1976-05-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under Standing Order 43, to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House notes the appointment by the minister responsible for the status of women of a committee to advise him on the business community's progress on status of women issues, the said committee being composed of senior representatives of Canadian business and industry who will meet with the minister twice a year, and this House, noting in particular that of the eight members of the committee seven are men and only one is a woman, condemns this gesture as sheer tokenism and calls on the government to come forward with positive steps to upgrade the status of women in this country's business community.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an urgent motion of pressing necessity.
Considering the alarming conclusion contained in the report of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that within five years the structure of the municipal government as we now know it will disappear; considering that this means the absolute seizure by the state of this sector, as was the case with school boards which completely lost their autonomy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House immediately discuss the actual role that should be fulfilled by the municipal government which is the base of our Canadian democracy system and, at the same time, the government level
closest to the citizens, to prevent completing the creation, as provided, of another administrative monster of the centralizing state.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the increase in the cost of living forces a growing number of women to leave the household to find a job enabling the family to make both ends meet, and that a high number of women would rather stay home to take care of their children instead of working out, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House examine the possibility of establishing a guaranteed income for homemakers wishing to stay home to take care of their children, so that it enables families to meet the ever rising cost of living across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of 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 is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous

May 6, 1976
Oral Questions
consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the agreement, concluded between the government of Canada and that of the province of Quebec under an act approved on May 13, 1942 concerning the suspension of certain wartime taxes, expired on March 31, 1947; also, in view of the fact that the said agreement had been concluded so as to allow Canada to provide a maximum effort during World War II and that the said war has been over for 31 years; that the government of Canada recognized at the time that the province of Quebec, in making this commitment, did not relinquish or turn over any part of its sovereignty nor any of its rights, powers and privileges under the Constitution; and that it also appears from subsections 2 and 9 of section 92 and also from section 121 of the British North America Act that a provincial legislature is entitled to levy direct taxes on its territory to constitute a revenue for provincial purposes, I move seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House urge the federal government to return as soon as possible to the province of Quebec all rights of direct taxation that it borrowed from the said legislature for wartime purposes since the province of Quebec had agreed to suspend temporarily the levy and collection of certain taxes on income and corporations only for this purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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 such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I appreciate the nervous reaction on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Questions were raised yesterday about a serious apparent discrepancy between a position taken by a senior public servant and the Prime Minister. I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General who yesterday told the House at page 13196 of Hansard, that he intended

"to get all the information before answering the question". Considering any guidelines which were issued by the Prime Minister or by a cabinet committee with regard to restricting RCMP inquiries into any segment of the Canadian public, will the minister now advise the House if he was aware of the guidelines referred to specifically in the exchange of correspondence between General Dare and Mr. Bourne and if he participated in any way in the decision to issue such instructions?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday I have looked into this matter thoroughly. I have found that what is in question is a cabinet decision with respect to the operations of the security service which had been conveyed to the RCMP. This cabinet decision dealt with, among other things, and confirmed that the RCMP should not survey legitimate political parties per se, but of course individuals in all political parties should be subject to surveillance if they are suspect with regard to criminal activities, subversion, violence or anything like that. That cabinet decision was based on a document that I had submitted to cabinet. It had first been screened or dealt with by the cabinet committee on security intelligence. A decision had been made and submitted to full cabinet. Cabinet confirmed it and it was passed on to the RCMP.
I guess the difficulty has arisen through the use of terminology. General Dare described the conveyance of the decision of the cabinet as guidelines. It was really a cabinet decision. It dealt with general operations only of the security service and did not deal with security screening of applicants for the public service. It did not deal with that. The letter of General Dare asked for clarification as to whether the general operations and policies might apply to the security screening, and that is what led to the further correspondence.


Charles Joseph Clark: The letter of General Dare did not make a specific reference to the cabinet but rather a quite personal specific reference to the Prime Minister and to a discussion with the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Solicitor General has spoken with General Dare regarding this matter, and I wonder whether he can tell the House if it is still the position of General Dare that there was a discussion with the Prime Minister and, as stated in the February letter, that the Prime Minister issued certain guidelines and that the Prime Minister spoke specifically of the Party Quebecois.


William Warren Allmand: I did meet with General Dare this morning.


Mr. Fairweather:: It must have been a happy meeting.


William Warren Allmand: It was a very good meeting. General Dare was really speaking about his participation in the meeting with the security and intelligence committee, and there was no direction from the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister was part of the committee, as were many other ministers and members of the security community who participate in those meetings, but the decision General Dare was talking about, the cabinet decision, was a decision of the cabinet as a whole and the cabinet committee as a whole and was not the result of any private meeting between General Dare and the Prime Minister.

May 6, 1976


POSSIBILITY PARTY QUEBECOIS MENTIONED BY PRIME MINISTER
Charles Joseph Clark: Since this has become a part of the public record, will the Solicitor General tell the House now whether the Prime Minister, to use the language of General Dare, spoke specifically of the Party Quebecois?


William Warren Allmand: We do not
make public the private discussions which go on in cabinet and in cabinet committees. It is true that when we were discussing these general guidelines we discussed how they might apply to many political parties, but this only confirms what I have announced in this House on many occasions when people asked whether, for example, members of parliament, members of trade unions or members of political parties are subject to surveillance just because they belong to those groups, and I have always answered that they are not. However, the members of any legitimate group can be subject to surveillance if they are suspected of criminal or subversive activity, and that is what was being discussed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it the position of the Solicitor General and the government of Canada that General Dare was incorrect and not stating the facts when he said in his letter that the Prime Minister spoke specifically of the Party Quebecois?


William Warren Allmand: I attended those meetings, and while different things were discussed, I cannot remember who discussed what. However, what I discussed with General Dare this morning was the decision of the cabinet committee. He has confused the decision of the cabinet committee with perhaps the input of different people in making up the final decision.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You have a selective memory.


TO WHOM GENERAL DARE REPORTS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue the questioning of the Solicitor General to try to determine precisely what apparatus exists within the government with respect to this whole area. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to indicate the frequency of his meetings with General Dare, nor would he indicate whether the Solicitor General was in fact present at those meetings. Can the Solicitor General advise the House of the line of command which exists for General Dare? Does he report to the Solicitor General or directly to the Prime Minister?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, General Dare reports to the commissioner of the RCMP who in turn reports to me, and I report to the Prime Minister and this House.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made repeated references to this cabinet committee on security and intelligence which oversees the operation of government agents in the area of security and intelligence and at which certain conclusions were reached which were communicated to the police. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister might give the House an explanation of the terms of reference and membership of such a committee, and is it the position of the government that RCMP inquiries may be restricted by such a body, or is the independence of the force to be maintained regardless of conclusions reached or instructions communicated to the RCMP?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the independence of the police is protected. Of course, the government has to take responsibility for all matters lying under its jurisdiction, but in pursuing that objective it does not interfere with the independence of the police.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister tell the House whether a Lieutenant-Commander Barry Ridgewell and/or other members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been searching the continental shelf off Canada's west coast for certain underwater listening devices and, if so, would he tell us what they have found?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, they have not been searching for such devices.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Apart from whether or not they have been searching, according to news reports perhaps they should be. Would the minister tell the House whether the government has any information, either from observing trawlers or any other source, that would lead them to believe that a foreign power has established underwater listening devices either off the west coast or the east coast of Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we have no evidence whatever that that has been done.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister explain to the House why a presumably responsible officer in the armed services of Canada has made such a contention, and if what he says is a blatant falsehood would the minister tell the House what disciplinary action the government plans to take?

May 6, 1976
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think the words used would have to be a little more clear. I do not think there was any suggestion that there were devices of that kind.


John Edward Broadbent: He said there were.


James Armstrong Richardson: I think the commander was describing that the type of work he is engaged in and that his training could be used for a number of purposes, such as for locating resources, sunken ships or aircraft, and that there was also a possibility that it could be used to find devices of the kind described if they were there. He was talking about the possibility of this, not about the fact that they were there or that he had seen them.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Did the Minister of Justice ask his deputy for a complete report on the evidence given by Judge Antonio Lamer before the Inquiry Commission on Organized Crime? In the affirmative, can he reassure the House about the integrity of the new chairman of the Law Reform Commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House previously, my predecessor discussed this question with the deputy attorney general. I have asked to be apprised of the report that was given to my predecessor but I have not yet received it. However, may I say that I have no information that would indicate any lack of integrity on the part of the chairman of the Law Reform Commission.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO NEW CHAIRMAN OF LAW REFORM COMMISSION
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General.
Has the minister been informed about the questionable acquaintances of the chairman of the Law Reform Commission and does he intend to order an inquiry to know whether a man who assumes responsibilities so fraught with consequences intends to advocate in a disguised manner reforms likely to encourage criminality rather than discourage it?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. In reply to previous questions the Minister of National Defence has declined to reveal either the rate of interest which Lockheed will pay on the loan from Canadian banks or to say whether the total interest payments would be in excess of $111 million set aside for such payments by his department. However, on Monday the Minister of Supply and Services told reporters that, whatever terms are negotiated between the banks and Lockheed, the government will pay no more than a maximum which is fixed in the contract. Would the Minister of Supply and Services now tell the House what this maximum fixed figure is, and would he now provide copies of the contract in compliance with his previous commitments?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we have negotiated with Lockheed the maximum charges the federal government will assume and they have been incorporated in the contract, which is now in escrow. Of course, if Lockheed can achieve and finalize negotiations with Canadian banks, then the contract will be in force and we will table it in the House. In the arrangement with Lockheed, it is understood that if it can obtain better terms and conditions with Canadian banks the federal government will benefit, but if it cannot, then Lockheed will absorb the additional cost and responsibility.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the minister does not wish to answer the question by giving a figure of what percentage of interest is involved. The government has stated repeatedly it will not guarantee a loan to Lockheed, yet the minister on Monday told reporters that in case of a Lockheed bankruptcy the government would assume the payments made until that point, and that the banks are protected to that extent. If that does not amount to a government guarantee I do not know what does. Therefore, I should like to hear the minister's explanation of why a commitment to repay the banks for money loaned to Lockheed does not amount to a guarantee.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there is no more guarantee than the one the federal government would have to face if the federal government were providing the financing through appropriation. That means that if there are any risks for the Canadian banks they have to be settled with Lockheed, not with the federal government. We do not give any guarantee on any loan to Lockheed.
**
;
[DOT] <
May 6, 1976


REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS BEFORE ESTABLISHING RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE NEAR PORT GRANBY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is in respect of a 470-acre parcel optioned by a governmental agency under his jurisdiction near Port Granby, just west of Port Hope, for the purpose of a radioactive nuclear waste disposal site. Will the minister give the assurance to me and the House that procedures such as outlined, for instance, in the provincial government's environmental protection act, which require a full public assessment of the environmental dangers and the requirement of public hearings in respect of a matter such as this, will be followed either before the government goes ahead with completion of the purchase, or inevitably uses it as a radioactive waste disposal site?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to convey this representation to the federal-provincial task force which is concerned with the clean-up of the Port Hope situation. As the hon. member may know, there are a number of federal government and Ontario government departments involved. I believe the Ontario Department of the Environment is specifically concerned with the licensing arrangements for such a new disposal site.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is then directed to the federal Minister of the Environment. As both he and his colleague in the Cabinet must know, if the federal government wants to waive completely all these guarantees in the provincial legislation it can and quite frequently has done so. The federal Minister of the Environment has within his personal discretion the authority to give an undertaking right here and now that these guarantees of public hearings and full public disclosure of the environmental assessment will be made before this site can be used for radioactive dumping purposes. I would ask the minister then, because it is within his discretion, to give that undertaking to the House now.
Oral Questions
this, I would ask whether the federal government will follow the requirements and guarantees written into the provincial government's legislation rather than relying on the rather arbitrary provisions which exist in his own legislation?


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, I think in this regard we will have to consult with the government of Ontario. I am sure we are going to co-operate with that government and it will accept the standards we propose. Even if they do not do it immediately they have the programs to do it and we do the same thing. There is no doubt that we will support the government of Ontario.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a serious question concerning a bill now before the committee. This is in a different field. Once again we have seen correctional officers and institutional staff members held as hostages. The last situation was at the Archambault institution. We can be thankful that they were released without a murder such as happened in British Columbia. The Solicitor General in answering a question, said that the only way to prevent such occurrences is to lock up everybody. Has the Solicitor General come up with a policy or plan to protect the correctional officers from this kind of harassment and danger and would he now tell us what the plan is because I say to him in all seriousness that the situation in our institutions across Canada is very precarious.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, part of the plan is in the peace and security program, the administrative side, in which it is mentioned that first of all we would move to the construction of smaller institutions containing 150 to 180 inmates to allow for greater segregation of inmates. Also this type of institution would provide better security and rehabilitation.
Second, in response to the unions and the administration we have agreed to have a more intensive training and retraining program for correctional officers including training in such things as crisis and hostage situations. Furthermore, there are many security arrangements being introduced. I would not be able to state them all here, but I would be willing to send them to the hon. member.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add more to what has been said by my colleagues on this. We have a general work force with the government of Ontario, and this is surely a problem on which we are going to proceed. We are studying this problem of nuclear waste in the region of Port Hope. We are going to look into this problem jointly with the government of Ontario, and we are ready to consider whatever recommendations are submitted to us.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, if, as the minister contends, the province of Ontario does have something to do with


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, that program looks like something that will be done three years from now. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice, because not only are officers being held as hostages but most of our penitentiaries are like sieves,
96 568-4

May 6, 1976
Oral Questions
whether he has looked into the matter of Nichols and Gamble, one of whom was on a charge of murder and the other attempted murder, who came to Calgary while on bail and robbed a credit union, murdered a police officer and held two civilians for 47 hours as hostages. Has he worked out with the attorneys general of the provinces a plan to use their judicial discretion in favour of public safety-I emphasize that-rather than in favour of criminal violators. The new bill is not the solution because the discretion will be exercised by the same judges. What is the answer?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as a courtesy from the Attorney General of British Columbia I received a full report from Mr. Gardorn on the particular case to which the hon. member referred. The two alleged gentlemen to whom the hon. member refers applied for bail and their bail applications were contested by the provincially appointed Crown counsel at the time. However, a decision was made by the magistrate involved to allow them out on bail. As the hon. member knows, effective April 26 the bail changes I proposed to Parliament came into effect. They are designed specifically to avoid a situation such as that at Calgary. I have urged publicly and with the attorneys general that their Crown prosecutors across the country take note of those provisions and use them effectively because it seems to me that the changes made in Bill C-71 give Crown counsel a proper argument to use before any Justice of the Peace or magistrate that people who are a danger to the public should be kept in jail pending trial. I would hope Crown attorneys across this country will take note of my remarks.


ALLEGED INQUIRIES ABOUT MEMBERS BY PRIVATE DETECTIVES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
Since in the course of matters recently considered by Parliament some allegations were made that private agencies or detectives were hired by some Canadians to investigate the behaviour of members, could the Solicitor General tell the House what he intends to do to make sure that no member is subjected to undue investigations from private detectives or agencies and that the rights and privileges of parliamentarians are always respected in an institution where freedom of action and speech is the very basis of our political system?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that a private detective agency has been hired by certain political figures or parties to investigate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is very interesting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot hear the Solicitor General. I must say the reason I cannot is that the noise is coming from behind him, rather than from across the aisle.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that a private detective agency or agencies have been hired and have investigated members, not only in respect of their public but their personal lives. I intend to have this looked into as quickly as possible.


FINANCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am suffering from a slight cold. For that reason I am waiting until the hubbub subsides before I put my question. Mr. Speaker, I would put my question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance or perhaps to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that according to the Wall Street Journal and other sources, Canadian banks are proposing to join with United States financial institutions in the making of loans of $100 million to $125 million to Chile, and in light of the repeated condemnation by the Canadian government of that regime which is based upon oppression and torture, and in view also of the grave financial and economic conditions in Chile where there is enormous debt and rampant inflation, will he advise any Canadian banks that it would be wrong as well as unwise for Canadian banks to be involved in any such loans.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the report nor am I in a position to judge its authenticity. However, I will certainly take up the matter.


MUSEUMS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State of which I have given him informal notice a couple of hours ago. Notification of dismissals has been given by the National Museums Branch to many public servants who have long tenure. Will the minister explain the rationalization of this move and whether the public servants involved will have some security in other elements of the public service.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. As he has noted in his question, no career public servants have in fact been laid off at this point. As the result of the restraint program, 28 positions have been designated as redundant and over the next three months the corporation will try to find work for the 28 in question.
May 6, 1976


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the long drawn out negotiations with supervisory personnel and the fact that some of these supervisors are being paid at a lower rate than the personnel they supervise, can the Postmaster General indicate when a new contract will be announced?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, that matter was settled several days ago. If the hon. gentleman is referring to the reclassification procedure with regard to supervisory personnel, he will be pleased to know that it has been completed to their satisfaction. As for current labour negotiations, personnel issues as well as non-monetary issues have been resolved.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, will the AIB be applying the same terms of reference to the supervisory group as they did to the CUPW group during their negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot prejudge what the AIB decision will be. I imagine that if any change has to be made, heavy stress will be put on the historical relationship between all the groups, CUPW and LCUC as well as the supervisors in both groups.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence who yesterday placed a price tag on the safety and security of Canadian fishermen when he said he would not respond to the request to have the search and rescue group deployed because it has not been found to be cost effective. This will prove to be to his discredit. My question today is prompted by the report tabled in the House by the Minister of Transport earlier on the sinking of the fishing vessel San Juan and on questions relating to the same subject tabled in the House earlier this week by the minister. In the investigation by the Minister of Transport there is the following statement:
At no time during the search was the "San Juan" itself actually sighted, only the flare from the vessel at 0345 being visible to those aboard the "Bartlett".
Yet in his reply to me earlier this week the minister stated that visual contact was established by the coastguard ship at 3.30 o'clock and maintained until 4.30 o'clock. That is a very serious discrepancy considering the fact that two fishermen were lost in that accident. There is a serious contradiction there. I ask the minister if he can explain it or if he will cause a ministerial investigation of that serious contradiction to be carried out.


James Armstrong Richardson: I will look into the facts that have been presented, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


REASON FOR DELAY OF MAIL AT CLINTON, ONTARIO
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Notices of a meeting were sent out to dairy producers from the agriculture and food office in Clinton, Ontario on Tuesday, April 20. On Tuesday, April 27, one week after the mailing of these notices, many had not been received. Can the minister advise us what is going on in the Post Office when an ordinary procedure, such as getting such notices a few miles to their destination on time, cannot be carried out, or does the fact that they were not sealed and that only a 6 cents stamp was put on them could cause this kind of delay?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire whether the delay was intentional or unintentional and whether the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member, the fact that the letters were unsealed and the fact that probably insufficient postage was placed on them, are correct. I will investigate today and report to the hon. gentleman.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Surely the minister should know whether it is general policy within the Post Office Department that unsealed mail with a 6 cent stamp on it takes longer to arrive to its destination than first class mail. Can he at least give us that information? Further, let me say that I will send the pertinent information to the minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Do it by hand.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not think the hon. member wanted general information but was referring to something specific. I would like to be useful. If the hon. gentleman will bring the specific case to my attention, I will give it extraordinary attention because of my great affection for the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Can he assure the House, in the interests of preserving the strength, morale and integrity of the highly trained civilian work force at the HM Dockyard in Esquimalt, that he will issue instructions immediately that all lay-offs from the competent staff of this force cease forthwith?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries concerning that representation.


Donald W. Munro: Can he assure the House that all work on the refit of HMCS Saskatchewan, which is to start next month, will take place with this force at that base?
95568 -4*/2

May 6, 1976
Oral Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: I will also make inquiries concerning that representation, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Considering the apparently inevitable failure of the Law of the Sea Conference, in spite of the effort to reach an agreement on the 200-mile limit at the conclusion of the conference now being held in New York, could the minister assure the House and all fishermen in Canada that the Canadian government will take a unilateral stand in this respect without too much delay?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the joint statement as yet; it had not been tabled this morning. There is no doubt that, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, 1976 is a critical year for Canadian fisheries and in that sense we intend to take our responsibilities and do whatever is necessary to protect our interests.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this day to those of us interested in the law of the sea, may I address an extraordinary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Acting Prime Minister. This deals with the report out of New York today that a proposal will be laid before the Law of the Sea Conference that limits be placed on production of land-based nickel reserves in order to encourage production of minerals on the ocean floor. Has the government adopted an official position with regard to this particular proposal?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, several proposals are under discussion at the conference, including some that are quite controversial, such as the one to which the hon. member just referred. Canada, of course, could not accept any text which would have the effect of damaging the land-based nickel production in Canada.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. It is reported in the press in a dispatch out of Quebec City today that the Quebec finance minister, Mr. Raymond Garneau, and the President of the Treasury Board have agreed to create a national lottery to run until 1979 which is expected to produce $300 million to assist in the anticipated Olympic's deficit. The proceeds are to be used after 1979 for the development of Canadian athletes. I should like to ask the minister if he intends to bring the establishment of this national lottery before parliament before it is implemented before the end of August this year?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a statement on this subject. Indeed, I had some conversations with the Quebec Minister of Finance about self-financing programs for the Olympic Games but they are not completed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether it is correct to say these discussions have taken place with Julien Cote who, it is anticipated, will be appointed the national lottery chairman. I should like also to ask whether it is the minister's intention to bring this matter before parliament before a final decision is made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, nobody was met because no decision has been made up to now. Of course, any new policy in this area will be presented to the House, and I hope we will have a favourable vote from all parties represented in the House if we put forward a measure along that line.


FREEZING OF FUNDS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO ILL EFFECTS
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can the minister tell the House whether he has read the statement of the medical director of the Canadian Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases Association that the freeze imposed by the federal government on medical research could have disastrous effects on the health of the average Canadian and, if so, can he tell the House what he intends to do to reassure Canadians who are naturally concerned at the thought that financial restrictions in the medical field threaten the quality of medical care, as stated by Dr. Dirks?
May 6, 1976

Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the particular statement referred to me by the hon. member but several similar statements have been made in the last few weeks. I want to point out to the hon. member that the funds allotted to the Medical Research Council have not been frozen as such. In fact, they were increased by over $1 million.
Still, many researchers in particular consider that increase inadequate, and I am endeavouring to find ways of recovering funds elsewhere to give greater assistance to medical research. I find myself in a quandary but I have already advised researchers that the government does consider this a serious matter. I do hope that we will be able to improve the situation.

[English ]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In her recent discussions with her provincial counterparts did the minister give any indication of a change in federal policy which prohibits government telephone companies from owning cable T.V. plants?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: No,
Mr. Speaker, in my conversations with provincial ministers I certainly did not mention any changes in policy in the way indicated by the hon. member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am interested in the hon. minister's reply, Mr. Speaker. Specifically, however, did the minister have any conversations with the ministers of communications of Saskatchewan and Manitoba about this subject at the time it was before the CRTC and both governments were applicants before that body? If there were discussions, especially before the decision of the CRTC, would the minister not think this might infringe upon the integrity and/or independence of the CRTC?


Jeanne Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker, I did hold discussions with the Saskatchewan and Manitoba ministers on the technical equipment ownership issue. Since the telephone companies in these provinces are owned by provincial governments, they would like to make the best of this ideal tool to proceed with a rational and economical development of cablevision.
They advised me also of their views on a more efficient way of using this tool if all the matter of ownership were left to telephone companies. We have discussed that problem. I did not make any commitments in resolving this problem although I understand perfectly the rationale of the proposal of the two provinces and to which I give full consideration.


STABILIZATION PLAN-NUMBER OF FARMERS NEEDED TO MAKE PLAN OPERATIVE AND NUMBER OPTING OUT
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It is supplementary to the question put on Monday by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. Could the hon. parliamentary secretary give the House some figures as to the percentage or number of farmers opting out of the western grain stabilization plan and could he also tell the House what numbers are needed to make the plan operative?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an accurate figure to a precise digit, although my information within the last couple of days is that it is substantially below the 10 per cent we had allowed in our general calculations when preparing the legislation. We anticipate that in the long run close to 90 per cent of western farmers will wish to participate. We welcome assistance from all members which would help to bring the tremendous value of this legislation to the attention of western farmers.


Peter Elzinga: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary did not share with the House the information on the numbers needed to make the plan operative. As already over 10,000 grain farmers have declared in writing their intention to opt out of the plan, would he inform the House if the government plans to make available to farmers the same proposal that will be available to the government; that is that the contribution will only be on paper as recommended in Bill C-87?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, on the general question of how many producers are required to make the plan operative, of course it is designed to work with any number of producers but the more that participate the greater will be the general stability for the grains economy. For those who participate, however, the program will be perfectly effective and supportive. On the question of the provisions contained in Bill C-87, I would remind the hon. member that the bill simply allows the contributions of the government to the grain stabilization fund to be deferred until the money is needed; when it is needed it will be paid into the fund with interest.


CANADA ELECTION EXPENSES ACT
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the use of private investigators by political parties. Would the minister check into the legality of paying for such Nixonite tactics from funds raised under the Canada Election Expenses Act?

May 6, 1976
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who do you think you are, Robert Redford?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On Tuesday I brought to the attention of the minister the fact that the CLC would be considering resolutions, one of which would be to mobilize for a general strike. The minister said he was concerned about it and that we all should be trying our best to avoid this. I hope he would think that a personal audience with the president of the CLC is in keeping with any plan to avoid a strike. Has he met with the president and if so, what has been the result?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter and general labour matters with the president of the CLC on many occasions.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister discuss this matter again with the president of the CLC in order to advise him of the gravity of the situation prior to the convention? This is what we are interested in.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the president of the CLC is aware of the concern about resolutions of this kind. I shall probably be talking to him on several occasions in the next week or so, but he is aware of the situation.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH GREAT LAKES SEAMEN-REQUEST FOR CONCILIATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Labour. In light of the fact that contract negotiations have broken down between seamen, masters and officers and the Great Lakes carriers and that they have asked for a conciliation, what action has the minister taken in connection with this?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing this with the parties concerned to find the most appropriate way to bring them back together. Many of the issues have been ironed out over the last few months. I think we will be able to arrive at a procedure to bring the parties together.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Would the minister undertake to report to the House next week what progress he has been able to make? The deadline on the contract is June 1.


John Carr Munro: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Cafik.J


PROTEIN PREMIUM FOR PRODUCERS WHO SHIP IN CAR LOTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, I shall address my question to his parliamentary secretary. What action has been taken in light of the request of the Palliser Wheat Growers Association that producers who wish to ship their grain by producer car lots receive a protein premium?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a detailed reply today but I will undertake to get it and report very shortly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise a point of order. I wonder if I might ask the government House leader about the business for the balance of the week and for next week.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, as the House is aware, we will take votes on the report stage of Bill C-68. We shall then revert to second reading of Bill C-84. the intention of the government is that debate on second reading of that bill will continue until conclusion, except for interruptions for allotted days, the budget if it should be delivered before debate on second reading of Bill C-84 is concluded, and perhaps report stage and third reading of Bill C-81, the MPs' pay bill.
I should add, for the information of hon. members, that the House leaders have agreed to recommend that the taking of a recorded vote on second reading of Bill C-84 will be subject to an order of the House, which I shall in due course, after discussion with the other House leaders, bring before the House, but not necessarily at the immediate conclusion of the debate itself. I say this so that hon. members can be assured there will not be a surprise vote or that they will have to carry on the debate unnecessarily in order to avoid a vote at an inconvenient time.
As a means of facilitating the planning of the remainder of this session by the various parties and members, I wish to designate in a preliminary way- I emphasize that it is a preliminary way and I may need to alter some of these days later-the list of allotted days. For next week the confirmed allotted days will be Wednesday, May 12, and Thursday, May 13. The other days I shall designate more tentatively. They may be subject to change, perhaps because of the introduction of the budget and for other reasons which may appeal to those who are involved with the management of the House. The other suggested allotted
is
May 6, 1976

days are Monday, May 17; Thursday, May 20; Friday, May 21; Tuesday, June 8; Friday, June 11; Tuesday, June 15; Wednesday, June 16; Monday, June 21, and Tuesday, June 22.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and wonder if it is the appropriate time to raise it. Can the President of the Privy Council say if the government intends in any way to commemorate the thirty-first anniversary of D-Day, and if Canada presently intends to participate in any commemorative ceremonies in France?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I frankly admit that I have not taken the matter under consideration, but I shall now as a result of the hon. member's suggestion.


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, in both official languages-Mr. Loiselle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67, I wish to present a petition, signed by 25,080 people in the constituencies of St. John's East and St. John's West, praying that search and rescue aircraft, ships and personnel be immediately stationed in the province of Newfoundland to provide security and protection for Canadian fishermen.


PRESENTATION OF PETITION BY CONSTITUENTS OF HUMBER-ST. GEORGE'S-ST. BARBE, NEWFOUNDLAND
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67, I, too, wish to present a petition, signed by 12,240 citizens of the constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, praying that search and rescue aircraft, ships and personnel be immediately stationed in the province of Newfoundland to provide security and protection for Canadian fishermen.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,946, 5,023, 5,024, 5,045 and 5,098.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	During 1975, by month, what was Air Canada's cost for the Uniguard Baggage Security System at the Vancouver International Airport?
2.	What percentage was this of the total cost of the service at the Airport?
3.	During 1975, how many articles stolen from the baggage ramps were reported to the Airport RCMP?


Ralph Goodale: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:	1. January, $2,315.65; February,
$1,725.67; March, $2,277.71; April, $2,546.36; May, $2,815.51; June, $2,460.09; July, $2,456.69; August, $2,206.25; September, $2,407.92; October, $2,491.42; November, $2,143.70; December, $3,724.07.
2.	January, 46.10 per cent; February, 39.02 per cent; March, 42.31 per cent; April, 41.73 per cent; May, 40.82 per cent; June 45.10 per cent; July, 44.22 per cent; August, 39.60 per cent; September, 43.72 per cent; October, 45.07 per cent; November, 42.78 per cent; December, 44.15 per cent. Transport Canada advises as follows: 3. None.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (h) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (i) $100.00 to $124.99 per month (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $299.99 per month (m) $300.00 per month or over?


Ralph Goodale: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Two hundred fifty-six.
2.	Two hundred seventy-four.
3.	(a) 216; (b) 550; (c) 508; (d) 414; (e) 1,349; (f) 570; (g) 476; (h) 423; (i) 1,108; (j) 1,422; (k) 3,048; (1) 6,302; (m) 9,869. In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by CNR to international employees (service in both Canada and United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions under

May 6, 1976
Order Paper Questions
$25 a month, in 1975, there are 41 former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of CN service rendered in the United States. In addition, there are various pension agreements between CN and other Companies, such as Canadian Pacific Limited, CP Telecommunications and the Ontario Northland Railway, where each Company issues separate cheques for its portion of the total pension. Only the pension payable by CN is in this Statement. Also, since the passing of the Pension Benefits Standards Act by the Federal Government on October 1, 1967, there are 28 employees who have terminated service with CN and are receiving rather small compulsory deferred pensions for service performed only from October 1, 1967. The balance of those receiving small pensions are employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic pensions ($25) and employees who had very short service and very small contributions.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money on the books of the pension funds of the Canadian National Railways as at (a) December 31, 1973
(b)	December 31, 1974 (c) December 31, 1975?
2.	What rate of interest was earned on these funds during (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to these funds during the years ending (a) December 31, 1973 (b) December 31, 1974 (c) December 31, 1975?
4.	What amount of money was added to these funds from employee contributions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1973 (b) December 31, 1974 (c) December 31, 1975?
5.	What amount of money was added to these funds as regular or current contributions by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1973 (b) December 31, 1974 (c) December 31, 1975?
6.	What amount of money was added to these funds in any other way by the Canadian National Railways during the years ending (a) December 31, 1973 (b) December 31, 1974 (c) December 31, 1975?
7.	Is money owed to the above funds by the Canadian National Railways and, if so, how much and what arrangements are being made to meet such debt?
8.	What was the total amount paid out of the above funds in pensions during the years ending (a) December 31, 1973 (b) December 31, 1974
(c)	December 31, 1975?


Ralph Goodale: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. As at December 31, 1973, $1,049,845,076; as at December 31, 1974, $1,170,070,599; as at December 31, 1975, $1,295,992,657.
2.	To calculate the yield we have used the Statistics Canada formula and the information requested in Questions (1) and (3). Under this formula, the investment is deemed to be Opening Investments plus Closing Investments, less earnings divided by two. On this basis, the yield is: 1973, 5.20 per cent; 1974, 5.76 per cent; 1975, 5.95 per cent.
3.	Year ended December 31, 1973, $50,010,249; year ended December 31, 1974, $61,131,731; year ended December 31, 1975, $69,727,964.

4.	Year ended December 31, 1973, Net: $36,893,626; year ended December 31, 1974, Net: $47,897,419; year ended December 31, 1975, Net: $51,609,714.
5.	Year ended December 31, 1973, $77,839,494; year ended December 31, 1974, $83,838,271; year ended December 31, 1975, $94,746,365.
6.	Year ended December 31, 1973, $9,847,150; year ended December 31, 1974, $12,030,905; year ended December 31, 1975, $14,766,374.
7.	At December 31, 1975 Canadian National Railways owed the payment due for December, $6,434,908, which was paid in January, 1976.
8.	Year ended December 31, 1973, $75,358,688; year ended December 31, 1974, $84,672,803; year ended December 31, 1975, $93,567,159.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Briefly, from 1970 to date, what have been the Ottawa-Quebec agreements concerning the financing and administration of joint programmes on health insurance?


Marc Lalonde: For the administration of the hospital insurance program including the calculation of advances and federal contributions, but excluding any federal payments in respect thereto, there is a federal-provincial hospital insurance agreement between the Minister of Social Affairs of the Province of Quebec and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This agreement has been in effect from January 1, 1961, and is similar to all other federal provincial agreements made under the terms of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and the Hospital Insurance Regulations. For the purpose of making financial settlements with the Province of Quebec in respect of amounts payable under the terms of the agreement described above, there is a special agreement between the Minister of Finance of the Province of Quebec, the Minister of Finance of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This agreement is under the terms of the Established Program (Interim Arrangements) Act, and is with respect to the period effective commencing January 1, 1965. The agreement was to expire after December 31, 1970, but it has been extended periodically, and is still in force at the present time. Since November 1, 1970, costs incurred by the Province of Quebec for medically required services of physicians, and certain surgical-dental procedures performed in hospitals, have been shared by the federal government under the terms of the Medical Care Act. While general requirements are contained in this Act as necessary conditions that must be adhered to by a province in order to qualify for federal sharing, there are no formal agreements.
May 6, 1976


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since 1974, has the Department of National Health and Welfare granted any money to the Canadian Ski Association and, if so, how much?
2.	How much money did each province receive?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Yes, 1974-75, $415,094; 1975-76, $435,181.
2. The funds were paid to the Canadian Ski Association for such projects as coaching development, athlete training, national and international competitions and administration. It is therefore not possible to give a province-byprovince breakdown of these expenditures. The only contributions paid directly to individuals are grants-in-aid designed to assist the better Canadian athletes who wish to continue both their educational and competitive careers. The following list indicates recipients according to province for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76.


[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland	1974-75 Nil	
Prince Edward Island	Nil	
Nova Scotia	Scallion, Bryan	$1,000
	Wilson, Joan	600
Quebec	Blackburn, Yvon	1,200
	Cloutier, Karen	300
	Cousineau, Alain	450
	Goodman, Russell	900
Ontario	Graves, Richard	900
	Kreiner, Kathy	600
	Oughton, Carolyne	600
	Podborski, Stephen	2,000
Manitoba	Nil	
Saskatchewan	Nil	
Alberta	Haining, Vanita	300
	Osness, Joan	1,800
British Columbia	Aiken, Gary	600
	Cooper, David	600
	Budwer, Douglas	1,124
	Miller, Esther	600
	Murray Wm. David	225
North West Territories	Firth, Sharon	1,000
	Firth, Shirley	1,000
	Lennie, Ernest	900
Newfoundland	1975-76 Nil	
Prince Edward Island	Nil	
Nova Scotia	Wilson, Joan	600
New Brunswick	Nil	
Quebec	Cloutier, Karen	1,200Ontario	Graves, Richard	1,800Podborski, Stephen	600Sjolund, Kurt	2,400Wilson, Gordon	300Manitoba	Nil	Saskatchewan	Nil	Alberta	Nil	British Columbia	Nil	North West Territories	Firth, Sharon	1,000Firth, Shirley	1,000
Medical Care Act


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT fb LIMIT ANNUAL INCREASE IN PER CAPITA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 30, consideration of Bill C-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It was previously agreed and ordered by the House that the votes on certain motions were to be deferred until this time. Accordingly, in a moment the bells will ring to summon the members, it being understood, of course, that because the vote is a deferred one the bells will ring for 15 minutes.
Before hon. members are called in, I wish to tell the House that there has been discussion on more than one occasion as to the order in which the votes on the motions ought to be taken. The Chair had indicated earlier that it would prefer to take the votes on the motions in the following order: first motion No. 2, then motions Nos. 1, 3 and 4. There has been some discussion since that original proposal was made, and it is understood that a different order would be appropriate. Obviously, the discussions concerned only the first three motions; the amendment to motion No. 4 will have to be taken last. As for the other three motions, motion No. 3 would have the effect of striking out all of clause 1 of the bill, motion No. 1 would have the effect of striking out a portion of the bill, and motion No. 2 would have the effect of introducing a new phrase into a portion of the clause.
The Chair must therefore be guided by one of two principles. First, we could take the votes in such a way that, after taking one vote, we would obviate the necessity of taking others. This would put the Chair in the unenviable position of attempting to anticipate the results of votes, which I personally feel the Chair ought never to do. It seems to me that there is more virtue to the second principle, that is, to take the votes in such a way as to ensure that votes will be taken, rather than to obviate the necessity for the taking of votes.
In this instance, for example, if the votes were to be taken in the reverse order, if the motion calling for the abolition of the whole of clause 1 of the bill were to be taken first and affirmed, the other votes would never be taken. It seems to me that any member who has proposed a motion and had it discussed by the House is entitled to see it come to a vote. Therefore, the more sensible order, it seems to me, would be to take first the motion which introduces a new phrase into a clause, motion No. 2, then to take the motion which would strike out part of clause 1, motion No. 1, and, finally, to take motion No. 3 which proposes to strike out an entire clause. In that way, all members who have proposed motions before the House for discussion will be assured that they will come to a vote.
Therefore, pursuant to the previous order of the House, the deferred motions on Bill C-68 will now be taken. Call in the members.

May 6, 1976
Medical Care Act


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question, then, is upon motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is now on motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motion No. 3 lost. The question is	
on the amendment to motion No. 4.		
The House divided on the amendment to motion No. 4		
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) which was nega-		
tived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 135)	
	YEAS	
	Messrs.	
Allard	Dionne	GilbertBeaudoin	(Kamouraska)	Knowles .Benjamin	Douglas	(WinnipegBlackburn	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	North Centre)Brewin	The Islands)	MatteBroadbent	Firth	OrlikowCaouette	Gauthier	Peters(Villeneuve)	(Roberval)	RodriguezSymes-18NAYS	Messrs.	Abbott	Dick	IsabelleAlexander	Dinsdale	JarvisAllmand	Douglas	JelinekAnderson	(Bruce-Grey)	JohnstonAndras	Drury	Jones(Port Arthur)	Duclos	KemplingAndre	Dupont	Knowles(Calgary Centre)	Dupras	(Norfolk-Haldimand)Andres	Duquet	Korchinski(Lincoln)	Ellis	Lachance
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Balfour
Elzinga
Epp
Fairweather
Faulkner
Fleming
Forrestall
NAYS Messrs.	Basford Beatty Bechard	Foster Francis FriesenAbbott	Corbin	Haidasz	Begin (Miss)	GauthierAllmand	Corriveau	Harquail	Blais	(Ottawa-Vanier)Anderson	Cote	Herbert	Blaker	GendronAndras	Cullen	Holt (Mrs.)	Blouin	Gillespie(Port Arthur)	Cyr	Hopkins	Breau	GoodaleAndres	Daudlin	Isabelle	Brisco	Goyer(Lincoln)	Demers	Lachance	Buchanan	GrayAppolloni (Mrs.)	Douglas	Lajoie	Cafik	GuayBaker	(Bruce-Grey)	Lalonde	Campagnolo (Mrs.)	(St. Boniface)(Gander-Twillingate)	Drury	Landers	Campbell (Miss)	GuayBasford	Duclos	Langlois	(South Western Nova)	(Levis)Bechard	Dupont	Laniel	Campbell	GuilbaultBegin (Miss)	Dupras	Lapointe	(LaSalle-kmard-Cdte	HaidaszBlais	Duquet	Leblanc	Saint-Paul)	HallidayBlaker	Faulkner	(Laurier)	Caron	HamiltonBlouin	Fleming	LeBlanc	Chretien	(Qu'Appelle-MooseBrcau	Foster	(Westmorland-Kent)	Clark	Mountain)Buchanan	Francis	Lee	(Rocky Mountain)	HamiltonCafik	Gauthier	Lefebvre	Clermont	(Swift Current-
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle-kmard-Cote Saint-Paul)
Caron
Chr6tien
Clermont
Collenette
Comtois
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gillespie
Goodale
Goyer
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Lessard Loiselle (Chambly) Loiselle (Saint-Henri) Lumley MacDonald (Cardigan) MacFarlane MacGuigan Mackasey
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cote
Crouse
Cullen
Cyr
Darling
Daudlin
Demers
Maple Creek) Hargrave Harquail Herbert Hnatyshyn Holmes Holt (Mrs.) Hopkins Horner Howie Hurlburt
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Landers Langlois Laniel Lapointe La Salle Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Loiselle (Saint-Henri) Lumley MacDonald (Cardigan) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
Maine
Malone
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
Messrs.
Marchand	Parent	Scott(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Pearsall	SharpMarshall	Pelletier	SmithMasniuk	Penner	(Saint-Jean)McCain	Philbrook	StanfieldMcGrath	Pinard	StevensMe Isaac	Portelance	StewartMcKinley	Poulin	(Marquette)McKinnon	Prud'homme	StewartMcRae	Railton	(Cochrane)Milne	Raines	TessierMunro	Reid	Towers(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Ritchie	TrudelMunro	Roberts	Turner(Hamilton East)	Roche	WatsonMurta	Rooney	WhelanNeil	Roy	WhitewayNicholson (Miss)	(Timmins)	WoolliamsNowlan	Roy	YanakisO'Connell	(Laval)	YewchukOlivier	Rynard	Young-176Paproski	Sauve (Mrs.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to motion No. 4 lost. The question, therefore, is on motion No. 4 in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 agreed to.


Marc Lalonde: that Bill B-68, to amend the Medical Care Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 5, 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. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue where I left off in this debate yesterday when I was referring to certain numerical facts. During the period between 1957 and 1970, when capital punjshment was supposedly still the law of this land, the number of murders increased from 129 to 420. The abolitionists argued that, this really was no increase in the murder rate because, of course, this allowed for the greater population in the

country-but it still leads to the conclusion that the murder rate has more than doubled. May I remind the disciples of abolition, however, that during this 13-year span only once was the written law on capital punishment enforced. How can one test the merit of any law by this type of standard? I only wish the government were half as lackadaisical with the enforcement of laws pertaining to taxes as with the enforcement of laws pertaining to capital punishment.
Again, may I address the assembly of abolitionists-who, incidentally, represent only 13 per cent of the population, according the latest poll-who feel that the only meagre argument for capital punishment is vengeance. Vengeance plays no part in my argument. Protection of the lives of the innocent is the main reason supporting the law on capital punishment. Some believe that the death penalty is unChristian, unethical or barbaric. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I have no qualms whatsoever in seeing a once, twice or thrice-convicted murderer suffer for his misdoings.
In committing premeditated murder, the individual has brought upon himself, by his own conduct, this supreme penalty. He is then the author of his own misfortune. Persons who murder or commit any other type of capital offence do not choose to be children of God but, rather, children of wrath, and therefore are not brothers in Christ, if we want to divide people in religious terms. If we are Christians, they are not our brothers but children of wrath.
In view of the fact that the case involving the death of the two Moncton policemen on Friday, December 13, 1974, is still being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, I will refrain from any further reference to that black day. Neither will I make reference to the cost to the province of New Brunswick, or of the cost to other provinces in such cases.
Our judicial system may not be perfect, but it is the best that has yet been employed and devised by man. There is a preliminary hearing, a trial with a judge and a jury of 12 free men, an appeal to the appeal court of the province, and a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let us examine the experience of our neighbouring country with regard to the retention of capital punishment for premeditated murder. A ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1972 voided capital punishment laws. However, by the end of 1973 the death penalty for murder was reinstated by a large majority of the states of the United States of America. The increase in violence in the country resulted in louder and more persistent demands as the only means whereby society could be adequately protected. People ask for justice, not revenge. Justice which sentences a murderer to a 25-year term in an institution, with excellent fare, provision for the entertainment of his guests, medical services and a friendly and assiduous array of psychologists and psychiatrists, constitutes no formidable dissuasion to most wrongdoers-certainly not to hardened and experienced post-graduates in wickedness.
Abolitionists proclaim as an imperative that no crime, however dastardly, is deserving of the supreme penalty. According to the new ethic of these people who would obliterate the death penalty in every conceivable instance,
May 6, 1976

such is the sanctity of human life that the killer's right to his continued existence may, under no circumstances, be denied him. It is now customary, in fact, to equate an execution for premeditated murder with the crime itself and to consider one as reprehensible as the other. However, there is no evidence that the genial spirit of "live and let live" and of coexistence with known criminals has resulted in any greater measure of public safety, but just another ugly offshoot of the permissive society. It can be ascertained that under present conditions, sparing hardened criminals means condemning others-innocent people-to pay the price with their lives. The only thing that remains to be known is who will the next victims be and how many will there be.
It is a sad commentary on our morality to consider the criminal more important than innocent society. Laws must be made to protect the innocent, not subject them to the possibility of being victims of heinous crimes. Those who denounce capital punishment often claim that an inconsistency exists in the fact that governments, whose purpose is supposedly to deter people from killing one another, should consider it necessary to indulge in what they consider legalized killing. They fall back upon the theory that the state is altogether without right to assume a prerogative that is God's alone. Admittedly, the taking of a human life is offensive to humane persons, and this is the reason executions, when they do take place, are no longer performed in public. However, that which is aesthetically repugnant to our senses might on occasion have to be endured.
The government has a duty to protect itself and its citizens. The alleged moral issues involved in the judicial taking of a human life must be distinguished from the practical and expedient. The denial of the state of the moral right to take the life of anyone becomes all the more incredible in view of the as yet unquestioned right of a private individual to kill in given circumstances. This indicates that what is now condemned by the abolitionist faction is not the taking of a life per se but the taking of it in some quasi-ceremonial and orderly manner.
With great doggedness, opponents of capital punishment continue to press for its abolition because it does not provide absolute assurance that each and every murderer will be deterred. Obviously, the prospect of an untimely end does not impress every human being in precisely the same way and to the same degree. It must be recognized, nevertheless, that the main strength and force of a law consists in the penalty attached to it. Above all, fear of the consequences is certain to be more vividly felt in the case of an offence being deliberately planned than in one that is committed on impulse. A somewhat parallel observation could be made of some motorists who seem to have no concern about repeatedly having to pay fines, but it has not yet been suggested that for that reason penalties for improper driving should be given up as useless. Are we also to do away with the penalties for theft, forgery and smuggling because the penalties are so often ineffectual?
It is frequently argued that a man who has been hanged for murder might on later verification be found guiltless. However, the revised criminal procedure now almost everywhere in force does provide almost iron-clad guarantees to an accused person. He is safeguarded by stringent
Capital Punishment
laws of evidence, and he is seldom lacking experienced counsel. Invariably, a verdict of murder is subject to minute scrutiny through a series of appeals and reviews.
Indeed, a trial is meant, by its very nature, to distinguish between that which is certain and that which remains unconvincing. In by far the greater number of acquittals the accused is discharged, not after being certified innocent and harmless but only because the charge against him has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Be it remembered that in cases where any doubt remains it is always the accused who is entitled to benefit. Often the charge against the accused is easily substantiated, the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses fully corroborated and all contradictory evidence conspicuous by its total absence.
Many hon. members who favour abolition of the death penalty will tell you that our social environment is responsible for many of the worst crimes committed by our social misfits. They advocate legislation which will create more effective social and economic programs to remove the causes of crime, improve treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts and improve education and recreation programs in the belief that the pursuance of such measures will do more to lower our crime rate than the application of penalties after the fact. These members are living in a highly idealistic dream world which they have the naivete to believe in and which, because of the perversity of human nature, I do not. There has never been a time, in all the history of man, when the number of criminals in society has dropped so low as to make punishment unnecessary. This will not happen in the future, either, because people have always been, and will continue to be, motivated by such things as greed and avarice. Reading the news items of each passing day substantiates this conclusion.
When we speak to the issue of capital punishment, we would do well to keep the word "justice" in mind. It is "just" that a criminal be punished for a misdoing. It is also "just" that the punishment fit the crime. The death penalty should be imposed on a murderer because it is the severest form of retribution for the severest form of offence. As moral creatures we are accountable for our actions. As human beings we have rights, but with every right there is corresponding responsibility. A person convicted of premeditated murder has earned no rights because he has shown no responsibility whatsoever to society.
Although capital punishment may be distasteful, are we prepared to abolish it and sacrifice the basic principles and elements of justice? Shall we continue to plead for pardons for murderers, a practice which destroys the law itself and, with it, the carrying out of justice?
A factor which has influenced some members of the abolitionist faction on the subject of capital punishment is the method of execution which has been used in Canada in the past-hanging. Because of its unpleasant nature, it is inclined to cloud the discussion with emotion that is not really relevant to the issue involved. Some impassioned appeals for abolition have been based on lurid descriptions of hangings which have taken place. Moreover, it is lurid and difficult to watch; it is difficult to have seen the result.

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
It is important that the members of this House distinguish between principle and method.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling, that of my constituents and of the majority of Canadians, that this House must without further delay fully reinstate capital punishment in Canada. Certainly, the last hope for the protection of our innocent citizens is that the death sentence be fully retained and fully enforced. Capital punishment is necessary. This ultimate penalty is, unfortunately, the only penalty that can possibly suffice for such a horrendous and ultimate crime as murder. It should be applicable regardless of whose life is taken, be it that of a criminal, guard, policeman or any other human being. In this connection I speak not only as member of parliament but as a lawyer, having practised as a defence counsel, prosecutor and in the capacity of chief magistrate of a city and thus involved with the police department and as a representative of responsible citizens. I ask hon. members to vote, not emotionally, not on party lines but responsibly for the retention and complete reinstatement of capital punishment for all premeditated murders, and its full enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, the general public of Canada-the people who we as members of parliament represent-are fed up with the horrible results of a socialistic, permissive society foisted upon them to a great extent by politicians in a hurry for the opportunity to obtain votes. The country is looking for moral, economic and political stability. The nation is in need of leadership and an adherence to basic fundamental principles. They cannot be obtained or sustained with a continuation of the soft permissiveness evident in our penal and parole systems.
This bill to abolish capital punishment, Bill C-84, is aligned with soft permissiveness and is repugnant to the wishes of the majority of Canadians. If any bill were to be presented to this House on capital punishment, it should be a bill for the complete reinstatement of capital punishment and a realization that is must be fully enforced. The solidarity of the federal cabinet will prevent a free vote on this subject. The solidarity of the federal cabinet will mean a complete reversal of the needs and wishes of the people of Canada. The solidarity of the federal cabinet will, again, leave a bad taste in the mouths of Canadians and will result in further cynicism toward parliament and our so-called system of parliamentary democracy.
Surely, we must be responsible to the people of Canada. Either we abide by their wishes or we put the subject of capital punishment to the people of Canada by way of a referendum. It need not be an election referendum, but a referendum to be held now, between elections. I suggest that the federal cabinet does not have the courage not to commute the sentence of murderers and let them suffer the death penalty; likewise, it does not have the courage to put the issue before the electorate by referendum. What do they fear? They fear the decision of the people. Mr. Speaker, there should be no fear. People are usually right and they know what is going on. People know the difference between right and wrong, and they have given us the message for full reinstatement of capital punishment.
I will vote against Bill C-84, and in so doing it will be not only a truly free vote but one representing the collective,

majority conscience and view of my constituents and the majority of good-thinking, decent Canadians.


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. In 1973 I voted to retain capital punishment. I believe that on an issue of such grave importance one must reassess one's position. During the past three years I have done a great deal of soul-searching on the issue. I have studied statistics on the causes of crime and the ever-increasing crime rate. More important, I have consulted with and listened to the views expressed by constituents. The majority of my constituents favour the retention of capital punishment, as do the vast majority of Canadians. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will again vote for the retention of capital punishment.
The legislation as it now stands is a complete farce, as was pointed out by my colleague for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who said, and I quote:
The law will be obeyed only when it is respected. The law will be obeyed only when it is just. The law will be obeyed when those in high office respect and carefully guard our traditions and constitution, the dignity the law demands, and the dignity which we expect from the judiciary, the executive, parliament and the administration of justice. Nothing short of that standard is acceptable to us on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities? According to the government's own statistics there were 185 murders in Canada in 1961. By 1974, the number had risen to 545. Yet the government chooses to ignore the recommendations set forth by Canada's various police forces, including those of the RCMP, the world's most renowned law-enforcing body.
Let us now look at Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which was introduced into parliament on February 24, 1976. It provides for a minimum sentence of imprisonment for life for a conviction of first degree or second degree murder. First degree murder is defined as a murder which is planned and deliberate and includes the murder of a police officer, a prison official or a murder committed during the commission of certain offences. Second degree murder is defined as any murder which does not amount to first degree murder. The bill provides that where a person is sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of conviction for first degree murder, he is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served 15 years of His sentence. In respect of a person who has been convicted of second degree murder, he is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served at least ten years of his sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than 25 years, as is determined by the sentencing judge.
Since December 29, 1967, the death penalty for capital murder has been limited to cases where the accused, by his own act, has caused or assisted in causing the death of a police officer or a prison officer acting in the course of his duties, or counselled or procured another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing the death. Since 1967, 33 policeman and two prison guards have been slain, but the cabinet has not permitted the convicted murderers of these officers to be put to death. They have either had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment or are awaiting such commutation. No matter how you look at it, capital
May 6, 1976

punishment has been abolished for the past ten years in Canada. It is now time to examine this question again and ask ourselves, do we need to restore capital punishment for first degree murder?
Capital punishment is no doubt upsetting to many people. But there are many things in life which are necessary and unpleasant. For years, numerous clergymen, lawyers, sociologists and others have agitated for humanization of our penal system. Their efforts have succeeded in making our legal system more humane and more just. But in recent years I believe we have gone too far. Social scientists and criminologists have emphasized that society generally has created an environment which caused the criminal to act in the manner in which he did, and therefore society, not him, is to blame. But a battered society has discovered that these abstract theories linking crime to environmental causes do not translate into concrete programs to protect citizens against violent crime.
There are two sorts of argument in favour of the retention of capital punishment. First, there is the doctrinal or philosophical point of view which may be summarized as follows: human life is so sacred that every means must be used to protect it; he who takes away life deserves death. There is also the argument of deterrence: if, in taking away a life a man knows he is risking his own, he will not kill. There has been a great deal of debate about whether the death penalty is a deterrent, how much of a deterrent, and whether it is a greater or lesser deterrent than life imprisonment. Statistics support both sides of the argument, depending who quotes them. One argument is that most criminals plan a crime on the basis that they are going to avoid any penalty and that is the basis on which coldblooded murders are committed.
But if we do not know whether the death penalty will deter others, we are confronted with two uncertainties. If we impose the death penalty and achieve no deterrent effect thereby, the life of a convicted murderer has been expended in vain, from a deterrent viewpoint. There is a net loss. If we impose the death sentence and thereby deter some future murderers, we shall have spared the lives of some future victims. As for prospective murderers, again they, too, are spared punishment because they will have been deterred. In this case the death penalty will have led to a net gain, unless the life of a convicted murderer is valued more highly than that of the unknown victim or victims. Being deterred from murder, the would-be murderer is spared imprisonment.
The calculation can be turned around, of course. The absence of the death penalty may harm no one, and therefore produce a gain, namely, the life of the convicted murderer; or it may kill future victims of murderers who would have been deterred, and thus produce a loss, namely, the loss of victims' lives. To be sure, we must risk something certain, the death, or life, of the convicted man, for something uncertain, the death, or life, of the victims of murderers who may be deterred. This is in the nature of uncertainty. When we invest or gamble, we risk our money for an uncertain gain. Furthermore, there is no shortage of reported instances wherein more than one homicide has been committed by the same culprit either as a result of
Capital Punishment
not being apprehended in time, after being erroneously acquitted, or during an escape from prison.
This being so, it cannot be questioned that once a killer has been liquidated, he is for ever incapable of killing again. Considered in this light alone, it would seem that the death penalty in the past has achieved at least one purpose. If, in general, the threat of punishment is conceded to have a deterrent effect, then the severer the. punishment, the greater the deterrent effect; and, logically, the death penalty should have the greatest deterrent effect of all. Like natural dangers, punishment deters those who are tempted to break the law. However, the threatened punishment may be so light that the advantage of violating rules tends to exceed the disadvantage of being punished. In this case the feeling of obligation tends to vanish as well.
While considering the question of the deterrence of capital punishment, we must examine the situation and position of crime and murder in present-day society. Statistics have demonstrated a grave increase in the number of violent crimes, namely, murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, assault, rape, and armed robbery. With regard to the murder rate in Canada, a criminologist in a recent study noted that the analysis of murder statistics during the period 1961-70 indicates that there has been an increase in the incidence of murder in Canada over the whole period, but that this increase was slow at first, gaining momentum since 1967.
Serious though this upward trend in the murder rate is, when we speak of a particular sentence or a punishment as a deterrent we ought to refer to the following statistics compiled by Dr. Jayewardene, a professor of criminology. He calculated, from available data, the murder rate and expectancy of punishment for the years 1965 to 1970. In 1965, the murder rate was 1.5 per 100,000 of the population over seven years old. The expectancy of the death penalty for those murderers was 0.2 per cent, the expectancy of life imprisonment 16.8 per cent, the expectancy of other imprisonment 20 per cent, the expectancy of probation or suspended sentence 1 per cent, and the expectancy of no punishment 61.9 per cent.
In 1970, the murder rate was 2.3 per 100,000 of the population over seven years old. Expectancy of the death penalty was zero per cent, of life imprisonment 13.5 per cent, of other imprisonment 24.6 per cent, of probation or a suspended sentence 0.6 per cent, and of no punishment 61.3 per cent. These statistics show that a good many murderers are not apprehended, are not sent to trial, are not convicted of a lesser offence or are not convicted at all. This demonstrates the need not only for stiffer penalties for murder but for better law enforcement in the apprehension and conviction of criminals.
Where murder is premeditated, it is only common sense to assume that not only the consequences in the event of detection, but also the chances of detection are ordinarly taken into consideration. Anyone who thinks criminals do not weigh the possibilities of getting caught and do not understand they could be executed is living in a dream world.
Three conditions are essential to the sound administration of justice: swiftness, certainty of arrest, and severity of punishment. We must make sure these conditions are restored in the administation of our criminal justice

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
system. Throughout this continent there has been a gradual decline in the administration of justice. Sentences imposed, while utterly destitute of uniformity, have nevertheless been notably reduced from those formerly regarded as the norm. For larceny and other offences generally, sentences are invariably far below the maximum prescribed in the written codes. Between 1961 and 1968, 28 individuals serving death-commuted sentences were paroled after spending an average of 12 years in prison prior to release. Between 1968 and 1974, this figure rose to an average of 13.3 years for the 42 persons paroled from death-commuted sentences.
Obviously, I and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), who spoke yesterday, researched data in the same area, but the hon. member for Ontario did not tell the House and the people of his constituency that 42 persons were paroled while serving death-commuted sentences: he refrained from mentioning that fact. Perhaps he did not want his constituents to know, or he did not want the House to know. I thank God we went to the same place for our research data. I am presenting the picture as it is, and telling my constituents the whole story. I think what the hon. member did was wrong. If we are to present a case, we should present it all according to the data we obtained from research, and not stop in the middle of a paragraph.
No wonder people today do not understand the courts and our judicial system. The man in the street is quickly losing faith in justice. Officials in society seem to be on the side of the criminal. Crime rates rise, not because of social or economic conditions but because persons realize that little or nothing will happen to them even if they are convicted. Re-establishing capital punishment and stricter punishment in general for social crimes will restore greater faith in our judicial system. It will give greater confidence to persons who wish to lead good lives and will give them a greater sense of security. Thereby, society will benefit. The old concept of reward and punishment will not be a relic of the past. It will reverse the too often criminal trend of present-day society.
Philosophers and theologians have argued that the state does not have the right to take the life of a citizen even if he has been convicted of an atrocious crime, because it is not up to the state to dispose of human life, which is God-given and not a gift from the state. The right of an individual to take the life of another in defence of his person is hardly contested. Why is it proper on occasion for a private citizen to take the life of another, while the state may not do so under any circumstances? The state has the right and the duty to defend the community against outside aggression, such as in time of war, and within the country, for instance in case of treason, crimes against the state, and so on. To the extent of taking the life of the aggressors and guilty parties, the citizen has the right to protect his own life by killing whoever attacks him without any reason. Thus, the state can do the same when a criminal attacks and endangers the life of the community by deciding to eliminate, summarily, another human being.
Capital punishment must be retained in order do prove the sanctity of the most precious thing, which is the gift of life; it embodies the repulsion and horror that we feel for the greatest crimes. Society has the right to protect the

integrity of the human being and the life of its members against what threatens them. The argument in favour of life imprisonment as a substitute for the death penalty is fallacious. If the state is to be denied the right to take the life of one of its members, then by the same token it should be denied the right to deprive that member, in perpetuity, of his liberty which excludes him from all hope of freedom and rehabilitation.
Those opposed to the death penalty frequently argue that there is always the possibility of an innocent person being executed through error, and that to avoid such tragedies it would be better that no one be executed.
The likelihood of judicial error has been diminished enormously through the institution of courts of appeal in all criminal matters. Invariably, a verdict of guilty of murder is subject to minute scrutiny through, not one but a series of appeals, and not infrequently by retrials. Stringent laws of evidence reduce still further the possibility of judicial miscarriage. The art of cross-examination, skillfully used by able and experienced lawyers, whether employed by the accused or appointed under a legal aid program, make corrupt and perjured evidence more difficult than ever. Organized bodies of opinion, along with a vigilant press, stand in readiness to raise the alarm on any suspicion of judicial railroading.
Much is made of the comparatively remote possibility of an innocent person being hanged for a crime he did not commit, yet hardly any notice is ever taken of the lethal aftermath that can follow an erroneous acquittal. It is ironic that when known killers are liberated, no similar fears are voiced as to the possible consequences to some innocent persons as yet unknown. Wanton murder is so extremely morally wrong that the punishment must remain proportionately severe in order to emphasize the outrage of society; otherwise the potential murderer will infer that society no longer regards the crime as most heinous and even if, from the philosophical point of view, the death penalty may have doubtful legitimacy, it nevertheless represents a political necessity for the protection not merely of society but of the social order itself.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), in explaining Bill C-84, justified the imposition of a 25-year minimum sentence, instead of capital punishment, as being more humane treatment of a convicted murderer. But is it more humane treatment? Long prison terms may justly be criticized as being repulsive, as being punishment of the sort condemned in the language of the constitution of the United States of America as cruel and unusual. A sensitive society must shrink from the infliction of such prolonged punishment as it should shrink from the torture. In most cases, it is not a punishment which fits the crime but punishment which balances slow, psychic death against the sudden killing. Those who speak or think humanity must forget long prison terms. A person who has spent many years behind bars and concrete walls degenerates beyond recognition into a class close to vegetation.
If the Solicitor General hopes to achieve the rehabilitation of convicted murderers, and therefore justify their escape from death, how can he expect a person who knows that he will be behind bars for such a long time to honestly try to rehabilitate himself? Long, mandatory prison terms will give rise to a situation in which the maintenance of
May 6, 1976

discipline within prison walls will become increasingly problematical, requiring more staff and, not least of all, placing in jeopardy the lives and morals of the rehabilitative elements of the prison population.
In any event, capital punishment is required in the case of a subsequent murder in prison or in the course of escape by a convicted murderer because if this existing deterrent were removed, apprehension would exist concerning the safety of the prison staff and the general public from prisoners for whom, because they were already serving a life sentence, a further sentence of imprisonment could have no deterrent effect.
Capital punishment must be retained and restored. Any threat of punishment-be it death, imprisonment, fine or chastisement at school-once recognized as a mere bluff obviously ceases to be a deterrent. Our concern should not be for convicted criminals but for law-abiding Canadian citizens and the victims of crimes committed by criminals. Perhaps here we should be speaking for the dead, not for those who caused them to die.
The notion of an orderly society is beginning to erode, and when erosion starts who knows where it will end? This falling away of society from its reliance on the upholders of law and order must be halted. There must be punishment for committing crimes, and that punishment must be carried out. Society will no longer tolerate subservience to that philosophy which sees all criminality solely in terms of sickness, and therefore devotes more attention to its alleviation than to the alleviation of the unrest that the sickness-if that is what it is-is spreading throughout society.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is about three years since I last rose in the House of Commons and addressed myself to the issue of capital punishment in Canada, and I think in that interval, whatever side of this question we as members of parliament come down on, we must admit that we have seen an increasing problem of crime and an increasing concern by the public across Canada, especially in our major urban areas, about the increasing danger to public safety and well-being. Because of that increased problem of crime and increased fear of the consequences of crime, the government did have a responsibility to bring forward legislation at this time which would reassure the public and counteract the increasing crime which we face.
I believe that not only the peace and security package which is now before committee and which has had second reading in this House, but also this bill will toughen the law to give Canadians better public safety. It would be very sad indeed if it is not brought to the attention of the public that this bill, which will abolish capital punishment, will in turn greatly broaden and strengthen the Criminal Code in combating the most serious criminal elements.
First, however, in addressing myself to this question today I should like to deal with the issue which seems to be central to most debates on capital punishment, and that is the question of deterrence. By hanging or executing, is society going to deter others from crime? Initially, I admit, there is one deterrent effect, and that is that the person
Capital Punishment
who is hanged certainly cannot commit crime again. Beyond that, however, I think there is a great deal of evidence which casts doubt, if it does not altogether finish the argument, as to whether the death penalty is a deterrent. In "The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science", as far back as 1952 a report was presented by a man named Schuessler entitled "Murder and the Penalty of Death". One excerpt from that article reads as follows:
-statistical studies have uniformly concluded that the death penalty is inconsequential as a deterrent and that relative frequency of murder in a given population is a function of the cultural conditions.
As far back as almost a quarter of a century, careful analysis brought that forward. Perhaps the leading expert in the United States on the question of the death penalty is Professor Thorsten Sellin. As a result of his study on capital punishment and abolition from 1955 to 1967 he reported:
-on the whole the abolition states, as is apparent from the findings, seem to have fewer killings but the differences are small. If this, then, is the argument upon which the police are willing to rest their opposition to the abolition of capital punishment, it must be concluded that it lacks any factual basis.
In Great Britain, the royal commission on capital punishment held hearings from 1949 to 1953 and reported as follows:
The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment had led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its reintroduction had led to a fall.
From the special commission for investigating abolition of the death penalty in capital cases for Massachusetts, in 1958, I quote the following:
There appears, in fact, to be no greater deterrent effect in capital punishment than in a sentence of life. It does not contribute to the reduction of murder, it is simply an easy and harmful way of satisfying the need "to do something about it".
Having presented that evidence from the United States and from Great Britain, ranging from as far back as 24 or 25 years ago, I should like finally to argue that over the years commissions which have carefully studied this question have repeatedly come to the conclusion that society's killing is not a deterrent. Now I simply want to put forward a very simple comparison of abolition states with retention states in the United States. In 1970 there were 75 murders committed in Minnesota, or two per 100,000 population. In the same year there were 88 murders in Wisconsin, or two per 100,000 population. In 1970 there were 30 murders in Rhode Island, or 3.2 per 100,000 population. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Rhode Island are all abolitionist states. On the other hand, some of the highest murder rates are found in states where capital punishment has applied for a long time. For instance, in 1970, in Florida, where there is capital punishment, there were 860 murders, or 12.7 per 100,000 population. In 1970, there were 377 murders in South Carolina, or 14.6 per 100,000 population.
Having dealt with the question of whether the death penalty is a deterrent, and hoping that hon. members will consider the opinions of those august bodies in North America and in Great Britain, and also the comparative statistics which surely suggest that the death penalty has not been an effective deterrent in the United States where it has been carried out, I will then move on to the law as it

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
will remain if this bill is not passed by parliament. At the moment, the law says that the killers of policemen and prison guards on duty are liable to capital punishment. No other kind of murderer ever is liable to the same extreme penalty.
I have the greatest respect for Canadian police forces, for the RCMP, and certainly for the police force in my own area of metropolitan Toronto, but in all fairness it should be pointed out that police officers and prison guards go into their work knowing the risks they face and they are trained to be prepared for those risks. I am arguing that the law as it is now constituted simply does not seem to be fair. If we investigate statistics of the average of fatalities on the job for 10,000 employees in Canada from 1964 to 1973, the highest on the job fatality rate is for miners. The second highest is for loggers, then fishermen, transport workers, labourers, and police officers rank sixth. Following that are craftsmen and-I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) looking my way-farmers.
The fact is that there are many jobs in Canada where the risk of losing life at work is much greater than it is for police officers. That does not detract for one moment from the seriousness of their work and the fact that the state must provide them with some protection in the most responsible manner possible. However, I believe it does suggest that the existing law is not fair or equal and does not consider the reality of statistics with regard to murder and also statistics on death on the job in Canada.
I should like to talk for a moment about whether the existing law, capital punishment, is in fact an effective form of justice. Does the law, as it now stands, make it possible for the judicial system to carry out penalties and to deter crime? On the question of whether capital punishment is effective, I should first like to quote from Professor Fattah's study on the deterrent effect of capital punishment, which was done for the Department of the Solicitor General in 1972. In that report he says:
If it is true that the promptness and swiftness of punishment are important factors to its effectiveness, then capital punishment should be the least effective since the time-span between a murder and execution is usually much longer than other crimes. The slowness of capital punishment is something inherent in its very nature.
I will quote one of the most distinguished law enforcement officers in the world, the commissioner of Scotland Yard, Sir Robert Mark. In a speech given in Toronto in August of last year, Sir Robert Mark said:
The best deterrent to crime is the likehood of detection followed by the certainty of conviction rather than the reliance on savage penalties unlikely to be applied in many cases because a proper finding of guilt is prevented by the operation during investigation and trial of safeguards rightly designed to protect the innocent from a sentence of death ... I am therefore opposed to the death penalty and so are most of my senior and most experienced colleagues simply because its continuance prevents the reforms necessary to increase the effectiveness of criminal justice.
So, Mr. Speaker, from both the report prepared for the Department of the Solicitor General of a study of the issue here in Canada, and from the commissioner of Scotland Yard, we have strong statements to the effect that if you want effective justice, if you want the criminal element to appreciate that the worst of all crimes will be seized upon

and punished, then the most effective justice is not the death penalty.
May I also address myself for a moment to the question of the injustice of the death penalty. While there are many arguments in this area, I simply want to refer to one or twd in particular. I believe that most people will accept the statistics in the United States showing that poor people- blacks, poor whites and minority groups-are executed in numbers far disproportionate to their more affluent, and in most cases white, neighbours. If capital punishment is a deterrent, it would seem that these groups who have suffered most from capital punishment would be the most obedient.
Again, the converse is true. Surely the reality of the situation is that cultural and social conditions help to contribute to the development of a criminal character. People who are underprivileged or denied certain advantages are more likely to enter upon crime. The latest figures available indicate that there are 114 people under sentence of death in the United States. Of these, 61-more than half-are black and three are American Indians. All, or almost all, are poor or not capable of expensive legal procedures. Lack of money for adequate defence and investigation in turn can lead to mistakes.
So that if we say, Mr. Speaker, that we want on our law books the ultimate of all penalties, that of taking away life, which means you cannot later appeal, or if there has been a mistake seek redress, or give the person the opportunity of rehabilitation, we are saying that someone who is rich who commits the most terrible of all crimes will not die. I can find no example-and I challenge any member of this chamber to find one-of a wealthy, white person in North America having been executed in the last several decades. On the other hand, we can find examples of poor, underprivileged people, people who come from such an environment, who have been executed. In effect, this means that you are applying the law unequally and discriminating against those who are maladjusted, those with distorted minds who come from a poor environment. But not the wealthy whose crime is just as serious. Lewis Lawes, for many years warden of Sing Sing prison, is quoted as saying:
Not only does capital punishment fail in its justification, but no punishment could be invented with so many inherent defects. It is an unequal punishment in the way it is applied to the rich and to the poor. The defendant of wealth and position never goes to the electric chair or to the gallows. Juries do not intentionally favour the rich, the law is theoretically impartial, but the defendant with ample means is able to have his case presented with every favourable aspect, while the poor defendant often has a lawyer assigned by the court. .. with no experience.
Surely, when someone such as the warden of Sing Sing prison, which has contained so many notorious inmates within its walls, comes to such a conclusion we must seriously consider his views. Finally, on the question of the injustice of the death penalty I should like to quote the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who had this to say:
There is no equality among individuals who are charged with murder. For example, you do not hear of many wealthy men going to the gallows.
Reference has been made by one of my colleagues on the other side who spoke in favour of retention to holding a
May 6, 1976

referendum. May I briefly point out that in Canada, as I understand it, a referendum has, and would have, no force in law. It would be a recommendation to parliament, and parliament would still have to decide. Surely this is why we are elected here, to consider responsibly the material and evidence put before us and to reach a decision. Let me just point out, however, that in California, where a referendum does have some force, such a referendum was taken a year or a year and a half ago and overwhelmingly called for the death penalty. In the six months that followed, the murder rate increased markedly.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 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 Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Northern Affairs-Issuance of new permits to drill for oil on native land-Government position; the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-Sports-Reason for alleged double standard in dealing with South Africa; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr.	Friesen)-Penitentiaries-British
Columbia-Suggested need for reorganization of staff- Confidence of minister in administrator.
It being five o'clock p.m. this House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Motion No. 34 in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski). Shall the motion stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it has been agreed that we shall proceed with No. 70 and let the others stand.
Continental Shelf Boundary


ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON-CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CANADA AND FRANCE ON CONTINENTAL SHELF BOUNDARY DISPUTES
Jack Marshall: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which have taken place between the government and France on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the France-Canada boundary around the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all there is a small dilemma in that there appears to be a typographical error in my motion as printed in the order paper. Reference is made in line five to the United States. It should read "France," not "the United States." I think there is agreement on the other side that the motion should be considered with that change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggested change made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). It is probably a printing error, but whatever it is I am sure hon. members will agree to allow the hon. member to make that correction.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask for a debate on this motion in view of the implications that this tiny island of St. Pierre and Miquelon can have in regard to Canada's position in proclaiming a 200-mile fisheries zone or economic zone, or indeed the extension of limits to the edge of our continental shelf. I see no reason why my request for documents or for the production of same would be harmful to Canada's position during negotiation and discussion with our friendly neighbour.
I also want to know, as well as every Newfoundlander, in view of the province's proximity to St. Pierre and Miquelon, what will be Newfoundland's future in regard to its offshore resources, resources that are vital to its future economy. We also want to know what is the position regarding settlement of adjacent boundaries.
If one looks at a map, Mr. Speaker, one will see that the islands lie, at their closest point, 14 nautical miles south of Newfoundland. But, more important, a Canadian island, Little Green Island, lies only three miles from the French coast line. In ongoing negotiations between Canada and France, which continue in secrecy, evidently Canada's view is that a median line should be drawn between Little Green Island and St. Pierre which would put the boundary IV2 miles from the French coast. The French maintain that the boundary should be mid-channel between their islands and the Burin peninsula, which would give no territorial sea rights to Green Island.
The islands were ceded to France by Britain by the Treaty of Paris in 1763 and the Canadian government, and rightly so, is of the opinion, at present, that Canada should have a chance to renegotiate the terms inasmuch as they were agreed upon by two other countries, Britain and France. The islands are less than ten miles by ten miles in

May 6, 1976
Continental Shelf Boundary
area and are inhabited by citizens who fish, fur farm, and it has become a tourist attraction. On the basis of its sovereignty position, France is claiming ownership of the mineral resources of about 20,000 square miles of continental shelf and can base its claim in international law under the Geneva convention of 1958 which, by article 6, established the doctrine of equidistance for the determination of boundaries between the continental shelves of opposite and adjacent countries.
Under this doctrine, France claims offshore gas, oil and mineral rights from the median line to the nearest parts of Canada on three sides, and southward more than 200 miles to the outer edge of the continental shelf. But, Mr. Speaker, because this large area is so out of proportion to the size of the French colony as compared to Canada that we, Canada, are seeking and are taking the position that special circumstances as mentioned in the Geneva convention justify another boundary delineation which would give a smaller area to France. I am in support of this position.
In 1967, France issued an oil exploration permit covering the islands and adjacent waters to Petrosar, a company in which the French government has a large interest, and in the next year the French government passed a law regulating and proclaiming sovereign rights over the exploration for and exploitation of natural resources of the continental shelf adjacent to the French territory, specifically including overseas French territories. In the same year, Ottawa retaliated by issuing permits to Gulf and Mobil oil which overlap the French permit, and since that time there has been no accord in negotiations, unless, Mr. Speaker, this accord is also being kept in secret and is one of the reasons why I was asked to remove my notice of motion.
It is apparent from what I can gather, Mr. Speaker, that neither side wants to go to the International Court of Justice as both have telling and reasonable arguments. Needless to say, other matters, such as agreements on fishing rights and responsibility for pollution, will be dependent, as well, on the outcome of these negotiations which evidently are taking place, the contents of which are not made available.
From what I can gather, too, there is an agreement regarding fisheries between France and Canada in the area between the French islands and the province of Newfoundland, but the agreement is simply a convenient arrangement to take care of the fisheries problems for now and has not settled the question of ownership of the continental shelf resources. This agreement provides:
No provision of the present agreement shall be interpreted as prejudicing the views and future claims of either party concerning internal waters, territorial waters, or jurisdiction with respect to fisheries or the continental shelf resources, or the bilateral or multilateral agreements to which either government is a party.
Let us look at the factors which are relevant to the present position as it refers to the Law of the Sea conference. Canada's submerged continental margin, which can include, if we stand up for our rights, both the continental shelf and the continental slope seaward to the ocean depths, is estimated to cover almost two million square miles, an area about half as large as the total land area of Canada, the second largest in the world, exceeded only by the U.S.S.R. Yet, Mr. Speaker, Canada will not take the position, as she should, that we should rightfully claim priority over a little blob of land ten miles by ten miles in

area, and keep negotiating because we continue to be good fellows with other nations, to the detriment of Canadians.
Under the schedule of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, as it applies to the province that I represent, these terms express the following:
On, from, and after the coming into force of these terms of union hereinafter referred to as the date of union, Newfoundland shall form part of Canada and shall be a province thereof to be called and known as the province of Newfoundland.
More important, Mr. Speaker, No. 2 of the terms relates "that the province of Newfoundland shall comprise the same territory as at the date of union, that is to say, the island of Newfoundland and"-I stress this, Mr. Speaker- "the islands adjacent thereto". Unfortunately, this only refers to the coast of Labrador as delineated in the report delivered by the judicial committee of His Majesty's privy council on March 1, 1927, and approved on March 22, 1927. Unfortunately those who signed the agreement with Canada forgot the adjacent islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which were not even mentioned, or at least this emphasizes the lack of foresight and ignorance of the resource potential off Newfoundland's shores by those supposed experts who were reputedly sincere in their efforts in joining Canada.
I feel that I should make reference to the more current situation that exists in St. Pierre-Miquelon, and I do so as a result of the fact that I was interested enough last year during the summer recess to visit that island to assess personally the situation vis-a-vis Canada's interest, and hopefully to come to some conclusions because of the passive interest indicated by Canada. My visit was prompted, firstly, as a result of Canada's closing of eastern Canadian ports to the Russians as a result of their overfishing, and this again emphasizes Canada's lack of attention to the effects of St. Pierre-Miquelon. Needless to say, agreement was reached after discussions with the Soviets to reopen the ports to Russia, but we should not be deluded into thinking that the Soviet Union could not have used St. Pierre as an alternative port.
We were led to believe that the port facilities were not extensive enough to handle foreign trawlers but, Mr. Speaker, extensive plans are being made to expand port facilities. The harbour development work undertaken during the last decade offers much improved facilities for foreign fishing fleets. The harbour can accommodate up to 40 vessels at a given time, and with proper control as to timing of the arrival of vessels the port could handle many more. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in the last year for which figures are available, 1972, there were 1,136 visits made to the port of St. Pierre by vessels from 22 nations. Spain, for example, made 585 visits. Reference to "Harbour Notes" information also discloses that the services offered for supplies, fuel and water are as good as those offered in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia ports, and costs are generally competitive with, or in some cases lower than, in those two provinces. Certainly from what I could conclude after my visit, they are not going to stand idle, and it is obvious that further closing of ports in Newfoundland would see an upturn in investment and activity in St. Pierre to expand its port facilities, and this is already taking place.
May 6, 1976

I feel it is worth while mentioning that I visited a new, massive fish plant which to my mind would put to shame anything that I have seen in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out how unfortunate it is that the excellent remarks of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) have not been listened to by more than one supporter in the official opposition, and for several minutes during his excellent remarks there was no one in his place except the hon. member himself.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a point of order. There are committees sitting at this time.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: That's a good point of order; a very good point.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If this is the kind of game the government wants to play, we are prepared to play the same type of game.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What game? There is no game.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) that this is not a point of order, and I think it does not help the debate in any way.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have as many good friends on that side as I have on this side, and I am sure they are listening.


An hon. Member:: Even more.


Jack Marshall: We have our friends to the left who are listening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what counts.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I think it is worth while mentioning that I visited a new, massive fish plant which to my mind would put to shame anything I have seen in the Atlantic region. The plant has a capacity of 500,000 cubic feet and two air-blast freezing tunnels of 10 or 12 metric tons per day each. The warehouse has been granted duty free status; that is no duty is paid on goods brought in for freezing and/or storage and subsequently shipped out of the islands.
It was obvious to me that even though the fishery has been declining, new, modern vessels are being added to the fleet from France. Similarly, only one small section of the plant was being utilized. One does not have to be too imaginative to conclude that expansion of the industry is seriously being considered, perhaps by agreement with other nations, to process their catches there. I think I should mention too, Mr. Speaker, that during my visit I was received by the commissioner and was shown every courtesy, even to the use of his official chauffeur-driven vehicle with the head of tourism as a guide while I visited the various points of interest.
Continental Shelf Boundary
I must say, too, that Canada has many friends amongst the population, and I noticed with pride that even a few Canadian flags were flying. However, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about this matter and I say to all members of this House who are showing an interest in Canada's impending declaration to extend her limits that the existence of this little, minuscule blob of land could cause serious complications to Canada's position. Indeed, as I see it, St. Pierre, on behalf of France, could extend her limits to 200 miles and claim, as I indicated before, and is claiming, ownership of the mineral resources of about 20,000 square miles and can base its claim under the 1958 Geneva convention which, by article 6, established the doctrine of equidistance.
France claims equidistance between Burin and St. Pierre, a distance of 14 miles. Canada feels, and rightfully so, that the equidistance line should be drawn between Little Green Island and St. Pierre, a distance of three miles. While I realize that the situation may be delicate, I am sure, through the good relations that exist between Canada and France, that mutually acceptable agreements can be worked out. But, Mr. Speaker, the stakes are high, not only because of the valuable resources that exist, the ownership of which must be decided upon, but also because of my province's involvement, its claims against those resources and ownership and its rights as part of Canada.
I ask the obvious question: In the ongoing negotiations with France, that are now taking place, is the province of Newfoundland, whose economic future is vital to the extension of Canada's limits, and whose stakes are high in the determination of ownership of the resources off its coasts, being consulted in the ongoing negotiations between Canada and France; and if not, why not? Just what is the position of Canada vis-a-vis St. Pierre-Miquelon when she extends her limits to 200 miles or to the continental shelf?
I feel very strongly, however, that a most important matter becomes vital and necessary at this time; that is, Canada should be thinking seriously of making a proposal to France with the objective of acquiring the French islands on some mutually agreed basis. In this way Canada could solidify her sovereignty and certainly tidy up the precarious and continuing controversy which will persist over the years over ownership rights involving the two countries as well as the province of Newfoundland. Certainly, a feasibility study could be carried out on the social and economic benefits which would result, and the surrounding factors. While some might consider this a delicate proposal, I feel it is time that Canada asserted her historic rights to correct the mistakes made when the islands were ceded to France by Britain in 1763; and we must assert our position due to historic changes that have taken place in the 213 years that have elapsed. I feel that France would, or should, consider such a proposal seriously.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome participation by my colleagues. I know they will support my motion for production of papers so that parliament can look into all the factors pertinent to a declaration of Canada's position vis-a-vis the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon.

May 6, 1976
Continental Shelf Boundary


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I am eager to take part in this debate because, as you all know, I represent a constituency where water is predominant. Indeed everyone knows that lake Nipissing is not as big as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but in any case we know what a coast is. However, this is not what I want to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the topic and proper response to the subject matter and merit of the remarks of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) will be handled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Baker), as well as by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers). My comments will be directed basically to the procedural aspects of this particular motion.
It is regrettable that in effect these debates on notices of motions for the production of papers tend to be rather academic, in the sense that we do not deal with the merits of the notice of motion for the production itself but, basically, with the subject matter which motivated the member to present the motion in the first place. Effectively, we ignore and do not give sufficient importance to this particular procedure which becomes more and more essential to the proper functioning of this House and the role each member plays as an individual and as a private member.
This particular procedure was intended to involve debate on whether certain documents ought to be presented to this House and ought to be produced by the government. What has taken place in the past is that certain documents have been requested of the government, and upon these particular documents not being produced the motion has been transferred for debate before this House at a given time, namely, private members' business.
Effectively, what has developed is exactly what is taking place today. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe is presenting a matter that is very close to his heart and to the heart of his constituents. He debates that particular subject matter and does not at all seek to obtain production of the documents in the full knowledge that they will not be produced. He does not attempt to persuade the members of this House that the documents in fact ought to be produced, because he recognizes full well that the documents he seeks to have produced do not fit into any of the categories that are internationally recognized as being documents producible by governments.
The hon. member is seeking to have produced telegrams, letters and communications which reside within the realm of external affairs and exchanges between governments. It has been recognized by legislation passed in the United States and Sweden that that sort of material is privileged and ought not, in the public interest, be produced. We note from the remarks of the hon. member that he did not seek the production of those documents because he effectively recognizes this.


Jack Marshall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member evidently was not listening. I was giving the background to the reasons I wanted the papers produced, so that we would have the whole picture and could decide

on the importance of having those papers produced. The hon. member may say I was only trying to bring up this topic because of my interest in it, but he is only taking up the time of the House unnecessarily.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I was about to indicate that last week I had occasion to be in England and take part in a seminar on the question of freedom of information. The question of the production of documents was one of the matters discussed at that particular conference, and I felt this was a singular opportunity to indicate to the members of the House what my personal views are with regard to this particular procedure and to express, as well, my regret that the initial purpose of this procedure has been somewhat diverted. It has somehow not been dealt with in the way initially intended. I simply wish to indicate that the committee on statutory instruments presently is studying the matter of freedom of information.
Sufficient time is not being devoted to this issue by the House, nor are members of parliament being urged sufficiently to pay more attention to what is happening in that particular committee to make sure that the recommendations forthcoming from the committee relating to freedom of information will include a transformation of this procedure so that it becomes meaningful, and so that it becomes one where the effect of the motion that is presented is to seek, bona fide, the production of documents and not to present requests for documents knowing full well that they cannot be produced in the national interest, and not to seek, as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has attempted to do, to transform Canada into an acquisitive nation attempting to take over territory that has been recognized in international relations as being foreign. I suggest to him that perhaps more time should be spent more constructively in dealing with these matters by discussing the merits of the whole procedure with which we are presently engaged.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with enormous interest to the comments made by my colleague from Nipissing (Mr. Blais), who just came back from a seminar on motions for the production of papers, and he has said ten times better than I would have been able to what precisely concerns me, for this motion No. 70 which we are now debating is only one of those presented by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).
Before coming to the discussion of the production of papers, rather than of the beautiful province of Newfoundland, the treaties of the Union or the heartfelt speech which the hon. member made in support of our efforts and concern for the well-being first of Canadians and second of our human brothers, which have been described at the Law of the Sea Conference by all our ministers, and especially those from eastern Canada, I want to tell him how much I sympathize with his motion, unless he meant it as a joke, to the effect that another province of Canada should become in majority French-speaking. This will indeed enable me, in the future, to pronounce the name of his constituency in French, "Sainte-Barbe", which was the
May 6, 1976

original name. I was a bit surprised to hear that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe wants to reverse the course of history and come back to the state of affairs which existed before 1763. He wants our department to simply acquire a parcel of foreign territory. I am slightly surprised by this wild suggestion. Another proposal which also surprised me was that following his first visit to St. Pierre-Miquelon, he certainly took French lessons, for which I want to congratulate him.
He worried because the U.S.S.R. seemed to try to manipulate France and get hold of its port facilities first, and then spread its supremacy. As I know France, however little I know it, I do not worry about its whole autonomy nor about its great shrewdness in dealing with foreign affairs.

I am therefore convinced that my hon. colleague opposite will go back to St. Pierre and Miquelon, and after a few more summers he will surely get the feel of the people of these islands and he may decide that he would like to see Newfoundland join them, instead of the other way around. However, this is being facetious. I am simply following the line of reasoning that he had introduced into this discussion-to my great surprise, I must admit.
This motion is framed in a way which may be unintentionally misleading since the choice of language implies that with respect to the geographical area mentioned there is an actual "continental shelf boundary dispute" between Canada and France. The word "dispute" is capable of a variety of different interpretations including, in the most negative sense, one meaning that intractable and irreconcilable differences have arisen between both sides and that each side has, as it were, drawn battle lines. I know he referred to 1763, but surely we are in 1976 and there is no such problem now.
While the delimitation of the continental shelf boundary between Canada and France in this area remains to be settled, we on our side hope that agreement can be reached in an amicable and neighbourly way. Indeed, to date consultations which Canada has had with France in this regard have proceeded on the basis of full co-operation between the two countries concerned.
The question of the delimitation of continental shelf boundaries between two or more states whose coasts are opposite one to another, or where the territory of one state is opposite the territory of another-such as in the present case-involves complex considerations of international law.

I too read, and I am no more of a specialist than my colleague the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe but since I have been parliamentary secretary and even before when I was only a member of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I too read many documents issued before or after the third and the fourth Law of the Sea Conference. Since the hon. member has been sitting in this House longer than I, he knows the complexity of this problem much better than I. He also knows that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) comes from a so-called maritime province and he knows to what extent he has always be concerned with the improved condition of the Canadian people. He knows
Continental Shelf Boundary
very well, and I am sure that nothing enables him to suggest that there is the slightest matter for concern in the case he puts forward in this House, which relates to a motion for papers. He may perhaps retort that when one says that the matter is complex one is really trying to hide behind too secretive an attitude, with a view to keeping back information instead of revealing it.
On the other hand, I am sure he will agree in recognizing with me that the mere reading of the papers of consultant geographers, assisted by experts in other fields who make up our law of the sea teams, illustrates without a shadow of a doubt, in the case of the public documents we know, how difficult it would be for laymen like us-and even for specialists, for that matter-to decide lightly that setting the limits of the continental shelf is an easy matter.
He need only refer to the text we studied in Committee on External Affairs and National Defence at the time of the 3rd Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in Caracas in August 1974, and to the paragraph which does not apply here, I believe, to the definition of territories, of archipelagic territorial waters, to know that the problem is decidedly multiple in its aspects, highly technical and very difficult to discuss, all the more so, without a black board and chalk.
If I come back to the question directly related to the production of documents, namely, the fact that the ongoing conference and the decisions that should be reached there could well have a bearing on any settlement of the continental shelf boundary between Canada and France in the area of St. Pierre and Miquelon thus changing the applicable legal rules presently contained in the 1958 convention on the continental shelf, to which both Canada and France are parties, and which would normally set out the legal guidelines for settling the boundary in this area, the hon. gentleman will agree with me that if we are a responsible government we should not interfere at this time and produce documents which, by the way, cannot be produced.
Canada and France have held discussions on the delimitation of the continental shelf off these two islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The discussions were held on a confidential basis, as mutually agreed by both sides, given the fact that important questions of rights to seabed and other resources are involved. The last round of consultations took place in 1972, at which time the legal issues were considered. Both sides noted the complexities of the issues involved, and particularly the complicating factor which would obtain should the international community accord coastal states rights to extend their jurisdiction beyond the limits now recognized by international law.
The records of these confidential discussions must, in the interest of Canada's relations with another country, be maintained as non-public documents. It would be wholly inconsistent with our understandings with the French authorities for us to publish materials which contain references to the French position.
Moreover, other material such as letters and telegrams pertaining to the discussions, and which may reflect on the Canadian position to be taken as and when discussions

May 6, 1976
Continental Shelf Boundary
resume, must also remain as classified or confidential, in order to avoid prejudicing the Canadian position.
It is therefore in the interests of maintaining Canada's objectives in the settlement of this issue that such documents remain undisclosed. Disclosure would have a counter-productive effect on the conduct of external relations both with respect to the immediate matter of concern and Canada's position in other sensitive areas, and on related Law of the Sea issues as stated in motions Nos. 71, 72, 73 and 74 standing in the hon. member's name.
As to the more legal and procedural aspect of documents, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) already described the framework as to when this tool of parliamentarians should and should not be used. I will simply refer my colleague opposite to the guidelines on motions for the production of papers, applicable in the case of the present motion, which were tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) on March 15, 1973, when he was president of the privy council. Those guidelines established criteria to be applied-

-to determine when some official documents or papers of the government would be exempted from production.
When he tabled those guidelines, the hon. Mr. MacEachen said, and I quote him in closing:

We believe that members of parliament require factual information about the operation of the government in order that they may carry out their parliamentary duties. That statement is included in the general principle. We are also aware that the desire to make available as much information as possible must be balanced against effective public administration, protection of the security of the state and rights to privacy. It is always a delicate matter of judgment to balance the desire to make information available with the effective administration of the government, security of the state and other considerations.
I will not review the judgment of my colleague. I merely observed at the beginning of my reply to him that he made a beautiful speech on both Newfoundland and the Law of the Sea Conference, but unfortunately I shall have to ask him to withdraw his motion for the production of papers.


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief in dealing with the fisheries aspect of the motion. Noting his suggestion at the end of his speech that Canada or Newfoundland take measures for the acquisition of the territory of St. Pierre and Miquelon I can only conclude-and I am sure Newfoundlanders would conclude-that on the one hand the hon. gentleman is out to destroy the great tradition of rum running and, on the other, is in favour of possible instant bilingualism on the south coast of Newfoundland. That appears to be a Liberal policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean the rum running?


George Baker: If you look^ at our maps and the history of the battles between the French and the English in Newfoundland you will notice that the territory of St. Pierre and Miquelon did not come under the control of Newfoundland. It seems somewhat unusual to have two small islands off the south coast of Newfoundland in which the people speak exclusively French-and

Parisian French I am told. In fact some universities send their students down there for the summer months. I do not know why they do not send them to Montreal.
The hon. member who introduced the motion is absolutely correct that a problem exists with respect to the proposed 200-mile limit in the negotiations presently being conducted at the Law of the Sea Conference.
Negotiations between Canada and France with regard to the delineation of the continental shelf around the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were suspended indefinitely in 1970, and have not been resumed.
Exclusive fishing zones were established off Canada's coasts in 1971, by the creation of fisheries' closing lines following amendments, in 1970, to the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act and to the regulations made under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Bilateral phasing out agreements were concluded with those countries that had been previously fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as within the 12-mile territorial sea established by the 1970 amendments.
During the phasing out negotiations with France which were signed on March 27, 1972, a line was adopted that "determines the limit of the territorial waters of Canada and the zones submitted to the fishery jurisdiction of France". The line only runs along the north and east coasts of the islands and does not encircle them.
The phasing out agreement also established the rights of Canadian and French vessels on either side of the line; coastal boats may continue to fish in areas where they have traditionally fished. As for larger vessels, up to a maximum of ten French trawlers, maximum length 50 metres and registered in St. Pierre and Miquelon, are permitted to fish along the Canadian coast and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on an equal basis with Canadian trawlers, Canadian trawlers registered in Atlantic ports receiving reciprocal treatment off St. Pierre and Miquelon. That agreement is in existence today. The 1972 agreement provides for a general right of French nationals to continue to fish in any extended zone of Canadian fisheries jurisdiction off the Atlantic coast, with reciprocal rights for Canadian nationals off St. Pierre and Miquelon.
The European Economic Community is in the process of determining a common fisheries policy and the effect of this on the status of the waters off St. Pierre and Miquelon with respect to other community members is not clear. There are reports that the islands' status with respect to France may be changed from that of a territory to that of a department. The effect of this on any EEC common fisheries policy is also uncertain.
In conclusion may I say that officials of the Departments of External Affairs and Environment are keeping in close touch with developments with a view to determining an appropriate time for resumption of bilateral discussion of the continental shelf boundary issue.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on the motion presented by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: But the hon. member was not present to hear him speak.
May 6, 1976


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. gentleman whose constituency escapes me-


Walter David Baker: Mississauga.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -to the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), who said I was not here to hear the hon. member's speech, that I, as official fisheries critic for the opposition, read the hon. member's speech prior to delivery, which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe can confirm, and am therefore aware of the arguments he presented to the House.
The hon. member raised a matter of great importance to Atlantic Canada, indeed to the entire nation, as it involves the control and management of the seas and of fishing limits off St. Pierre and Miquelon and jurisdiction over minerals. Actually the value of such offshore resources in the area is unknown at present. Therefore we, as members of parliament, must be aware of what Canada and France discussed regarding the ownership, management, and control of this important area.
The author of the high seas doctrine, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, wrote in 1609 that most things become exhausted with promiscuous use. This is not the case with the sea. It can be exhausted neither by fishing nor by navigation, that is to say, in the two ways in which it can be used. The famous jurist was right in his time, but what he said does not apply today. During and even before the three decades since 1945, man found other uses for the seas. It is now used by massive fishing fleets using sophisticated methods which the fishermen have organized, with vacuum cleaning effect. We are considering such points at this time.
We have over-used or, perhaps more properly, misused the sea. Ancient and vast though it is, the sea cannot continue to be exploited and misused in this manner. Like everything else in the world, it has its limits. Human technology, as hon. members know, has now enabled us to fish whole species to virtual extinction. I am thinking of haddock, red fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and of some of the cod fish in the area.
Man-made pollution from all sources damages fish and bird life and fouls the coastlines we use for recreation. Pollution can even upset oceanographic systems on which we depend for our climate and oxygen supplies.
I could go on at some length about the importance of Canada's establishing some control over this area. At the Law of the Sea negotiations in Geneva last year, which I was privileged to attend, unfortunately there were few discussions about the ownership of the areas surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon. This, apparently, is considered a grey area. Apparently discussions are going on in secret. But we, as parliamentarians, must treat this question with more seriousness than apparently government supporters have treated it this afternoon. This is a serious and important matter, but it is not the only area in Atlantic Canada causing us concern.
Although what I am about to say may not be relevant to the point raised by the hon. member for Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe, I would remind the House of difficulties concerning another area off the coast of Atlantic Canada, Georges Bank. The fishermen of Atlantic Canada
Continental Shelf Boundary
are worried about the lack of negotiation and discussion with regard to Georges Bank taking place between the Department of External Affairs and American authorities. Here is an area off the coast of Atlantic Canada in which Canadians claim that the equidistant principle applies. If, in international discussions, that principle finds acceptance, Canada can rightly claim jurisdiction over about three quarters of Georges Bank, where we carry on a prolific scallop, lobster, and haddock fishery, to name just a few species. It is possible that we shall find oil, gas, and minerals in the area.
The Americans say that the equidistant principle does not apply to Georges Bank. They claim that the Fundy channel divides the area between Canada and the United States. If that concept is accepted in international law, Canada stands to lose jurisdiction over about three quarters of Georges Bank.
In support of the American claim the American Department of the Interior recently considered issuing some 206 permits to American oil companies to explore for oil and gas in the area. This is an area containing some 136 prime fishing grounds, of which at least some 50 are the chief spawning areas of haddock, hake, whiting, herring, and yellowtail, to name some of the important species which form the bulwark and main resource of our fisheries in Atlantic Canada. I fail to understand how the government cannot realize how important this area is to Canada.


Walter David Baker: They don't care.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Obviously they do not care. I know, as a maritimer and Nova Scotian, that the fisheries account for about 2 per cent of our gross national product. We must keep emphasizing this point if the fisheries are to get the recognition to which they are entitled. We always appear to be low man on the totem pole. When we come to the examination of the estimates, the amounts accorded to fisheries and their development are very low.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Because you are Tories?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member for Mississauga says it is because we are Tories. I hope that that statement which the hon. member made from his seat, from which he usually makes his statements, which all too often are erroneous, is definitely not correct. I hope that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland are not being penalized because the people in those provinces prefer the concepts of the Conservatives to the hypocrisy of the Liberal party. I see that time is running on.


Monique Bégin: Speak to the motion now.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the hon. lady like to continue her remarks? I listened quietly, patiently, and politely to her. I do not make it a policy to interrupt. I am sorry I cannot name her constituency.


Monique Bégin: Saint-Michel.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I follow a course in this House of not interrupting my colleagues or those who support the government.
13252

Continental Shelf Boundary


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: She said you are doing great.
May 6, 1976


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: If that is so, that is fine. I am in a section of the House where the sound does not carry.
In conclusion, I support in principle the request of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe that the present administration give serious consideration to his request for the production of papers that will inform, and hopefully encourage us to understand better the steps being taken by the government to secure agreement.
It is perhaps the secrecy that surrounds the government's activities that causes us the most concern. We are as interested as anyone on the other side in trying to reach a suitable accommodation which would lead to a proper settlement of the areas that I mentioned, St. Pierre and Miquelon and the Georges Bank areas, both of which represent prolific fishing areas, not only to the fishermen of Nova Scotia but all of Atlantic Canada. Therefore, I hope that serious consideration is given to this request and that some action is taken by the government in the not too distant future on this important matter.


Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have learned something today. The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) pointed out that at one time there was only one member of the official opposition present in the House. I am glad to see that since they learned I was going to speak the number increased fivefold.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Naturally I look forward to the speech of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers). However, if the opening of his speech is any indication of its content, he might drive us all away.


Mike Landers: Since their numbers have increased fivefold, I can only assume that they came to learn something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mike Landers: Before starting this esoteric speech I wish to point out that not only was the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers) present in the House when the point of order was raised, but also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whose mother came from Saint John, New Brunswick. Therefore the southern coast of New Brunswick was represented not only in body, but also in spirit.
Basically the documents requested are not being made public because they fall under exemption No. 3 in the "Guidelines for Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers," under which are exempted:
Papers dealing with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations; (the release of papers received from other countries to be subject to the consent of the originating country).
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the following exemptions apply in whole or in part to the documents requested: Exemption No. 10:
Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract-

In this case a possible international agreement. Exemption No. 15:
Internal departmental memoranda.
Motion No. 70 requests copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations. Phrased in these terms there can be little doubt that the motion requests documents falling under exemptions Nos. 3, 10 and 15.
Looking first at exemption No. 3, it seems reasonable to assume that there would be general agreement on not releasing documents if the release of the documents would be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations.
I see that I have run out of time, although I have much more to contribute to this particular debate.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Mike Landers: As I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, the point at issue is whether the release of the particular documents requested would actually have such detrimental effects.
In this case there can be little doubt that there would be detrimental effects. The negotiations in question have been conducted on the understanding that they were confidential. To release the documents requested would be to make the negotiations retroactively public. In effect this would amount to a breach of an understanding, and this could scarcely fail to have detrimental effects on the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations.
Furthermore, the documents requested include communications from a foreign country, and under the guidelines it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the originating country before releasing the documents concerned. In this connection it is worth while recalling that the communications from the country concerned were received in confidence. The opposition is asking for documents to be produced that were received in confidence.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not usually object, but the motion I presented concerns Canada's position in the world in international agreements. It not only affects the livelihood of Canadians, but Canada's position. It could affect many starving people in Third World countries.
I do not like to criticize any member, but this has become a joke. I wish I had not even presented the motion. I could have presented it in my own district through the press. It is disgusting to have to listen to this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[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.
James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when I left off this afternoon just before private members' hour I had attempted in the time then spent speaking to deal with the issue of whether capital punishment is in fact a deterrent. I had tried to address myself to the inequity of the existing law whereby only murder committed against policemen and prison guards on duty would bring that most severe of penalties. I attempted to discuss the justice of that penalty itself and whether justice would be better and more effectively carried out with the proposal in the legislation we are debating today.
I also discussed whether there was great injustice in the death penalty in that statistics prove that when the death penalty is carried out killers with wealth do not hang, and killers from a background of poverty do. I also attempted to refer briefly to the issue of a referendum, and in closing just before private members' hour I pointed out, and I simply want to re-emphasize, that while a referendum would have no force in law here in Canada and the decision would still be made in the House of Commons, I think it is very significant that in California, where the referendum forum does have some power in law, only a number of months ago the state voted overwhelmingly for the death penalty, and in the months following the murder rate rose markedly. Certainly it was not a deterrent there where the public had every expectation, as did the criminal element, that the death penalty was again to be carried out.
Now I should like to talk about the bill itself and about how it is different from the existing legislation. First, rather than have any capital punishment whatsoever, that would be abolished, and instead people convicted of first degree murder would spend at least 25 years in jail before they could be paroled. There is one exception to that, and it is an important exception. Before a triumvirate of three judges someone who had spent at least 15 years in prison could appeal for consideration that their behaviour had been so exemplary that they might be considered for earlier parole. If those three judges in concert agreed that that convicted murderer should be so considered, then the Parole Board in turn-with its new, changed membership, as proposed in the peace and security bill, with membership from the community into which the convicted would be released-would further consider whether it would be willing that such a person should be paroled.
Capital Punishment
I am pleased that the press has not placed great emphasis on this 15-year period, because while I very much support that part of the bill it is only a glimmer of hope-but a very important glimmer if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals.
Having said that, I should like to hark back, as I did when I began my speech, to three years ago when last I spoke on this issue in the House of Commons. At that time, in the Commons, through releases to the media as well as in committee I, along with the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), proposed just about precisely what is included in this bill, and if I can in all honesty and sincerity say so, I believe if the government had accepted that proposal three years ago for a 25 year minimum sentence and for a broadened category of the most serious crime before parole consideration, we would not face the dilemma we face today. In fact we could have given the public a more effective law over the past three years.
It is tragic that sometimes it takes the government quite a while, with the burden of work it faces and the systems it must go through, to realize that on occasion its backbenchers, rather than its planners, can come forward with ideas which are in tune with the public mood and demand, much more quickly than does the bureaucracy.
At any rate, having given myself and the hon. member for Saint-Denis a pat on the back, I should admit that the 15 year clause is an addition which was not proposed at that time, and it is one I very much support.
While I am doing some light knuckle rapping I should also note that as a backbencher on the government side- certainly my hon. colleagues who are here tonight will agree with me-I find it very difficult indeed to get the attention of the media very often. I am somewhat amused that three years ago, when I proposed something with which the government did not agree, I received a great deal of consideration from the media. This time around when this proposal is being taken up once more, I am lost in the deep ranks of the backbenches.
Having put in those few notes I want to continue by saying, in support of the bill itself, that not only is the 25 year clause a very severe penalty which surely will be an effective deterrent, but it will also make it easier for juries to come to a conclusion. One of the arguments often advanced, I think a very credible one, one that has been put forward by Sir Robert Mark of Scotland Yard, to which I made reference earlier today, is that the process of justice is very long and that it is very hard to get a conviction from the jury when the penalty is death. On the other hand, if the jury is not faced with that ultimate decision, I believe that we will obtain more convictions and that the law will thus become a more effective deterrent.
It is also tremendously important that the Canadian public realize that we are not softening the law in this bill; in the total picture it is very much a toughening of the law. No longer is the penalty death only for the killing of police and prison guards on duty, which has meant perhaps for ten or 11 years of incarceration before parole. The law is
95 5 68-5'/2

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
being broadened to take in the other categories of offences, such as premeditated murder, hijacking with murder, kidnapping with murder, and a whole series of sexual offences with murder. So I suggest we will have a much broader and tougher law covering a much wider range of the most serious of all crimes.
While I believe that Bill C-84 will in fact be a more effective and fairer means of dealing with those found guilty of murder, I also believe that we must bear in mind, that if the bill by itself does represent a toughening of the law which will bring about added public safety, although murder is the most terrible of all crimes it is but a very small proportion of the total area of violent crime. I should like to place on the record a few statistics to put this into perspective.
In 1962 there were 265 criminal homicides in Canada. This represented .75 per cent, or three quarters of one per cent of the total number of violent offences. In the same year there were 27,076 woundings and assaults, representing 83.1 per cent of the total number of violent offences committed. Four years later, in 1966, there were 248 criminal homicides, four tenths of one per cent of the total number of violent offences. In the same year there were 45,373 woundings and assaults, or 87.2 per cent of the total number of violent offences committed. Moving on to 1970 there were 425 criminal homicides in Canada, which was four tenths of one per cent of the total number of violent offences. In the same year there were 78,979 woundings and assaults, representing 85.5 per cent of the total violent offences.
What I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that capital punishment, or in its place a very severe jail term, will affect only the most minute portion of crimes committed in the whole broad area of criminal activity in Canada today. That is why, while this bill stands on its own, the peace and security package is equally if not more important when it comes to dealing with the 85 per cent or 87 per cent of violent criminal activity that takes place in Canada that does not relate to murder.
Much has been said about public opinion polls and the fact that they overwhelmingly show that the Canadian public are calling for capital punishment. I believe that the overwhelming number of Canadian citizens have focused on capital punishment because of their fear, having read reports, and from their own personal knowledge of increased crime on our streets. I believe that if the Canadian public were asked to sit down for a period of time and consider this issue, they would in fact realize that capital punishment alone will not bring them what they desire. In turn, Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing in the peace and security bill, and in this broadened bill to deal with the most serious of all crimes, will be much more effective.
I should point out to the House that in my own party there has been some experienced and thoughtful debate on this issue. We came to the conclusion in convention last November that there should be a free vote on the issue of capital punishment as a separate item. We decided legislation should be introduced to abolish capital punishment, but the convention also wanted to tighten bail and to increase penalties for violent crime. Having had a chance to debate those issues and to consider them, a majority of

the delegates, selected from various constituencies across Canada, arrived at the conclusion that the Canadian public would reach. If they would only stop long enough to consider these issues. If we could have their attention, we could explain how this abolition bill is toughening the law, not easing it and will improve public safety.
In turn, while this issue can be a very emotional one for either side, I did say at the convention when I had the floor that if anyone attacked or maimed my wife or child I suspect that I would personally want to tear them limb from limb before killing them, but that I would hope society at such moments would rise above one's own personal agony and hell. I very much believe that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I now want to deal with what I call the leaders' syndrome. I should first like to quote the contribution made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the 1973 debate. He said:
The most understanding of persons, in the face of lawless activity, will harden his attitude and will refuse to accommodate changes. Out of fear for his safety, and for the safety of his loved ones, even the most merciful of men becomes unwilling to assist the wayward.
If that applied three years ago, Mr. Speaker, it certainly applies a lot more today when we consider public opinion and our need to answer it responsibly. The Prime Minister continued:
... in this debate of the issue of capital punishment, I suggest that the premise from which we must begin our discussion is the basic one of the safety of Canadians. Our criminal laws, our penal system, our reform programs will be of little value if they do not respect the right of Canadians to live their lives without fear of criminal activity. The attributes of mercy and forgiveness cannot thrive in circumstances of fright and uncertainty .. . The laws are not designed with any thought to trading off the safety of men, women and children in the pursuit of some social experiment.
Again that very much applies today; the proposed changes to the law will bring about measures to meet the public's demand for increased safety.
The Prime Minister went on:
The choice of punishment... must be other than vindictive for no society can be vindictive and remain healthy.
While I do not have a quotation tonight from the late Lester B. Pearson, it will be surely accepted on all sides of this House that he too very much believed in abolition.
The former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), said this in the 1973 debate:
I see no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.
He added:
I do not want to be pontifical, but I think Edmund Burke was right when he said an MP has a duty to exercise his own judgment. It is my responsibility to exercise my judgment and this is what I am doing, not out of any sense of arrogance or superiority with regard to other Canadians, but in full belief that it is my responsibility to make up my own mind and to exercise my judgment.
Those are the comments of another abolitionist.
The leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), had this to say in the 1973 debate:
I was elected, as were all members of the House, not simply to respond to the prejudices of our community. That is not my work here.
May 6, 1976

We are elected to look at the evidence in every case, whether it is capital punishment, taxation, or any other matter. We are elected to look at the evidence, to consider the well-being of mankind, including our constituents, and to make an honest decision.
The current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), said in the 1973 debate that 49.1 per cent of his constituents indicated that they would support a policy which meant the imposition of prison terms which really meant life imprisonment, or long imprisonment, instead of the death penalty. He went on:
It is important to reassert and respect the responsibility of parliamentarians to decide ourselves, in the final analysis, what course the country should take . . . The member of the Canadian parliament has a different and more difficult duty-the duty to be responsible to his constituents-to act in the way in which his judgment and conscience direct, and then to be judged. Our job is to judge; our fate, and restraint, is to be judged.
The new leader of the Progressive Conservative party is an abolitionist too.
The Progressive Conservative party is the only party in the House with three current or former leaders sitting in the House. I can go back to the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who gave the famous Edmund Burke quotation of 1774:
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him: their opinion high respect: their business unremitted attention.
But, his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you-to any man, or to any set of men living.
We have those words in the records of the House of Commons.
The last Prime Minister of Canada, the former Prime Minister of Canada from the Progressive Conservative party, and two other leaders of the Progressive Conservative party have come out and supported the idea that we have a right to our own views and a right to reach a conclusion. There must be some significance in the fact that all these various men chosen as leaders by the people of their political philosophies from across Canada, have taken this position in recent years and are abolitionists. Surely their judgment, which was considered as the basis for giving them the leadership of their parties, is the same kind of judgment which has led them to be abolitionists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: In conclusion, I simply want to state that my position on this matter has been established since long before I became a member of parliament. I am answerable to my constituents. It will be no easier this time to vote for abolition of capital punishment than it was in the past to fight for it. But I do have a responsibility to carry out a trust and not to echo a mood or entrench a misunderstanding. I do gain some strength from the fact that many other people of greater experience, wisdom and respect, share my view. However, I support this legislation as it is before parliament on this occasion particularly because I truly believe it will be more effective in providing the Canadian public with safety and security.
Capital Punishment


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, C-84, proposes to abolish capital punishment. I shall vote against the bill, and by so doing of course I shall vote to retain the death penalty for those who commit premeditated, first-degree, cold-blooded or capital murder, call it what you will.
I say to you and to my fellow members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that no single issue, certainly since my first election over three and a half years ago, has caused me more personal concern and torment, and I do not think that is too strong an expression, than the issue of capital punishment.
There have been more complex issues during this period. I have only to think of our efforts to deal with the economy and inflation. There have been more frustrating issues, and I think of unemployment insurance and the energy crisis. There have been more heated issues, and we only have to go back as far as the recent so-called judges' affair.
However, in over-all terms the death penalty or its abolition is such a tremendous mixture of values and considerations that it defies, at least for me, a logical or rational approach to the problem and, frankly in my judgment, is incapable of a solution that will continue to be acceptable to all segments of our Canadian society and to all regions of our country.
Likely most of us have by now, and maybe have had for some time, a definite opinion on this issue, but the considerations that prompted us to formulate this opinion are not nearly so definite. A great deal of opinion has been based on religious considerations, and I think quite validly so. Much of my mail and personal representations that I have received have this basis. What is difficult for me, and I am sure some of my colleagues share this difficulty, is that we find different church groups taking diametrically opposite views on the retention or abolition of the death penalty.
Similarly, I have many constituents, and I am sure I am not unique, who are members of a certain church who will disagree firmly and openly with the official view that the church has taken. I suppose, therefore, I should not be too confused or even too surprised when I see two individuals in support of completely opposite positions quoting me the same holy scripture. That is the nature of capital punishment.
Another consideration involves the general concern regarding law and order, and in many cases it goes certainly far beyond concern. I detect a very real fear. Are our Canadian cities destined inevitably to become the Detroits of tomorrow? People see an increase of some 25 per cent in the number of murders committed in roughly a five-year period, and they want a solution. Generally people who are in fear look for a quick, simplistic, and understandable solution.
The abolitionist, on the other hand, will say with some justification that we should not have an emotional reaction to the problem but that we should work to create a society where law enforcement agencies, penal institutions, and rehabilitation officers work to eliminate the necessity of execution.

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
There are, of course, other considerations and there are other arguments, including the element of deterrent, the motive of revenge, the protection of society and on and on.
In the last three and a half years I would estimate I have received over 200 pounds of printed material on this subject in letters, telegrams, pamphlets, even books and petitions. I have received representations from thousands of my constituents. I have listened to or read every word of the 1973 House of Commons debates on the extention of the five-year trial period with respect to the murder of police officers and prison guards, and I have participated, as I am sure most of my colleagues have, in countless panels, talk shows, radio hotlines, etc.
From all of this I have concluded only one thing which is fundamental to the issue, and that is that there is no one right or wrong solution. There is no one argument that is so persuasive as to overrule all others. There is no one principle or consideration whose value is so important that one can disregard all other principles and all other considerations.
I have to ask myself where this leaves me as a federal representative. As I see it, and I hope I do not over-simplify, I have only two alternate courses of action. I can vote to retain or abolish death by hanging according only to the dictates of my own conscience, or I can vote in a way that will reflect the consensus of those I represent. Indeed there are some of us in respect of which the two coincide, where one's own conscience and the consensus of his riding are identical on this issue.
At this point, if you will permit me, I want to digress for a moment to comment very briefly on the so-called trial period of the past eight or nine years wherein only those persons convicted of murdering police officers or prison guards have been subject to a sentence of capital punishment. I reject this trial period outright as having any meaning in its resolution and its results, and really I suggest it was without acceptable principle in its original formulation. I say this for two reasons.
First, the application of the death penalty, depending on the victim's occupation, leads to some rather ridiculous situations. For example, the hired assassin who attempts to assassinate the Prime Minister for example, if his aim were accurate and he succeeded would not be subject to the death penalty because his victim, our Prime Minister, is not a law enforcement officer. On the other hand if his aim were not so accurate and he happened to kill the RCMP constable who normally is at the Prime Minister's side, then he would be subject to capital punishment.
The same situation would apply if a bank robber went in and deliberately killed a bank teller. He would not be subject to the death penalty. However, if in trying to escape he were to fire at random into the street and kill a police officer, then he would be subject to the death penalty.
I am the last to deny law enforcement officers the protection they need and deserve. I agree that the murder of such an officer must be deemed a capital murder. However, I point out that there are other murders which should fall into the same category and should be subject to the same sanctions.

My second reason for rejecting this trial period as meaningless is the simple fact that since the trial period commenced there have been 36 police officers and prison guards murdered. In the cases where convictions were secured every murderer has either had his death sentence commuted by the cabinet or is in the process of making an appeal for commutation, or is simply awaiting the results of this debate.
The royal prerogative of mercy has been established for centuries in our common law, and I support it wholeheartedly and, furthermore, agree that it is the cabinet which should continue to exercise this prerogative. However, to say we have had a test period of capital punishment for murderers of police officers and prison guards is, in my judgment, ludicrous when every such convicted murderer has had his sentence commuted, virtually automatically, by the cabinet.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) may take exception, which is his perfect right, to my allegation of automatic commutation of death sentences. I do not withdraw it. In his March, 1975, statement entitled "The Prevention and Control of Violent Crime in Canada", the Solicitor General said:
I must make it clear, however, that the decision to commute in a specific instance does not establish a precedent in any way whatsoever.
I do not accept this statement as accurate, much as I regret saying so. Even if I did, I would have to ask the Solicitor General, who says he will resign if the death penalty is reinstated, what other conclusion or what other perception can Canadians have, except that no matter what the circumstances of the murder, the death sentence will be commuted automatically by the cabinet?
Let me quote very briefly from a recent article by Charles Lynch who says:
Politics, as now being practised blatantly by a government that has shown itself utterly unwilling to sanction the use of the death penalty, is trying to strike a bargain that will abolish the hypocrisy of pretending that the noose is still there, when it isn't.
I return to what I feel is the basic decision of a member of parliament: should he or she vote according to his or her own conscience, or according to the wishes of his or her constituents? First, I wish to emphasize, and I wish to make it abundantly clear, that I respect the right of any member of parliament to choose either course of action. Both alternatives are not only justifiable but indeed honourable.
It would never occur to me to be critical of some of my colleagues because they choose to vote according to their own personal feelings, any more than I would challenge the right of others to attempt to reflect the wishes of the majority in their constituencies. What is more important is that you, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, and most importantly my constituents, have the right to know what course of action I propose to take, how I will vote, and why. I choose to reflect what I believe to be the feeling of an overwhelming majority of my constituents, and I will vote to retain the death penalty for those convicted of premeditated murder.
Let me acknowledge that my decision has been made a little easier because my own personal views have become
May 6, 1976

more compatible with those of my riding in the last three and one-half years. Upon my first election I had just completed a legal career that included a limited amount of criminal defence work, including the defence of a capital murder charge. I confess readily that this case caused me, as a lawyer, a great deal of anguish, to such a degree that as I said during the 1973 capital punishment debate I could not possibly be objective about this issue and, therefore, I felt it improper to vote according to my own conscience. I suggest to you today that, next to accused murderers themselves, among the least logical and least objective persons, with regard to this issue, are lawyers who have practised criminal law.
Since 1973 I have had an opportunity to study parts of some reports, particularly those dealing with penitentiary riots and, much as I regret saying it, in some cases we are dealing with those who can only be described as "mad dog" killers and, an equally contemptible group, paid assassins. As a result of this exposure I do not find myself so disturbed about voting for capital punishment as I did in 1973.
The second point I wish to make is that to vote according to the views of one's constituents, a member of parliament must have an overwhelming or convincing consensus in his riding. My last questionnaire-and I doubt it was any different to that of many of my colleagues-showed 89 per cent in favour of the death penalty for cold-blooded murder. The questions in that survey were extremely carefully and fairly worded, the answers were tabulated by computer, and the results were well publicized in my riding. I am convinced of the accuracy of the results, and I am equally convinced that those replying were a representative cross-section of my riding.
My third reason for voting against this bill is that I reject unequivocally the accusation that a member of parliament who votes according to the wishes of his or her constituents, on the capital punishment issue, does so for his own political gain at the next election. I reject that outright. In 1973, during a shaky minority government, we had a capital punishment vote and shortly thereafter a general election. Just as many of those who voted for retention were defeated as those who voted for abolition and, similarly, just as many on both sides of the issue were re-elected. I know what it is to lose votes on election issues. Many members of our party were defeated during the last election for whatever reason-and I do not pretend to know-but capital punishment is not one of the issues which elects or defeats a member of parliament at a forthcoming election.
Fourth, I reject the accusation that one who votes according to the wishes of those he or she represents is abrogating his or her responsibilities. In the House of Commons, and in the various standing committees of which I have been a member, I have voted over the past few years on 300, 400 or 500 occasions, or maybe more. I have voted along party lines; I have voted according to my own conscience; I have voted to defeat the government, and I have voted to support the government. On only one occasion did I vote to reflect directly the views of my constituents, and that was the capital punishment vote of 1973.
Certainly there were numerous times when my vote did coincide with what I presumed to be the feelings of my
Capital Punishment
riding. Generally the value of my questionnaire results has been to assist me in making my point in caucus or committee meetings. You know, Mr. Speaker, and I know, that I cannot consult with my constituents on every issue. Sometimes there is not enough time. Usually I should have studied and been better informed than my constituents on most issues before parliament. The upcoming vote on capital punishment will be only the second occasion that I have voted to reflect directly what the majority of my riding wish. For that I do not feel compelled to make any apologies.
Much was said during the 1973 debate on capital punishment about members who proposed to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. Almost invariably those who were critical of members who voted in this way quoted Edmund Burke or John Stuart Mill. It is implied that a member who votes according to the wishes of his or her constituents is nothing more than a computer, a head counter, or a reflector of public opinion. If any of my colleagues in the House wish to attach these or other labels to me, they are of course free to do so. 1 submit that this is utter nonsense. When I-and others-on only two occasions in over three years, out of hundreds and hundreds of votes, choose to reflect an overwhelming consensus of the people we represent, I do not feel that, all of a sudden, I have rejected a prevailing political philosophy that I should, generally speaking, base my decisions on my own best judgment.
On many occasions during my relatively short tenure of office I have voted against what I believed were the wishes of my constituents. On many occasions I had no time to consult with my constituents on specific issues; on other occasions there was no question in my mind that, because of research and other facilities available to me, I was in a better position to make a judgment than most of my constituents on a particular issue of the day. However, Mr. Speaker, I am one who firmly believes in the widest possible consultation with those who selected me to represent them. I have found this communication helpful and, in many cases, enlightening.
I believe it is part of my responsibility to consult with my constituents, and I believe further that their opinions should be of substantial significance as one element, among others, that assist me in making a particular judgment. Frankly I do not think that this makes me merely a computer to reflect public opinion. To the contrary, I believe this consultation makes me a better decision-maker and, of equal importance, permits my constituents to be part of, and closer to, their government.
Fifth, I have a certain difficulty in convincing myself that, in issues such as capital punishment, my conscience is superior to the collective conscience of those I represent. I suppose one might defend such a position by saying that because members of parliament have received such a tremendous volume of research and other material on capital punishment they are better informed than most; however, as I have pointed out, so much of the material is contradictory and confusing that I cannot adopt this position. Furthermore, it seems to me to be more than just presumptuous to say that my moral character or integrity or ethics are superior to 89 per cent of my constituents. Is there some miraculous moral transformation that takes place in

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
an individual who has been fortunate enough to secure more votes on election day than his two or three opponents? All of a sudden does he become better fitted to determine moral issues?
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I understand that on many issues I should be better equipped intellectually than many of my constituents because it is my job to be better informed, to have studied more, and to be better equipped. However, I find it difficult, indeed impossible, to extend that position by saying my moral conscience is better than the conscience of those I represent.
Finally, let us look directly at the issue. I have attempted to avoid the use of statistics because all too often they are misleading or, at the best, not very helpful. However, it is important to put into perspective the numbers of convicted murderers with whom we may be dealing. Prior to 1968, when a person could be executed for capital murder, statistics show that in the previous five years, during which there were 200 to 300 murders a year, the following numbers were sentenced to death, although most had their death sentences commuted, and indeed there have been no executions since 1962. In 1963 there were 12 such sentences; in 1964, 5; in 1965, 17; in 1966, 11; and in 1967, 10. Therefore we are talking about less than 10 per cent of all convicted murderers who could be executed. Of that 10 per cent none would be executed if the jury recommended mercy because commutation has been virtually automatic in all such cases.
I have no statistics for the last nine years because during this period capital murder cases involved only the murder of a police officer or prison guard, but I expect the proportion of premeditated or cold blooded murder remains about the same as the pre-1968 figures.
In his March 1975 statement that I referred to earlier, the Solicitor General said:
Given the sudden, unplanned nature of most homicide, it appears unlikely that most individuals who commit murder take into account the existence or non-existence of capital punishment before carrying out the act.
What kind of red herring is this, Mr. Speaker? We are not debating capital punishment for murder resulting from domestic quarrels or other hot-blooded or impulsive murder. The Solicitor General does no service to himself or his government with such foolish statements. Of course the death penalty does not deter such killers. The killers the Solicitor General should be concerned about are the coldblooded assassins-the inmates who choose to execute prison guards-hardened criminals who are ready, at the drop of a hat, to use a firearm in the commission of a robbery or similar offence.
I am the first to admit that the return of capital punishment in itself will not solve the problem of law and order in Canada. It is only but one small part of a very complex and urgent problem. On the other hand, I cannot reject the death penalty as a useless element in law enforcement.
I wish to make one other point regarding the government's conduct in bringing in this legislation. This bill has been highly touted as providing for a minimum 25 years prison term in place of execution. The Solicitor General has said this 25 year provision is harsh, that it may be

counterproductive with respect to rehabilitation, that it may increase the problems in our prisons and for our prison guards. He does not know whether the 25 year rule in capital murder cases will act as a deterrent.
In view of all this I, and others, must ask why the 25 year minimum rule? And the only answer that I can find is that the government, by instituting the 25 year sentence provision, may garner enough votes in this House to abolish capital punishment. It is the price it will pay to eliminate the death penalty which is unacceptable to it.
What happens then if this bill is passed? There are two classes of murder. A person convicted of either class may receive a sentence of life imprisonment. In spite of the sentence is the murderer eligible for parole? Sure, in the case of first degree murder, the minimum 25 year rule applies. Does this mean that a murderer convicted of a cold blooded murder has to wait 25 years to become eligible for parole? No, that is not what the bill says. It says that after 15 years a convicted first degree murderer may have his case reviewed. What does all this mean? It means that life imprisonment is not life imprisonment, but 25 years. And it means that 25 years is not really 25 years, it is 15 years. And the government wonders why the Canadian public is confused and angry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: I hear shouts of "no" to my left. I defy hon. members to convince me-and I have a great deal of respect for their judgment-that 25 years is 25 years, because it is simply not the case even in the event of conviction for capital murder.
May I conclude on a more temperate note, Mr. Speaker. The important thing for all of us to understand today is that neither Canadians nor their MPs are unanimous in their views on the death penalty. People feel equally strongly and equally emotionally on opposite sides of this issue.
To those of my colleagues who oppose the death penalty, may I say that I freely and readily acknowledge the validity of the principles that they have adopted in forming their opinion.
Therefore, while I cannot and will not ask them to agree with my position. I do ask, and I do hope, that they will respect the principles that I have adopted in reaching my decision to vote for the retention of capital punishment.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time that I have participated in the debate on capital punishment. You will recall that it was Mr. Larry Pennell who introduced the legislation in 1967 which set in motion the abolition of capital punishment, and at that time there were certain restrictions. Because of my participation in the other debates I will impose upon myself a limitation of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: I am rather proud of the debate thus far because there has not been the acrimony and the emotionalism which could easily creep into this type of debate. I have not heard the abolitionists say that capital punishment is sadistic, barbaric or savage, and I have not heard
May 6, 1976

retentionists say that abolitionists are misguided do-gooders. I am sure all of us appreciate the approach hon. members are taking during the debate and the respect that we have for each other's views.
I am opposed to capital punishment for five specific reasons. First, capital punishment is incompatible with my moral and spiritual concepts of reverence for life. Second, capital punishment is not a deterrent. Third, capital punishment presents the awful possibility of putting an innocent man to death. Fourth, capital punishment eliminates the purpose of punishment which is for the person to make amends, reform and rehabilitate. Fifth, capital punishment would be a backward step in the development of our system of justice.
I have said that capital punishment is incompatible with my moral and spiritual concepts of reverence for life. We have developed a system of values regarding human life, human dignity, and human worth, from religious considerations, experiences of others, and our own. The Bible contains five key words: vengeance, justice, mercy, love and forgiveness. In Genesis the Lord said "vengeance is mine", but man said "no", and imposed death for the taking of another life, for adultery, and for the blaspheming of God. Then we find Amos, seeing the poor being ground into poverty, shouting from the hilltops, "Let justice roll down like a mighty river and righteousness like an everlasting stream". We also find Hosea who saw his wife committing adultery and spoke of showing mercy toward others. Finally we find Jesus who thought and demonstrated redemptive love and forgiveness, even in death.
We are in the process of developing a heightened and enlightened awareness of human life, human worth and human dignity, and we must not allow ourselves to return to the dark ages of revenge and retribution. That is why I am proud of the Canadian Council of Churches, which represents many religious persuasions, for giving their leadership and their convictions, and for setting the moral tone in teaching this important subject.
I was rather proud yesterday to hear the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), a former United Church minister, set a very high tone in this debate and give his reasons which were mighty persuasive.
Sir Edmund Burke has been quoted many times and I think he has the core of the thinking of most of us-that we have a responsibility to our constituents to study the matter of capital punishment, and other social and economic issues, and to exercise our good judgment and our conscience. I am sure most of us are attempting to do so.
The second reason why I am opposed to capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent. If it were a supreme deterrent, murder would have stopped in Biblical times. Surely it would have stopped in the eighteenth century in England where they had 350 capital offences which called for a sentence of hanging. But I am persuaded by the statement of Britain's Royal Commission on Crime in 1952 which stated:
... the general conclusion we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its introduction has led to a fall in homicide rates.
Capital Punishment
This conclusion has been confirmed by the studies of Professor Sellin, and studies in the United Nations. I think they have reached the simple conclusion that the evidence with regard to capital punishment as a deterrent is not clear either way.
I was rather impressed with the opening argument of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), leading spokesman in the debate for the Conservative party. He said the reason that most of us do not commit murder is fear of death. If that were so there would not be any murders today. I think the reason that you and I do not commit murder is because of our moral values, because of our spiritual values, because of our social values, because of our fiscal and physical well-being, and because of the exercise of our self-control and self-discipline. These are the main reasons why you and I are deterred from committing murder, Mr. Speaker.
It seems to me that we should be looking at the causes and cures of crime rather than at the penalties. I was very impressed with the evidence given by Professor Cyril Greenland of McMaster University who has studied in depth the problem of violence in our society today, and who made a particular study of criminal violence. After studying approximately 400 persons who had been involved in crimes of violence he came to four conclusions why we have violence today-first, a severe deprivation in social and economic well-being; second, poor housing and unemployment; third, alcohol and drug problems; and fourth, no attention paid when help was sought.
It seems to me that we have to direct our attention and our resources to solving these problems of violence by creating a society where we do not have wide gaps in economic and social well-being but where we have a decent housing scheme, full employment, some control with regard to alcohol and drugs, and where, when attention to a problem is sought, it is given.
The third reason why I am opposed to capital punishment is that it permits the awful possibility of putting an innocent man to death. May I say, once he has been put to death it is irreversible. In fairness, there has been no conclusive evidence in Canada that an innocent person has been put to death. We have had shadows cast in at least three cases I know of, however. One was the Wilbert Coffin case in the Gaspe in 1956, when he was charged with the murder of three American hunters. Before he was put to death he was subjected to six reprieves. There was the Steven Truscott case, with a dissenting judgment by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall of the Supreme Court of Canada who expressed serious doubts with regard to the guilt of Steven Truscott. Now there is the Raymond Cook case in Alberta.
In the United States between 1893 and 1971 there were eight definite cases where innocent persons were put to death. In Great Britain between 1945 and 1968 there were at least three cases. The most dramatic of these was the case of John Christie, who was hanged for the murder of his wife and child on the evidence of his neighbour, Evans, who later admitted to the crime. The bodies were found in Evans' home along with the bodies of five or six other women. That case brought to stark reality the possibility of putting an innocent person to death.
13260

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
The fourth reason why I am opposed to capital punishment is that it eliminates the purpose of punishment, which is the reform and rehabilitation of the individual, and not vengeance and retribution. It may be said that the advocates of retribution are sometimes the families or close friends of the murdered victim because at times they feel vengeance as a sign of their hurt and helplessness. What they need in those times is friendship and solace, and the healing power of time.
May I repeat for hon. members the case that happened in the riding adjacent to mine in Toronto, the riding of Greenwood. A police officer was killed, and Bene Vaillain-court has been convicted of the murder and is awaiting a decision on this bill. The wife of the murdered officer, Mrs. Maitland, wrote to the hon. member for Greenwood saying that both she and her late husband were opposed to capital punishment and that she was prepared to forgive and extend mercy to this person.
If punishment is to be reformative and rehabilitative, an opportunity must be given to re-educate the offender. To achieve this goal some control of his time is necessary. That is why we must have a sentence which involves the educational opportunity as this is more likely to promote the well-being of society.
I am sure hon. members will recall the famous Leopold and Loeb case in the United States when Clarence Darrow came to the fore. These two young men had committed murder, but he argued that rather than suffer capital punishment they should receive life imprisonment. In those days it was very difficult to persuade the judge and jury, but he succeeded. Both were sons of very rich men. Loeb was later killed by a fellow prisoner, but Leopold spent many years in prison. He was paroled to work in a laboratory in a mission hospital in Puerto Rico, and spent ten years there as an X-ray technican. At the age of 55 he returned to school and obtained a master's degree in social work. He then became a consulting psychologist and a research associate for a medical school where he made a study of leprosy in Puerto Rico. His service to many suffering people was a credit to himself and to the advocates of the abolition of capital punishment. That does not mean that all persons who have committed crimes and are sentenced to life imprisonment are going to reform and be rehabilitated and make amends the way Leopold did, but I think his story is worthy of consideration.
Western civilization would have missed a great deal in its culture and moral development if Moses had been deprived of his life for killing an Egyptian, if David had been killed for conspiring to murder Uriah, and Paul for co-operating in the death of Stephen, and for voting death to the early Christians.
My fifth reason for opposing capital punishment is that reimposing capital punishment now would be a step backward in our system of justice. I remind the House that in Great Britain, in the 18th Century, there were 350 capital offences. In 1957 the death penalty was limited to a few offences only. In 1965 it was suspended, and in 1969 abolished. Events of recent years have tested the British stand on capital punishment. Terrorist activity in Northern Ireland prompted the introduction of motions in the British

house in 1974 urging the return of the death penalty for terrorist activities. On both occasions the vote went against bringing back the death penalty.
I recall my 17-year-old son coming home after having toured England and Scotland. I said to him, "Son, what do you think of England?" He said, "Dad, I can sum it up in one word." I said "What word is it?" He said, "Civilized." It seems to me that the British people are civilized in the sense that they respect human life, human worth, and human dignity.
In Canada we have modified our treatment of murderers. I give full credit to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and Davie Fulton for bringing forward legislation in 1958 which limited capital punishment to certain kinds of murder. There has been a further development. Since 1962 no one in this country has been hanged. In 1967 Larry Pennell, now Mr. Justice Pennell- and Mr. Speaker must know him well-was instrumental in bringing forward law which limited hanging only to convicted murderers of policemen and prison guards. The United States Supreme Court found capital punishment to be a violation of the eighth amendment of the U.S. Constitution in that it constitutes cruel and unjust punishment. Forty-four member countries of the United Nations have abolished capital punishment.
Abolitionists, besides favouring the abolition of capital punishment, are under the duty of supporting measures which will protect society from the increasing incidence of crimes of violence. By bringing forward Bill C-83 the government took the right step. The bill deals effectively with the question of guns, parole, and dangerous offenders. But it must not stop there. We talk about reforming and rehabilitating criminals; therefore we are under the duty of bringing forward programs which will do this, which will allow prisoners to develop as human beings and take their rightful place in society.
In addition we must separate the various categories of criminals; that is why classification is important in any penal program. We must build smaller prisons and replace older, larger prisons with mors modern ones. We must protect the police and prison guards, and we are under the duty of making sure they are adequately trained to protect themselves and society. I hope the recently passed law for tightening bail regulations will be effective.
A report on young offenders has been brought forward, but legislation so far has not been based on it. We considered a young offenders' bill in 1970. Fortunately that bill died on the order paper. The bill was based on the adversary system concept. That concept has no place in criminal justice. I think we should abandon the adversary system in criminal justice and adopt a system which will enable us first to look at the offence, then at programs which will either cure, rehabilitate or reform the offender.
The challenge to build a better society is ours. It is up to us to uphold the sanctity, worth, and dignity of human life. The challenge is ours. May we have the courage and determination to accept it.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on what is, without doubt, one of the most difficult questions facing this parliament. As a newly elected member this is my first oppor-
May 6, 1976

tunity to deal, on the floor of this Chamber, with the issue of capital punishment. I would begin my comments, Mr. Speaker, by commending both the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for their eloquent and impassioned articulation of the issue.
My objection to the death penalty is based upon the conviction that it is both futile and immoral, and that the interests of society would be best served by its abolition. As I have listened to and read the opinions of those who would have us retain the death penalty, I am struck with three basic arguments. The first argument in the case for capital punishment was outlined by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He argues that the death penalty is a much greater deterrent than any other form of punishment, so that its abolition would result in an increase in the incidence of murder. The second argument, presented so often by the many form letters which have landed on my desk, has been that public opinion, which seems to demand its continuance, cannot be ignored. The third argument is perhaps the easiest to dismiss; it states that with crime as it is, now is not the time for abolition. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to deal with all of these arguments, demonstrate their falseness and, in so doing, challenge those who would claim otherwise.
The hon. member for the Yukon, opening the debate for his party, was led to the conclusion, which he admits as being oversimplistic, that death must be a deterrent. I can agree with the hon. member only insofar as he admits his reasoning to be oversimplistic. As the great Tory Senator, Grattan O'Leary, said in the last debate:
I do not think any civilized mind, any educated mind, with all the evidence we have had before us during the last half century, can stand in this Chamber and say he still believes in capital punishment... There is nothing on earth, no evidence anywhere by anyone, to show that capital punishment does deter the further commission of such crimes.
Let us deal for a moment with the question of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. A great deal of investigation and years of research by some of the ablest minds of the world have been done on the value of capital punishment as a deterrent. Those who have spoken before me have pointed to the findings of many of these studies. I wish to add to their argument by citing the work done by the Norwegian criminologist Johannes Andenaes, who, after years of research, concludes:
But with regard to the very specific deterrent of capital punishment we have learned one thing: all the studies ever made, all the statistics ever compiled, all the data ever processed have failed to produce one shred of evidence that capital punishment has ever been a deterrent to murder.
This confirms the opinion of the British Royal Commission of 1949-1953 on the subject of the death penalty. It determined:
That there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment had led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its re-introduction had led to a fall.
Indeed, a comparative study of homicide rates between abolitionist and retentionist jurisdictions in the United States has indicated that the average homicide rates are greater in the retentionist states. A similar comparison of European jurisdictions based on Interpol data would indicate that "For the most part, states which have abolished
Capital Punishment
capital punishment have lower rates of murders and attempted murder". In Mexico, a UN study also noted no relationship between the presence or absence of the death penalty and homicide rates in different states.
I am not suggesting that abolition will lead to a lower homicide rate. However, for those who have stood in this Chamber and claimed that death was, must be, was bound to be, could not help being a greater deterrent than any other form of punishment, I can only point to the overwhelming evidence which would indicate that the murder rate varies independent of the death penalty. Indeed in 1868 public executions were abolished in Britain, largely because of evidence before the Royal Commission of 1866 that of 167 persons who had been under sentence of death in one town during a number of years, 164 had themselves witnessed a public execution, in consequence of which the commission concluded that those who argued that public executions had great deterrent effect were wrong.
I would argue, Mr. Speaker, as did Sir Samuel Romelly, leader of the movement to abolish capital punishment in the last century, specifically that:
1.	The chief deterrent to crime is not barbarity of punishment but certainty of conviction. The former only results in decreasing the latter and is therefore futile.
2.	Brutal punishments accustom the people to brutality and themselves tend to increase crimes of violence. Basically put, Mr. Speaker, violence breeds violence.
As Archbishop Temple, who has written much on the subject of the death penalty, stated:
With regard to the chief quality of effectiveness in deterrent punishment, it is not the severity of the penalty inflicted, but the certainty both of detection and of the exaction of the penalty required by law.
In this regard, for the period 1961 to 1974 only 14 per cent of adult suspects charged with murder were convicted of the original charge of murder, and 46.4 per cent were convicted of a lesser offence than murder. A study in Britain indicates that the conviction rate for murder rose dramatically after the death penalty was abolished. Such data would indicate that jurors are, as the Solicitor General indicated on May 3, 1976, loath to convict for capital murder, but are quite prepared to convict for a lesser offence where life is not at stake.
A great deal has been said in this debate and in previous debates which has sought emotional and religious justification of the death penalty. The law of capital punishment, while it pretends to support a reverence for life and justice, does in fact destroy it. I say with all the conviction that I can muster that I am persuaded that the message to be gleaned from the teachings of Christ written in the New Testament is one of love and charity.
The story is told of a sailor who was shipwrecked on an unknown shore and feared for his life. Scrambling up a cliff, he suddenly caught sight of a gallows and exclaimed, "God be praised! I must be in a Christian country". I reject the arguments of those cynics who would exchange the true Christian principles of reverence for life, compassion, and atonement, for revenge, callousness and punitive justice. Execution cheapens life which we must cherish and nurture.
955 68 - 614

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
We must also concern ourselves with the irreversibility of the death penalty. While I share with all members a high regard for our judicial system, the possibility of error is always present. Professor Charles Black of the Yale Law School, in his book "Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake" concludes that capital punishment should never be inflicted, not only because it is wrong on moral grounds and ineffective as a deterrent, but because the vulnerability of the criminal justice system to caprice and mistake cannot be improved or eliminated. Certainly the Christie case in England raises some very serious questions about the imperfection of the judicial system and the absoluteness of capital punishment. Such an eventuality is a situation which we cannot ignore nor accept.
Many people believe that it would be unsafe to let murderers live, with the chance that they might gain remission of their sentence and return to the streets and kill again. Unfortunately the popular mood is formed on the most exceptional and unfortunate cases.
Uniform Parole Reports data consistently report that homicide, and indeed violent offences in general, are the crimes associated with the lowest recidivism rates.
I would but bring before the House the case of Jim Casey and Thomas Shand. Jim Casey, convicted in 1956 in Vancouver of killing a policeman, had his sentence commuted and was paroled in 1968. Casey's former prison classification officer has said of him:
I firmly believe that Jim Casey is the finest example alive for the cause of abolishing capital punishment. He epitomizes what can be done with time, patience and insight.
The Mayor of Saint John, New Brunswick, where Casey now lives, added his praise:
He's an extra special type of man and a tremendous influence for good in our city-especially with young people.
It is my hope that the peace and security package might further this kind of rehabilitation. I would also like to mention the case of convicted murdered Thomas Shand of Winnipeg. In a very moving letter to the pastor of a church which had befriended Shand after his conviction, he wrote:
For a year and a half now, I've been preparing for death and in a sense, even welcoming it, just for the peace of mind I would get, knowing that I would never again harm a human being, or they me. Now I must find reasons to go on living, with the hope that some day I will be released from prison to make a contribution to society to amend the wrongs I cast on so many. I know that a debt of this nature can never be fully repaid, but I shall strive ... to right the wrongs, so that one day my family and friends may walk without shame, and that the family of Ronald Houston may be compensated for their grief.
Up until about six months ago, I was a firm believer in capital punishment, thinking that death was the only solution. I, like so many others, read or heard somewhere the eye for eye and tooth for tooth was the only answer, not even knowing who said it, or for that matter, in which part of the Bible it could be found. All we knew for sure was that it said so in the Bible, so therefore, it must be the right way to do things. We never stopped to take into consideration the time, place, people, or the environment in which they lived. I'm not saying that today the situation is any less violent, but I can say that the majority of people are more civilized and educated, and are interested in finding out why some of us do what we do and, if possible, correcting these malfunctions before they do irreparable damage to ourselves, or those with whom we come into contact. Unfortunately, there are still many of us who do not believe in the "seek and cure system." We would like to get the problem over with as soon as possible, by meting out confinement or, in some cases, execution. It wasn't too many years ago that as many as 200 crimes were punishable by death.
[Mr. Daudlin.j
Some of our reasons for urging these punishments were guilt and fear, knowing that perhaps we could have possibly prevented the crime if we had acted sooner, by giving a little of our time and understanding to some child who needed attention and genuine affection. Each and every child in this world has at one time or another called out to us, begging us to hear them, love them, and, yes even sometimes to discipline them. In many cases their pleas fall on deaf ears, because a lot of us are caught in our own selfish needs and just don't have the time or patience to hear that child's cries. There are two other main reasons why people believe in confinement and capital punishment which I'll name, but won't go into, because they are both self-explanatory. One is vengeance and retribution, and the other is that it will serve as a deterrent and warning to those who might have ideas about going astray, which in my opinion is pure fiction, and probably the greatest hoax of all times.
The testimony of Thomas Shand, who as a child was brought up in a series of foster homes and who completed only the eighth grade in school, should humble us all.
Before I briefly mention the matter of public opinion, I would point out to hon. members an observation made by Albert Camus and in doing so encourage members to read his essay, "Reflections on the Guillotine". In his arguments, Camus relates the role of alcohol to crime and states that the proportion of alcohol's responsibility in crimes of murder is shooting. "The State that sows alcohol", says Camus, "cannot be surprised to reap crime".
In a letteV from the United Church of Canada, Presbytery of Essex, it was pointed out to me that a study conducted in Philadelphia over a five-year period found that 60 per cent of killers and or killed were under the influence of alcohol. Recent disclosures at trials in Canada would indicate a similar situation. This is a cancerous problem to which the Solicitor General's office and the Department of Health must be prepared to pay greater heed. We must be ready to deal with this problem, and deal with it expeditiously.
I want now for a moment to deal with the extent to which we as members should have regard to public opinion. I am certain that it is important for governments and members to be sensitive toward, and to take account of, the opinions of the public before legislating on important issues. In deciding to what extent effect should be given to public opinion we must determine to what extent that public opinion is well informed and instructed.
In examining the work done by Dr. Fattah I am led to believe that the anxiety of the public is based on arguments which, earlier in my remarks, I rejected as being invalid. They are based, for the most part, on an emotional case for public execution. I need not remind hon. members, as has already been done, of the tradition of Edmund Burke, Sir Winston Churchill, and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), all of whom have pointed out that a member of parliament owes his constituents not his only his industry, but his judgment as well, and he betrays, instead of serving them, if he sacrifices it to their opinion.
I think it is unfortunate that several hon. members of this Chamber, long prior to any debate or discussion of the issue, have determined how they will vote on only the smallest of questionnaire responses. By refusing to examine the issue in a critical manner they have done, not a service, but disservice to their constituents.
May 6, 1976

In conclusion, the death penalty has no place in the compassionate, humane society we all seek to build. Hence I urge with all the conviction I can muster that this House do abolish the death penalty.
As long ago as 1930 the British select committee on capital punishment summed it all up, and I quote:
. .. and as it is the more humane spirit in our people that makes a more humane penal code possible; so, on the other hand, in humanizing our punishments, we will yet further humanize our people. On the one side, and on the other, humanity will beget humanity, as nobleness enkin-dleth nobleness.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this is the third debate on capital punishment in which I have participated. I have listened carefully to the speeches in the debates of the past parliaments. I have read everything available to me on this subject, and my conviction still remains. Notwithstanding the arguments of those who favour capital punishment, I cannot support that conviction. I hold these views, I hold them strongly, and I hold them fully in the knowledge that they may not necessarily coincide with the views of many in my constituency. Indeed they may not coincide with the views of the majority of my constituents. Just as I respect their views, I feel equally that they will respect mine.
The Police Brotherhood of the Newfoundland constabulary, together with their brothers all across the country, conducted a newspaper campaign in which they requested those people who support capital punishment to write in their names in support of a national plebiscite. In my city 106 responded. I make no comment on that except to say that I owe a responsibility to these people, and that is to put forward their views here tonight. That I am endeavouring to do.
I know that they feel just as strongly in favour of capital punishment as I feel against it. Notwithstanding the low response to the newspaper campaign, I know that there are many across the country who share their point of view, although it is interesting that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police through their spokesman, Chief Harold Adamson of Toronto, their national president, said this in a press quote of March 26:
As an alternative to capital punishment, we're satisfied with the 25 years, so long as the man is not released before then.
I do not subscribe to the view that this matter should be the subject of a national plebiscite or referendum. I believe members of parliament were given a mandate by their consituents, by the people of Canada, to exercise their judgments in dealing with all matters relating to the national interest. The vote on the bill now before the House is a free vote. It is a vote in which each member votes according to the dictates of his own conscience, without regard to partisan considerations. That fact makes it incumbent upon all of us as members of this House to inform ourselves as much as possible, and to base our convictions upon the information available to us, and to vote according to those convictions.
I should like to put forward the views of the Canadian Council of Churches because they, very dramatically and very correctly, coincide with my own. I think it is only right that I should put them forward because the Canadian Council of Churches has the responsibility of moral leadership in this country, and the Canadian Council of Chur-
Capital Punishment
ches represents the eight major denominations in the country. I will quote very briefly from its submission:
The taking of the life of the murderer by society does nothing to recompense the victim, his family, or society itself. Indeed, it involves often more suffering for innocent members of the murderer's family.
Retention of capital punishment can be interpreted to mean that society is saying that human life is worthless when it crosses the boundary of our expectations. Thus it invites more violence by sanctioning the execution. The cure for violence is not more violence.
The council goes on to answer those who selectively quote from the Old Testament to support their position for the retention of capital punishment.
The council makes some recommendations in its brief, and I will put these recommendations forward because I support them, because they accurately reflect my own views, and I think they are worth placing on the record:
(a)	provide young people and adults with meaningful and satisfying employment and outlets in healthy recreation. We are informed that homicide tends to increase as unemployment grows.
(b)	develop the kind of penal institutions now being experimented with which will send persons back into society, not more skilled in crime, but better prepared to make a new start.
(c)	reduce the consumption of liquor and other drugs. The records will show a high proportion of violence being committed while under the influence.
(d)	improve our capacity to recognize and deal with mental illness. Many murderers are mentally ill and may need extensive treatment and restraint.
(e)	minimize the showing of violence on television and in moving picture theatres.
With respect to the last recommendation I was very encouraged by the speech of the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. She showed an acute awareness of the gravity of the situation in North America with respect to its preponderance of violence as a means of providing entertainment, and I hope she will go on to translate that concern into regulations, either by way of a directive to the CRTC or by way of legislation in this House. The evidence is in. We have it on very good authority, not only in this country but also in the United States. For example, the Surgeon-General of the United States after a two year exhaustive study came to the conclusion that there was in fact a correlation and a casual relationship between crimes of violence and violence on television. He came to the conclusion that televised violence, with which the media on this continent are so preoccupied, increases aggressive behaviour in young people as well as in adults.
Perhaps more important, televised violence conditions people to accepting violence, and that probably is the greatest threat of all. It makes them passive to violence. I laud the minister for her speech, and I hope she will go on to translate her words into meaningful action.
I was touched by the speech of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), who spoke from deep conviction. I was equally touched by the speech of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen); he too spoke with conviction. They put forward the arguments in a very clear, convincing and concise way. I, sir, hold the view-and I hold it very strongly-that until we attack the root cause of crime and violence in this country-and I have dealt with one aspect of it, violence on television-it matters very little whether or not we pass

May 6, 1976
Capital Punishment
this bill, because it has been established to my satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of the Solicitor General, that capital punishment is not a deterrent.
Until we make some positive progress toward eradicating poverty and the symptoms of poverty-the slums and ghettos-we will continue to have crime and violence. Until society and our national government, working with the provinces, provide funds to make available proper day care facilities, a healthy environment, and good sound education for the children of broken homes and of single parent families, I believe we will have young people growing up feeling socially disadvantaged, having no respect for authority or for the law.
I believe too that until we take positive and meaningful steps to teach our children the danger of alcohol and drug abuse, we will continue to be faced with major social problems in this country. We can make a start, Mr. Speaker. I laud the concern expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) over the excesses of beer and alcohol advertising in this country, this tendency toward the peer group kind of advertising. Until we curb this sort of thing and recognize that we have a major social problem in Canada of teenage alcoholism, we will continue to have youngsters going astray.
Our jails and penitentiaries are populated by the young, the socially disadvantaged, and the poor. A few months ago I had a very moving experience, certainly one of the most traumatic experiences in my life, when I toured Dorchester penitentiary, an institution that really has no place in modern society and which should have been torn down years ago. What struck me about that institution, apart altogether from its medieval-like walls, cells, and solitary confinement areas, were the inmates. They were the poor, the disadvantaged, the socially short-changed, the young- the minority groups.
I believe that the words of the Solicitor General have great relevance here. If I may paraphrase him, he said that the application of capital punishment in the past has been unfair because it has been applied disproportionately to the poor, to the unrepresented, and to the minority groups. If hon. members want to see evidence of that, Mr. Speaker, they should visit the maximum security institutions of this country.
I am voting for this bill, Mr. Speaker. I will support it although I am not at all happy with some of its aspects. Nevertheless I support it because I am opposed to capital punishment. I support it not out of any sense of arrogance. I do so out of no sense of moral superiority or of superior judgment. I do so out of very sincere conviction, conviction that is very deeply held. I do so out of the conviction that it is morally wrong to take the life of another, be the executioner the state or an individual.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, for many of us in the back row on both sides of this honourable House the question now before us is before us for the first time in our capacity as legislators. I am sure that no matter what position we take, that of retention or that of abolition, there is not one new member who has not agonized over this most important of all questions for many weeks, yes many months. The decision that we make as to retention or
[Mr. McGrath.)
abolition of capital punishment will have long lasting and far reaching effects on this great country of ours.
I do not have the background that many members of this House have in bringing forth their points of view and arguments either for retention or for abolition. I simply want to state my view, a view that I have spent many hours agonizing over and considering.
Without fear of contradiction, Mr. Speaker, I would class this deliberation which we are embarking on now as the most important one that we will make in our young careers as legislators, and for that matter the most important decision for this honourable body since January of 1973 when the five-year extension of abolition of capital punishment was passed. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is not too often that politicians get a second chance at legislation, a chance to reconsider their position, perhaps a chance to correct a mistake-if the extension that was agreed to in 1973 was a mistake. But we have it now, and I for one hope that we will take a very close look at the decision we are going to make within the next few weeks.
You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a current saying going the rounds among the public at the present time-one I am not altogether pleased with. It is "Try it, you'll like it". The people of Canada have been trying abolition of capital punishment to some extent or other for close to 10 years, and I think it is fair to say that society in general has found that it does not like it. Judging from all the reports I have heard, people have emphatically given the indication that they do not like what is happening in society and would like to see a return to capital punishment. They have let the members of this House know in every way they can that they wish the death penalty reinstated for premeditated murder, for premeditated murder not just of a police officer or a prison guard but for crimes of passion to a certain extent, as well as, for the hijacker, the terrorist, and those who commit murder through the perpetration of an offence such a bank robbery or armed holdup.
If there is one thing bothering the police officer and the prison guard in carrying out their duties, Mr. Speaker, it is being segregated from the rest of our population. Should we return to the death penalty I think this is one aspect we must take into consideration.
Take the case of police officer whose wife is a bank teller. If a holdup should take place in a bank and that police officer goes to investigate, perhaps the individual involved, the perpetrator of the crime, would fire two shots, both at the police officer, both missing, but one striking the police officer's wife who was still carrying out her duty as a bank teller. The person who fired those shots while committing the indictable offence of holding up the bank could not be sentenced to capital punishment if he hit the policeman's wife, yet both of them were taking the same chances in carrying out their occupations.
While I must express my concern and appreciation for the feelings expressed by various members of this House, particularly the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), who are all opposed to capital punishment, I certainly say I respect those feelings and the feelings of members who have given a similar indication tonight. However, I do not share them,

and it is without any twang of conscience that I intend to vote against this bill on second reading, at the report stage, and at third reading as well.
Abolition of the death penalty brings up the simple question, do we abolish the death penalty? Should members of this House in their wisdom decide to carry out that plan I believe it will mark a dark moment in Canadian legal history, and of which I want no part. What would we really accomplish by abolishing the death penalty from the Criminal Code? I submit to you, absolutely nothing, for in doing so will we have truly abolished capital punishment? I think not. We will simply have taken control of capital punishment out of the hands of the state and legal authorities, where it belongs, and put it into the hands of those who have no scruples or compunction as to how it should be used. It will then rest entirely at the discretion of the criminal and criminal element who will use it without fear, and certainly without compassion.
In the ten years since the abolition question has come up in this country we have seen an increase in crime and criminal tendencies unheard of before in the history of this country. Just quoting a few statistics, and I do not want to get into statistics because I truly believe they can be made to show whatever you want to show, in Quebec in 1955 there were 17 murders, and in 1965 there were 53. However, last year there were 217.
The Solicitor General has stated there has been no disproportionate increase in the number of violent crimes. It seems to me someone has some figures wrong some place. In 1966 the number of violent crimes committed totalled 69,656, and in 1973 that total climbed to 114,760. That is an increase some place along the line of 65 per cent in those seven years with crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, and wounding included in those totals. As recently as February 17 of this year it was reported for the first time in metropolitan Toronto that the number of murders committed during a period of just over one month, from January 1 to roughly February 15, 1976, exceeded the number of people killed in car accidents.
I certainly do not intend to get into a discussion of statistics with the minister or any member of this House because it is true, as I have said, that statistics can be made to do or show what is required of them. This question cannot be settled by the use of statistics. It can only be solved by each member of this House reaching a well thought out personal decision, a decision such as I have spent much time over the past year and a half trying to reach.
I would say there is no one in the House who would desire more than I to be able to say: yes, society in Canada and the people have reached a stage in our evolution where the death penalty is no longer needed, and we have reached a stage in this country where people have a respect for the law and a respect for each other's right to the extent that a deterrent such as the death penalty is no longer required.
Such is certainly not the case, and I am sure the minister and members will have to agree that there has been an increase in violent crime in this country, not just murders but acts of violence perpetrated as never before in our cities right across this land. I believe, fervently and with all sincerity, that the capital punishment section of the Criminal Code is a deterrent, and that is what we must
Capital Punishment
base our final decision upon when deciding the eventual conclusion of this debate, that is, whether capital punishment will be retained or abolished.
There are many ways in which my opinions differ from those of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I have to agree wholeheartedly with him when he explained that his belief that the death penalty is a deterrent took root during his early experience in the armed forces, an experience shared by many members of this fine House. I hope not too many in this honourable House have come face to face with death as did that hon. member, whether during World War II or the Korean war. I would certainly hope our young men never have to face that proposition in the future, like many others, and like one or two in this House who have served in our police forces, who entered a building in the dead of night which had been broken into, and who have come face to face with an armed and determined assailant. If any of us had this experience or this confrontation I do not think he would be able to stand up and say that at no time is death a deterrent, or that death is not uppermost in the individual's mind at that time. In that event I do not think there would be many questions about which way we would vote.
Let me relate a couple of experiences I have been told about which took place in two separate border cities in Canada. These are not personal experiences, but they are experiences of others I know personally and with whom I have had contact. Both were police officers who came upon armed and determined criminals, not from this country, during the commission of an attempted robbery. In both these unrelated instances the two police officers confronted the criminals in question. Both officers were facing death as the criminals in question were determined, armed, and with an advantage over the police officers. They were determined not to be apprehended.
In both these cases the criminals asked the police officers point blank if the death penalty was still in effect in this country for the murder of a police officer. Both officers replied that it was in respect of the murder of a police officer in the performance of his duty. I am assured that in both instances the criminals at this point turned over their firearms to the officers and the arrests were completed.
Someone may be able to convince me that the death penalty is no deterrent, but he would certainly have a hard time, as would any member of the House, convincing either of those police officers. In those particular instances the death penalty was a deterrent, and one which in all likelihood saved their lives.
I would agree with the Solicitor General that the death penalty cannot be proved by statistics to have an effect on gangland killings and hired killers. However, I believe the death penalty must have a deterrent effect on those who would commit premeditated murder as a last resort, and those who pause for the shortest period of time to weigh and balance the consequences of their actions. This is just one more thought put in the person's mind at this most crucial moment.
Retention of the death penalty I feel may save one, two, three, four or five lives of Canadian citizens, whether they be police officers or otherwise, over the period of a year. If the retention of the death penalty in the Criminal Code

May 6, 1976
Adjournment Debate
should save the life of one innocent Canadian this year or next year, then it is worth while retaining.
In 1973 my predecessor, Mr. Ross Whicher, summed it up when he said that when any country begins to think more of the criminal than it does of the victim, then that country is indeed in a horrible state of affairs. That statement is as true now as it was then. I believe capital punishment should be reinstated in Canada for the criminal who has committed first degree murder beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe it will make Canada a safer and better place in which to live, and I shall vote to that effect in the forthcoming division.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, as I look at the clock and see that it is five minutes to ten I wonder whether it would be in order to call it ten o'clock now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Actually the Chair has no objection to asking if hon. members agree. I should like to make sure, however, before doing so that the hon. members who are interested in the adjournment debate, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), are here.
Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have received this time tonight to deal with a matter I first raised in the House on April 7, and again on April 8. I realize the House has before it a great number of pressing matters and therefore I appreciate the opportunity to return to this matter.
At this time I should like to correct a slight mistake which appeared in Hansard when my question was recorded on April 7. I was not asking about oil exploration permits, as Hansard would have us believe. I was speaking of the 68 exploration permits that were issued to several companies to look for uranium in the Keewatin and Baffin regions of the Northwest Territories. These permits were issued on March 29 of this year. Although they themselves are important I suppose what is really at issue here is the attitude of the government when it issued the permits.
Time and time again I and many others have watched this particular minister and top officials of his staff act with almost total insensitivity toward the native people,

their goals and their feelings. This matter of the uranium permits is just the latest in a long string of insensitive acts. I feel it is important to use this as an example of how this department and this minister carry out their duties both in respect of Indian affairs and northern development.
The other person who publicly complained about this incident was James Arvaluk, president of the Inuit Tapiri-sat of Canada. I want to say for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary who is assigned to answer me that both I and Mr. Arvaluk are well aware of the process of receiving permits for exploration work in the North. We are both aware that at some point down the road short public hearings will be held on the application of these companies to receive land use permits. However, that is not at issue. What is at issue here is the government's discourtesy in not forewarning the ITC that these permits were coming forward, and the inexcusable action of the minister in not even being aware that they had been issued.
Also for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary I should like to give some background of this incident. It began several years ago when the department authorized a sum of money to be given to the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada for research into the land claims of the Inuit. After four years of work the ITC presented to cabinet its proposal for the settlement of Inuit land claims in the Northwest Territories. From the remarks made at that meeting on February 28 of this year I, and other observers, thought both sides were willing to co-operate with each other and that the negotiations for the Inuit land claim were off to an amiable start.
The government received the ITC proposal and said it would study it. The government even asked for some meetings to clarify parts of the proposal. I understand that one of those meetings has already taken place. As I said, this tells me that the negotiations over the Inuit land claims have started. On March 29, a series of exploration permits were issued. These were permits to explore for uranium, and they are by no means singular. The government has been issuing these things wholesale for the past several years-permits to drill for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea, permission to carry out seismic testing in Lancaster Sound, and so on. However, there is a difference now. All that land is the subject of land claims negotiations.
I and the ITC, as well as many others, view the act of granting permits of this kind without informing the ITC as nothing but an act of extreme bad faith.
On April 6 the ITC delivered a letter to the minister to outline their grievance which, I repeat, is serious. It is felt that the whole negotiation is in jeopardy. The next day when I asked my question in the House the minister was not even aware of the matter. There is no excuse for this. The land claims issue should be of utmost importance to this department. The people concerned seem to be too busy handing out exploration permits to care about this matter.
To add insult to injury, several days later the minister had the nerve to send a patronizing and highhanded letter to the ITC explaining the nitty-gritty details of how one should go about obtaining an exploration permit. The letter goes on to slap Mr. Arvaluk on the hand for making his letter public. I guess that is a high sin in a department that does all its work in secret.
May 6, 1976

So, there you have it. A minister and a department charged with the task of dealing with native people and with settling land claims would seem to be too busy helping southern companies grab resources while the grabbing is good. The minister does not even take the time to keep himself informed about a matter that could ruin the negotiations. Perhaps the minister does not have control of his department; perhaps he is a minister who just does not care. I do not know for sure, but that is my opinion at this time. When will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) realize he has responsibilities in the field of Indian affairs and northern development, and act more responsibly in respect of the native people of this country?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the 68 prospecting permits questioned by the member were issued as such permits are issued every year on April 1. These prospecting permits are issued consistent with the general administration of lands in the north, and grant to the holder the right to explore for minerals within an area designated by the permit. This is done by officials of the department and is not a matter ever referred to the minister.
It is true that there was no consultation with the public prior to the issuance of the permits in the tradition of strict confidence of the prospector. However, if these prospectors wish to start exploration programs, they, the permittees, must apply for a land-use permit. These applications are forwarded to any and all affected communities; in addition there is a 42-day period required for consultation before any decision is made.
A few short weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I was much impressed with the honour and integrity displayed by the Inuit-Tapirisat on February 27 as they presented their proposal for sharing Nunavat. I find it surprising, therefore, that on the Tuesday of the very week in which the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) raised this question, some two days later James Arvaluk and executive members of the Inuit-Tapirisat met with the minister for one and one half hours and discussed a wide range of concerns, followed by an additional hour and a half meeting between the Inuit-Tapirisat representatives and departmental officials, and never once in those three hours was the matter of prospecting permits even mentioned. Yet on that same date these same representatives wrote a letter to the minister of such seriousness and deep concern that his resignation was sought by them on this issue. Discourtesy, Mr. Speaker, like courtesy is a two-way street.
I can only say that knowing as they do that consultation must take place before a land-use permit may be issued, and having spent a full three hours in discussion and consultation on the very day of their written complaint, the Inuit-Tapirisat have shown a rather surprising course of action, and I am afraid that unfortunately it calls into question the heretofore automatically accepted good faith of the Inuit-Tapirisat.
Adjournment Debate


PENITENTIARIES-BRITISH COLUMBIA-SUGGESTED NEED FOR REORGANIZATION OF STAFF-CONFIDENCE OF MINISTER IN ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on March 29 I raised a question in the House with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) regarding the problems facing the administration within the B.C. Penitentiary, and I asked the minister whether he did not agree that the administration of the B.C. Penitentiary requires immediate and undivided attention to bring about a radical reorganization of the staff structure as well as of its philosophy. My concern has been the fact that there has been a very high turnover in the staff at the penitentiary.
I visited that institution soon after I was elected, and then again not long after that. The one thing that impressed me was the fact that among the guards there is a very high turnover. I cannot really blame the administration entirely, especially when I learned some of the facts that faced them. They have to hire people off the street for about $3.60 or $3.80 an hour. They have to give the guards on-the-job training, and by the time these men are trained for very sensitive positions they find a better paying job.
If you find someone for $3.60 or $3.80 with good qualifications, how do you keep him when there are other job opportunities all over the country paying much better than that? As a matter of fact the guard who showed me around the penitentiary had been there about 19 years and he was making less than $6 an hour, yet we expect him to be a specialist.
Soon after I got back to Ottawa I spoke to the Solicitor General about this, and his immediate retort was that it was the job of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chetien). That is entirely true, but it is the Solicitor General's job to fight in cabinet to provide the kind of funding that will make the penitentiary service operate the way it should. He is responsible for that chain of command.
I am not really speaking of more spending or of adding to the total budget of the government, especially when it is talking about austerity. I am speaking of the rearrangement of priorities within the government. The Solicitor General speaks continually about rehabilitation in prisons, he speaks of this in grandiose terms. At the same time he does not provide the kind of personnel that can initiate a program of rehabilitation within that service. The reason he does not do that is that the kind of personnel that would be qualified can find plenty of other opportunities to do the same kind of work for better pay.
There is one other point that I would like to bring to the attention of the House, and again it is a matter of a rearrangement of priorities. The administration of the Pacific region has a staff of approximately 80 in its Vancouver office. I hasten to add it is in the Vancouver office, not in the penitentiary at New Westminster or at Matsqui. But is it in a hostel, a cluster of mobile homes, or even in a renovated warehouse? No, Mr. Speaker, the Pacific region office is in the Pacific Centre, which is probably the most expensive office space not only in Vancouver but in all western Canada.
What does the Solicitor General mean when he says this is the job of the President of the Treasury Board? Such a

May 6, 1976
Adjournment Debate
statement is consistent with the pattern established by the government. The bureaucracy is top heavy even though that mitigates against the proper administration of the service that is supposed to be provided. If there is a divisional region then there has to be a division head who must have several assistants; they have executive assistants; each one of those has a secretary, and then of course there is the information office. By the time the superstructure is in place there is no foundation to carry it.
As I said earlier there is a staff of approximately 80 in Vancouver to operate the B.C. Penitentiary, the jail at Matsqui, and the minimum security system, a ratio of about one officer in Vancouver to ten inmates. What kind of stupidity is that, Mr. Speaker? If the Solicitor General is serious about a wholesome, creative, and effective penitentiary service he will rearrange the financial priorities and the administration of his department without bothering with the President of the Treasury Board. He should hire people for the penitentiary service who can do the job, and he will be able to hire them if he offers attractive salaries.
I challenge the Solicitor General to take his job seriously. Put the money where it ought to be-in the direct service of those who are directly responsible for the safekeeping of criminals who are a hazard to society. If he were to funnel the money to the foundation rather than the superstructure we would have a penitentiary service with good morale. Staff turnover would be reduced, and we would have the kind of peace and security that the government purports to want for this country.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) in the late show. I should like to refer to the question he asked on March 29, 1976, when he stated that 33 of the 43 members of the socialization division of the British Columbia Penitentiary resigned or transferred in 1975, and 75 per cent of the custody division are in the service less than six months.
The Commissioner of Penitentiaries advises that the socialization division of the British Columbia Penitentiary consisted of 43 members until a few months ago, when three of these members were transferred to organize the regional reception centre, Pacific region. The socialization division therefore consisted of 40 positions. During the last calendar year 15 of these became vacant through five
resignations, six transfers to other positions, three transfers on promotion, and one member deceased. Mr. Speaker, 12 of these positions have been filled and three are now vacant. Slightly more than 35 per cent have left, and not all because they were dissatisfied. The hon. member had the figure at 75 per cent.
There has been a significant reduction in the turnover of personnel during the first quarter of this year. Since the hostage-taking incident in the summer of 1975, some changes have been made in the organization of the institution. Emphasis has been placed on staff training within the institution, and a staff training officer has been appointed and provided with training facilities. It is anticipated that this change in approach to staff training will have a positive effect on staff morale, by making the staff more aware of management philosophy and concerns within the institution.
A new assistant director of services has been appointed to replace the former incumbent who had retired. A new assistant director of security, a person who is a staff-oriented leader, has been appointed. A new assistant director of industry was also appointed and given the task of reorganizing the industrial shops in order to provide more work and increase production. It is anticipated that these new appointees will bring a new vitality and increased stability within the institution.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock also stated that some 75 per cent of the custodial staff at the British Columbia Penitentiary had less than six months of service. In fact only 34 out of 187 officers employed in custody in 1975 had less than six months of service. This represents some 18 per cent of the custodial force. The staff turnover is considered normal in the province of British Columbia in this type of employment.
At this time I should like to repeat an earlier statement made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), that he has full confidence in the administrator of the British Columbia Penitentiary. As he said earlier in the House in answer to the oral question of the hon. member, the hon. member will probably be ready to reconsider his opinions of the British Columbia Penitentiary administration when he reads the report which it is expected will be released in the near future.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.13 p.m.


Friday, May 7, 1976