaven, it seems even more difficult to get him into the hangman's noose.
We have a responsibility. Imposing the death penalty avoids our responsibility and does not offer a solution to changing and correcting the problems in our society which are the source of crime and violence in the first place. Criminal behaviour is a cry for help. Society is not answering the needs; it barely hears the cry. It does not have time. We are all too busy doing our own thing and are not concerned about our fellowman. In fact, in many ways we step on him. We in society all have a responsibility for the values we adhere to and for what takes place within our human community. To simply say "yes" or "no" to capital punishments shirks our responsibility to face the problems and underlying questions of why there is crime, what are the sources or root causes and what can we do to ensure and work toward improving these conditions and preventing violence?
We must look into our homes. There is instability in our homes where our children are growing up. There is disrespect between the parents, between the parents and the children, and vice versa. We must look into our communities, school and institutions. There is disrespect for authority. This is the kind of environment in which our children are growing up. What can we expect? We can take this a little further into our employer-employee relationships. Everyone has heard the expression "work to rule". People don't seem to have any pride in workmanship any more. Where are the values that we once held so true and dear? These are some of the problems our children are facing. We must take a serious look at this and accept our responsibility. There is disrespect for law, order and authority. Each of us must examine his own responsibility. It is easy to
Capital Punishment
point the finger at the family next door-but we must look at ourselves. Are we accepting our responsibility?
What are the alternatives? There is penal, judicial and parole reform, as already mentioned, advocating strict punishment but in a more positive and productive framework. There is the question of how a criminal must pay back his debt to society. Punishment can be viewed in a more positive way by providing alternate means. A penal system must be developed where productivity and positive values are encouraged as an alternative to the negative approach to violence by sanctioning the death penalty.
The question is often asked, "What about the victim? Much has been said about the criminal, but what about the victim?" I am too practical to really worry about the victim. In fact, I say there is nothing we can do for the victim at this point. It is a fact that has been completed. As much as I might have sympathy or compassion, there is very little that can be done for the victim at this point.
But what about the families? Here is where we come in. Here is where society can help. We can offer compensation to the families affected. They should be given encouragement and assistance. Society as a whole must provide special comfort and service to the afflicted so that we all absorb the effect of the violence. We can all share in it. We can try to prevent such tragedies happening again by ensuring that the criminal is removed from society and confined appropriately, again stressing the steps to be taken to improve society and restrict those elements which harbour or perpetuate crime. Legal imposition of the death penalty does not redress the wrong done and offers no positive answer to society. Moreover, it denies any hope for the reform and rehabilitation of the criminal.
I challenge my colleagues to consider seriously the responsibility which rests upon society, which rests upon each and every one of us, and to review the decisions they have taken to date and consider supporting this bill for the abolition of capital punishment.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I have taken part in and listened to debates in the House on this subject. It is not an easy decision to make. I think everyone has to ask himself; What is my position? He should then set it out immediately. My position is somewhat refined, in a sense, since I am a partial retentionist. I believe some form of capital punishment should be retained, and I ask hon. members to bear with me when I say "some form". Too often the principle is confused by consideration of the method of execution for planned, premeditated murder where conviction is based on direct evidence rather than on circumstantial evidence. There are many such cases and I shall refer to them.
With regard to this type of offence, I say there should be no exception. On the other hand, the Criminal Code provides for commutation in certain circumstances, and in exceptional cases where there is doubt or where any uncertainty arises at the trial-and it is always difficult to get a new hearing-it is possible for the cabinet to commute sentences, but this procedure should be used properly and always in accordance with the law.

May 18, 1976
Capital Punishment
I have in the past supported the idea that the death penalty should apply in the case of the murder of a police officer or prison guard. I also support the idea that it should apply to all persons convicted of premeditated, planned murder in cases where the verdict is based on direct evidence. Under the former terms of the Criminal Code there is a division between capital murder and noncapital murder. From my experience, I can say that defence counsel would tell the jury, before any evidence had been presented either by the Crown or by the defence, that much of the evidence to be presented would be circumstantial in nature, and in such cases the accused would be tried only on the charge of non-capital murder. I believe that system worked very well. I believe the death penalty should also apply in cases where a person is found guilty of treason, by which I mean treason in its real sense, the undermining of the country by unlawful insurrection, and that it should also apply in the case of the assassination of the monarch.
This afternoon, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with reference to the abolition of capital punishment for treason, the unlawful overthrow of the government of Canada, or the assassination of the monarch. He stated in the preamble to his question that it might be very difficult for some abolitionists to vote for a bill which contained no provision for capital punishment in such cases. I do not think anyone who knows my right hon. friend would question his philosophy on this subject-we all know where he has stood with regard to it over the years. But this is an aspect which he has questioned.
I would call the attention of the government to the fact that we are living in times when violence is on the increase, when it does seem that violent groups can get together. I do not know whether the stories we have read recently with respect to threats to the Olympics is an exaggeration or not, but we do know what happened on another occasion when the Olympics were held. I suppose the answer given by the Prime Minister was the best he could do under the circumstances. He said, to paraphrase his words, that there should not be exceptions made in particular cases. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would remind you and other members of the House that on the three occasions in recent times when this subject has been discussed in the House, he himself voted for the provision of exceptions; he voted in favour of the application of capital punishment in particular cases. In other words, on those three occasions the issue before the House was not complete abolition; it was partial abolition and partial retention.
The government undertook to give that arrangement a trial for five years. Now, 2M>
years later, we are at it again. I would point out, though, that the right hon. gentleman has commuted all the sentences passed by the courts since he became minister of justice and prime minister of the country. The situation in Canada has been one of abolition de facto, if not de jure. Members of the government have flaunted the law which they themselves developed and which was agreed to upon a vote in this chamber.
The position of the Progressive Conservative party, without any evasion or equivocation whatsoever, is that all

our members will have complete freedom of thought and action in respect of this highly controversial and emotional matter. There will be no direction given to our members by our leader. All of us will speak freely as individuals and will vote freely. On the other hand, when asked whether members of the Liberal party will be given the opportunity to vote freely, both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) wiffle and waffle before finally admitting that though the whip will not be on as far as ordinary members of parliament are concerned, it will certainly be on for members of the cabinet.
The excuse given is that since this is a government bill, it must be supported by the cabinet. Let us consider this proposition. The government could easily make it clear that whatever way the vote should go-in particular, should it go against the government, in support of retention-it would not constitute a vote of non-confidence in the government. Then Liberal members of the cabinet as well as those on the backbenches could vote freely. Not only is there control in the sense that 27 members of cabinet will not be allowed a free vote, but influence is effectively used in other ways. In an article written during the days when this party formed the government, the prime minister talked about the power to appoint parliamentary secretaries. They were told to toe the line.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is five o'clock. I will continue my remarks after supper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)-Post Office; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Education.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made on Friday, February 27, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there has been the usual consultation and all parties agree we shall be dealing with order No. 55 in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered.
May 18, 1976



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: that Bill C-255, to establish a universal emergency telephone number, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate this bill today. When I first came to this House-


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, might the table indicate whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has spoken previously on this particular bill, in view of the fact that I understand this is not the first time that we have debated it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am advised by the officers at the Table that this is the first time it has been debated.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Then I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary had let me speak a minute longer he would have realized why we are debating the bill a second time, because I was going to say that when I came to this House in 1972, the then hon. member for Surrey-White Rock had this bill on the order paper. I remember talking to him about it a number of times, and when he retired from the House I telephoned him and asked whether I could have the privilege of putting it on the order paper in my name, and he agreed.
At the same time, the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson) had the foresight to do the same thing, and by the luck of the draw he got his bill on-I think it is Bill C-252 or C-253-and had it debated in the House before I did. However, I think this is a very worthwhile idea. I wanted to make sure that the former hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, Mr. Mather, who has now retired and who was an excellent member of the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: -was given credit for raising this matter previously.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Was he left-wing or right?


John Douglas Reynolds: I really do not think it matters whether a member is left-wing or right-wing in private members' hour; we should try to put this sort of bill through more quickly so they can be passed into law. However, I know
Emergency Telephone Number
for a fact-and I might as well say this before I get into the content of the bill-that this afternoon the government is prepared to talk the bill out again, and this does disturb me greatly.
When the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore brought his bill before the House on Friday, March 26, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a member of the NDP, talked about the bill and its merits and said it should go to committee. Then the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the House leader for the Conservative party, made a speech and also wished it to be sent to committee. Four Liberals then spoke and talked out a bill that one of their own members had put before the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


John Douglas Reynolds: They all agreed it was an excellent idea, but as we know, Mr. Speaker, this government does not want excellent ideas to be sent to committee. I hope that today some of the backbenchers opposite who have been asked to make speeches will just freeze in their seats and let this bill go to committee.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Question.


John Douglas Reynolds: I am quite prepared to let the bill go forward in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, if that is better for them. I just think it is the type of issue that should get to committee.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the National Transportation Act by adding immediately after section 22(l)(i)(j) the words "provide for the establishment by all Canadian telephone companies of a universal emergency reporting telephone number". I feel a bill of this nature has a great deal of merit in light of the growing amount of emergency calls placed through the three regular means of emergency services.
A most recent example is one that took place in my constituency last Thursday. Viewers of the CBC "National" on Thursday night, May 13, will recall a clip of a shocked lady, a burned house and a demolished light plane, partially in the woman's kitchen and the rest in the backyard. This was by no means a humorous scene and it was not meant to be. One of the men in the plane was killed, the other was injured. The woman was in shock, but she managed to keep her wits enough to dial the operator. However, the line was busy. So was the police line. Finally she got through to the operator, but by that time she was very upset and could not make herself understood. Coupled with the fact of the plane crash was the woman's initial inability to get through to the operator, and by the time she did frustration had set in.
It would, of course, be presumptuous to think that a life would have been saved in this instance if an emergency telephone number had existed. What I am questioning, Mr. Speaker, is the process one faces in reporting emergencies in this country, and the subsequent delays on many occasions. Hypothetically, what if the woman's life was at stake? Would fate have waited until she had got the operator? The fact is that in many instances lives would have been saved in this country if the reporting procedure of emergencies was expedited.

May 18, 1976
Emergency Telephone Number
The woman's major complaint after this incident was the delay in getting through, and then relying on the operator to contact the proper emergency service. It is the sheer frustration that makes these critical matters worse. I firmly believe that an emergency telephone number would alleviate some of the trauma of such incidents.
This incident in Richmond, B.C., is but one isolated case; we all appreciate the fact that many more occur every day, in most cases of a more severe nature where life and death situations exist. Nearly every Canadian is aware of the British "999" exchange, while in most parts of Canada we must rely on the "0" for operator, hope the line is not tied up, and rely on her to place the appropriate call for us. This practice is not only frustrating and time-consuming, but outmoded in light of the technology the phone companies have at their disposal.
I realize that problem of jurisdiction arises in properly implementing this service. I also realize that merely making "911" an emergency number does not solve the reporting aspect of emergencies. An entire co-ordinated system is needed, and so is total agreement among involved agencies to accept the same exchange. I fully realize that boundaries of emergency agencies seldom coincide with telephone exchange boundaries or municipal boundaries. Of course, it would be imperative to have all three major services included, police, fire and ambulance.
In the interest of saving human lives and preventing disaster, I cannot foresee any hesitancy on the part of these agencies, and surely not on the part of the telephone companies. The hurdles to be cleared in instituting such a number are minimal. I think the only reason for not implementing such a number would be out of sheer disinterest and lack of compassion, not out of inability to invent the proper machinery to handle this task.
An argument against the use of an emergency telephone number is the possibility of false alarms and errors in reporting an emergency. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the telephone companies have advanced their technology to the point where there is little chance of mistake. An example is "call, hold and trace", which holds up the line the "911" caller uses. This allows the emergency bureau to ring back the caller for verification. This ensures the proper use of this number and, above all, its expeditious use. Expediency is the end goal, a character which is so sorely lacking in our present emergency system.
The 911 number is not an esoteric one. It will be used at one time or another by all Canadians in one sort of an emergency or another. The 911 number has a broad sphere of influence and I think the public will support such an innovation. More than 45 million Americans are now being served by this 911 number. Last year, in the United States, some 6.5 million calls were placed to the 911 number in New York city. It has been considered a ringing success, and the interval required for a call to be relayed to an on-scene patrol car has dropped from two minutes to 35 seconds, and in a priority call situation to less than ten seconds.
Of course, abuses will occur along the way, as they have in the U.S., and that is part of the system. But surely the positive points outweigh the negative aspects: people will, over time, acquire confidence in the system, learn to use it wisely and only in times of emergency. The co-operation of

municipal authorities will be needed, but since these same municipalities are the constitutional responsibility of the provinces, the two can get together, talk about the use of such a number and arrive at a logical and mutually agreeable arrangement.
We now have before us two other bills aimed at the protection and preservation of human life. I am sure each member is aware of the two I am referring to. Without overstating the case, I think that an emergency telephone number would have the same redeeming social value. The purpose of the bill is implicit: its sole purpose is to ensure that, if at all possible, human lives or tragedies will receive prompt attention in the face of adversity. Surely the social need for such a number overrides the jurisdictional argument.
It takes three seconds to dial 911 and over ten seconds to dial a seven-digit number. In a life or death situation, with a co-ordinated system and the 911 exchange this difference of seven seconds can in fact mean the survival of a human being. It would be a shame not to implement such a number when all the resources for such a service are at our disposal. Researchers all agree that a three-digit number can be learned and remembered by any child in the face of a crisis, but not too many will give good odds on the chances of remembering a seven-digit number. Even seven-digit numbers we dial regularly can escape us on occasion, and the chances of forgetting a long number in the face of a crisis or emergency are far greater.
Bell Canada and B.C. Telephone have both agreed to co-operate with municipalities. As for this jurisdictional and constitutional argument, no legislation is ever passed in these chambers without there being some jurisdictional difficulties. However, I hope the weight is not placed on that argument against such a number. I think those considerations should be secondary, if not tertiary, in debating the relevance of this bill.
The consequences of not implementing such an emergency telephone number in the near future, in face of the increasing rate of accidents, drug overdoses, poisonings and natural disasters, are self-evident. The gravity of this situation is too extreme to overlook the possibility of implementing such a number any longer and I would, therefore, urge hon. members of this House to allow this bill to proceed as quickly as possible to the committee so it can be discussed and passed in this House.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for following tha persistence of others in bringing forward a bill to establish a universal emergency telephone number. However, I am not going to spend almost three minutes of my speech talking about how other members are going to talk this bill out, as the hon. member did in talking his own bill out of the beginning of his speech.
I note that in the series of events the first reading of the hon. member's bill took place on October 15, 1974. The bill presented by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) also received first reading on October 15, 1974. The other bill referred to by the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill was presented to the House for first
May 18, 1976

reading on January 15, 1973, by Mr. Mather. Bill C-252, an act to establish a universal telephone number, was introduced by the hon. member and read the first time on October 15, 1974. The other bill was identical to the bill before us today in the name of the hon. member. These private members' bills suggest that a section be added to the National Transportation Act to provide for the establishment by all Canadian telephone companies of a universal emergency reporting telephone number. Similar bills were introduced in 1973 and 1974, and the most recent debate on this subject was in 1975.
The idea of a universal emergency telephone number appears, in theory at least, to be a very worthy one. There are a number of practical problems with the bills, however. The bills appear to be redundant in that the principal telephone carriers subject to federal jurisdiction, Bell Canada and British Columbia Telephone, have already expressed willingness to supply the service and to co-operate with municipalities in this regard. In light of the demonstrated willingness of the telephone companies to design and install a system to meet the requirements of any particular municipality, legislation would probably serve to elicit an undesirable reaction from the carriers concerned.
As drafted, the bills purport to apply to all Canadian telephone companies, whereas all the major telphone companies except Bell Canada and British Columbia Telephone are presently subject to provincial regulations.
In his speech of March 26, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore said:
My purpose for proceeding with Bill C-252 this afternoon is not so much in the expectation that the bill will be passed, a rare occurrence in this House for legislation initiated by private members, but rather in the hope that hon. members will see fit to allow the subject matter of the bill to proceed to committee for detailed study and discussion.
He then went on to say later in his speech:
The establishment of a single emergency number through which people can summon police, fire or ambulance help in any city, not only in Canada but in all of North America, and progress in the United States has been very impressive, would be a very important step in the field of public safety. The idea is not new.
A community cannot establish a "911" emergency telphone service by simply changing over to a new telephone number. First, municipalities must be prepared to meet a number of requirements that range from resolving boundary disputes to organizing their major emergency agencies and establishing a central answering bureau. The number "911" is designed to be used for direct reporting of emergencies to an answering bureau serving a given area. The three-digit code 911 has been reserved as a universal emergency number because it is compatible with the long-range numbering plans and switching configurations of the telephone companies.
Jurisdictional boundaries of emergency agencies seldom coincide with either telephone exchange boundaries or municipal boundaries, and to avoid confusion agencies must be prepared to serve all those within an individual exchange or in exchanges having local calling with a core exchange where they may not have jurisdiction. Also, for the 911 service to be effective all three emergency services, police, fire and ambulance, should be included.
Emergency Telephone Number Mr. J. D. Cunningham, director, provincial government relations, for Bell Canada said that where telephone boundaries and community boundaries do not coincide, Bell Canada will take part in discussions to work out solutions between the affected communities. He also suggested that when a decision is made to go ahead with 911, Bell Canada will do whatever it can to assist a contracting municipality in its efforts. This could range from assistance in the development of a publicity campaign to help in training 911 operators who staff the answering bureau.
There are now seven operational 911 systems in Canada. They are operating in St. John's, Newfoundland; Fredericton, New Brunswick; London, Ontario, and in four Alberta communities. Now there is an additional one in operation in the regional municipality of Waterloo, Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You missed Winnipeg and Brandon.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am informed that I missed two. If they have them, I am glad for their sake. I might say that if we did have an emergency number which requires rapid attention, there is one number I would not hesitate to call, and that is the House of Commons number 2-4618, the number of the hon. member opposite.
I have before me a series of questions and answers that delve into this subject in a very concentrated manner. They are as follows:
1.	Why was "911" selected for the universal emergency number?
911 was selected for the universal North American emergency number because it is a brief and easily-remembered code.
It is compatible with long range numbering programs and central office switching configurations. It is also a unique number, never having been authorized for assignment as a central office or area code. In addition it is consistent in format with other System service codes such as 411 for information and 611 for repair service.
2.	What is the intent of having one universal emergency number 911? The emergency number has been offered to assist local public safety agencies in protecting the life, property and safety of the general public at the local level. It is the intent and hope that the one number 911 would apply to all emergency calls of a public safety nature in the area served since the advantages to the public depend on the universality of its use.
It should be made clear however, that the 911 number will not replace existing 7-digit emergency numbers assigned to such services as police, fire and ambulance. These regular numbers will be retained along with the facility to dial "O" operator in the event of an emergency and receive the same assistance as at present.
3.	Is Bell Canada prepared to work with key public officials in appropriate levels of government who indicate an interest in the introduction of 911 emergency service?
Yes. Bell Canada is prepared to begin working with the various municipalities and agencies who indicate an interest in planning for the introduction of the 911 emergency number. Telephone Company advice and assistance is available as required in establishing an emergency calling arrangement which effectively meets the needs of safety agencies organized to handle emergencies on a community basis from a common answering bureau.
4.	What factors should be considered in planning for the introduction of 911 emergency service?
As Company representatives begin working with the various agencies and municipalities in planning for this new emergency service, many factors which may influence the type of facilities provided, the method of operation and service dates must be taken into account. Some of the primary considerations are:
1.	the number and types of agencies to be served.

May 18, 1976
Emergency Telephone Number
2.	the number of exchanges or central office areas involved.
3.	the method used by the bureau to answer and dispatch emergency calls.
4.	the agencies' communications requirements for routine and administrative business.
5.	To qualify for the 911 service offering must a minimum number of specific emergency agencies agree to co-operate in establishing a common answering arrangement?
Yes. As a minimum requirement, emergency calls for the local police, fire and ambulance services would be included in the basic 911 service requirement.
6.	Would the central answering bureau be responsible for handling other emergency calls?
Yes. Additional emergency traffic such as medical assistance, poison control, rescue squads, etc., should also be handled through the central answering bureau. The bureau responsible for receiving 911 calls must be prepared to handle all emergency traffic from these services either by referral or transfer of the call.
The responsible agency should also agree to an appropriate method for handling any calls of non-participating agencies which may be misdirected to the 911 emergency number.
7.	Are there any special considerations necessary as to what agency, office or public official has the authority to order a 911 service arrangement?
Yes. Since 911 service required the cooperation of the local agencies such as police, fire, ambulance and others who agree to participate, the primary customer is considered to be the local or community government itself. Therefore, authority to order the service will be considered to be the governmental offices with the overall responsibility for the emergency agencies which will be included, e. g. Mayors, City Manager, Directors of Public Safety. In some cases authority may be established by acts of legislation or by resolution.
8.	In contacts with public officials and in public information programs, what are the basic points to be emphasized?
In contacts with public officials, representatives of emergency safety agencies and other interested parties, the following principles should be appropriately emphasized and demonstrated:
1.	Bell Canada is interested in providing the public with the fastest and easiest way to call for help in an emergency.
2.	A single, universal emergency number which provides direct access to an agency operated switchboard organized to handle emergencies on a community wide basis best meets this need.
3.	Bell Canada is prepared to cooperate and work with the various safety agencies and municipal officials in planning for the establishment of 911 service.
4.	Bell Canada will continue to provide "back up" emergency assistance through our highly trained operators just as we have always done.
9.	Is there a charge to the calling party for calls to the 911 emergency number?
No. In case of public telephones, a coin is presently required to obtain dial tone to complete the call. The coin is returned on completion of the call. Ideally, public telephones should be equipped to operate without the requirement that a coin be necessary to activate the dial tone. However, further work in research, design and manufacture is required to enable us to modify the range of equipment we have in service. It is therefore unlikely that we will be in a position to make a significant start on the conversion program before the end of 1970. Over 50,000 public telephones are involved.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that that research has largely been completed.
10.	What is the Bell System position on 911 emergency service?
All Bell System companies are prepared to establish circuits that will bring 911 calls directly to a central emergency switchboard. The switchboard will be staffed and controlled by the local emergency agencies which will be responsible for making whatever response is required or appropriate to the calls. The 911 system will be supplementary to existing telephone systems and will not support either the individual telephone numbers of the various local agencies or the

service of telephone company operators when they are called upon for help in an emergency.
11.	In communities where 911 service is not yet established will Bell Canada provide for operator handling of all misdirected 911 calls on an intercept basis?
It is anticipated that the need for special 911 intercept will probably vary considerably across our territory. In some locations there may be a need to provide for it while in other instances the requirements of the municipality may be adequately met through the use of the normal vacant or re-order tones. As cost considerations will be a major consideration in the final decision together with the local requirements that will exist, specific plans will have to be developed and tailored to meet local needs.
12.	How many communication paths are required between the central office and the centralized answering position to establish a 911 community wide emergency system?
Pending the availability of local data, the number of communications paths or trunks required to initially provide 911 service will have to be determined in consultation with municipal representatives. This evaluation would give consideration to the present number of PBX trunks to police, fire, ambulance and other emergency agencies to expected emergency call volumes; to the time involved in handling typical calls; to delay at the bureau in speed of answer during peak periods, etc. Also, the municipal authorities may request separate groups of 911 trunks to assist in identifying sectors of the city placing calls.
Once the emergency bureau is activated there should be periodic review to assure that there are sufficient trunks terminating at the bureau so that on a day to day basis fully satisfactory service is provided at all times.
Will 911 service place an additional cost burden on public safety agencies?
No. Many communities are already equipped to expertly handle emergency calls from the public. The advent of 911 should not noticeably increase the volume of calls now coming in over 7-digit emergency numbers and from dial "O" for operator. Looking at the total community budgets it may be possible to save dollars by consolidating the answering functions. This has been the trend in industries that handle a large volume of calls from the general public, i.e. department stores, airlines and utility companies. Coupled with the trend toward centralization in the larger cities to accommodate more elaborate command and control systems it would be difficult to precisely evaluate the cost effect of 911.
If requested, will hold and trace or calling number identification features be available to a centralized emergency answering bureau?
Safety agencies do not now have the capability of holding on directly dialed incoming calls for tracing to determine the calling number; only calls routed through "O" Operator can be so held.
For the immediate furure, the capability to "hold" a connection to 911 for tracing is feasible ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate this afternoon on private member's Bill C-255, introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). This is indeed a unique opportunity, having just two months ago spoken on my Bill C-252, which is exactly the same.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And your colleagues talked it out.
May 18, 1976


William Kenneth Robinson: Unfortunately at that time my bill was talked out, but this afternoon we are provided with another opportunity to see if we cannot make some progress in what I consider to be a very important area.
The fact that this exact same bill has been debated three times in less than three years underlines a very real concern which many hon. members have about the need for a universal emergency telephone number. I believe by now all hon. members are fully aware that it was the former member for Surrey-White Rock, Barry Mather, who originally introduced this proposed legislation.
When I spoke during second reading of my bill on this subject, I pointed out the progress which was already made in the implementation of the three digit 911 emergency number in North America. I mentioned that most of this progress has been made south of the border in the United States where there are now more than 900 911 systems ranging in size from 2,000 to 8 million telephones operating and serving an estimated 30 million people.
In Canada progress has been steady, but certainly not spectacular. Winnipeg became the first North American city, in 1959, to use a three digit emergency reporting system when it cut over to 999. Brandon also uses the 999 code, but both of these communities have plans under way to convert to 911, so I am advised. At present there are eight operational 911 systems in Canada, and I mentioned those in my previous remarks.
The advantages and values of a universal emergency telephone number have been pointed out already by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and others during debate on my bill, Bill C-252. I see no point in taking the time of the House to repeat them; however, perhaps I could read a brief note I received from a constituent who wrote to me concerning my bill. I have received quite a bit of correspondence since I tried to get the bill through, and this is just a random sampling. I will be very brief; it is just a short quote. The letter says:
I along with thousands of others, no doubt agree with this bill, and it is shameful that such necessary legislation gets kicked around by some incompetent members who have not the slightest idea of what this means or what it can afford to so many areas of this vast country. Give them-
The next word is hard to read; it starts with an H and ends with an 1.
I also have an expert from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce annual statement of policy for 1971/72 which reads as follows:
Universal Emergency Reporting Telephone Number
Since the early 1960's there has been active awareness in many communities throughout Canada of the need for a universal emergency reporting telephone number system. Indeed, some cities (for example, Winnipeg) have instituted such a system. Recognizing that the development and adoption of such a system at a national or North American level has, as yet, many unresolved problems as well as considerable expense, it is believed, nevertheless, that the need justifies and warrants its development and adoption.
Accordingly there is a recommendation which follows from this in an excerpt from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Annual statement, which reads as follows:
That affiliated boards and chambers urge aft authorities who have jurisdiction in this matter to implement a universal emergency reporting telephone number system, such as 911 on the local, national and North American level as soon as possible.
Emergency Telephone Number I believe both these statements, one from an ordinary citizen and one from a highly respected business organization, say a lot about the need for the type of legislation which both Bill C-252 and Bill C-255 propose.
It is important to note the attitude of the Canadian Telecommunications Carriers Association toward the 911 emergency telephone system, and I have here a copy of that association's position statement dated June 5, 1974. With the permission of hon. members I would like to read it, as follows:



UNIVERSAL EMERGENCY NUMBER (911)

[Stage Direction]
1.	The telephone company members of the CTCA will work with any municipality or public safety agency within Canada that is interested in establishing a centralized emergency telephone reporting centre.
2.	These member organizations believe that the development and improvement of emergency communications is in the public interest. For the sake of simplicity, effectiveness and uniformity in developing emergency reporting systems, the "911" service code is now being progressively reserved by Canadian telephone companies for this purpose.
3.	These member organizations believe that the municipality or local agency must assume the responsibility of establishing and operating the centralized emergency system. The telephone companies would be prepared to assist the local agency with technical planning and would contract to carry out the engineering and installation of the required equipment and facilities.
4.	Telephone company operators will continue to give assistance in placing emergency calls if the caller dials zero.
There are, no doubt, some real problems with regard to enacting Bill C-252 and Bill C-255. Perhaps the greatest of these problems is obtaining the necessary co-operation of the municipalities, which is basic if any universal emergency telephone number system is to be successful. However, I urge hon. members at least to agree to send the subject matter of this bill to committee for further study.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was before parliament in the name of Mr. Barry Mather, the former member for Surrey-White Rock, we supported it. When it was before us in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), we supported it. Today when it is before us in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You support it.


Mr. Stanfield:: What about you, Joe?


An hon. Member:: Joe is against everything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -we support it. The former leader of the opposition has asked the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) where he stands. He seconded the bill when it was brought in by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, so that means he supports it, and I hope that means he will facilitate our getting either the bill or its subject matter to committee.
The very speech we heard today at some length from the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) proved that there is enough material now available to provide for a good discussion of the matter in committee, and made it clear that that is what ought now to take place. I therefore urge hon. members to support the sugges-
13636

May 18, 1976
Emergency Telephone Number
tion which has already been made, that if we cannot give the bill second reading and send the bill itself, that at least we send the subject matter of the two bills to the appropriate standing committee.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in endorsing the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and also the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins), as well as the remarks of the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).
The hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East expressed concern about the pay telephones that have to be engineered that do not necessarily require a coin but later in his address he seemed to realize that research on this aspect has already been done and such telephones exist.
Both the British Columbia Telephone Company and Bell Canada Limited have been mentioned. I would suggest that if B.C. Tel were interested in the implementation of the 911 number it should do something about providing pay telephones in the Okanagan Valley. Perhaps I am digressing by expressing the frustration experienced when trying to get through to an operator, or even to get a telephone to function in the Okanagan Valley. If I want to make a call from Grand Forks to Okanagan Falls it sometimes means I have to try four pay telephones before I find one that works.
Some members on the other side have expressed concern about the question of jurisdiction, and about whether a fire department can be co-ordinated with a police department that can be co-ordinated with an ambulance service. I do not think such concerns are valid as I believe the communities concerned are more than prepared to iron out any problems that might arise in this regard.
I hope that hon. members opposite will not feel that they should talk this bill out simply because it has been introduced by a member of the opposition who wants to get something done. It has been clearly demonstrated that the purpose of the bill is valid and Mother Bell, B.C. Tel, and other companies have shown that they are prepared to co-operate.
It is all very well to say that some companies are under the control of or are governed by provincial legislation. That is nothing new and there is, of course, always the opportunity to change existing provincial legislation. Ample precedents exist to demonstrate that this has been done before.
With the exception of a few members of this House who seem to have excellent recall, I suggest that most would find it difficult to recite the telephone number of the police department in their community or the number for the ambulance in their community.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In Winnipeg it is 999.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The hon. member is lucky. I doubt if any members, unless 999 or 911 is the number in their area, could tell the numbers for the police department, the ambulance, and the fire department. In view of what has

been said already in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any need for me to continue except to urge that the bill be moved to committee.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I join this debate as one who is extremely interested in the whole area of the provision of emergency service to the public. If hon. members opposite will bear with me, I do not intend to prolong this debate but just to speak on general aspects of the matter.
I am extremely interested in how far we have come in the provision of emergency service in this country and in how far we have to go. Of course it is the latter question which is becoming more and more important.
I am a little sad, however, that in the sense of the management of the business of the House we find ourselves today debating exactly the same bill in exactly the same wording as was before us a few weeks ago. If we are to use our time wisely in private members' hour we should attempt to cover a new subject.


Robert Hylton Brisco: If it is valid, why change it?


Roger Carl Young: Rather than have double debate on this particular point we should perhaps have expressed an opinion-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We should have passed the other one.


Roger Carl Young: The hon. member says we should just have passed the other bill-because he believes in it. But maybe some of us in this House wish to participate in the democratic process, and express a few comments on the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: I am surprised-


An hon. Member:: Are you not disappointed too?


Roger Carl Young: I am surprised that a member of the New Democratic Party who believes in freedom of speech should try to cut another member off.


Robert Hylton Brisco: He would rather cut you up than cut you off.


Roger Carl Young: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we would be better off to cover some new subject. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) explained his point in putting forward a similar bill and discussed whether the property was really his or was Mr. Mather's, or was even that of the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson). If we stretch that point to its logical conclusion we could have 100 private members' bills which we could debate, day after day, but we would not then debate some of the other subjects we want to get at.


An hon. Member:: It would be a great improvement.


Roger Carl Young: It has been demonstrated that there are still members in this House who wish to express an opinion. If some of them do not wish the bill to go to committee at this point, their opinion can be studied. Whatever we have done or do when debating private members' bills I think we
May 18, 1976

should cover a little more ground, and that is what I shall try to do in this area of emergency care.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. Now give us your opinion.


Roger Carl Young: Whatever we have been or are doing in this country through emergency service, much more is going to be done in the years ahead through the citizens' band radio broadcasting, through land mobile radio transmission, through transmission of medical data, and biotelemetry. If some hon. members are familiar with the American television program "Emergency" they will know what I am referring to. Our neighbours in the United States are far ahead of us in methods of transmitting information from the scene of an accident to the hospital.


An hon. Member:: That has nothing to do with 911.


Roger Carl Young: It has a great deal to do with it. If the hon. member knew the whole coverage area of the emergency medical service he would know the object is to get the equipment out into the field and transmit the medical data from the accident scene. But before you get the equipment into the field you have to get hold of it. Some people have expressed reservations about 911. First, I submit, the equipment must be available in the field. We have not become involved in this area in a major way, although moves have been made in British Columbia and parts of southern Ontario to make transmission equipment available in the field. This type of equipment should have been available long ago and we are far behind in our efforts to secure it.
We ought to be far ahead of our present position with regard to radio frequency management; we are lagging far behind in efforts to delegate bands on the radio spectrum for emergency services and in allocating frequencies for emergency uses. Also, horrendous problems can arise by virtue of the many applications of users. These we should try to avoid.
If I may return to the original point I was making before being so well led astray by hon. members opposite, I wonder if this bill is not redundant and if parliament really has power to do what the bill would purport to do. I am of opinion that the bill is redundant as telephone companies have already indicated their willingness to design and instal those systems and co-operate with municipalities and provinces in doing so. There is some question in my mind. Suppose parliament passes this bill, I wonder if it could not be found ultra vires because it purports to govern all telephone companies in the country and, with the exception of Bell Canada and B.C. Telephone, the federal government has no authority over telephone companies. The other telephone companies are all subject to provincial legislation. I think it is open to question if you can enforce this as mandatory legislation governing all telephone companies.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Roger Carl Young: This is a debatable matter, Sir, which will be decided one way or another shortly. Surely there is no
Emergency Telephone Number
question as to this bill being ultra vires in its broad scale application.
Let me say a word about the mechanics of the bill. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta suggests that all this could come under the National Transportation Act; but that act dealt with powers, duties, and functions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) has the floor. I suggest that the House should give him a hearing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: In the light of the new and comprehensive telecommunications legislation which it is expected will authorize the governor in council to issue directives to regulatory bodies, I submit that this kind of legislation will not be necessary. There will be authority to issue directives which will coax, as it were, the telecommunications industry to provide the type of service contemplated in this bill.
I now return to the point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). I do not disagree with the provision of the 911 telephone service. I know that there would not be any great technical difficulty in providing it and that the telephone companies have shown their willingness to design and instal such a system. The difficulty will be administrative. I tell hon. members that various people in the country have brought to my attention their concerns and doubts on this question. Some disagree w'ith the installation of the 911 system. To my knowledge not everyone is in agreement with installing such a system. First we must consider questions such as manpower, staffing the central agencies which will administer the 911 system, training people in the proper operation of the system, and cost. Those questions are relevant in these times of restraint.
There is another difficulty which I think no one has mentioned, the difficulty of mistaken directions being given from a centrally administered system. For instance, in some areas cities and towns have grown up close to one another and, through accidents of history, districts and streets in different towns bear the same names. Bear in mind the difficulty which could arise. The people sitting at the central desk must give precise directions to field units. They must tell them precisely where to go. If, in two or three neighbouring towns, you have streets or neighbourhoods known by similar names, you run the great risk of sending the fire truck or ambulance to the wrong street in the wrong town. Such mistakes can be serious because you could lose an hour, whereas local units would know exactly where to go.
I have heard no one talk of volunteer services, volunteer fire companies and volunteer emergency service brigades which now serve in local areas but are not professional. People in these organizations do this work in their own time. Can people in small towns afford to pay for a central service, or are you to impose it on them? Are you going to cut off all the local volunteers and ignore their initiative? This work is important to them. I know of local volunteer fire companies which can respond to a fire in a nearby area
95568-29%

May 18, 1976
Emergency Telephone Number
in one minute 30 seconds. If you are to use the 911 system you will phone into the central agency, which will redirect your message to a field unit, and it is possible that the central agency will waste five minutes in trying to tell the fire truck from the neighbouring community where to go in an area it does not usually cover.
As I said, we must consider the question of financing and the acceptance by municipalities, especially smaller ones served by volunteer groups. I am referring to smaller municipalities which feel that if you impose this sort of system they will lose the services of a volunteer group, that it will take more time to respond to calls, and that the benefits of local knowledge and service will be lost.
In looking over some notes for this debate-


An hon. Member:: Which civil servant gave you those notes?


Roger Carl Young: No civil servant gave me these notes, as an hon. member opposite alleges. I consulted copies of Hansard and read debates which took place in 1973 and 1974. Some excellent speeches were made in the past and cogent points were raised. I will not read from those speeches, although if I wanted to use up time I could. Some excellent suggestions were put forward.


Mr. Flynn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As one who comes from a 911 area, who supports this bill and the position put forward by people like Barry Mather, the former NDP member, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), I should like to know if we are to be given an opportunity to discuss this bill. The inherent value of this bill ought to be obvious as the 911 service is already being used in nine or ten Canadian communities. In the case of Kitchener-Waterloo, despite what the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) suggests-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest that is a point of debate, not a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Roger Carl Young: I want to assure my friend and colleague that I was not challenging the system. I see that it is six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' hour having ended, I now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now revert to Routine Proceedings, specifically to the tabling of documents and statements by ministers in order to permit the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to table documents and make a statement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government has today reached certain major decisions concerning crude oil and natural gas prices and I wish to communicate them to the House.
The current arrangements for oil and gas pricing expire on June 30. For some months past the government has been in the process of discussion and negotiation with provincial governments, seeking to reach agreement on the prices which should prevail under new arrangements to come into effect on July 1. Among the various efforts to reach agreement have been the federal-provincial conferences on energy on December 12 and March 5, the meeting of first ministers on May 6, and numerous bilateral contacts at ministerial and first ministers level.
Since the meeting of May 6 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has spoken personally with nine of the premiers and with the deputy premier of Saskatchewan. The announcements I am about to make are in large measure the result of these intergovernmental efforts to find the best possible solution.
As hon. members are aware, the single price for crude oil in Canada has, since last July, been held at $8 per barrel. This is about $4.50 below the international price which now prevails. As I said in the House on April 27 when I tabled the document "An Energy Strategy for Canada- Policies for Self-Reliance", Canada has been more fortunate than most countries. Because we have domestic reserves we have been able to cushion the effects of higher international prices. However, as I also pointed out, our reserves of oil and natural gas are declining and we now import more crude oil than we sell abroad. Finding and developing new reserves will cost far more than in the past, and we will have to pay higher prices now to bring about the exploration necessary to achieve self-reliance in the future.
At the energy ministers conference in March I suggested that the lowest increase in crude oil prices that could be considered would be $1.05. That is the amount by which international prices rose last year, and an increase of that amount in Canada is needed simply to restore the differential between Canadian and international prices which had been worked out and agreed upon by the Government of Canada and the producing provinces a year ago. But I also suggested that an upper limit be set, of not more than a $2 increase, bearing in mind the effects any increase has on inflation and on the capacity of Canadian industry to compete in world markets. Within that range from $1.05 to $2 I stressed the continuing policy of the government that the Canadian price must over time move toward interna-
May 18, 1976

tional prices if our long-term energy objectives are to be met.
In the discussions with the provinces it has been natural for the producing provinces, which own the resources, to press for higher prices for oil and gas to ensure themselves the best possible revenues to compensate them for the loss of their depleting assets. At the same time they have recognized the effects of price increases on the economy of all of Canada.
Governments of consuming provinces have, naturally, been mindful of the effects the price increases would have on their consumers. At the same time they have had to consider the claims of producing provinces for recognition of their rights as owners of the oil and gas. The Government of Canada has had to keep all of these factors in mind, and particularly that most difficult dilemma, the fact that price increases in these major commodities would add to inflation but, at the same time, the fact that if we did not increase prices we would be jeopardizing our future energy supply.
In the light of all these considerations, the government has now reached the following conclusions: first, there should be a standard "freeze" period on petroleum product prices of 60 days across Canada which would run from the date of any increase in crude oil at the well-head. Prices to consumers would not, therefore, rise until 60 days from the date of the authorized increase in the prices producers receive for crude oil.
Second, the price of crude oil in Canada should rise by $1.05, that is to say, from $8 to $9.05 on July 1, 1976, and by a further 70 cents to $9.75 on January 1, 1977. Consumers would not begin to feel the effects until after 60 days from these dates.
Third, the price of natural gas should rise by 15.5 cents at city gate Toronto, that is, from $1.25 to $1.40.5 per million B.T.U's on July 1, 1976, and by a further ten cents to $1.50.5 on January 1, 1977. I should note that with these price increases natural gas will continue for an additional year to retain its approximate 85 per cent commodity price relationship with crude oil.
Fourth, export prices on natural gas will also increase. The government is now reviewing a report on this subject from the National Energy Board and is discussing the situation with representatives of the government of the United States. We hope to be able to make an announcement concerning the amount and timing of the increase within a month. For the three producing provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, we think we can get agreement but will have to await their response. That response may well be influenced by the conclusions which are reached in the next few weeks concerning export prices. The decisions I have just reported to the House would seem likely to carry with them, therefore the acceptance not only of the federal government but of the majority of producing and consuming provinces in Canada.
In making this announcement I would like to confirm that despite differing views among the provinces as to the ideal "freeze" period, all have accepted the 60-day period that will now be adopted in connection with the coming increases.
Oil and Gas Prices
On the vital question of oil and gas prices, we do not have full agreement between all governments across Canada. A few provinces cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the need for these higher prices but we believe, based on our discussions, that a good majority will do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his statement on oil pricing. It comes as a result of a great deal of discussion and argument between producers and consumers and there is little doubt as to the winner of that particular debate for it is apparent that, having obtained the $9.75 price per barrel this year, the government will go on to the $13 barrel in a very short space of time, with related increases in the price of natural gas in both the domestic and export markets.
First, let there be no question that this is one increase of $1.75, not two smaller increases, as far as the inflationary impact is concerned. At a time when wages and salaries are being held back it will be hard to justify what is in reality an arbitrary price increase to the Canadian public. To people locked into existing patterns of energy consumption, often through no fault of their own, it will be a bitter pill to swallow.
The problems faced by many who live in Atlantic Canada are especially germaine. In Nova Scotia for example, electricity prices have gone up during the past year by rates in the order of 70 to 80 per cent. Another 10-20 per cent is sure to cause hardship. No one denies the need to help people locked into this crushing spiral except the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). Today he has followed up his now notorious statement of May 4 with yet another blow to their well being. Let us hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in his budget next week recognizes their problem by introducing meaningful tax relief for low income groups, or some other type of special compensation.
It has become clear with the release of the energy strategy document that the government has only one energy policy, and that is price. There is no real policy on energy conservation. There is no real policy on the development of renewable resources of energy. There is no real policy of federal-provincial energy	relations-this	unilateral
increase demonstrates that in no uncertain fashion.
Since the price is to rise, it must be to increase revenues flowing to exploration. The record shows that in the past this has not happened. Between March, 1974, and November, 1974, the price rose by $2.70 cents; the industry share decreased by 8c. Between November, 1974, and the present day the price rose by another $1.50; the industry share rose by 43 cents. The rest went in tax, which today accounts for two thirds of the price of domestic oil.
The fact is that the government's pricing of oil, outside as it is of any coherent energy policy, has nothing to do with energy-only with increasing the federal government tax take. The tragedy which faces all the people of Canada who are now locked into an outdated, punitive, ill advised process is that the government has yet to recognize that it is the rate of return on investment-not prices-which is critical for the generation of oil exploration in this nation.

Oil and Gas Prices
Filling the coffers of a profligate government surely ought not to be the cornerstone of a rational energy policy.
The Minister has said that if exploration proceeds according to plan 50 cents of each dollar increase will go to the development of our energy reserves. If the energy strategy is not to become just one more piece of dubious government optimism it may well have to cede a greater part of its oil revenue to the producers.
We in the opposition cannot accurately judge the efficacy of this latest move in the absence of the information available to the planners at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to release the data behind his projected exploration cash requirement? Will he explain the macro-economic impact of his proposed hike and let us know the current estimated cost of developing all frontier energy resources? Will he inform us as to the effect of a price hike in qualitative terms on energy conservation?
In addition, we must have detailed information about the price freeze which the government intends to impose. In the so-called energy strategy document, a number of freezes on product prices are discussed. The government's own recommendation was for 45 days; the commissioners of the province of Ontario recommended 30 and 40 days during the last price hike. Why is 60 days now suggested?
Once again Canadians are treated to an ad hoc, uncorrelated statement on energy. The credibility of the government in this field when judged by almost every standard seemed to reach an all-time low when a former minister of energy, mines and resources stated in a famous speech at Denver, Colorado, a few years ago that Canada had enough oil to last for centuries. The present minister, with his recent statement on energy strategy and his inability to work out an integrated energy program with the provinces, is surely challenging his predecessor's record of ineptitude.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) announced that it was the government's intention to move toward the world price of oil the public of Canada have been expecting there would be periodic increases. However, a punch in the jaw does not hurt any less simply because one has seen it coming. One of those blows was struck tonight in the announcement the minister has just made increasing the price by $1.75 a barrel.
The two increases, which must be taken together, represent a very serious imposition on Canadian consumers. The higher price means that those who are driving cars will have to pay an additional 5 cents a gallon. Of course this could be offset if the government were prepared to cancel its 10 cents a gallon excise tax when the budget comes down. But assuming the government is not in such a generous mood, this increase of 5 cents a gallon will mean an extra $40 or $50 a year for the average family.
The increase in the price of natural gas is to be 25 cents per thousand cubic feet which, if one is heating a home with gas, represents some $43 or $44 a year in additional cost, and about $42 per year if one is heating a home with oil.
The impact of the increase in the price of oil alone will add to the burden on Canadian consumers to the extent of

some $1,300,000,000 a year, and the increase in the price of natural gas will create a substantial additional burden.
These increases that the minister has just announced will boost the consumer price index in Canada by at least two percentage points. At a time when the cost of living is still rising, when the workers of this country are being urged to exercise restraint, I would ask the House how long the people of Canada can be expected to accept this growing acceleration in the cost of operating their cars, heating their homes, operating their farm machinery, and running their fishing boats. This is particularly so today when the government is seeking to hold down the incomes of the working people.
One must recognize that with our diminishing supply of oil and gas resources it is necessary to face the fact that prices must move upwards. On behalf of the New Democratic Party may I say we see no justification at all for any increase in the price of oil and gas unless there is an iron clad assurance that the increased revenue will go into exploration for oil and gas in order to assure the Canadian public of supplies of these commodities in the future. To date the government has given no such iron clad guarantee.
Every time that the minister and any of his colleagues make a speech about the necessity for increasing the price of oil and natural gas, they put forth the argument that the oil industry must have an increased cash flow. In other words what they are saying is that the consumer must not only pay for the barrel of oil that he or she buys, but must also put up the money to find another barrel of oil or gas to take its place. This is what I have characterized as the "pay now and then pay later" syndrome.
I think the Canadian people would understand and accept the argument that it is necessary to increase the price of oil in this country so as to accumulate the necessary capital to find more oil, provided they could be assured, first of all, that this money would be used to find oil, and secondly, that when oil was found they would be able to buy it at reasonable prices, not at whatever price the oil cartel chooses to charge them. The fact is, of course, that there has been no such assurance. In the last three and a half to four years the price of oil has moved steadily from $2.75 a barrel to $8, not so much because the cost of production has gone up but because it has been argued that the oil companies needed the additional money to do exploration work.
What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The facts are that the amount of money spent on exploration as a percentage of the oil companies' earnings has declined, not increased. At the present time any increase in the price of oil will go to the treasuries of provincial and federal governments and to the oil industry. There is no guarantee that either levels of government, federal or provincial, or the oil industry will use this $1.75 a barrel increase on oil exploration- which is the only justification there can be for increasing the price.
The members of this party have been arguing, as has the government of the province of Saskatchewan, that any increase in the price of oil should be put into a national resources fund. This money will go to the oil companies, as

well as into the federal and provincial treasuries, whereas the entire $1.75 a barrel and any other increases that follow should go into a national resources fund. The money could then be paid out to those oil companies that actually do some exploration. Money could also be made available to provincial governments that are prepared to use a government agency to do exploration and development. It could also be used to finance Petro-Canada to do a genuine job of exploration and development in Canada, so that the people of Canada might own an oil company that will explore for and produce oil at a reasonable figure, instead of being held up, as they have been for all the years that most of us can remember, by the international oil cartel.
We therefore regret that the government has decided to raise the price of oil in two jumps to $9.75 a barrel without bringing in any program whatever to assure Canadian consumers that the additional $1.3 billion that is going to be taken out of their pockets will be used to find oil for the years ahead. Unless the government is prepared to take steps to assure the Canadian people that the extra revenue that they will have to put up is going to be used for exploration and development, I think the Canadian people will look upon this increase as just another attempt at the kind of rip-off that we have ever since the price of oil has gone from $3 to $8 a barrel.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, before opening my remarks on the minister's statement, I would like to emphasize a point that we have made many times but which does not seem conducive to tangible results. I think it should be realized once and for all that we are fed up with playing second fiddle, which means that when a minister has a statement to make, he should have the decency to table copies of it in both French and English, simultaneously. The excuses which are regularly presented are nothing more than a balm poured into a wound which keeps being inflicted on us. This being said, Mr. Speaker, we hope the matter is stettled. To come back to the declaration as such, let me first state that we are not sure of the provinces' response to the government's decision.
I say this because a direct agreement among the provinces might be a better answer than this unilateral decision made by the minister.
I also wish to mention the very important and very surprising contradiction in the attempt made to justify higher oil prices. They justify this increase by saying it is to avoid a shortage, to encourage a continuing oil production.
Mr. Speaker, let them explain how rising oil prices will increase our supplies. I do not dig it. This phenomenon should be explained to us once for all. I should like to understand. How does a higher price for a barrel of oil increase the oil energy potential in Canada? I wish to get a good explanation because, as the previous speaker just said, every oil company in Canada spends-and always did-a good part of its revenue for the discovery of new fields and new wells. It is something normal. We do not have to supplement their effort in that field. If they do not do it, they do not perform their duty.
But we agree to help in some ways to encourage exploration. However, Mr. Speaker, I think they are going too far
Oil and Gas Prices
when they try to convince us that Canadians ought to pay more if we are to increase our oil supplies. It is inaccurate. It is absolutely wrong. And furthermore each time we talk about energy we are told that oil and natural gas supplies are diminishing. If it is true will it be different with an oil price increase? I ask for proof. And the fact is that we now import more crude oil than we sell to foreign countries.
It is always ridiculous when a government, a minister tells us at the same time that our oil supplies are dwindling and that we are selling oil abroad. It is stupid. Our reserves are declining and to develop them, we have to pay a higher price for a barrel of oil. We wonder how this can happen, but indeed, this is what the minister tells us.
And moreover, we import more oil than we sell. But how stupid and ridiculous it is to go on selling if our reserves are running out; the government should have stopped long ago selling oil to foreign countries, with the threat of a shortage of oil in its own country. There are discrepancies that must be rectified. When the minister says, at page 3 of the declaration I have before me:
... the Canadian price must over time move towards international prices if our long-term energy objectives are to be met.
What a pity! If those are long term objectives we want to achieve, that is, bring by miracle or whatever means more oil than we now have in Canada through our own natural resources, then once again we have to know exactly what this means. We are therefore against purely artificial increases, just for the sake of increasing, on the grounds that this will bring more oil into Canada.
We do not accept that. We would like to have a lot more details. We are in favour of producing provinces having a more adequate, greater income. But then I say it is a lot less the role of the federal government than of the provinces among themselves. Let there be agreements between Quebec, for example, and Alberta for the purchase of items Quebec needs, let the two provinces do it directly at a mutually agreed price.
I think that would be more normal than the intermediary role set for the federal government, particularly when one thinks about the arguments put forward, stupid arguments, saying we are going to save our oil by raising prices, saying there is a shortage which will disappear if the price is increased. That, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to accept. We will have to be given a little more scientific and truer arguments to believe that. In the meantime, we are quite simply opposed to any artificial increase in prices.
If Canada can have energy at a cheaper price than elsewhere it is up to us to avail ourselves of that opportunity, to glorify Providence for it and not run after an escalation in prices on the pretence of reaching international prices. We must be mature and adult enough to act responsibly, even if the Constitution is still in London.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister relating to a sentence which appears on page five of his short statement, which is:
For the three producing provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Alberta, we think we can get agreement but will have to await their response.

May 18, 1976
Oil and Gas Prices
The minister seems to indicate that in fact these provinces have not agreed to this price increase regime. Could the minister verify whether that in fact is the intent of that statement? Have they not agreed? Possibly he could enlighten the House as well as to the nature of the disagreement?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think all I can say at the present time is what I have said in my statement. They are reserving their opinions. We expect to receive their response shortly. It may be their response will be conditioned by their anticipation of the price on the export of natural gas, but it is their move next.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I regret I do not have the act here as I cannot recall the exact clause, but the Petroleum Administration Act provides for federal government agreement with the producing provinces in respect of the introduction of an increased petroleum price regime across Canada, and only when such agreement cannot be arrived at does the act provide the latitude for the federal government unilaterally to set a new regime. Therefore I wonder under what basis the minister is making this statement tonight. Is it simply a proposition he is laying before the House which has yet to be negotiated with the producing provinces, or is it a new funny kind of negotiation, citing this as the federal position, like it or lump it; if you agree, fine we will do it under clause "B", but if you do not then we will impose it under clause "C"? Could the minister possibly straighten me out if my reasoning is incorrect in this regard?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there has been a great deal of negotiation and discussion with the consuming and producing provinces. We believe the decision the federal government has taken in respect of price to be a decision which meets the test of a reasonable price, and we expect agreement from the producing provinces. We cannot say categorically at this moment that we have it. On the assumption that we do not get it, clearly the avenue open to the federal government will be the use of the Petroleum Administration Act.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and again it is in relation to the question of agreement or non-agreement of the provinces. I do not have the minister's statement in black and white before me, but I was listening fairly carefully and I thought he indicated that a majority of the provinces had agreed to the statement he made tonight. If we have three of the producing provinces which have not yet agreed, and I assume we have two or perhaps even three of the major consuming provinces which have not agreed-I assume I am correct in that and I would appreciate the minister correcting me if I am wrong-then how many provinces does the minister believe exist in this country of ours?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated my belief that a good majority of the provinces support the increase I have announced tonight. I have good reason to believe that is their position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he is now in a position to put before the House, or table at a convenient time, the proposition put

before the Government of Canada by the government of Nova Scotia with regard to oil prices and their relationship to the generation of electric power in that province? I ask this question because this increase in the price of oil which has been announced by the minister tonight will obviously be a matter of concern to the government and the people of Nova Scotia.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me a question a short while ago in the House about tabling the proposal from the province of Nova Scotia. My office checked with the office of the Premier of Nova Scotia seeking permission to make the proposal public. I did indicate, as he may recall, that we would have no objection that I could see. The response we received back from his office was that it was a confidential document and should be so regarded at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister, with brevity, a question in two parts. Does the United States pay the world price for exports from Canada to the United States and, if so, where does the money represented by the differential between $9.75 and the world price go; is it used to subsidize the provinces now forced to buy offshore oil at the world price?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the United States does pay the world price determined by the National Energy Board as a just and reasonable price. The differential between the Canadian wellhead price plus transportation to the border and a just and reasonable price identified as the world price in the United States market is the export charge. That amount is allocated notionally toward the cushion used to subsidize the consumers of imported oil in eastern Canada.
Perhaps I might take this opportunity to reassure members who make comparisons between Canadian and American prices and assume that these new prices will put Canadian industry at some disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States. I can assure hon. members that the increase, that is to say $1.05 on July 1 and the additional 70 cents on January 1 next year, will ensure that Canadians will not only be paying a lower price than the industrialized countries in the world but it will be significantly below the United States price as well. It will be roughly on average $1 lower than the United States price during that same period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could tell us if that money is used to subsidize the consumers in eastern Canada, which is a very small part of Ontario, Quebec, and the maritimes. How much a gallon is paid as a subsidy to the consumer and how is it determined? This is wishy-washy. The minister says it is substantial but we do not know the amount to the consumer.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would do his homework he would very quickly find the answer. The hon. member should know that the export charge just about balances in number the cushion which has been running at around $4.60 per barrel. That is the situation. The excise tax which was referred to by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) is used
May 18, 1976

to make up the additional amount of money which is required to provide that cushion. We are importing more than we are exporting. The point is that by the middle of this year we will have provided the, Atlantic provinces of Canada with just about $1 billion in the form of a subsidy to cushion them against the very much higher international prices. The consumers in Atlantic Canada will have lower prices for their oil than consumers anywhere among the industrialized nations of the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister from Ontario not agree that the people of Ontario are getting rather similar prices to those for the people from the Atlantic provinces, and while the machinery is provided to subsidize the price in the Atlantic provinces it comes to the taxpayer while in the case of the people of Ontario it is in the form of a controlled price? Is the minister suggesting that the people of the Atlantic provinces are getting any more benefit per capita than the people of Ontario, whom he represents?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think people all the way across Canada are getting the benefit of the government's policy. I think it is very important to emphasize that point. I believe it is important that the consumers in Atlantic Canada understand this, because I do not think that the opposition members have been telling them they are receiving a subsidy which enables them to enjoy a price significantly below the world price.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what will be the division of the $1.75 between federal government, the provincial governments, and the oil companies. The second question is: what commitment or what assurance, if any, has the minister that the oil companies will use their portion for purposes of exploration in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the first question concerning the division of the proceeds of the incremental increase I would draw the hon. member's attention to "An Energy Strategy for Canada-Policies for Self-Reliance." He would find in that document a good run-down. It has just come to my attention that the page reference is page 36. The important point here is that the federal government tax system is keyed to an incentive for exploration.
If the producers do not re-invest at all the company share would be roughly 25 per cent of the increase while the federal government's share would be 27 per cent of the increase and the provincial government's share would 48.4 per cent. That is on page 36, figure 2. If they, for their own interest in order to minimize the tax bite, increase exploration and development by reinvesting 50 per cent of that dollar, the federal government would give up virtually all its tax take, that is to say, it would reduce its tax take to 3 per cent, and the provinces' share would be 44 per cent. The point I want to make is that when hon. members opposite accuse the federal government of putting through an increase so that the federal government can increase its share of the tax take, they really have not done their homework.
If they look at the system they will realize there is a very substantial incentive for re-investment in exploration and
Oil and Gas Prices
development, and quite clearly that is why we are supporting the increase in order to bring forth further supplies for Canada. Hon. members know they are declining. Unless we have additional exploration and development we will not get those new supplies.
In the second part of his question the hon. member asked how we can be sure that these moneys in fact are being re-invested, and what proportion will be re-invested. My answer to him is, as I stated on another occasion, that we will be introducing legislation in the next session of parliament to make it mandatory for the oil and gas producers to declare specifically what their cash flows are, and what proportion of them are in fact being devoted to exploration and development in Canada.


John Gilbert: The formula is so complex that the minister has to read it from the book. I do not know how the Canadian public can understand the operation of the formula if the minister cannot explain it without having to read it from the book. However, I wonder what measures the minister intends to take with regard to cushioning the increase of prices which, as set forth by the hon. member from my party, would result in a 2 per cent increase in the cost of living index. What steps does the minister intend to take to cushion that increase with regard to the people of the different provinces?


Alastair William Gillespie: The point I thought I had made when I announced the price earlier was that we have tried to balance a number of different interests. We have tried to balance the interests of consumers all across Canada in terms of the effects of inflation. We have tried to balance the legitimate interests of the producing provinces which say they have a depleting resource and that they should be able to receive a fair return for that depleting resource, which is now being sold substantially below international prices. We have tried to balance those two things with the-need to increase the price to provide incentives and a cash flow for additional exploration and development in Canada which, in my view, and in the view of the government, Canada so desperately needs in the years to come. That is the balancing act.
I think the hon. member will appreciate that the way this price increase has been structured-that is to say, the minimal increase of $1.05, which puts us in the same position, in terms of the differential, as we were in a year ago-does not close the gap on July 1. It brings us back to where we were a year ago. We delay the increase on the balance until January. Surely the hon. member can appreciate that this is an effort on the part of the government to try to moderate the effects of the increase on the CPI.
One further point I might make is that the critic of the hon. member's party rather overstated the effect on the CPI by, I would say, a significant amount.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We'll see.


Alastair William Gillespie: It will be significantly below 2 per cent over the period we are talking about.


John Gilbert: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to grant the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) a final supplementary and then conclude the questioning by recognizing those who have
13644

May 18, 1976
Oil and Gas Prices
been attempting to seek the floor from the very beginning-the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), then the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), and then the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne).


John Gilbert: I would like to ask the minister what special measures the government is going to take to help people on fixed and low incomes with regard to the impact of the increases, because they will be hit hardest. Just what special measures is the minister going to take?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have already indicated that the government's approach is to move forward in as slow and as measured a way as we can. We will continue the cushion that is to say, the export charge and the excise tax on the one hand and the compensation funds on the other-so that Canadians will be able to continue to enjoy prices which are significantly below world prices.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, will the minister say to the House whether the government has considered establishing two prices, one for domestic consumption and one for exportation, given the fact that Canadians know there will be oil operations in this country for some years to come, and given the fact that people who buy and sell stock are largely responsible for having given the corporations still in business the means to discover and prospect for new oil reserves?


Alastair William Gillespie: We do, of course, have such a system. The domestic wellhead price of oil on July 1 will be $9.05. We will be selling our oil on the export markets at the international price, whatever that international price may be. At the present time it is delivered to the east coast and into the United States market in the order of about $13, so we do in fact have a two price system, that is to say, a lower price for Canadians, and we are enjoying the higher price in the export market.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this: in view of claims that oil companies have requested and obtained the price increase announced this evening, could the minister indicate whether the request for a price increase came from the producing provinces only, or whether the oil companies also demanded the price increase which was announced?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not think the oil companies are in any position to demand any increase in price. I think that some of the oil company presidents might have indicated in their annual reports that it would be a useful move on the part of the government from the point of view of exploration and development, but quite clearly the only major push for a higher price came from the producing provinces. I think hon. members know that when I met with the producing provinces in March, they asked for $2 more per barrel for crude oil, and the whole discussion and negotiations have

been to try to work out a price which would catch the Canadian position up vis-a-vis the international price in a way which would be acceptable to the producing provinces which own the resources on the one hand, balanced with the interests of consumers all across Canada. That price would also be balanced, of course, from the point of view of the generation of funds needed for new exploration and development in Canada.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. On page 1 of his announcement the minister stated the following, "Among the various efforts to reach agreement have been the federal-provincial conferences of energy on December 12 and March 5, the meeting of first ministers on May 6 and numerous bilateral contacts at ministerial" and first ministers level". My first question on that point is, how many of the provinces are in agreement with the announcement the minister made tonight, and which ones are they?
My second question relates to page 2 of his announcement where the minister states, "In the discussions with the provinces, it has been natural for the producing provinces, which own the resources, to press for higher prices for oil and gas to ensure themselves the best possible revenues to compensate them for the loss of their depleting assets". In view of the fact that some oil companies have avoided Atlantic Canada as a source of exploration potential because of uncertainty in federal-provincial legislation, is there any indication that the dispute involving the Atlantic provinces, namely, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, will soon be settled so that action can be taken by the oil companies to get on with exploration activities, which hopefully will lead to oil and gas discoveries and which will be beneficial to Atlantic Canada, where the ocean and its resources are the birthright and the heritage of the people residing in this area?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate it when I tell him that I am not in a position to identify the particular provinces which favoured the increase and those which were opposed to it.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Mr. Epp:: Come on, gutsy Gillespie.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member would reflect a moment he would realize that these discussions took place on a confidential and private basis between first ministers. I am not in a position to divulge their names, but I can assure the hon. member that, in the words I used in my announcement, there is a good majority which we have reason to believe will accept these higher prices.
As to the second point raised by the hon. member, the question of reaching agreement with the Atlantic provinces on the exploration and development of the offshore resources of Atlantic Canada, I can tell him that I am more hopeful now than I was, quite frankly, six months ago. I have had discussions with the Premier of Newfoundland and my officials have had discussions with officials from the maritime provinces as recently as last week. It appears we may be able to come to an understanding with respect to a federal-provincial arrangement for the administration and sharing of the revenues from the resources found off

the east coast. I sincerely hope we can move that forward expeditiously. It is a very important priority of this government.
I hope we will be able to work with the provinces with respect to the development of hydro-electric energy and its distribution, as well as other forms of electrical generation in the Atlantic provinces, to help put them on a much sounder footing in the future.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to answer my first question. I asked how many of the provinces have accepted. I should like to know the names of the provinces and how many of them have accepted the proposals he made in his announcement.


An hon. Member:: Two.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that it was a good majority, which means something over six.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, in his usual fashion the minister has skated around questions put by members on this side of the House. I should like to ask him for some precise information. He spoke about all the time that has been taken to arrive at these conclusions. Surely tonight he can tell the House precisely how much of the total of $1.75 per barrel that oil is to be increased by the end of this year will go to government and how much to industry? Precisely how much is going to industry, and thus to added exploration? Perhaps at the same time he will explain whether this will provide the necessary "cash flows", as he calls them, that are desperately needed now? Will this increase achieve his goals?
Can the minister also tell the House whether foreign capital will still be required and to what extent will it be important in his capital projections for the future supply about which he is so desperate?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a precise number. I am sure he will understand that as I believe he is one of the better informed members.


Peter Colwell Bawden: You worked that out ahead of time, surely?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member will recognize that three different tax regimes are involved. Saskatchewan is different from Alberta, and so is British Columbia. There are three different types of royalty systems. There is also the difference between Crown lands, Crown reserves, and freehold land. There is the difference between old gas and new gas.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He understands that you cannot answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure he understands there are quite a number of such areas, even though some of his associates do not. I am therefore forced to give him an average, and that is what the energy strategy paper does. It deals with an average because you have to roll them all together.
I have indicated that if the companies reinvest 50 cents of a dollar increase they would be able to obtain 3 per cent plus that 50 cents, which gives 53 per cent. If he would like
Oil and Gas Prices
to apply that 53 per cent to $1.75 he would see it is theoretically possible that there could be funds for the companies of somewhere between 80 cents and 90 cents. Each company will have to look at it from its own point of view.
On the question of whether we will continue to require foreign capital, I think it is quite clear that in this industry substantial capital funds will be required. In many instances, as far as exploration and development are concerned, they will be generated from existing producers in Canada. Once exploration has been shown to be successful, as I hope it will be in a number of instances, we may well require to borrow significant foreign funds to support projects like pipelines, additions to Syncrude, and that kind of major activity.
Perhaps I might be permitted one observation, Mr. Speaker. Like many other hon. members, I am sure, I have been looking for some indication of whether the Conservative party thinks the price increase is too high or too low.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't give us that nonsense.


Alastair William Gillespie: It seems to me they are more interested in trying to do a balancing act without giving this House and the country any indication of whether they feel-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If you can't do your job, quit.


Alastair William Gillespie: -that these prices are reasonable or unreasonable. I invite them to state their position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister knows that the government has obtained most of its good ideas from this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: He is also aware that the very tragic situation he finds himself in which was left by the former minister, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), is the reason we can project all the problems ahead in the oil, gas and energy supply business.
I should like to ask him again about the capital shortage. He did not answer my question as to whether this increase will provide the exploration funds required to meet his goal. Could he also tell us whether he has any plans to provide incentives for Canadians to invest in this industry, which is another one of the tragic failures of the government and which is one of the reasons why Canadians do not own a greater share of the mineral resources of the country?
May I just throw in one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that one of the great reserves in our country is the Alberta oil sands, perhaps the minister could tell us whether he has any plans to improve what is now a nil prospect? Does he intend to do anything about it, or is he going to wait until 1980 and then tell us we have a further desperate problem?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the House that I will be making a statement tomorrow with respect to the new oil and gas land regulations. That statement will
95 568-30)4

May 18, 1976
Oil and Gas Prices
deal with a number of new measures and incentives. Some measures will have particular relevance to Canadian companies that wish to expand their exploration activities in federal lands. I welcome this question because it gives me an opportunity to point out that the price increase relates to the whole strategy for energy in Canada over the next ten years.
Oil and gas land regulations which will be forthcoming tomorrow will fill a number of gaps and demonstrate the importance of a new regime for exploration. Was there one other question?


An hon. Member:: Athabasca.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the tar sands, I think if the hon. member were to read the business section of the Globe and Mail today he would see that the federal government's commitment made in Winnipeg on February 3 last year-that is to say, to make royalties tax deductible, expressed in tax terms as a remission order- provide not just for the production for the first 125,000 barrels per day, which is the size of the plant right now, but would cover an additional billion barrels of production if the province of Alberta does not change its royalties regime in a way which would adversely affect the partners in the Syncrude project.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, since it became clear from the answer given to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that there is no negotiated guarantee to make certain that any increase to the companies will go toward increased exploration, can the minister say what portion of the industry's take will be used for an increased searching out and development of sources of energy other than hydrocarbon? Also, when will we arrive at the position at which greater oil prices will in some way be reflected in the government's increased involvement in the development of new sources of energy for this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is already heavily committed with public funds through Petro-Canada.


An hon. Member:: Ha!


Alastair William Gillespie: I hear a big laugh from the Tories.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Alastair William Gillespie: Petro-Canada, I realize, is something the Tories stood against. They tried to defeat the bill.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Tell us about the dry holes.


Alastair William Gillespie: The people of Canada realize Petro-Canada will be important to their future, even though it will not be important to the future of hon. members opposite.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Tell us about the dry holes.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, before debate on the bill was interrupted by private members' hour I said that I was in favour of capital punishment for some offences. I favoured its retention in cases of planned, premeditated murder where the conviction was based on direct evidence rather than circumstantial evidence. I also suggested it should be retained for treason, and spoke about unlawful attempts to overthrow the government, insurrection, and assassination of the monarch. In all those cases we ought to consider imposing capital punishment.
According to certain newspaper reports the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated to certain backbenchers that they had "better get with it", meaning that they had better support the bill, or else! I hear and suspect that the cabinet will vote en bloc in favour of the bill, and that parliamentary secretaries too will vote en bloc. They are all looking for promotions, for appointments to judgeships, and so on. The Prime Minister made his meaning clear to backbenchers. The plums are there, to be given out as appointments. The retentionists will not be given the plum posts, the judgeships, the highly paid positions on regulatory boards, and so on. This is understood among hon. members opposite.
Let me say a word about convicted murderers of policemen and prison guards now serving time. The list in my hand goes back to June, 1973. Who are these men who have been so convicted? They include John Francis Connearney, who was convicted of killing a police officer in Quebec; John Harvey Miller, convicted of killing a police constable at Surrey, British Columbia; Rene Vaillancourt, convicted of killing Constable Leslie Maitland of Toronto; Real Char-trand, convicted in November, 1972, of killing a constable in Quebec. It also includes George Joseph Peloquin, who was convicted of killing a carpentry instructor at Stony Mountain penitentiary. It includes James Lawrence Hutchison and Richard Joseph Ambrose, who were convicted of killing a police constable and a corporal at Moncton, New Brunswick; Elery Steven Long, who was convicted of killing a staff-seargeant at Delta, British Columbia; and Gilles Hebert, convicted of killing a prison guard at Archambault Institution. I can recite many more names, Mr. Speaker. The list in my hand says little about the victim. We hear little talk of the victim but hear much talk about convicted men.
Let me now deal with the Solicitor General's (Mr. Allmand) speech and consider his arguments. He told us that he has participated in three previous debates on capital punishment, and said that hon. members who have been here for ten years, as he has been, will be participating in
May 18, 1976

their fourth full-scale debate on capital punishment. On three previous occasions the Solicitor General voted in favour of partial retention, that is, retention for certain offences only; each time the government had proposed the bill, and each time the government persuaded dissident backbenchers to support it.
The Solicitor General went on to talk about the question of objectivity. He said that if we consider 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. I ask what are these logical, ethical, and public policy points of view? If it was unethical to vote for partial retention last time and twice before that, is the Solicitor General admitting that he voted against his own ethics, his own ethical inclinations? Remember, Mr. Speaker, the definition of public policy is always subject to interpretation. If it means public concern and public will, I think every constituency in Canada would vote overwhelmingly in favour of retention of capital punishment for some offences, particularly at this time when murder and violence are on the increase.
Let me illustrate what I mean. I sent out about 38,000 questionnaires asking people if they are in favour of capital punishment in cases of planned, premeditated murder. Of those who replied, 6,320 were in favour of retaining capital punishment for some offences; only 676 voted against capital punishment. I submit that any accurate report of the feelings of constituents all over the country would show that most of them would vote in the same way as those who answered my questionnaire. If polls could be taken in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Moncton, the results would be much the same, I submit, as in my survey.
The Solicitor General maintains that the death penalty is no deterrent to the commission of murder. But he has no evidence to support his argument. Let him explain to the House why reported murders increased from 315 in 1968 to 545 in 1974, an increase of almost 60 per cent. This increase has occurred while the Solicitor General, and the government he supports, have been playing yo-yo with the subject in parliament.
In one year, 1974 to 1975, the murder rate increased 18.8 per cent, or at about the same rate as inflation. I point out that just recently Dr. Fattah was paid a big fee to produce a report on the subject of capital punishment. I do not criticize him; he is a professor, and was an abolitionist when he obtained his doctorate. He remained on abolitionist when he was hired to write a report. He produced a report which argues in favour of abolition. And what does that mean? It means nothing at all. It simply means that when he wrote the report, he followed his conscience and argued that the death penalty should be abolished. But he ignored the increase in murder.
Let me quote some figures to illustrate the recent murder rate. They are interesting. There were in 1961, 185 murders; in 1968 the figure jumped to 315, and by 1974 to 545. As I said previously, in a very short space the murder rate increased 60 per cent. The population did not increase by 60 per cent in the same period. And, as I said, in the 1974-75 period the murder rate went up more than 18 per cent. How can the Solicitor General maintain his position?
Capital Punishment
The practical question is not whether the death penalty would deter the would-be murderer, but whether it would deter him more than life imprisonment would deter him. Giving a capital murder convict 25 years in a penitentiary is certainly not going to deter murder. It is going to endanger the lives of every warden, police officer, and person in the correctional service in Canada. That is what it is going to do. Once you have been sentenced to 25 years, what do you have to lose? I might just pause here.
When these two tourists from Vancouver, one charged with murder and the other attempted murder, came to Calgary, they robbed a credit union, shot a police officer, and then holed up in a house with two girl hostages. They said to the police through their communication that they had nothing to lose.
We talk about humanity, but if a man 52 years of age is sent to jail for 25 years, he will not get out until he is 77. During that time will he be kept in solitary confinement in order to protect all the officers, guards, and wardens? I predict that if the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) stays in that position long enough, he will revert to the old system where such prisoners are let out on parole. We already know of people who have committed murder for the second time. It does not matter if they do it three or four times again, they cannot get more than 25 years.


An hon. Member:: They will not stay there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree. Then there is the argument that there is more sympathy and more feeling for the person who commits deliberate murder than there is for the victim. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) talked about a fellow who shot a policeman in the arm. When the policeman fell down by a car, the fellow said that he had everything to gain from shooting him and then shot him through the eyes. That is the kind of psychology there is today.
I have a lot of experience as a defence lawyer. What concerns me is that murder is becoming socially acceptable. No one gives much thought to a person who commits a petty theft such as shoplifting. That is almost acceptable. Therefore you kill somebody.
I listened to an hon. member speaking this afternoon. He said, "What can you do about the victims; they are dead and buried." The murderer may have on his record more people who are dead and buried. What protection is there for society? Canadians are concerned.
The Solicitor General said it is more difficult to get a conviction when we have the death penalty. In my opinion, and I do not want to be unkind to him, that statement bears no relationship to the facts. I question whether he has had a jury trial on a capital murder case. I find that a jury will take the facts, whether they be from direct evidence or circumstantial evidence, weigh them, and come to a conclusion. In my formula, of course, I would not use the death penalty on circumstantial evidence. If it is circumstantial evidence the jury will likely go the other way.
Is the minister suggesting that we get rid of the death penalty because it is hard to get a conviction? Is he suggesting he wants a conviction in order to put these people

May 18, 1976
Capital Punishment
in jail for 25 years? Is that his position? I listened to him on the Monday night, but I still do not know.
There is talk about judicial error. Under the old law, judicial error was a valid argument. However, today, murder is divided into capital murder and non-capital murder. Capital murder was always interpreted under the Code before it was moved, changed, repealed, and amended. The judge who would draw the charge of capital murder would instruct the jury that they could find a reference of non-capital murder. Therefore the question of judicial error is not an argument. It might have been an argument 25 years ago before the amendments were made to the Code.
We have the security package. Part of the security package is the gun control law which seems to get more airing than the last part, and legalizing provincial inquiries which the Supreme Court of Canada says are already legal. They are now bringing in amendments to undo what they did in reference to wire tapping. No notice is necessary. I have said over and over again that if a police officer is not going to give notice to the subject that his telephone will be tapped, he should get leave from a judge, and then only under exceptional circumstances. Police officers I have talked to admit that they have not really tried a judge in this regard and therefore cannot say whether they have faith in that system.
All this was done for one purpose, to get people off the track. It always puts you in mind of a political tactic. When you go to a pond in the spring, you may see some mallard ducks. If the female has some ducklings, instead of swimming away she will make it appear as though she has a broken wing or leg in order to lead you away from the slough. This is what the government is trying to do, take people's minds off the economics of the country and the problems facing us today.
When you are dealing with the control of crime you need three things; quick detection, swift apprehension, and proper punishment. I used this example on other occasions when dealing with the question of deterrents.
When there is talk about whether the death penalty is a deterrent I often use this illustration. There is a rock in a harbour and upon it a lighthouse is placed to warn ships of the danger. One hears about the ships that run upon the rock in the fog, or during a storm, but one never hears of the ships that passed by in safety.
In a day in which we have high unemployment, inflation because of over-extravagant spending by the government, coupled with almost an illegal increase in the amount of currency, wage and price controls, threats by the national unions of Canada that they will organize and have a national strike from coast to coast, an increase in crime in every field, the government, within two and a half years of debating capital punishment, brings it in again to distract the minds of the Canadian people from the real problems and, above all, fails to carry out the death penalty.
A former prime minister used this quote. I dug it up to use it today. This is what Cromwell said about a parliament. This quote was used by the late Lester Pearson when he was Leader of the Opposition. He said to the then government, and I quote:

You have sat there too long for the little good that you do. It is time to make way for better men. In the name of God-go.
For following the tactics it is using, that is what I say to this government.


An hon. Member:: Where are the "better men"?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I quote prime ministers from all sides of the House when they have said something I accept. I accept it for members opposite because I know that many of them do not want to follow what they are forced to do in order to maintain their positions as parliamentary secretaries. In any event, I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your forebearance.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the trend in Canada for many years has been toward abolition of capital punishment. Back in the peak year of 1931 when 22 murderers were convicted hanging was still on the books, obviously not a very effective deterrent. Then from 1936 to 1962 an average of only eight offenders per year were hanged. However, in the six year period 1957 to 1963 the Conservative government commuted 52 of 66 death penalties. From 1963 to 1972 the Liberal government commuted all cases, including killers of policemen. The NDP have also supported abolition while only the Social Credit Party has en bloc favoured retention.
A five-year trial period from 1967 to 1972, which abolished capital punishment except for killers of policemen and prison guards, was established by the present government to test the alleged deterrent effect, or absence of it. A special study concluded that there was no increase in criminal homicide due to the suspension of capital punishment.
Since 1972 the trial period has been continued by order of parliament, again with no death sentence carried out. We are now again debating the abolition of capital punishment, this time replacing capital punishment with mandatory life imprisonment for 25 years with no parole for those convicted of first degree murder. Canada thereby may join a growing number of enlightened nations in which de facto abolition of capital punishment has been achieved.
By 1975 at least 35 countries had either abolished it entirely or limited its use to wartime or offenders against martial law. It is retained by most African, Asian and Iron Curtain countries, and by France and Spain. It was abolished by Russia earlier but reinstated by the communist government, societies quite different from Canada. By contrast, it is being relegated to the past by many western European and English-speaking countries such as our own.
Research statistics from the U.S.A., Canada, and Europe indicate that murder rates are not significantly lower in the presence of capital punishment. As a matter of fact the lowest murder rates are found in Sweden, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and Maine where it has been abolished for a long time. On the other hand some of the highest murder rates are found in France, Spain, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Georgia where capital punishment has been continuously in effect for a long time.
What is the situation with respect to convicted murderers in Canada? From 1920 to 1974 182 persons were granted
May 18, 1976

parole from commuted death sentences. Only 14 had their parole revoked for misbehaviour, and only nine of these had committed an indictable offence.
Between 1867 and 1975, in the entire history of our country, only one who had his death sentence commuted committed a second murder. Thus recidivism-the repetition of the crime of murder-is extremely low. On the other hand our people want to know how long these murderers have been kept in prison as just punishment and to protect society. From 1961 to 1968, 28 served an average of 12 years before being paroled, and from 1968 to 1974, 42 served an average of 13.4 years before parole, longer than for any other type of offence. Many were not paroled at all.
With respect to temporary passes issued only to carefully selected cases, just one out of 1,019 inmates convicted of capital murder failed to return on time, and only six out of 2,016 inmates convicted of non-capital murder failed to return on time. Thus the behaviour of convicted murderers compares surprisingly well with that of other types of criminals. Furthermore, the process of releasing a murderer is a very involved and careful one involving both the National Parole Board and the cabinet.
Even more important than punishing criminals, Mr. Speaker, are the many possible approaches available to protect the public by the prevention of violent crime. But I will not review them here. Nonetheless many arguments have been put forward in favour of capital punishment. It is said to be a deterrent. Scientific studies from many countries indicate that not only is it not a deterrent but that the opposite effect is achieved in some cases. Some people are actually motivated toward crime by the danger involved. It is obviously true that a person can never murder again after he is executed, but he rarely does so anyway when not put to death. However, those from his section of society who identify with him might well be embittered enough over his fate to avenge his death with further crime and violence. Capital punishment does brutalize and polarize society into class warfare.
Some people claim that capital punishment is a form of just retribution to which society is entitled. Or is this only legalized revenge? It cannot undo the crime, not does it always satisfy the victim's loved ones. Some quote the Bible to justify capital punishment, but at least as many quotations can be found to support mercy and abolition. Imprisonment at $18,000 per prisoner per year is admittedly more expensive than capital punishment. But civilization is never cheap. Society's challenge is to make confinement productive, self-supportive, rehabilitating, and humane.
Reports have recently suggested that murder and other violent crimes are increasing rapidly due partly to less severe punishment and partly to sensational coverage by the media. But most cases are spontaneous rather than premeditated. Some regions show an increase while others show a decrease under the same conditions of punishment during the same time period. And authorities in the field trace the real causes to tragic social conditions.
Capital punishment is not always free of discrimination either. The rich and influential seldom hang; it is usually the poor and the weak who pay that penalty. Members of minority groups are sometimes disproportionately sentenced to death. For example, between 1930 and 1974, 54 per
Capital Punishment
cent of the persons sentenced to death in the United States were black although they represented only 12 per cent of the total population. Almost universally, juries are more sympathetic to women on trial than they are toward men on trial.
Nor is capital punishment without its horrors. One woman was inadvertently decapitated. Two convicted murderers who had attempted suicide were kept alive by a doctor and two nurses until they could be executed. One convict was delivered to the gallows in a wheelchair. Slow, writhing death from hanging has been described by Ben Malkin and others.
The Ottawa Citizen editorial of May 11, 1976, reminds us that juries often choose to avoid imposing the death penalty when it is on the law books. What, then, are the alternatives? Life imprisonment, Mr. Speaker, fulfils all the purposes of any legal penalty, that is, deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation, and the protection of society. It is then up to society to design some form of confinement which is humane and productive.
Mr. Arthur Trono, the Regional Director of Prisons in Ontario, with 13 institutions under his control, complains that our prisons do not reform and often make prisoners worse. Meanwhile a Toronto lawyer, Mr. Clayton Ruby, suggests a cheaper and better approach might be to expand special work communities in isolated areas such as the far north, with families optional, or remote prison-type universities for rehabilitation.
Prevention is still better for everyone than correction and punishment, and tighter gun controls should help prevent all those common crimes of passion commmitted with easily available guns, if not criminal shooting. Unfortunately there are lobbyists willing to spend time and money to prevent such logical legislation. So, how do we settle this gnawing problem? Some suggest that informed members of parliament should decide. Others say the members of parliament should vote according to what they perceive public opinion to be.
There are special sources of information, too. Most editorials favour abolition for a variety of reasons; for example, the Ottawa Citizen, the Globe and Mail, and the Montreal Gazette. The churches, too, are opposed to capital punishment; I might mention the Canadian Council of Churches (Protestant and Anglican), and the Roman Catholic Bishops through the Canadian Catholic Conference.
Volunteers who work with criminals, including members of the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, support abolition. The celebrated criminologist, Professor Ezzat Fatah of Simon Fraser University, rejects capital punishment passionately as being "vindictive, retributive and bloodthirsty".
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association through its general counsel, Mr. Alan Borovoy, has congratulated the government for its stand on abolition and said the national organization "is going to work like hell to get MPs across the country to support it".
Dr. Guy Richmond, a prison doctor for many years in England and Canada wrote a book recently documenting the case for abolition. A1 Baldwin, an ex-convict who spent many years in prison and two years on death row for killing a prison guard who he claims double-crossed him,

Capital Punishment
brands the death penalty as brutal and senseless. Police Chief Harold Adamson, the President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has endorsed the federal government's peace and security proposals as being "a very sensible approach" even though police feel the death penalty is necessary in some cases.
While recent public opinion polls indicate a majority in favour of retention, private questionnaire surveys by MPs are usually only answered by a minority of constituents- 10 per cent in my own riding of Halton. As well many people seem to qualify their position after discussing the issue. Polls, public opinion, and the incidence of crime change from year to year, while the law once passed must remain more stable. Another recent Gallup poll, moreover, indicated that 61 per cent of the people place the blame for crime and violence on our social environment rather than the individual, an increase from 52 per cent in five years. Many people now feel that our laws should be brought into line with reality, while some concede at least that hanging is too brutal and must be stopped.
In government there is a higher law than the law of parliament, and that is the royal prerogative of mercy, a time honoured privilege predating Canada's capital punishment law and taking precedence over it. Exercised by cabinet, it is not only embedded in the criminal law but recognized in the Criminal Code which parliament approved directly. Commonplace in the last 13 years, it has established a string of precedents not easily broken.
The Senate too has had its share of abolitionists, including the late Conservative, Senator Grattan O'Leary.
In the final consensus the individual MP faces the free vote and his own responsibility. Some will decide according to the dictates of their own consciences, others under the pressures of public opinion. But historically, legislation in Canada is not always based on public opinion and requires the guidance of specialists. For example, foreign policy and tax laws are not decided by referendum.
David Chandler is his book "Capital Punishment in Canada" concluded that MPs will vote for abolition when they come from culturally diversified regions, as many in Canada are. The classic historical reference usually quoted on the function of members of parliament, however, is that of Edmund Burke:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices to your opinion.
This quotation has been repeatedly referred to with approval in the Canadian parliament. Burke's actual words appear in a section of "Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada." Thus with a controversial subject such as capital punishment the issue is not just what is the right answer, but how it should be decided.
Personally, as a physician who has come to know life from birth to death, I believe that babies-and I have delivered hundreds of them-are born innocent and not criminal by nature. I also believe that anyone who murders has become insane, either temporarily or permanently, just as is anyone who commits suicide.

As an MP, I do not believe that we were sent to parliament by our fellow citizens to make laws which take lives, even the lives of those who have themselves murdered, however much we respect the views of our constituents. I believe that capital punishment is neither moral, effective as a deterrent, nor necessary in the light of alternatives. I consider it my duty, Mr. Speaker, to vote to abolish it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated today that he did not need those of us on this side who happen to favour the abolition of the death penalty, I am going to take a chance and assume he did not really mean that, and I hope my colleagues who do support Bill C-84 will not mind if I inflict myself on them for a minute or two.
An hon. Member; You're welcome.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Although I feel welcome I do not really appreciate the remarks of the Prime Minister on an extremely sensitive and difficult issue that will require the fairness and understanding not only of the government but of a good many people in the opposition. I think this debate will only succeed and that the result will only be what the government wishes if all of us are enlisted in a cause that many of us have espoused for some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I ask my colleagues if night must fall again in Canada. Must all the engines of ritual murder be strarted up after 14 years of disuse? Must members of parliament surrender to our constituents our undoubted duty, one that has been restated and repeated just a minute ago in eloquent terms, to use our own reason, and to use it well?
I have had to ask myself, Mr. Speaker, having taken part in capital punishment debates since coming here 14 years ago, if there is anything more that one can say. Is it not an imposition to ask my colleagues to listen and to heed one more time? I remain a convinced abolitionist. I will vote for this bill. Silence seems to me to be cowardly, Mr. Speaker, to say nothing of it being too easy. With the greatest respect to those of my colleagues who take another way-that is, who abdicate their responsibilities because of the result of some poll-I say that I respect them but I do not honour them.
I want capital punishment removed from the national agenda. I believe that for far too long it has absorbed the mind, the heart, and the spirit of this place. I have the greatest respect and compassion for the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who I believe, through a period of extreme difficulty in this country, has served us all very well. I believe that the Solicitor General of Canada should have more things on his agenda than responding to the cry for vengeance because, I am sorry to say, there can be no other reason for the reinstitution of the death penalty in Canada.
I want the subject of crime prevention and crime detection to be free of what I conceive to be a veritable albatross of hanging.
Hanging a few prisoners will not end violence in this country. Executing the ten who await the outcome of our deliberations will not save the life of one policeman. Hang-
May 18, 1976

ing is not a substitute for good police work, and we delude ourselves if we tell the public otherwise.
Even as the bombs exploded in London in the autumn of 1974 the British House of Commons turned back by a majority of 172 votes one more attempt to reinstate the death penalty in that country. The home secretary reminded the House that the Commissioner of Police for London and six of his senior officers were opposed to the return of capital punishment. In their judgment, the home secretary said, the most effective deterrents to terrorism are the likelihood of detection followed by the certainty of conviction for the guilty.
That debate, Mr. Speaker, took place during a period when England was not a very happy place. Inflation was rampant, sterling was falling in value, and stringent fuel conservation measures were in force. England was no longer Tennyson's place, "Compassed by the Inviolate Sea", or Somerville's "Happy Britain, Highly Favoured Isle". Yet tabulating the votes on capital punishment surely anyone must admit that there are certain values that, even in adversity, Britain scorns to yield. I suggest, and I hope very much that this country can join Britain and many others in the civilized world which have values that we refuse to yield, and that for once this issue which beclouds relationships between colleagues and beclouds discussion of crime and its prevention, and presents us with irrelevancies and, as many members have pointed out, with the most horrible and blood curdling definitions in Biblical texts that I for one have ever heard, can be settled.
I see it is approaching ten o'clock, but I will take another few minutes, if I may, to go on and suggest this to my colleagues. Perhaps they have noticed it. When people quote the Bible advocating capital punishment, the quotations always seem to be either in red ink or red typewriter ribbon. I have never understood, and perhaps some sociologist could do a paper for us on this, why it is that those who wish to hang people have to tell us so in red ink. There may be something Freudian there, but I will leave that to hon. members to work out.
I am delighted that the name of a dear friend of many of us, the late Grattan O'Leary, was mentioned just a minute ago. One of the last speeches made by Grattan O'Leary in the Senate was made on April 30, 1975, on this very subject. A good many people who were in the Senate that day could not help but be moved by this brave old man once again coming to the defence of those who wish to remove this law from our statute books. Senator O'Leary, then a very ill man, said among other things, as recorded in the Senate Hansard for Wednesday, April 30:
-the civilized world has been looking at this question for more than half a century and it has come to the conclusion, with the evidence almost overwhelming, that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I would be against capital punishment even if it were a deterrent; but there is nothing on earth, no evidence anywhere by anyone, to show that capital punishment does deter the further commission of such crimes.
The Senator went on to say:
The retentionists say that we must have law and order. "Law and order," my friends, has been the war cry of nearly every tyrant in history. "Law and order" was the cry of Hitler, when he assassinated nearly six million Jews.
Capital Punishment
He then stated:
"Law and order" was the cry of the infamous Stalin when he reddened the soil of Russia with his purges.
There is always law and order in a graveyard. Yes, "law and order" was the cry of the spawn of Attila the Hun and of Genghis Khan when with fire and sword they laid waste the fairest part of Europe. This has always been the cry of people who want to commit violence against others-the violence which breeds violence.
I am as certain as I stand here that this really is the core of the issue. This violent act by the state surely is-the verb I seek does not come to mind rapidly, but the violence colours the state's activities through the whole criminal justice system. I can recall very well when I had the privilege of being a minister in a government of New Brunswick. One of the last executions took place there, and the guards at the small jail had to seek a leave of absence after the execution took place. They had been confidantes; yes, friends, guards who had shared the aspirations during the whole judicial process of the condemned person, and then the state suddenly said, "Now you have brought this man bread, you have shared his agony, you will witness his death by the state." The request came to me, and who could deny it, so that two people in question got leave of absence. The effect was too much for any person to accept.
That is why I believe the whole trapping-I called it earlier in my speech the whole engine starting up this clanking machinery of death after 14 years-must be an unbearable prospect for those who are in the seats of power.
Others have mentioned brave people who have taken part in raising public feeling about this issue. I have great pride in mentioning another in my own province of New Brunswick, the Archbishop of Moncton, Donat Chiasson, who had the unique obligation, I think the word is, of preaching the sermon at the funeral Mass for the two policemen in Moncton who were savagely murdered a little over a year ago.
The Archbishop did not duck the issue. The Archbishop of Moncton on that occasion did not preach a sermon espousing revenge. How could one expect him to? He chose to preach a sermon of forgiveness, and by that act of churchmanship and of courage he sent a signal, it seems to me, to many people across this country who devotedly espouse the cause, which he does in ecclesiastic terms, and the rest of us do in our ordinary occupations here in parliament.
The Archbishop of Moncton just recently this year, February 23 as a matter of fact, sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, and once again in most eloquent terms supported the cause of abolition of capital punishment.
Perhaps this would be a good time to interrupt this speech and remind hon. members that the second edition will take place at some occasion tomorrow. I am a convinced abolitionist, and I am anxious that those of us who feel the way we do are able to make their positions clear.

May 18, 1976
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with a question that is recorded in Hansard for February 16 at pages 10957 and 10958, which I .directed to the minister as follows:
In view of the anguish, fear and dismay caused by the proposed dosing of several hospitals, particularly in rural areas, I would like to ask the minister if health care centres or other facilities are being planned to look after those needing care and, also, if any provisions are being made to look after the approximately 5,000 people who will be unemployed.
The minister said he had met with his provincial counterparts in April after he had initiated negotiations with the provinces last year, and he offered at that time to share the costs of certain services. Let me suggest that if private enterprise had run its business like the federal government had run national medicare for seven years, and took seven years to observe before correcting its errors, it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.
The government has the bankroll of the Canadian people, but it is getting thin. First the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) tells his provincial colleagues that the government is not going to go 50-50 any longer. Then the provincial ministers say the same thing to the municipalities.
I asked the minister what provisions or programs he had in mind to relieve the situation which existed over the last seven years. I asked him what provisions have been made to relieve the situation in respect of the backlog of people who remain in active hospital treatment beds longer than they should because there is no extended care home to which they can go. What round the clock provisions are there for these people who could be treated at home who require a certain amount of nursing care similar to that obtained in the extended care program? Why have no figures been published on how costs can be cut in hospitals? There is much experience of hospital administration costs, and also eight years experience of medicare.
How does the minister intend to assure the public that the quality of health care will not be downgraded by the moves now being made? In other words, will a physician call on people under a home health care program, or will there ever be one? What happened to the para-medical personnel program that was discussed a few years ago whereby a nurse practitioner could see people in their homes in most cases, as well as the doctor? This practice is carried out in the north. The nurses treat the patients, and whenever they require further specialized help obtain the same through the use of long distance radio, or a doctor flies in. What is being done to build up a para-medical personnel program? In the case of RNA's, would they be

allowed to give a hypo? What has been done about this? What would be the limitations?
These are the questions on which we would like to be enlightened because people are being affected by the closing of hospitals which is disturbing and upsetting, going even into the courts. There is no way the government can avoid the responsibility for its shared cost programs and the chaos it has gotten into on the cost point of view.
I do not blame the present minister of National Health and Welfare for this because other ministers have been involved. In 1967 the spending estimates for Ontario were $358 million. In 1975-76 the estimates will be around $2,913,000,000. In 1967 the province of Ontario had its own medical insurance and demonstrated how well it could work. However, as the government well knows, universal federal medicare was introduced.
The parliamentary secretary who is present tonight will recall very well that at that particular time John Robarts, Premier of Ontario, stated that universal federal medicare would be excessively expensive, out of line with certain other priorities, and inflexible. Some of the other priorities include housing, transportation, and energy. The medicare plan in Ontario at that time was both public and private and competition was keen, which helped to keep down health care costs. Physicians' Services Incorporated was one such company and its administrative costs were held to 5 per cent. This covered 95 per cent of Ontario residents. Federal medicare calls for 90 per cent to qualify for federal subsidies. This plan, which I advocated that the federal government use, was free to the poor, subsidized those on low incomes, insured those with high health care costs because of age or chronic illness, and left the person with the average or high income to pay his own. This, in many cases, provided better coverage than we have today.
We have come full circle, and we are in trouble. We are alarming people. We are closing hospitals and putting many people out of work. Many of those people will not find jobs and will go on unemployment insurance benefits where there will be no services given for the money collected.
It is an amazing thing that the government can think that it can turn off the tap on health care costs. It just cannot be done, and the government knows it. I have reminded the minister on many occasions that there are going to be more and more chronically ill people as our population ages. The care now is not adequate for our geriatric people.
I would therefore like the minister to state what provisions he has made and what plans are being offered. Will there be a health care program for those who could remain in their own homes? Is there going to be a para-medical personnel program? Are there going to be health care centres? What has the minister got to offer to cope with these problems and to right these wrongs so that the quality of medical care will not go down across Canada?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when it is obviously better to have seven minutes to ask perhaps a hundred questions than it is to have three minutes to try to give some kind of answers to them.
May 18, 1976

It is true that Ontario had a good medicare program in place in 1967, but it did not cover everybody and everything, and it was obvious from a national point of view that there could not be a national medicare program, one which would cover other, poorer provinces, unless Ontario was part of it. I think all Canadians are proud of the decision to have a national medicare program which could offer a standard to all Canadians, and I do not think the people of Ontario regret that they are part of it. I also do not think that our program costs more today than it would have if they had continued the program they had, which even the hon. member has admitted did not provide the coverage the national program does.
We began in 1967 with an open ended program. We were ready to write cheques for half the liability incurred by provinces in establishing their systems. It did not have the kind of guidelines or ceilings on it which the hon. member, with a hindsight argument, says it ought to have had, but let us look at it as it was then. We wanted the program to grow rapidly. We wanted to bring in the many thousands of Canadians who were not getting adequate medical attention. We wanted hospitals to be built all over the country in places where there never had been hospitals. We wanted a new quality of medical service for our people, and we got it.
A point came-and perhaps it came over the past few years when the hospital side of that program was mature- when there were more or less an adequate number of hospital beds provided across this country, with some regional misallocation, I grant. The problem then was to control the rate of growth, and the federal government turned its attention to that, not just this year and not just with the announcement in the recent budget that there would be new hospital shared cost arrangements after 1980.
This was not just begun by the federal government recently. It was begun several years ago in negotiations and efforts to try to make the provinces realize that the rate of growth was excessive, and was not something which could be sustained by this country.
We had a partnership in the building of these hospitals. The partnership was that the provinces would decide where the hospitals would go, how big they would be and how much they would cost, and the federal government would write the cheques for half. Now the provinces are finding that they have to close hospitals. I insist that they are not closing hospitals because of the federal program. That program continues until 1980, and if Ontario, for example, wanted to double its hospital budget until 1980, the federal government would pay exactly half the cost, as it has done in the past.
The point is that the provinces have realized on their own that the rate of growth is unacceptable and that we have to turn to low cost alternatives. Ottawa has offered to support a range of low cost alternatives which the provinces could begin today if they wanted to. They have not yet done so. They have until October 1, but as far as the federal government is concerned we wish they had come in on them long ago.
Adjournment Debate


Philip Bernard Rynard: You guaranteed the quality of medicare.


POST OFFICE-LETTER URGING PITNEY BOWES CUSTOMERS TO BUY OLYMPIC METER DIES-REASON MINISTER SENT LETTER
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my topic tonight arises from a question I put to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) on April 13 when I asked what portion of the $150 selling price of postage meter dies was to be retained by the seller, Pitney Bowes of Canada, and also why the taxpayer of Canada was asked to pay for the minister's solicitation on behalf of this company. As usual the minister did not answer the question, which was fairly straightforward. Instead he said:
Mr. Speaker, Pitney Bowes has a vested interest in selling meter dies, which is their business. We have a vested interest in ensuring that meter dies contain the Olympic symbol in order that people who use meter dies rather than stamps will avail themselves of the opportunity of offering financial assistance to the Olympics. Of course, this is a co-operative venture of the Post Office, Pitney Bowes and the Olympics in general.
From that it is clear that neither the question about the portion of the purchase price, nor the reason for the taxpayer being called upon to bear this expense, was answered.
This is a very serious matter and it is not the first time it has been raised with this minister or by me in the House. The first time I can think of was in March when the question referred to a press release issued by the minister on February 25 about a $12 million issue of Olympic commemorative stamps. I believe that release contained misleading statements as well. In it the minister stated:
We need to show our young Canadian athletes that we care about them-that we are aware of the tremendous effort and the sacrifice they are making for Canada. One way you can give your support is by buying this commemorative stamp issue for your collection at philatelic outlets.
When the question was raised in the House on March 26 the minister explained that the net proceeds after the cost of production are turned over to COJO and COJO is expected to pass on 3 per cent of whatever it receives to the Canadian Olympic Association. That, of course, would go to assist the athletes.
It is obvious from the remarks that it is not 3 per cent of the $12 million, but 3 per cent of a smaller amount which the minister was unable to pin down, and indicates less support than would be implied by the minister's press release.
In the Pitney Bowes case a letter from the minister addressed to Pitney Bowes customers on March 17 states several times that the program of selling postage meter dies will help the athletes. In the second paragraph it states "to provide aid to Canadian amateur sport"; in the third paragraph it refers to "support for the games and for amateur sport" and in the last paragraph it states "your organization can show its support for the 1976 summer Olympic games and for our young athletes."
The letter states that the die is available for $150. There is no information on what portion of the $150 will go to the athletes and what portion would be retained by Pitney Bowes.

May 18, 1976
Adjournment Debate
In his answer to my question the minister said that Pitney Bowes has a vested interest in selling meter dies. I hardly think that is a definition of the stand taken by the minister, yet he was unable to explain why, at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, on the letterhead of the Government of Canada, he was promoting the sale of this die which would presumably result in profit to an ordinary business corporation, namely, Pitney Bowes of Canada.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, although the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) responded to the hon. member's question of April 13 last, there is additional information I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). The question relates to the sale by Pitney Bowes of Olympic postage meter dies, and asks what portion of the $150 price is retained by Pitney Bowes, and further, why Canadian taxpayers are asked to pay for the minister's solicitations on behalf of that company.
To answer the second part of the question first, there is no cost whatsoever to the Canadian public. The cost of the sales letter signed by the minister, together with all other administrative costs, is deducted from revenues accruing to the Post Offfice from the sale of the dies. I think that is very important.
The Post Office negotiated a price with Pitney Bowes which is the same, or less, than that company's normal charge for producing a meter die. The company then quoted a price equivalent to their production costs-between $20 and $25, depending on the model. The price is less than a customer would have to pay for a die of his own. After the Post Office has paid for the die and for the administration and production costs, whatever is left from the $150 collected from the customer becomes part of the revenues of the Olympic stamp program.
The sales promotion has been a co-operative effort between the Canada Post Office and Pitney Bowes. The company arranged for its 500 service representatives to make calls on customers, offering the special Olympic postage meter dies. All the costs of the sales calls are borne by the company.
We have gone into some detail in answering this question because we believe this is a worth-while venture for a worth-while cause, support for the Olympic stamp program and, of course, for Canada's own athletes.


EDUCATION-ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF PAYMENTS TO WESTERN PROVINCES FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on May 14 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) about his disposition with respect to renegotiating the 1972 federal-provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act whereby the federal government provides 50 per cent of the moneys for the operating costs of post-secondary institutions. I asked the Secretary of State to look again at the anomalies in that act. I was referring to the provision for the 15 per cent increment which is included in that act.
At first glance, when we consider the increase of cost resulting from inflation, that provision looks generous. But

on closer examination, if one considers the disparities in the growth of post-secondary educational institutions across this country, it becomes evident that great inequities exist in this legislation. The 15 per cent increment provision is fine for those post-secondary institutions in provinces where there has been stable education growth; I am thinking of provinces in which a plateau in growth was reached some time ago, perhaps decades ago. When applied to British Columbia, where there is a bourgeoning growth in education and where new regional colleges are being established almost every year, the 15 per cent increment provision does nothing but heighten the obvious inequity of the legislation.
Answering my question on May 14 the minister said, as reported at page 13520 of Hansard:
... that is a subject on which I have received some representation and of course it is being considered.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can take the minister's word at face value, because the present arrangement is creating no small hardship for many of the newer institutions in British Columbia.
I realize that the federal government, which is accustomed to dealing with astronomical sums of money, might consider the few hundreds of thousands of dollars which would be involved if the act were adjusted as a matter of no consequence. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that to the small institutions of British Columbia, those hundreds of thousands of dollars, if they can get them, mean the difference between life and death. For example, I am thinking of Douglas College, in Surrey-White Rock; of Trinity Western College, in Fraser Valley West; of Fraser Valley College, a brand new college in Fraser Valley East, and of Northern Lights College, which was established this year at Dawson Creek. Here we are talking about brand new institutions which must meet not only extremely large capital costs and start-up costs, but carry the extra burden of high operating costs.
Under the 1972 arrangement, Mr. Speaker, there was provision for a fixed rate to be granted, plus a 15 per cent increment. The present arrangement means, in the face of the growth which has taken place in the province, that there is nothing left in the kitty for those colleges which come on stream last.
I am particularly acquainted with Trinity Western College, since I served on faculty and staff for about 12 years. It is a small private college with an enrolment of about 400. It has not cost the taxpayer one red cent. Everything that has been brought to fruition in that college has been through sacrificial gifts on the part of people interested in that kind of an education. All donations and tuition have brought that college to where it is today. In the past 13 years that one institution has saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, it has in a sense been subsidizing other post-secondary institutions across Canada.
Since 1972 Trinity Western College has repeatedly tried to get help under the provisions of the act. The provincial government as well as the federal government have in good faith said they would like to help, but under the provisions of the act that was not possible. Even with the

50 per cent help in operating costs the provincial government has said it would cost it extra tax dollars to make up that 50 per cent cost because of the 1972 plateau that was established when the act was passed.
In order to do that kind of catch-up financing, the provincial government would have to throw in the extra dollars to make up the 50 per cent of the operating costs. I say again that this is not fair to a province like British Columbia which is experiencing that kind of growth.
The same is true for Fraser Valley College which is about three years old. The province has to kick in the extra money to finance the operating expenses of that college. This year Northern Lights College in Dawson Creek is facing the same kind of dilemma.
The 1972 Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act is being very prejudicial in light of the experience of these colleges. I ask that the Secretary of State take a serious hard look at the disparity that exists because of the fiscal arrangement of this legislation. I hope he will seriously consider a readjustment of the arrangement in order to include those colleges which come on stream later in the life of the province, the educational experience of a province, and provide some kind of equitable arrangement so that new colleges that come on stream will also benefit by the 50 per cent operating costs arrangement that is supposed to be provided by the provisions of the act.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the matter raised by the hon. member. He is suggesting that the 15 per cent ceiling which exists on the annual rate of increase in federal payments under the post-secondary education provisions of the Fiscal Arrangements Act is having an adverse effect on certain postsecondary institutions which are facing high rates of increase in enrolments.
The post-secondary education fiscal transfer involves two distinct aspects. The first of these is a formula for determining the amount of money to which a province is entitled that is, the value of the federal contribution. The second is a mechanism for actually transferring funds to the provincial government. The value of the federal contribution to a province is based on 50 per cent of eligible operating expenditures of post-secondary institutions in the province, subject to the floor provision and the 15 per cent limitation on the annual increase in total federal expenditures under the program.
The mechanism for transferring funds to a province involves two components, the federal "revenue reduction"
Adjournment Debate
and residual cash "adjustment payments". The revenue reduction relates historically to a transfer of personal and corporate income tax points to each provincial government as part of the 1967 arrangements developed by the federal government for supporting post-secondary education in Canada. It also includes, where applicable, equalization and revenue guarantee payments associated with the value of the tax transfer. This part of the legislation is administered by the Department of Finance. To the extent that the revenue reduction is insufficient to meet the total value of the federal contribution to a province, the Secretary of State's department makes cash adjustment payments to provide for the difference. I should stress here that these payments to the provinces are totally unconditional as to the purposes for which they may be spent.
The program has just entered its tenth year of operation. During the first nine years of the program, the total value of the fiscal transfer to all provinces, that is, the combined value of the federal revenue reduction and the residual adjustment payments, has exceeded $8 billion. Of this amount approximately $4.5 billion was in the form of the revenue reduction and approximately $3.5 billion has been paid by the Department of the Secretary of State as adjustment payments. Given these magnitudes, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the substantial growth and development which have occurred in the field of postsecondary education in Canada over the past decade simply would not have approached the same degree without the federal support program.
As can be seen from my description of this program there is no link between the 15 per cent ceiling on the annual rate of growth in the aggregate value of the federal contribution to the provinces and the funds made available to individual institutions by the governments of the provinces. Given that the funds transferred to the provincial governments are entirely unconditional as to the purposes for which they may be spent, the decision as to the amount of financial support the government of each province chooses to provide to the various post-secondary institutions in the province is one which rests exclusively with each provincial government.
I am clearly not in a position to comment on the manner in which the various provincial governments may choose to provide financial support for post-secondary institutions in their respective provinces.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that these comments clarify the question raised by the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, May 19, 1976