1976-05-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that it is always easier to prevent than to cure and that preventive medicine should be the goal of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, considering also that medical research is the main and most important element of any preventive program because research makes it possible to face future problems, and considering finally that control measures in the field of medical research jeopardize the future health of Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House or its Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs consider forthwith the matter of the medical research budget so that the available funds be sufficient to provide for the fastest progress in the field of preventive medicine and thus meet the main priority, namely the present and future health of Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say "in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources", but I see him coming in just now. Can the minister tell us why the federal government has
rejected the blended pricing concept for oil, given the fact that it is alleged this process would provide incentives for oil exploration and production and at the same time provide additional protection for consumers?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, that is the very problem. There is no evidence that the proposal will indeed provide the kind of incentives to which the hon. member refers. The other problem is that the Ontario government has not demonstrated how, if you freeze the price of old oil at $8, with declining production you will generate more cash funds which are needed for exploration and development.


James McPhail Gillies: Would the minister not agree, though, that by taking the position he is now taking he is prejudging one of the items which will be put forward at the conference, presumably starting within the next day or two, and is it appropriate for the government to reject a position which is going to be presented there even before there is an opportunity for the people supporting that proposition to put it forward?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am very much looking forward to an articulation by the province of Ontario as to how this would work, but up until now the province of Ontario has not demonstrated how it would meet either one of the two points I have made: one is the incentive question, and the other is the provision of cash flow.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the minister now saying that if that argument is made forcefully and successfully at the conference, the government has not rejected this possibility out of hand?


Alastair William Gillespie: The discussion will take place. There will be other different points of view put forward. I am sure the federal government will have its view. There are many different provinces involved. As far as I know there is only one province which has even flirted with the idea the government of Ontario put forward. None of the others has supported it.


IMPACT OF INVESTMENT PROPOSED IN &quot;ENERGY STRATEGY FOR CANADA'' ON OTHER AREAS OF ECONOMY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister any estimate of the impact of the investment of $180 billion proposed in "An Energy Strategy for Canada"-which, as the minister knows, appears at page 106 of that document-for energy related activity on availability of investment funds for housing, manufacturing and other non-energy uses in Canada?

May 3, 1976
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, "An Energy Strategy for Canada" made it very clear that the implications of very massive investments for energy over the next ten and fifteen years are serious because other aspects of the economy clearly will not be able to call upon the same investment funds if we are to fund fully the kind of investment we need in Canada for energy exploration and development. If the hon. member will take a look at the low price and high price scenario, he will see some very interesting implications with respect to investment policies and how we can husband our resources.


EFFECT OF INVESTMENT PROPOSED IN &quot;ENERGY STRATEGY FOR CANADA&quot; ON INTEREST RATES-SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FUNDS
Gerald William Baldwin: Because of our interest in this, and because of the horrendous possibilities, I should like to ask another supplementary. Has the department made any calculation of the possible impact of investments of this dimension on domestic interest rates, and has the department estimated what proportion of this investment will come from Canadian sources?


Alastair William Gillespie: I cannot give the hon. member a precise figure with respect to interest rates. There are, of course, many factors which affect interest rates, and equally there are many factors which will affect the amount of foreign funds which will be required by this industry and other industries in the future.


Gerald William Baldwin: Have you considered the weather?


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Finance, and they relate to some of the information placed before the House last Friday in the "Economic Review". The conclusions of the review are not clear, and because the information in the review will form the basis of the coming debate, it is important for us to know what conclusions the minister has drawn from the statistics which were presented.
In looking at the productivity figures in the manufacturing sector, the review points out that for the last three years increases in labour costs per unit of output have been lower in Canada than in the United States, and the graph dramatically points that out. How, then, does the minister account for our sharp decline in the balance of trade in manufactured goods? Surely the minister cannot hold increases in labour rates in Canada responsible for that.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, some of the conclusions to be drawn from the "Economic Review" will be dealt with at some length in the budget. The drop in Canadian exports over the past year-not just in the last several quarters-has been due to

a rather less buoyant condition in the United States market in particular, but in other export markets as well, than was the case in the Canadian market. Certainly, in the early years of the period covered, the disincentive was not the Canadian labour cost. However, the concern of the government of Canada was that with the rate of wage settlements which were contemplated in September and October 1975, namely the 30 per cent, 40 per cent and 50 per cent settlements being sought at that time, then any trend of that kind would be directly adverse to the rate of productivity in Canada.


INFLATIONARY EFFECT OF INCREASED PROFITS- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL
Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions the minister has stated that wage and salary increases- and he is restating it today-are going to make our international trading position uncompetitive. In the "Economic Review" labour costs per unit of output have increased by 38.9 per cent since 1972; however, despite a decline in 1975, profits per unit of output have increased by some 62.9 per cent. Is the minister prepared to express his concern about this kind of inflation in demand, and can he indicate what he intends to do about the increase in profits as compared to the increase in wage and salaries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is because we are concerned about both wage and salary increases-which I would remind the hon. gentleman make up two-thirds of the gross national product- and increases in profits that we put forward the anti-inflation program which touches equally on controls of profits and of incomes.


REQUEST THAT LOANS BE GRANTED PROVINCES UNDER SAME CONDITIONS AS LOAN TO CHILE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
On April 28, 1976, our leader, the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) asked the minister what were the conditions of the loan of $125 million to Chile, and in particular what was the rate of interest charged and the term. The minister promised to inquire and to make a statement on this subject. I would like to know whether the minister has the information.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I made an inquiry and there was no participation by the government of Canada in such a loan. It was a loan, I presume, made by commercial banks. If we do not participate in the loan, of course we are not informed on all the details.
May 3, 1976


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services concerning the LRPA contract. Section 36 of the Financial Administration Act states:
No money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of parliament.
As the Lockheed loan appears to be on behalf of Her Majesty or the government, can the minister explain why parliamentary authority has not been sought?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the loan is strictly between Lockheed and a group of Canadian banks. The federal government has nothing to do with the financing agreement between the two parties.


Mr. Paproski:: Except guarantee it!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the loan is not to the government, why is the government going to pay interest charges on the loan?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the loan is on behalf of Lockheed and Lockheed will have to deal with this question. Of course, there are some charges and it is normal for the purchaser to assume the charges. Nevertheless, all the financing agreements will be signed between Lockheed and the interested Canadian banks.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister wrote to Lockheed on December 2 telling them to proceed with the necessary work on the LRPA contract. Ignoring the question of whether the minister exceeded his authority at that time, is it true that if the minister had not written such a letter the government would have been in a much better position to bargain about the $16 million cost of the resultant work? Would the minister also confirm or deny that legal commitments by the government, such as his letter, may mean a liability of up to $80 million if Canada does not go through with this contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian Government is well protected with this ceiling of $16 million which is still in force. If the contract is not in force because of the lack of agreement between Lockheed and the Canadian banks, still the ceiling is $16 million. I think it is a very good agreement that was reached at the end of March.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Victoria, the minister indicated that the government was not involved in terms of interest payments. If that is
Oral Questions
the case, does it mean the government will pay whatever rate of interest these two outside organizations decide upon? Has the government not protected itself in any way in this respect?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the government has something to do with the payment of interest to Canadian banks. I said that agreement will be reached between Lockheed and Canadian banks and the Canadian government will, of course, assume the payment of bank charges to Lockheed, because Lockheed is providing this service to the Canadian government. That is normal business practice. We have nothing directly to do with the loan to Lockheed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that appears to answer my question. Apparently the government will abide by any decision concerning these charges to which the banks and Lockheed will come. May I ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question? Has the government sought his legal opinion on whether the government is, in a legal sense, the borrower in the Lock-heed-Canadian banks projected loan? I ask this because of the answer just given by the Minister of Supply and Services, and because I have in mind the provisions of Section 36 of the Financial Administration Act.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has been involved, pursuant to its obligations, in providing legal advice to the government.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like a specific answer. In view of what the Minister of Supply and Services just said, what is the capacity of the Government of Canada in this arrangement? Did the Department of Justice give a specific opinion? If so, can the minister say what it was? Also, has the Minister of Justice reviewed the approval mechanisms employed in this matter by Treasury Board, which is responsible for making sure that they conform to guidelines laid down by the government for this kind of financial arrangement?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I say, we have been providing legal advice to ministers who are carrying out their responsibilities. As the hon. member knows, the nature of the advice is something which is between us and our clients. The answers should be given by the responsible ministers.

May 3, 1976
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


DECLINE IN PRODUCTIVITY-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CORRECT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As productivity figures released last Friday by the Department of Finance show that during the past two years there has been a sharp and accelerating decrease in productivity which has been the major factor in increasing unemployment and inflation, when will the Prime Minister take the House into his confidence and tell the House, as he promised three months ago, on February 5, how the government intends to correct this serious situation.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give my office notice of his intended question. I have asked to be informed of the status of the various works in progress on which I reported to the hon. member about a couple of months ago. The work is progressing well. I am advised that it is important not to draw extreme conclusions from the cyclical slowdown in productivity which took place in 1973 and 1975. The dominant factor was the economic recession. The counterpart to this slowdown is expected to be above-trend productivity increases in the next year or two.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General? Did the minister recently discuss certain matters with his counterpart, the Solicitor General of Quebec? Did the two ministers iron out the jurisdictional issue involving the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies? If they discussed these matters last Friday, what agreement did they reach?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I met the Solicitor General of Quebec last Friday. We discussed Olympic security and jurisdictional questions affecting Sky Shops. We agreed to prevent these disputes in future. It was suggested that the federal-provincial conference of attorneys general and law officers of the Crown should discuss what is to happen when police in two or three provinces have jurisdiction if a criminal offence is committed. As for outstanding charges, the RCMP agreed to discuss with the Crown in Quebec any proposed charges before proceeding further.


NATURE OF CHARGES BEING CONSIDERED BY PRE-ENQUETE HEARING IN QUEBEC
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, that does not sound very much like an argument of any kind. I will put this question. What charges are being considered and reviewed by the justice under Section 455(4) (a) of the Code and so on, in a hearing being held ex parte, in camera, called in short pre-enquete. Are they the

charges laid by the RCMP, namely conspiracy, which are much easier to prove, or are they the charges of fraud or bribery suggested by others? What is being heard in private in this regard?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the matters that are before the pre-enquete were placed there by the province of Quebec. That will continue. They are considering the substantial offence of fraud against the government. The charges laid by the RCMP in Ottawa will also continue, although an agreement has been made between the RCMP and the government of Quebec to transfer all evidence necessary for the pre-enquete to Quebec.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us clarify one situation. Are the charges being dealt with in camera those laid by the RCMP, namely conspiracy where, as the Solicitor General knows, you have to prove the illegal agreement and maybe a part of the offence, or is it offences that are more difficult, suggested by others, which could be thrown out in this hearing? Which charges are they, those laid by the RCMP or by others? That is what I want to know.


William Warren Allmand: The charges laid by the RCMP are conspiracy charges. They are against five individuals. They are being heard here in Ottawa. The pre-enquete in Montreal deals with one charge against one individual which is a substantive charge of fraud against the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I might be permitted to ask one further question, Mr. Speaker. The charges laid by the RCMP, where the bulk of the evidence is, are not being considered by this hearing being held in camera?


William Warren Allmand: That is right, Mr. Speaker. The pre-enquete is dealing with charges prepared by the Crown prosecutor in Quebec.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Because of the urgent need to encourage more effective use of the Champlain Bridge between Montreal and the South Shore for public transit purposes, can the minister assure the House that every possible federal co-operation is being offered the province of Quebec in establishing a public transit vehicle reserved lane on the Champlain Bridge? Also, will tolls be removed for public transit vehicles on the Champlain Bridge and all other federal bridges in Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member's previous question, these matters were pursued. In both cases I think I can give him an encouraging answer. We are co-operating with the provincial government on the various physical changes that are required to eventually allow a public vehicle lane and we are having serious discussions concerning the question of avoiding collecting tolls on public transit vehicles.
May 3, 1976


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, may I direct my question to either the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. In view of the inconvenience suffered by many old age pensioners who did not receive their guaranteed income supplement in their April cheques, can the parliamentary secretary indicate whether this matter has been resolved and, if all these persons have not yet received their guaranteed income supplement, how soon it will be in their hands?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have a copy of the news release issued by the department on Friday indicating that extra service is being provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare and that office hours are being extended so that this matter can be rectified as quickly as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I guess that press release must have been put in the mail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will steps be taken, either by amending the legislation or in the administration, so that this will not occur again next year?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is being considered, Mr. Speaker. I should like to add that the release indicates that retroactive payments are being made as well, so that no one will suffer the absolute loss of a pension to which they would have been entitled if a proper application had been made.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that problems have developed in relation to the prohibited degrees of affinity affecting marriages as a result of the Power vs. Power case decision in the Province of Ontario, can the minister tell me whether or not remedial legislation will soon be introduced-I understand the department is already working on it-to amend section 16 of the Divorce Act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I shall be tabling in the House tomorrow the report of the Law Reform Commission on family law which represents the conclusion of some five years of study of the subject. I have obtained the agreement of the provincial attorneys general that we shall take a day of our meetings in June to consider family law and I hope to present to the attorneys general at that time a paper on the whole subject so that,
Oral Questions
hopefully, a consensus can develop as to what the federal government and parliament should do in the area of divorce and family law and what the provincial attorneys general should do. In answer to the specific question as to whether the law of consanguinity should be changed, that is one of the matters involved in the general review of family law.


OIL-REASON FOR LOW PRIORITY GIVEN DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES UNDER ENERGY STRATEGY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given that the government has changed its energy policy from the goal of self-sufficiency to that of reliance for one third of our oil requirements on offshore sources, will the minister explain why his new energy strategy ranks renewable energy second last in terms of research and development priorities and why the least amount of money has been allotted to this kind of research although it has the greatest potential for self-sufficiency.


Alastair William Gillespie: Without accepting the premise of the
preamble, and that is important, I would like to say that conservation has been given one of the highest priorities. If the hon. lady were to look at the whole area of priorities, she would see that energy conservation is one of the six priority areas.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Obviously, the minister was not listening. I was asking about research and development priorities in connection with renewable resources. They have been allotted the lowest amount of money and I was asking him why they were placed at the present level when they have the greatest potential for self-sufficiency. Further, I should like to ask him, with respect to the expansion of nuclear research which accounts for three-quarters of the total research and development budget, whether the estimates of nuclear safety contained in the document are any more reliable than the estimates of the extent of Canada's energy resources given by the government in past years?


Alastair William Gillespie: I would say that those two questions are quite unrelated. As to the first, having to do with renewable sources of energy, I would say this is quite an important area of research and development but as the hon. member may understand, while one would like to have additional funds for these areas there are other areas for which I should also like to have additional funds. The hon. member and her party have been asking the government to cut expenditures. Well, we got an increase in this connection. I would have liked it to have been a greater one.
The second point I should like to make is this: the main thing is to spend money where it can be most useful. I think in terms of solar energy, in terms of wind, in terms of tidal energy, in terms of bio-mass. In a number of these areas we shall have to move rather slowly because very large sums of money would not generate any immediate

May 3, 1976
Oral Questions
pay-back. All the experts tell me this is an area in which we can expect significant amounts of energy, but not for 15 years or more.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The way you are going it will be 100 years.


ROLE OF PETRO-CAN IN SUPPLYING EXPLORATION CAPITAL-SOURCE OF FUNDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: My question, too, is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; it relates, also, to government expenditures. In the light of government statements that Petro-Can will ultimately put up about 10 per cent of Canadian exploration capital, and in the light of the fact that the government's energy strategy speaks of an exploration program costing about $40 billion over the next 15 years, is it the minister's opinion that Petro-Can will be able to fulfil its self-appointed role, that is, to provide about 10 per cent of this $40 billion?


Alastair William Gillespie: It is not a self-appointed role. I realize the hon. member has difficulties in connection with Petro-Canada because his party and associates will have no part of it. They do not understand the potential or the importance of this national institution. If the hon. member were to take a look at expenditures offshore in the Arctic he would know that Petro-Can will be contributing probably close to 15-20 per cent in the next couple of years to all the exploration costs there.


William Herbert Jarvis: I might tell the minister that any of my problems in connection with Petro-Can are miniscule compared with his. Will he advise us where Petro-Can will obtain the extra $2.5 billion over and above the $1.5 billion already promised by the government to achieve the goal I mentioned? While he is answering and talking about government institutions, can he tell us whether it is the government's intention that this money shall be one more government hand-out to Petro-Can out of the taxpayers' funds?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member does not agree with the kind of expenditure Petro-Can has undertaken, for example, $25 million to the Nova Scotia shelf operation each year for five years, let him and the rest of his party so declare.


William Herbert Jarvis: Will the minister please indicate whether it is government policy to expend an additional $2.5 billion over and above the $1.5 billion already promised to Petro-Can out of general tax revenues?


Alastair William Gillespie: That is an altogether hypothetical
question.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about the question I have for the Minister of Transport. Now that Mr. Yves Beaudet has submitted his resignation, and his resignation has been accepted by the Prime Minister, can the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister tell us what intention the department has for the early replacement of Mr. Beaudet to the board so that it might retain at least its capacity to function at least in a legal sense?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Beaudet indicated his desire to resign toward the end of last year; he continued to serve at my request until this time. The appointment of a replacement is expected to be made this week.


J. Michael Forrestall: I understand from the minister's reply that the appointment will be made toward the end of this week. I hope it will be somebody who knows something about ports. Would the minister table the exchange of correspondence leading to Mr. Beaudet's resignation and any memoranda which might be attached to it, since we understand it was not a friendly resignation, and that is regrettable.


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to make it quite clear to the hon. member, and to hon. members generally, that the termination of the relationship between Mr. Beaudet and the National Harbours Board was carried out in a friendly manner. As I indicated, Mr. Beaudet continued to sit for a number of months at my request. As to the other part of the question, I will look at the ordinary procedure covering the tabling of documents.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. After a number of starts, stops and backtracking Treasury Board decided within the last three or four weeks, contrary to all respect for law and past practice, to disregard an arbitration award affecting the forestry and biological sciences group of the Professional Association of the Public Service of Canada and to place the award before the Anti-Inflation Board. Can the minister say whether this indicates that Treasury Board has altered its policy and no longer intends to honour arbitration awards in the public service, even when these particular public servants concerned as far back as August opted for this route rather than the conciliation-strike route.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we will respect all the decisions made by the
May 3, 1976

arbitration board which are within the guidelines issued by the House of Commons after October 14.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think I did place on the record that the choice was made in August for arbitration. As these public servants are known for their responsible attitude toward their work, is the minister aware that he may by this action, depending on the AIB's ruling, be pushing these public servants towards strike action against their will, and is he aware of the consequences of strike action by these particular employees in terms of ruined experiments, wastage of public funds and possibly the endangering of public health?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is most difficult for me not to classify that as a hypothetical question.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of the decision today of the Dupont Company not to put into production its newly constructed $50 million polyester yarn plant at Coteau, resulting in a loss of 325 employment opportunities at Coteau, a lay-off of 125 permanent employees at Kingston and the decision not to hire 200 summer students, all of which the company attributes to distress price imports and the refusal of the government to implement the recommendations of its own textile clothing board?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to remind the hon. member that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce already appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, and that the reading of that report will show to what extent the minister is enthusiastic, confident and optimistic about the future of the textile and clothing industry.
On that occasion, we announced the establishment of an ad hoc committee to review thoroughly the quotas, imports and the textile manufacturing industry. The report should be tabled by the end of June. Three interested provinces are members of the ad hoc committee and representatives of the clothing industry also sit on that committee, whose report must be tabled by the end of June.
As to the last part of the question, I would like to point out to the hon. member that I willl discuss that situation with the director of the textile industry this week, and I will inform him of his decision.
Oral Questions


POLIO VIRUS IN OTTAWA AREA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL AND TO IMMUNIZE SCHOOL CHILDREN
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I should like to direct a question to the acting minister or to his parliamentary secretary. My question has to do with the alarming reports of five different strains of polio virus in two sewage treatment plants in the Ottawa region. I recognize that some of the responsibility lies with the provincial government, but in view of the fact that this is a communicable disease which can spread to other parts of Canada I should like to ask my question in two parts.
First of all, what steps are being taken to control the spread of the polio virus in the sewage treatment plants in question? Secondly, since nearly 30 per cent of the school children in Ontario have not been immunized against polio, what steps are being taken to ensure that all children whose parents agree are immunized before the fall; and also, will additional supplies of vaccine be available for other persons who want to be vaccinated?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this investigation of the polio virus strains found in the Ottawa area is continuing. Information has already been relayed to the provincial officials concerned, since as the hon. member noted, there is a considerable provincial responsibility in this area.
I am glad to have the opportunity to remind all Canadians, through you, Mr. Speaker, that a person is not automatically immune to polio and that polio vaccine, as well as booster shots, have to be taken to be immune. I have no knowledge of any shortage of polio vaccine. However, I think this is a good opportunity to remind all Canadians of their responsibility for their own health and of the necessity for them to seek this vaccine which is available and to obtain shots.


POLIO VIRUS IN OTTAWA AREA-SUSCEPTIBILITY OF STRAIN TO SALK VACCINE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like some assurance whether or not adequate supplies of vaccine are on hand and, even more important, is a delivery system being set up for school vaccination programs so that every child in the province who has not been vaccinated will have the opportunity to be vaccinated before the end of the school year?
May I also ask another question related to the same matter while I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker. Have any laboratory tests been conducted to see whether or not the five strains that have been discovered in the sewage treatment plants are strains which are susceptible to the Salk vaccine, or will some other vaccine be necessary in view of the types of strains that have been discovered?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, laboratory

May 3, 1976
Oral Questions
tests have been requested by the researcher and the viruses have been identified in federal laboratories, but it is my understanding that the tests have not yet been completed. As for special vaccination programs particularly in schools, these are a provincial responsibility. I will bring the hon. member's question to the attention of the appropriate provincial ministers.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last Thursday in the House the minister stated that the Canadian consumer received no benefit in the past from private egg importers. What benefits can the Canadian consumer expect from CEMA's recent profitable transactions? I would also ask the minister, since it has been stated government policy that CEMA should not have control over licensing for egg imports, how he can explain to the House his encouragement of CEMA to do indirectly that which government policy forbids directly, or has there in fact been a change in government policy?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to remember all the questions that the hon. member asked. Basically, what CEMA is doing is supplying eggs to consumers at prices that are not inflated, and they have done so more successfully than have the producers of any other commodity consumed by Canadians. The price of eggs has changed less that that of any other product. If other products had changed in price as little as eggs, then we would have had no such thing as inflation over the last six months.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eugene Whelan: CEMA has to observe the global quotas that are laid down, but as for the supplementary quotas they are well within the law in what they are doing. They put the eggs on the market, and if they were the sole importer and they made the money the private importers are making, then they could offset the cost of eggs to consumers.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the business that occurred last Monday, of which the minister has told the House he is well aware, the minister told the House that it was government policy that CEMA should not have control over licensing for imported eggs. The minister has encouraged CEMA to do indirectly what it has been forbidden to do directly. For that reason I would ask the minister, yes or no, whether there has been a change in government policy; and is he now admitting that CEMA has a complete monopoly over eggs, including imported eggs?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker, CEMA does not have a complete monopoly. There are approximately 4,600 egg producers in Canada and several hundred, maybe thousand, additional egg producers who have anywhere from

one to 500 laying hens and market their eggs in many forms. These producers are under the control of no one. So they do not have a monopoly. There has been no change in government policy concerning who should or should not be importers of eggs. They have made a submission to me and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce asking that they be the sole importers of eggs. It would be nothing new. To import oats, wheat or barley through the Canadian Wheat Board one must obtain a permit from the Canadian Wheat Board. If one wants to import butter into Canada, one must obtain a permit from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is the same thing that is being done in respect of eggs. It is nothing new at all.


VETERINARIANS-UNFILLED POSITIONS AND LOW MORALE AS RESULT OF LOW SALARIES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the 140 unfilled veterinary positions and the increasing number of resignations of veterinarians in the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture in Canada due to a salary schedule which over the last eight years has not even kept up with inflation, what action is the minister taking to rectify this? As he knows very well, morale in the department is now less than satisfactory and getting worse every day.


Eugene Whelan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that negotiations are going on between the veterinarians and my department and between the civil service commission and the Treasury Board. Maybe the President of the Treasury Board can add a little to that.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that salary negotiations have broken off between the veterinarians in the health of animals branch and Treasury Board and a strike is now imminent which would have disastrous results for consumers, the livestock producers, the meat packing industry and our meat exports, will the Treasury Board now meet with representatives of the veterinary group, bargain in all honesty and good faith and formulate a salary schedule that will at long last recognize a long overdue inequity?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to meet our civil servants' organizations to settle our problems by mutual agreement. Of course we must comply with Parliament's decisions which imposed limits on amounts to be paid as salary increases. Veterinarians could take into consideration that hon. members are going to freeze their own salaries and expenses this afternoon.
May 3, 1976


FINANCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and relates to questions raised last week concerning the meeting of first ministers later this week with regard to energy pricing. Inasmuch as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion indicated last week the concern of his department with regard to the growing price differential, particularly in the area of electrical costs, and expressed this concern to other colleagues in the cabinet, could the minister indicate whether or not the government has arrived at a policy decision in respect of the differential which will be allowed to develop in electrical prices realizing the offsetting effect this would have on the government's whole program relating to regional development.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government will be put before the provinces. As the hon. member knows there will be a meeting of first ministers on Thursday this week. The position of the government I think will become clear at that meeting.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since the minister last week referred specifically to the question of the price of petroleum and natural gas, but did not indicate specifically whether the question would also centre on the matter of electrical pricing which has become extremely difficult for a number of provinces, particularly those in eastern Canada, can he indicate whether there is preparation to discuss this issue with the premiers when they meet.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been a specific discussion of the question of the position of the Atlantic provinces which are dependent in the main upon petroleum for electricity generation within the province. The governement has not reached a decision nor do I believe there will be any discussion about the general pricing of energy in Canada. As the hon. member knows the lowest rate for electrical energy I believe is in the province of Manitoba at this time. The government has no notion of equalizing electrical rates across Canada to the rates in Manitoba.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question follows one by the hon. member for Victoria and by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton. It has to do with the Lockheed contract and is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It is understood that before major projects are submitted to cabinet for approval the Treasury Board must approve the financial arrangements. Did this happen in the Lockheed
Oral Questions
deal before the project was submitted to cabinet on November 27 last and if not, why not?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board had studied this contract as any others and, as a matter of fact, one of the issues which the Treasury Board was concerned with was the interim financing, and the matter having been apparently settled, at the last meeting of the Treasury Board we authorized the Minister of Supply and Services to sign the contract.


MANPOWER
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
As the Company of Young Canadians has been dismantled, and, as a result, some areas such as the Gaspe Peninsula and Temiscamingue have been severely affected, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether the government intends to give special assistance so that the community projects now under way can be completed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House knows that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has had discussions with the provincial authorities and that several projects now under study are being implemented in that area of the province of Quebec.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board as a result of the discussions he had with the Canadian Economic Policy Committee. It is reported that the President of the Treasury Board has urged the private sector to help cut public spending by shifting investment and expansion plans toward high unemployment regions. Is the minister in a position now to advise the House what type of incentives are being considered by the government to assist the private sector to realize this objective, keeping in mind that the control period certainly does not lend too much to reaching that objective at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my message to that group was rather simple. I told them they should themselves also make efforts to create employment in those areas where there is unemployment. We often hear complaints about there being a shortage of workers in areas of great economic growth; without asking everyone to move to the Golden Horseshoe
13064

Oral Questions
perhaps some of the industrialists in that area could go to other places in Canada where there is competent manpower that is eager to work.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the private sector will have a great deal of difficulty accomplishing the minister's objective. At the same time the minister indicated, and it is reported, that the federal government is determined to limit further its expenditures. As I understand it, this matter is presently before cabinet for approval. Can the minister advise when a statement will be made in this regard?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly in what regard. I spoke of the government budget control policy. We do not want to increase our expenditures during the current year and have shown great determination in reducing them since last December. With regard to the invitation extended to industry to settle in areas where there is a shortage of employment, it is self-explanatory. I am happy to see the hon. member does not disagree with my policy.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING PROFESSIONALS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the publication by the Anti-Inflation Board of the regulations regarding professionals, and in view of the fact that the initial advice of accountants is one of considerable dismay about the ability of the individual professional to comprehend and comply with the regulations, and as the advice now given to many professionals by their accountants is to reduce their productivity, will the minister consider having another look at the regulations to see if they could be made clearer and easier to follow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as a first step I think I would like to check as to the accuracy of the premise of that question.


HOUSING
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, of which I have given him notice, but since he is not here I will put it to his parliamentary secretary.
As a result of a meeting with the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs and the vice-president of the executive committee of the City of Montreal, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs tell the House whether the Quebec Minister of Municipal

Affairs has sent him a letter or telegram about housing renovation within the sector of intervention recognized at the meeting of March 1975 concerning the subsidies provided by Quebec for residential renovation?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I must answer no. I have tried to find the answer, since the member had given notice of his question. I could not communicate with the minister concerned. We are as anxious as he is to proceed with housing renovation. I hope that in Montreal a residential rehabilitation assistance program will be undertaken as soon as possible and I will be expecting as he is the answer of the Quebec department.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Solicitor General and it is related to the recently reported comments of Michael Labrie, a detention guard, regarding the need for a northern jail for Inuit inmates. In view of the fact that related concerns were expressed at the Edmonton conference, which I know the minister attended, and in view of the fact that many of the recommendations made at that conference if implemented would have a positive effect in reducing the high rate of incarceration of native people in our penal institutions, would the minister indicate whether he will be making a full report and recommendations to the House in the near future about this important matter?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there was a more recent conference in Montreal about two months ago at which we attempted to follow up on the recommendations of the Edmonton Conference. Right now we have a penal institution in the Northwest Territories which is operating with our assistance in Frobisher and there is one in Yellowknife, but the Inuit people would like their inmates closer to their own towns, and we are looking at ways of doing that.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in answer to a question I said that the Public Service Commission would join in the negotiations with the Treasury Board. In fact I should have said it is the Professional Institute of the Public Service.
May 3, 1976

Order Paper Questions



SASKATCHEWAN PENITENTIARY-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN


Paul Wyatt Dick: for leave to introduce Bill C-437, to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act (corporate objects).
He said: The purpose of this amendment to the Federal Business Development Bank Act is to encourage the development of Canada by Canadians and to ensure adequate assistance for this effort by providing financial assistance and other assistance to Canadian citizens, landed immigrants and Canadian companies of which 51 per cent of the equity voting shares is owned by Canadians. This bill, in effect, will provide assistance and encouragement for Canadian ownership of the Canadian economy.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked by an asterisk.)
['1. A national advertising campaign will not be undertaken by the Department to make known the availability of seasonal jobs in agriculture in 1976. However, a national advertising campaign is already underway advising students to register with their local Canada Manpower Centre for Students. Students who register there or with other Canada Manpower offices are informed of any available seasonal agricultural employment. In addition, the Department will offer service to both farmers and workers through the network of Canada Farm Labour Pools (CFLP) during the coming months. During the peak manpower demand periods there will be no less than 78\n\nMay 3, 1976', "points of service, some 62 of which are operated year round. Publicity and advertising is again being organized at all levels to ensure that the employment needs of both the farmers and the agricultural workers will be met. (a) Locally, CFLPs advertise the need for workers in local newspapers. They also arrange with Canada Manpower Centres on a daily basis to have workers brought in from outside the local area, as they are required, (b) Regionally, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, radio stations will be used for frequent spot announcements to outline current situations in the fruit, vegetable and tobacco harvests, (c) Nationally, brochures and fact sheets are used to inform potential employers and workers of the services available at the Canada Farm Labour Pools and Canada Manpower Centres (CMCs). During peak demand periods, the CMCs of agricultural manpower supply and demand areas are in daily contact with each other to make sure that workers are at the disposal of employers when required.\n2. The Department already sponsors a program designed to attract young Canadians, primarily students, to agricultural work during the summer vacation period and to possible future careers in agriculture. Known as Agriculture for Young Canadians, the program features federal participation in the establishment of new or existing agricultural manpower programs for youth, operated by the provinces and cost-shared under the provisions of the existing Federal-Provincial Agricultural Manpower Agreements. The program was initiated in 1974 and, to date, the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia have participated. Inexperienced students, as well as other workers, who obtain seasonal agricultural employment through any of the Department's agencies are eligible to receive up to four days training with full wages. This assistance is provided at no cost to the agricultural employers under the Canada Farm Labour Pool's worker orientation program. Graduate students who wish to enter farming or food processing as an occupation have always been eligible to receive training directly from employers participating in the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program."]
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,121, 4,214, 4,216, 4,219, 4,222, 4,228, 4,231, 4,506 to 4,515 inclusively, 4,517, 4,594, 4,779 to 4,783 inclusively, 4,913, 4,918, 4,948, 4,971, 4,972, 4,979, 4,980, 4,987, 4,997 to 5,000 inclusively, 5,002, 5,013, 5,039, 5,105, 5,106, 5,108, 5,179, 5,183, 5,208, 5,210, 5,248 and 5,251.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Robinson: Do any hospitals have a separate unit system for a disease such as "Lassa fever" and, if so, how many?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No hospital in Canada has at present a separate unit system designed specifically for a disease such as Lassa Fever. A Federal Provincial Isolation Facilities Working Group is currently well advanced with studies designed both to assess the need for such facilities and to provide both short and long term proposals in relation to the assessed need. The scope of the studies embrace other related aspects of contingency planning for such diseases including availability of appropriate virus laboratory and other support services.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Saskatchewan Penitentiary, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10, to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Note: For the purpose of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. J. P. O'Sullivan, (b) Since September 9, 1975. (c) Assistant Director of Industries, (d) $25,200 to $31,500.
2.	(a) no. (b) yes. (c) no. (d) no.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. G. J. Rhodes, (b) Since October 23, 1975. (c) Assistant Director, Occupational Development. (d) $19,128 to $21,737.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) yes.


MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Millhaven Institution, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10 to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. J. Dowsett. (b) Since October 22, 1974. (c) Regional Chief of Security, (d) $25,200 to $31,500.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) yes.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. S. M. Scrutton. (b) Since June 10, 1974. (c) Deputy Director, Drumheller Institution, Alberta, (d) $19,128 to $21,737.
2.	(a) no. (b) yes. (c) no. (d) no.


ARCHAMBAULT-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Archambault, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade, 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purpose of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. J. P. LeBrun. (b) Since October 1, 1974. (c) Director, Laval Institution, (d) $25,200 to $31,500.
2.	(a) no. (b) yes. (c) no. (d) no.
13066

May 3, 1976
Order Paper Questions
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. J. P. Dallaire. (b) Since April 1, 1972. (c) Deputy Director, Leclerc Institution, (d) $19,128 to $21,737.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no (d) yes.


STONY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTION-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Stony Mountain Institution, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10, to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. R. A. Desrochers; (b) Since January 7, 1974; (c) Warden, Fort Saskatchewan Gaol, Alberta; (d) $25,200 to $31,500.
2.	(a) no; (b) yes; (c) no; (d) no.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. R. M. Zubrycki; (b) Since September 1, 1973; (c) Assistant Director, Social Development; (d) $19,128 to $21,737.
2.	(a) no; (b) no; (c) no; (d) yes.


COLLINS BAY-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Collins Bay Institution, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10, to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. D. J. Weir, Acting Director; (b) Since December 1, 1975; (c) Assistant Director Socialization; (d) $22,705 to $25,764.
2.	(a) no; (b) no; (c) no; (d) yes.
1. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. R. J. Markowski, Acting Deputy Director; (b) Since December 1, 1975; (c) Supervisor of Classification; (d) $19,128 to $21,737.
3.	(a) no; (b) no; (c) no; (d) yes.


SASKATCHEWAN FARM ANNEX-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Saskatchewan Farm Annex, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?

2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10, to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. L. K. Jacobson; (b) Since August 1, 1961; (c) Bookkeeper, Hobby Shop; (d) $15,817 to $17,935.
2.	(a) yes; (b) no; (c) no; (d) no.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. C. J. Receveur; (b) Since August 1, 1965; (c) Administrative and Service Officer; (d) $11,395 to $13,516.
2.	(a) no; (b) yes; (c) no; (d) no.


CARLTON CENTRE-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Carlton Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


PORTSMOUTH CENTRE-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Portsmouth Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


MONTGOMERY CENTRE-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Montgomery Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


ST. HUBERT CENTRE-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at St. Hubert Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


PARRTOWN CENTRE-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Parrtown Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.
May 3, 1976


LAVAL-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Laval?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


ONTARIO PRISON FOR WOMEN-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Ontario Prison for Women?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


DUNGARVON-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Dungarvon?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


SPRINGHILL-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Springhill?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


WESTMORELAND-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Westmoreland?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


QUEBEC REGIONAL RECEPTION CENTRE-SUICIDES
Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of suicides at Quebec Regional Reception Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ST. JEAN BASE, MONCTON
Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the (a) total, (b) estimated cost for construction of the Department of National Defence language training school at St. Jean, Quebec?
2.	What is the estimated total annual (a) operating, (b) maintenance cost and, in each case, what are the details?
3.	What is the total annual operating and maintenance cost for Canadian Forces Base Moncton?
4.	For the years 1970 to 1975, were capital expenditures made at CFB Moncton and, if so, in what amount?
Order Paper Questions
5.	For the years 1975 and 1976, what is the estimated capital cost for CFB Moncton?
6.	Is the Department of National Defence able to reconcile the expenditures for the language training school at St. Jean, Quebec with the possible reduction of the infrastructure and support services at bases such as Moncton?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) and (b). The National Defence Language school is part of the redevelopment of Canadian Forces Base, St. Jean which also includes the Francophone recruit school, Francophone technical training elements, base support elements and support to College Militaire Royal. Since the majority of the facilities are being built for the Base as a whole it is not possible to provide a realistic estimate for the language school by itself. The cost of the redevelopment of CFB St. Jean is $84.1 million in total program dollars including inflation.
2.	(a) and (b). The total annual operating and maintenance cost for Base St. Jean for fiscal year 1975/76 is listed below. Operating and maintenance costs for the Language school cannot be given separately for the reasons given above. Military Personnel Costs, $3,819,543; Civilian Personnel Costs, $4,142,078; Equipment Operating and Maintenance Costs, $2,477,148; Facilities Operating and Maintenance Costs, $692,624; Total: $11,131,393.
3.	$8,812,242 in Fiscal Year 1975/76.
4.	The capital expenditures made at CFB Moncton are as follows; FY 69/70, $95,000; FY 70/71, $47,800; FY 71/72, $162,900; FY 72/73, $72,000; FY 73/74, $82,000; FY 74/75 $74,700.
5.	The estimated capital expenditures at CFB Moncton are: FY 75/76, $128,000; FY 76/77, $96,000.
6.	There is no direct relationship between the development of CFB St. Jean and the future status of CFB Moncton. The Department of National Defence has allocated resources to the redevelopment and expansion of training facilities at CFB St. Jean in order to meet approved federal government and departmental policies and objectives.


FERNDALE-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Ferndale, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10, to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note; For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. N. A. Hall, (b) Since June 4, 1973. (c) Director, Agassiz, (d) $15,886 to $18,052.
2.	(a) no. (b) yes. (c) no. (d) no.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. R. Sochan. (b) Since November 17, 1975. (c) Counsellor, Psychiatric Centre, (d) $13,658 to $15,519.

May 3, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) yes.


MATSQUI-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Matsqui, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10, to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the pusposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) N. G. Caros, (b) Since June 1, 1974. (c) Director, Millhaven. (d) $24,500 to $30,600.
2.	(a) no. (b) yes. (c) no. (d) no.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) J. Ryan, (b) Since December 10, 1973. (c) Acting Director, Technical Services, (d) $14,937 to $16,934.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) no. Formal education: Grade 13.


MOUNTAIN PRISON-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Mountain Institution, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10, to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. W. Mort. (b) Since December 28, 1973. (c) Assistant Regional Director, Classification, (d) $22,705 to $25,764.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) yes.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. G. Wilson, (b) Since November 1, 1970. (c) CX7. (d) $14,311 to $15,158.
2.	(a) no. (b) yes. (c) no. (d) no.


AGASSIZ CORRECTIONAL CAMP-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Agassiz Correctional Camp, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10 to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".

1.	Director: (a) Mr. J. W. Stonoski. (b) Since December 3, 1973. (c) Head, Living Unit, (d) $15,886 to $18,052.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) yes.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. Don Howard, (b) Since April 1, 1974. (c) Counsellor, (d) $13,658 to $15,519.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) yes.


WILLIAMS HEAD-WARDEN AND ACTING WARDEN
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Williams Head, (b) how long have they held the positions, (c) what positions did they hold previously, (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10, (b) grade 10 to grade 12, (c) some university, (d) a first university degree?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director".
1.	Director: (a) Mr. J. A. Mulroney. (b) Since September 1, 1974. (c) Assistant Director, Socialization, (d) $22,705 to $25,764.
2.	(a) no. (b) no. (c) no. (d) yes.
1.	Deputy Director: (a) Mr. J. Sheridan, (b) Since October 1, 1967. (c) P.M. 2. (d) $14,311 to $15,158.
2.	(a) no. (b) yes. (c) no. (d) no.


STOL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Has the government ended the STOL demonstration four months early and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How much was budgeted for the STOL demonstration and how much of the budget was and will be spent?
3.	What were the projected and actual (a) capital, (b) operating costs of the demonstration?
4.	How much revenue was collected from STOL passengers and did it cover the operating costs?
5.	Will DOT and Airtransit employees who worked on the STOL demonstration be re-assigned or released?
6.	(a) What will be the disposition of the equipment used in the STOL demonstration, (b) will it be used in other (i) sections of DOT, (ii) departments and, if so, is this future use reflected in the 1976-77 Estimates?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The STOL demonstration is to end four months early on April 30, 1976 because the objectives of the project will have been met by that date, and the monies budgeted to the program will have been expended by that date.
2.	A total of $24,411 million was budgeted for the STOL demonstration project. On April 30, 1976, it is estimated that this budget will have been overrun by $124,000.
3.	The projected capital and operating costs of the demonstration were $15.5 million and $8.9 million, respectively. The actual capital and operating costs to April 30, 1976 are estimated at $15.5 million and $9,035 million respectively.
4.	Total revenues collected from STOL passengers up to the end of February amounted to $3,378 million. It is
May 3, 1976

estimated that by April 30, 1976, total revenues collected from passengers will have amounted to approximately $3.6 million. These revenues do not cover the operating costs.
5.	Term employees with Transport Canada, will be reassigned where positions are available. Otherwise, they will be released. Indeterminate Transport Canada employees will be re-assigned. Air Canada has been working very closely with Airtransit to ensure that all employees of Airtransit are given full consideration for any Air Canada job vacancies for which they are qualified. A number have already been hired by Air Canada. Also, Air Canada employees who were seconded to Airtransit are being reabsorbed on an individual basis consistent with commitments made to them when they were seconded.
6.	Disposition of the equipment used in the STOL demonstration project will be determined in accordance with the needs of various agencies of Her Majesty's Government. Some equipment will be re-allocated to other sections of Transport Canada. Some equipment will be used by other departments. This future use is not reflected in the 1976-77 Estimates.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-GRANTS FOR AMATEUR SPORTS IN CONSTITUENCY OF TEMISCAMINGUE
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since 1970, did the Department of National Health and Welfare spend money on amateur sport in the Constituency of Temiscamingue and, if so, in what amount?
2.	What were (a) the names of the (i) short-term, (ii) long-term projects in the Constituency, (b) the amounts involved, (c) the names of the municipalities involved?


Marc Lalonde: 1 and 2. There were no recipients of grants-in-aid resident in the Constituency of Temiscamingue during 1974-75 and 1975-76.
Note: The Fitness and Amateur Sport program does not normally cover capital projects and other forms of expenditures that are amendable to a designation by constituency. The nature of the funding program is outlined in the 1973-74 Annual Report of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch tabled in the House of Commons on February 11, 1975 (Sessional Paper No. 301-1/150).


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-PARKING STRUCTURE
Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,556, could the Minister advise (a) on what date the feasibility study for a parking structure at the Vancouver International Airport was authorized, (b) what is the name of the company who made a proposal for indoor parking facilities at the Airport and what are the details of the proposal?


Ralph Goodale: (a) In July 1973, a study was authorized to determine the parking requirements until 1980. The recommendations are being evaluated as part of the overall master plan for the long range development of Vancouver International Airport, (b) Rotopark Interconti-
Order Paper Questions
nental S.A. of Montreal, presented a proposal for an automatic car parking system, utilizing computer controlled electro-mechanical equipment which would transport a vehicle from a designated drop-off point into the garage. The procedure would be reversed when the vehicle was required.


RCMP-QUEBEC
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Quebec in (a) 1970. (b) 1971. (c) 1972. (d) 1973. (e) 1974. (f) 1975. (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management, (b) training, (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking, (b) English speaking, (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength.
1.	(a) 688. (b) 807. (c) 850. (d) 938. (e) 1,003. (f) 1,071. (g)
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	22	22	30	32	32	40	43(b)	0	0	2	2	2	2	4(c)	666	785	818	904	969	1029	11243.	Statistics available for 1976 only, (a) 263. (b) 65. (c) 797.


RCMP-ONTARIO
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Ontario in (a) 1970. (b) 1971. (c) 1972. (d) 1973. (e) 1974. (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management, (b) training, (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking, (b) English speaking, (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note (1): Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. Note (2): This question has been interpreted to refer to operational divisions. Therefore statistics with respect to Headquarters, Ottawa have not been included.
1.	(a) 914. (b) 1,013. (c) 1,071. (d) 1,205. (e) 1,400. (f) 1,536. (g) 1,721.
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	26	26	31	35	37	47	53(b)	0	0	2	3	4	5	5(c)	888	987	1038	1167	1359	1484	16633.	Statistics available for 1976 only, (a) 67. (b) 1,320. (c)
May 3, 1976
Order Paper Questions RCMP-MANITOBA


Mr. Matte: 1 How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Manitoba in (a) 1970. (b) 1971. (c) 1972. (d) 1973. (e) 1974. (f) 1975. (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management, (b) training, (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking, (b) English speaking, (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note: Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength.
1. (a) 644. (b) 704. (c) 735. (d) 768. (e) 831. (f) 881. (g) 956.
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	15	15	19	20	23	22	30(b)	0	0	2	2	2	4	2(c)	629	689	714	746	806	855	924
3. Statistics available for 1976 only, (a) 7. (b) 904. (c) 45.


RCMP-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Matte: 1.	How many members of the RCMP were stationed in the Province of Saskatchewan in (a) 1970. (b) 1971. (c) 1972. (d) 1973. (e) 1974. (f) 1975. (g) 1976?
2.	How many were responsible for (a) general management, (b) training, (c) law enforcement?
3.	How many were (a) French speaking, (b) English speaking, (c) bilingual?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Note (1): Parts 1 and 2 refer to authorized establishment whereas Part 3 refers to actual strength. Note (2): This question has been interpreted to refer to operational divisions. Therefore statistics with respect to the training division in Regina have not been included.
1. (a) 922. (b) 947. (c) 980. (d) 983. (e) 1,033. (f) 1,059. (g) 1,107.
2.	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976(a)	16	16	20	23	22	27	28(b)	0	0	2	2	2	2	2(c)	906	931	958	958	1009	1030	10773.	Statistics available for 1976 only, (a) Nil. (b) 1,091. (c) 16.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-DAMAGE AS A RESPECT OF COLLISION INCURRED BY HMS &quot;MARGAREE&quot;, HMS &quot;ST. CHARLES&quot; AND HMS &quot;RIVERTON&quot;
Mr. Forrestall: 1. What is the estimate of the total cost of all damages incurred by (a) HMS St. Charles, (b) HMS Margaree, (c) HMS Riverton in the recent

collisions and resultant engine damage from their trip together from Halifax to Montreal?
2. Was such a voyage essential?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) CFAV, St. Charles, $43,442. (b) HMCS
Margaree, $274,997. (c) CFAV Riverton, Nil.
2.	Yes.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SEARCH AND RESCUE IN &quot;PORT KIRWIN&quot; INCIDENT
Mr. McGrath: With reference to the search and rescue operations off Newfoundland in the Port Kirwin incident in January, 1976 (a) at what time, in Atlantic Standard Time, was the distress call received by the Search and Rescue Centre in Halifax, (b) was assistance dispatched and, if so (i) in what form, (ii) to what extent, (c) did the search and rescue craft reach the search area and, if so, at what time, (d) was (i) radio, (ii) visual (iii) radar contact established and, if so, for what length of time, (e) how much (i) time, (ii) manpower was deployed in the search?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a)	1725 hours Atlantic Standard Time January 11, 1975.
(b)	Yes. (i) Marine craft Aircraft, (ii) St. John's pilot boat, DOE Golden Boy, DOE Cape Freels, CCGE Sir Humphrey Gilbert, CF Buffalo No. 455, CF Tracker, CF Argus No. 0734, CF Labrador No. 305, CCG Helicopter, RCMP Helicopter. (c) St. John's pilot boat reached the search area at 2120 hours January 11 and the RCMP and CCG Helicopters in a first light search reached the ara at 0830 hours, January 12 . The RCC was advised that the initial search was unsuccessful at 0920 hours January 12, and an additional two aircraft were dispatched and were airborne at 0935 and 0950 hours, respectively. The two aircraft, the Buffalo and the Labrador were in the search area at 1200 hours and at 1500 hours, respectively. In additional the following search resources were in the area at the following times: BOE Golden Boy 1155 hours January 12, DOE Cape Freels 1512 hours January 12, CF Tracker aircraft 1300 hours January 12. CCGC Sir Humphrey Gilbert 1830 hours January 12, CF Argus 0734 2130 hours January 12, (d) No contact was made with the search object, (e) (i) CF Aircraft, 187.3 hours; RCMP and CCG Helicopters, 10.0 hours; Total: 197.3 hours search flying time; Marine Craft, 161 hours float time, (ii) 203 personnel.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SEARCH AND RESCUE, SEALERS FROM MORETON'S HARBOUR
Mr. McGrath: With reference to the search and rescue operations off Newfoundland in the search for the two sealers from Moreton's Harbour, Notre Dame Bay in February, 1976 (a) at what time, in Atlantic Standard Time, was the distress call received by the Search and Rescue Centre in Halifax, (b) was assistance dispatched and, if so (i) in what form, (ii) to what extent, (c) did the search and rescue craft reach the search area and, if so, at what time, (d) was (i) radio, (ii) visual, (iii) radar contact established and, if so, for what length of time, (e) how much (i) time, (ii) manpower was deployed in the search?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) 0000 hours Atlantic Time February 3, 1976; (b) Yes. (i) Aircraft and Helicopter Marine Craft, (ii) CF Buffalo No. 459; CF Labrador No. 305; CF Tracker No. 2164; CR Argus No. 0737; CCGC Sir Humphrey Gilbert, (c) Yes.
May 3, 1976

Buffalo 1115 hours February 4, Labrador 1330 hours February 4, Sir Humphrey Gilbert 1903 hours February 4, Tracker 0930 hours February 5, Argus 1205 hours February 7. From the time that the distress call was received to the time that aircraft and marine craft could be dispatched to the search area weather conditions were so adverse as to preclude aircraft from taking off and vessels from entering the search area. As soon as the weather broke search aircraft and marine craft entered the search area, (d) No contact was made with the search object, (e) (i) Aircraft, 80.8 hours; Marine craft, 66 hours, (ii) 88 personnel.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SEARCH AND RESCUE, &quot;SAN JUAN&quot; INCIDENT
Mr. McGrath: With reference to the search and rescue operations off Newfoundland in the San Juan incident in February, 1976 (a) at what time, in Atlantic Standard Time, was the distress call received by the Search and Rescue Centre in Halifax, (b) was assistance dispatched and, if so (i) in what form, (ii) to what extent, (c) did the search and rescue craft reach the search area and, if so, at what time, (d) was (i) radio, (ii) visual, (iii) radar contact established and, if so, for what length of time, (e) how much (i) time, (ii) manpower was deployed in the search?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) 1920 hours Atlantic Standard Time, February 22, 1976. (b) Yes. (i) Marine Craft, Aircraft, (ii) CCGS Bartlett; CF Buffalo aircraft No. 457; CF Tracker aircraft No. 2182. (c) Yes. Bartlett at 0330 hours, February 23; Tracker at 1925 hours, February 23; Buffalo at 0905 hours, February 24. (d) (i) Radio contract was established between the San Juan and the Bartlett at 0230 hours, February 23, 1976 and maintained until 0430 hours, February 23, 1976. (ii) Visual contact was established by the Bartlett at 0330 hours, February 23, 1976 and maintained until 0430 hours, February 23, 1976. Visual contact was established by a Buffalo aircraft at 1112 hours, February 24, 1976 and maintained until the Bartlett arrived at 1300 hours, February 24, 1976. (iii) No radar contact was established, (e) (i) Aircraft, 25.6 hours search flying time; Marine craft, 45.4 hours float time, (ii) 38 personnel.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SEARCH AND RESCUE, &quot;CAPE FREELS&quot; INCIDENT
Mr. McGrath: With reference to the search and rescue operations off Newfoundland in the Cape Freels incident in March, 1976 (a) at what time, in Atlantic Standard Time, was the distress call received by the Search and Rescue Centre in Halifax, (b) was assistance dispatched and, if so (i) in what form, (ii) to what extent, (c) did the search and rescue craft reach the search area and, if so, at what time, (d) was (i) radio, (ii) visual, (iii) radar contact established and, if so, for what length of time, (e) how much (i) time, (ii) manpower was deployed in the search?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) 0206 hours (Atlantic Standard Time), March 12, 1976. (b) Yes. (i) Aircraft and Marine craft, (ii) CF Tracker aircraft No. 2188; CF Buffalo aircraft No. 455; CF Buffalo aircraft No. 457; CF Labrador helicopter No. 305; CF Labrador helicopter No. 306; CCGC Sir Humphrey Gilbert; CCGC John Cabot; CSS Hudson, (c) Yes. Tracker No. 2188, 0628 hours, March, 12; Buffalo No. 455, 1357 hours, March, 12; Buffalo No. 457, 1659 hours, March, 12; Hudson 1725 hours, March, 12; John Cabot 2141 hours, March 12.
Order Paper Questions
(d) (i), (ii) and (iii). Visual contact was established by aircraft with the Cape Freels at 0628 hours and surveillance was maintained till 0857 hours when due to deteriorating weather conditions the aircraft had to return to St. Johns. At 1357 hours visual contact was established with the life rafts and surveillance was maintained by a Buffalo aircraft until the Hudson arrived at 1725 hours to pick up the survivors, (e) (i) Aircraft, 38.2 flying hours. Marine craft, 72.4 hours float time, (ii) 205 personnel.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MANPOWER STRENGTH, 1970-76
Mr. Matte: 1.	From 1970 to date, what was the military complement for the (a) Navy, (b) Army, (c) Air Force?
2.	How many servicemen were posted in the Province of Quebec in (a) 1970, (b) 1971, (c) 1972, (d) 1973, (e) 1974, (f) 1975, (g) 1976 to date?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act of 1968 unified the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canada Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force into the Canadian Armed Forces. The table below gives the total strength of the Canadian Forces and the number of Canadian Forces personnel located in Quebec. The system of maintaining data was changed in 1970 and reliable data is not available for that year.
Da te
31 Dec. 71 31 Dec. 72 31 Dec. 73 31 Dec. 74 31 Dec. 75 25 Mar. 76
Canadian Forces Strength
83,257
81,433
80,451
78,170
77,846
78,164
Canadian Forces Strength in Quebec
10,967
10,506
10,639
10,510
10,658
10,556


OLD AGE SECURITY-PENSIONS AND GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT RECIPIENTS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?


Marc Lalonde: 1, 2 and 3.
13072

May 3, 1976
Order Paper Number	Questions Number of	Number of pensionerProvince or	of people	pensioners	receivingTerritory	receiving OAS	receiving GIS	max. GISNewfoundland	36,393	29,625	19,811Prince Edward Island	13,204	9,785	4,736Nova Scotia	79,318	52,727	25,391New Brunswick	60,197	39,762	19,650Quebec	477,308	297,478	147,059Ontario	716,071	339,247	113,645Manitoba	104,640	61,879	23,100Saskatchewan	101,497	57,194	22,343Alberta	132,686	76,827	30,477British Columbia	231,041	123,106	46,319Northwest Territories	1,017	793	675Yukon	558	316	215Total national	1,953,930	1,088,739	453,4214.	Newfoundland, $79.27; Prince Edward Island, $75.62; Nova Scotia, $74.69; New Brunswick, $74.97; Quebec, $75.30; Ontario, $70.05; Manitoba, $71.35; Saskatchewan, $71.70; Alberta, $72.88; British Columbia, $70.31; Northwest Territories, $92.08; Yukon, $81.72; National Average, $72.60.5.	Yes. Newfoundland, 121; Prince Edward Island, 73; Nova Scotia, 418; New Brunswick, 297; Quebec, 3,333; Ontario, 5,748; Manitoba, 613; Saskatchewan, 363; Alberta, 687; British Columbia, 2,442; Northwest Territories, 4; Yukon, 4; Total, 14,103.
Note: All of the above information is based upon statistics for the month of December, 1975.


USE OF CANADIAN WINES AND CHEESES ON DOMESTIC AIR CARRIERS
Mr. Flynn: 1.	Has the Minister oi Transport urged Canadian air carriers to use domestic wines on all flights?
2.	Will the Minister consider urging all Canadian air carriers to use Canadian cheeses in place of foreign cheeses on all flights and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Will the Minister consider urging all restaurants and duty-free shops who lease space in Canadian airports to stock Canadian wines and cheeses and, if not, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Transport Canada presently has no policy whereby I can urge or direct Canadian air carriers as to what type or origin of products the carrier stocks or offers for sale to its passengers. The carriers determine their requirements by customer preference, availability of product and the eventual selling price to passengers.
2.	All Canadian air carriers stock Canadian cheeses on both domestic and international flights.
3.	At the present time all restaurants who lease space in Canadian airports stock Canadian wines and cheeses. In response to the question of stocking Canadian wines and cheeses at duty free shops, I will direct my officials to explore this potential market area.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-ICEBREAKING AND DREDGING SERVICES
Mr. Forrestall: Is the government considering assessments of any sort against ports in the St. Lawrence River who benefit from the provision of icebreaking and dredging services at those ports and (a) if not, for what reason, (b) if so, on what date can government action be reasonably expected?


Ralph Goodale: The Government is looking at the subject on a global basis and considering many ways to improve the revenue picture for the Canadian Coast Guard. Amongst the items under consideration are charges to beneficiaries of services provided through icebreaking and dredging services particularly when the advantages can be identified with individual industries. The benefits arising from these services in the St. Lawrence River do not always accrue to any one particular port or industry but may be beneficial to the entire St. Lawrence basin from the point of view of shipping, flood control and economic development.


TRANSPORT-LOANS TO MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the current extent of loans and guarantees of loans by the National Harbours Board and the Department of Transport to the Maritime Employers Association?
2.	On what date is it anticipated that such loans will be fully paid?
3.	Is any consideration being given by the government to forgiving such loans in whole or in part?


Ralph Goodale: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. At the beginning of the 1976 shipping season, the loans outstanding to the MEA from the Department of Transport were $6.6 million. In addition, there exists a guarantee of $1.2 million which was extended by the Government to the banks in 1974. On all occasions the financial assistance was provided to cover expenses related to the early retirement of redundant port workers.
2.	The MEA is to repay these loans-principal and interest-over a 10 year period with the final payment December 31, 1985.
3.	No consideration has been given by the Government to forgiving its loans to the MEA and in fact an increase in the cargo assessment has been made effective March 22, 1976 to ensure a balanced repayment of Government and bank loans.
The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Nil.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


TRANSPORT-BERTHS 73 AND 74 AT PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Are berths 73 and 74 at the Port of Montreal leased by Logistic Corporation and operated for Care Line and, if so, under what terms of payback was the roll-on/roll-off ramp constructed?
2.	Does the lease compare with the terms under which the ramp at Halterm Limited's facility at Halifax was leased and, if so, in what way?
May 3, 1976


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Berths 73 and 74 at the Port of Montreal are occupied by Logistec Corporation under a permit of occupancy. The roll-on/roll-off ramp is part of the total complex the cost recovery of which is assured through land rental and a minimum wharfage warranty.
2. The ramp at Halifax, as in Montreal, is part of the total complex-Pier "C"-which is under lease to Halterm Limited. The terms of the lease include a land rental but no minimum wharfage warranty.


PROPOSED NEW CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the government prepared a draft of a proposed new Canadian Constitution and, if so, what are the names and job designations of all those involved directly or indirectly in the preparation of such a document?
2.	Will the document be made public and, if so, on what date?
3.	Was the document circulated to Members of the Cabinet and, if so (a) on what date, (b) what persons in the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office were involved in the circulation?
4.	What other persons have been permitted to see the document?
5.	Has the document been circulated to the Provincial Premiers and, if not (a) for what reason, (b) is it the government's intention to do so or does this represent a government policy of unilateral action on the matter?
6.	Has the Prime Minister received expressions of deep concern from certain Anglophone Cabinet Ministers in regard to certain portions of the document?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. During the constitutional discussions from 1968 to 1971, many reports were prepared on different aspects of the constitution and on the way it might be modified or modernized. The schedule to the Victoria Charter contains a large number of modernizations, including the designation of a series of constitutional instruments as "Constitution Acts". In total these would under the Victoria plan, have constituted the "Constitution of Canada". The discussions which began in April 1975 have been much more limited and have not involved consideration of any new constitution. None has been prepared for or considered during these discussions.
2 to 6. See reply to question No. 1.


MANPOWER-CARIBBEAN SEASONAL WORKERS PROGRAM
Mr. Matte: 1.	For each year since 1966, has the Department of Manpower and Immigration made any grants to the West-Indian Seasonal Workers Programme and, if so, in what amounts?
2.	For each year since 1966, how many West-Indian workers have had temporary agricultural employment in Canada?
3.	(a) From what countries were they from, (b) since 1966, what was their salary in (i) Quebec, (ii) Ontario, (c) how many worked in (i) Quebec, (ii) Ontario?
4.	Is the Programme restricted to the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes. 1966, $6,804; 1967, $10,120; 1968, $14,110; 1969, $14,000; 1970, $14,000; 1971, $14,000; 1972, $14,000; 1973, $14,000; 1974, $14,000; 1975, $14,000. 2
Order Paper Questions
2.	1966, 264; 1967, 1,077; 1968, 1,258; 1969, 1,449; 1970, 1,279; 1971, 1,271; 1972, 1,529; 1973, 3,048; 1974, 5,342; 1975, 5,584.
3.	(a) Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados, (b) Existing regulations require that Caribbean seasonal agricultural workers be paid at a rate equal to the minimum wage for industrial workers provided by law in the province in which the worker is employed, or at a rate determined from time to time by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to be the prevailing wage rate for the type of agricultural work being carried out by the worker in the locality in which the work will be done, whichever is the greater. The actual wages paid have usually ranged between the minimum hourly wage rate to levels much greater than the minimum. The comparison of the minimum hourly wage rates for each year the program has been in existence is as follows:
	(i) Quebec	(ii) Ontario
1966	$ *	$ 1.251967	*	1.301968	*	1.451969	*	1.561970	*	1.651971	*	1.651972	*	1.751973	1.80	1.801974	2.00	2.001975	2.40	2.401976	2.80	2.65*No Caribbean workers Quebec	employed in(c)	(i) Quebec	(ii) Ontario1966	*	2641967	*	1,0771968	*	1,2581969	*	1,4491970	*	1,2791971	*	1,2711972	*	1,5291973	41	3,0071974	55	5,2871975	71	5,513
*No Caribbean workers employed in Quebec
4.	No. Caribbean workers have not been requested by employers in provinces other than Quebec or Ontario.



Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider abandoning the Caribbean Seasonal Workers Programme on the grounds that unemployment will likely reach 7 per cent during the summer months of 1976?


Robert Knight Andras: The Caribbean Seasonal Workers Program is designed to supplement, rather than replace, the supply of seasonal agricultural workers in Canada. The number of Caribbean workers admitted into Canada for agricultural employment during 1976 will be limited to the extent that
2 1804-66(4

May 3, 1976
Order Paper Questions
qualified Canadian workers are not available for agricul-	TRANSPORT-GULF FERRY SERVICE TO NEWFOUNDLAND
tural employment.	
Question No. 5,248-Mr. Marshall:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO CANADA THIS SUMMER
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Prime Minister and/or his office or anyone else in the government aware of Her Majesty the Queen's wish to hold a dinner party on the Royal Yacht Britannia during the Olympic Sailing Games at Kingston, Ontario and of Her Majesty's desire to invite the Lieutenant Governors and provincial premiers together with their spouses and, if so (a) since what date, (b) did the Prime Minister and/or his office or anyone else in the government agree to such an invitation?
2,	Has there been a delay in replying to Her Majesty's wish to extend such an invitation and, if so, for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Government is considering the final arrangements for Her Majesty's visit to Canada this summer. The Government is examining the possibility of proposing to Her Majesty a dinner to be held on board the Royal Yacht Britannia while at Kingston. There have been no delays to this point, and if a proposal is made to and accepted by Her Majesty, invitations will be issued shortly
1.	What are the names of the ships operating the Gulf ferry service to the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	What is the classification of the ships as to ownership, charter, crew and cost per day?
3.	What is the disposition of the ships owned and operated by CNR?


Ralph Goodale: 1. The following vessels are designated as operating in the Gulf Ferry Service to the Province of Newfoundland: (a) M.V. Sir Robert Bond railcar ferry, (b) M.V. Frederick Carter railcar ferry, (c) M.V. William Carson, (d) M.V. Leif Eiriksson. (e) M.V. Marine Nautica. (f) M.V. Marine Atlantica. (g) M.V. Ambrose Shea. (h) M.V. Marine Cruiser.
2. The following schematic of those vessels operating in the Gulf Ferry Service supplies information re. ownership, charter, crew nationality and charter hire cost per day.
Vessel	Owned by	Chartered Vessel	Crew Nationality(a) Robert Bond	D.O.T.	No	Canadian(b) Frederick Carter	D.O.T.	No	Canadian(c) William Carson	D.O.T.	No	Canadian(d) Leif Eiriksson	DOT.	No	Canadian(e) Marine Nautica	Stena Line A/B1	Yes	Canadian3(f) Marine Atlantica	Stena Line A/B'	Yes	Canadian3(g) Ambrose Shea	DOT.	No	Canadian(h) Marine Cruiser	Bahamarine2 2	Yes	Canadian
Charter
Hire/Day
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
$7,550 Canadian $7,550 Canadian Nil
$1,397 Canadian.
1	Firm Location-Gothenburg, Sweden
2	Firm Location-Bermuda
3 There is a Swedish Master and a Swedish Chief Engineer aboard these vessels in order to comply with Swedish law. These two (2) crew members are paid by Stena Line A/B. There is also a Canadian Master and Chief Engineer aboard these vessels who have the primary operating responsibility.
3.	There are no ships owned by C.N.R. However, the current status of each of the vessels previously designated as operating in the Gulf Ferry Service is as follows:
Vessel
Current Status
(a)	Robert Bond
(b)	Frederick Carter
(c)	William Carson
(d)	Leif Eriksson
(e)	Marine Nautica
(f)	Marine Atlantica
(g)	Ambrose Shea
(h)	Marine Cruiser
In service between Port-aux-Basques and North Sydney In service between Port-Aux-Basques and North Sydney Tied up at Point Edward Tied up at Point Edward Out of service at North Sydney following accident In service between Port-Aux-Basques and North Sydney Tied up at Point Edward In service between Port-aux-Basques and North Sydney


MANPOWER-AVAILABILITY OF SEASONAL JOBS IN AGRICULTURE, 1976
Mr. Marshall: 1. Is the Department of Manpower and Immigration taking any action
to advertise nationally the availability of seasonal jobs to assist farmers and food processors in the growing, harvesting and processing of the 1976 fruit, tobacco and vegetable crops and, if so, what is such action?
2. Has any consideration been given to tying-in the farm labour shortage each year with a training programme for students who may want to enter farming and food processing as an occupation?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. A national advertising campaign will not be undertaken by the Department to make known the availability of seasonal jobs in agriculture in 1976. However, a national advertising campaign is already underway advising students to register with their local Canada Manpower Centre for Students. Students who register there or with other Canada Manpower offices are informed of any available seasonal agricultural employment. In addition, the Department will offer service to both farmers and workers through the network of Canada Farm Labour Pools (CFLP) during the coming months. During the peak manpower demand periods there will be no less than 78

May 3, 1976

points of service, some 62 of which are operated year round. Publicity and advertising is again being organized at all levels to ensure that the employment needs of both the farmers and the agricultural workers will be met. (a) Locally, CFLPs advertise the need for workers in local newspapers. They also arrange with Canada Manpower Centres on a daily basis to have workers brought in from outside the local area, as they are required, (b) Regionally, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, radio stations will be used for frequent spot announcements to outline current situations in the fruit, vegetable and tobacco harvests, (c) Nationally, brochures and fact sheets are used to inform potential employers and workers of the services available at the Canada Farm Labour Pools and Canada Manpower Centres (CMCs). During peak demand periods, the CMCs of agricultural manpower supply and demand areas are in daily contact with each other to make sure that workers are at the disposal of employers when required.
2. The Department already sponsors a program designed to attract young Canadians, primarily students, to agricultural work during the summer vacation period and to possible future careers in agriculture. Known as Agriculture for Young Canadians, the program features federal participation in the establishment of new or existing agricultural manpower programs for youth, operated by the provinces and cost-shared under the provisions of the existing Federal-Provincial Agricultural Manpower Agreements. The program was initiated in 1974 and, to date, the Provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia have participated. Inexperienced students, as well as other workers, who obtain seasonal agricultural employment through any of the Department's agencies are eligible to receive up to four days training with full wages. This assistance is provided at no cost to the agricultural employers under the Canada Farm Labour Pool's worker orientation program. Graduate students who wish to enter farming or food processing as an occupation have always been eligible to receive training directly from employers participating in the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-81, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act with respect to the escalation of certain payments thereunder, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As is required by the Standing Orders of the House, this motion refers to second reading and reference to a standing committee, and in this case it is the Standing Committee on
Members' Salaries
Miscellaneous Estimates. Because of the nature of the bill, it being a bill which concerns the internal affairs, in a sense, of the members of the House of Commons, it seemed to us to be more appropriate that the bill be considered in committee of the whole rather than referred to a standing committee where there would be few representatives of all of us from the various parties. I therefore seek unanimous consent to have this bill, after second reading, referred to committee of the whole.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the principle is certainly agreeable to us. I would just ask the minister, as the government House leader, whether it is still his intention to introduce the amendment which he spoke abut when I asked the question on business of the house; and when it is introduced in committee of the whole, I understand it will be done either by himself or by the spokesman for the bill. If that is his undertaking, then we are prepared to consent. I would be quite prepared to accept a nod of his head, if that is acceptable.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is the government's intention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We welcome the assurance about the amendment. We would be prepared to give consent to have the bill go to committee of the whole.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I understood correctly-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were told that there would be a speech, on second reading, by the minister introducing the bill. I think we should hear that speech first.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as I have said at the meeting held at the House leaders level, I want this bill to follow the same process as for all the other bills and be sent to the standing House committee so that we, the representatives of rural ridings, can outline the reasons why we are opposed to the passage of this bill under the present circumstances. That is why we are refusing our consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to allow the minister to speak now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill speaks for itself and I would have thought that it could have been referred directly to the committee, but if it is understood that I am to speak, I do not believe it will be the most joyous speech I have had to deliver in this House.
On December 18, 1975, I announced expenditure reductions of the order of $1.5 billion during the 1976-77 fiscal year. Of course, these reductions were part of the government program to curb inflation. Among them were measured to end some programs, to cancel indexing of family allowances, to reduce costs approved for some Crown corporations and to freeze certain payments to members of

May 3, 1976
Members' Salaries
the House of Commons and the Senate, officials and Crown corporations agents whose salaries are in the upper brackets.
At that time I mentioned that certain pieces of legislations had to be amended to make those cutbacks; I was the one who the day after tabled this bill whose purpose is to delay until the beginning of 1977 the escalation of the sessional allowances of members of the Senate and the House of Commons, which would have automatically taken place at the end of the year 1975; to delay until 1977 the escalation of the extra salaries and allowances payable to ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other members of the Senate and House of Commons receiving remuneration over and above their sessional allowance; for the year 1976, limit to $200 the portion of the monthly increase in the supplementary retirement benefit that is attributable to the 11.3 per cent rise in the Benefit Index during the 12 months ending September 30, 1975.
On December 18, 1975, I announced that we could save $600,000 in this way; according to our latest estimates, we will be able to save nearly $750,000. As the House leader said on Thursday, April 29 last, I will be moving in due time an amendment to this bill to freeze also expense allowances as well as current salaries for 1976. It is anticipated that Bill C-87, the Government Expenditures Restraint Act, will be given second reading soon.
As to the level of pay of the senior staff in the public service and crown corporations, I repeat that it will be frozen, that is maintained at the current level by an administrative measure, until April 1, 1977.
Mr. Speaker, if members of the Senate and the House of Commons examined this Bill C-81 diligently the Canadian people would know that we are capable of making very great sacrifices.
I hope that people, particularly those who are sometimes very cynical about members of this House, will understand that they are making an enormous personal sacrifice today. I think the salaries that members currently receive are really too low for good members, and I will defend that before any audience. There are thousands of people in the public service and crown corporations who are paid much more than private members. But, once again, for the good of the community, members decided to make enormous sacrifices by waving any increase in their salaries or with respect to their expenses for the current year. What I regret, Mr. Speaker-
This measure was announced last December, and there were very few people in the land who gave any credit to members of parliament for that. We imposed that kind of sacrifice upon ourselves. I am not talking about myself. I am a minister and I can survive with my salary, but I know many members of parliament who do not make much money, who have to go into their riding, who are not assisted by all sorts of organizations, yet they are ready to impose that sacrifice upon themselves. When we got a little increase a few months ago, there were all sorts of articles all over Canada blaming members of parliament. I consider $24,000 a very small salary for a person who represents thousands of people in the House of Commons every week

from Monday to Friday night, who flies or drives back to his riding every weekend, who works 12 hours a day, and so on.


Mr. McGrath:: We believe you, but they won't.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am speaking for those upstairs.


James Aloysius McGrath: They won't believe it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know they will not believe it, but I can speak my mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know of some in this House who have no obligations and no family. They do not care. But the backbencher who has a family is imposing upon himself and his family a very harsh thing. However, even if it is tough for him and for me as a minister, I want to tell the nation that members of parliament are not selfish and are putting the interests of the nation first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the reluctance of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) in rising today to open the debate on this bill. The unfortunate thing for parliament, about which he spoke in such sincere terms, is the longterm effect of his statement of December 18, not for what it said but for what it failed to say. I characterize the minister's act on the night of December 18 as either an act of duplicity, on the one hand, or an act of stupidity on the other. But in both cases-not one of the other-parliament was dealt a great blow. So if the President of the Treasury Board is now speaking about parliament and what it means, then I am prepared to agree with him in those terms. I am no different from any other member of parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You sure are.


Walter David Baker: -in terms of how I view this place. I do not believe that the attraction to this place ought to be the salary. Of course it ought not to be. On the other hand, I have said in other debates, and I say again, that I do not believe that salary ought to be the determining factor as to whether a person who is here can continue to serve as an MP. That is the other side of the coin. The minister and I share the same view. But if that is the view which is held generally on all sides of the House of Commons, I think it is important that in terms of salary there should be some reasonable consultation with respect thereto among all parties in the House. In the case of this bill there was not that consultation. That is why I say it was either an act of duplicity, on the one hand, or an act of stupidity on the other. That is the first point.
The second aspect of this matter is how it was handled on the night of December 18. Many people have not gone back to look at Hansard for that night, but I have. Although most members of parliament are prepared to deal with the matter of restraint, this is what the minister said as reported at page 10156 of Hansard:
May 3, 1976

We are introducing a bill to freeze the pay of members of the House of Commons and the Senate for one year-including the salaries of ministers.
The word he used was "pay" and there was not one member who left the House that night absolutely certain in his own mind that the word "pay" applied only to salaries.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I know that the hon. member wants to be fair. After I made my statement on December 18, the new rule of this House permitted members of this House to ask questions. Perhaps the hon. member left, but some members of his party should have listened.
The first question asked of me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was, "Does that include expenses?" I replied, "It is the salary only." There was no duplication and no duplicity, Mr. Speaker. I was very clear in the reference I made in the House. I referred to the pay. If I had wanted to refer to expenses, I would have said so but I said the "pay". If the hon. member did not understand, it was clear to me, and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre recognized that and is why he asked for precision. He got it that night in the first question that was asked of me.


Walter David Baker: I am talking about the statement. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was making a statement to the country via television with respect to this answer, he said that the government was introducing a bill to freeze the pay of members of the House of Commons and the Senate for one year, including the salaries of ministers.
I do not know the feeling about a later clarification in this House in answer to a question, but even the clarification was not very direct if one looks at page 10165 of Hansard. What I am saying is that the impression among members of parliament who were here that night, and certainly the impression given to the country-which is perhaps more important in terms of the honour for which parliament is to stand in the minds of the people-was that all of the pay and allowances being set forth were being frozen. I do not care what was in the minister's mind-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If you do not know how to read, I cannot teach you.


Walter David Baker: Perhaps I cannot teach the minister either, but that was the impression, because next day the headlines in the newspapers indicated just what damage had been done to parliament. That is the point I am concerned about.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is credibility.


Walter David Baker: As the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) says, it is credibility.


Mr. Dionne:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: If you want to be all day on this-
Members' Salaries


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that every member in this House had a specific impression when he left the House. I would ask how he knows what impression any member had? He certainly did not discuss the matter with me. As far as I know, the impression was clear.


An hon. Member:: Your mind is an open book.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Don't speak for me.


Walter David Baker: That is hardly a point of order, in any event, Mr. Speaker. The other thing that makes the whole issue a bad thing for parliament generally is the relationship that existed with respect to this matter among members of parliament. There has been a tradition in this House of consultation among members. That was the tradition when we dealt with Bill C-44 which was handled in a way that brought disrepute to parliament. There was consultation then, and there has been consultation on these matters from time immemorial. As I understand it, in this case the only consultation that took place was with the Liberal caucus prior to that time.


Mitchell William Sharp: There was not, no.


Walter David Baker: If I need any indication of the argument, I can look at the Globe and Mail for December 20, 1975, where the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader (Mr. Blais) is quoted as saying that the increase in the tax-free allowance is needed to meet the higher cost of serving one's riding. How did he come to that conclusion? Obviously, there had been some consultation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: None.


Mitchell William Sharp: There was none.


Walter David Baker: All right. I would not want to ask the minister, on the floor of the House of Commons, whether there had been any consultation in caucus since then. However, I think this House is entitled to know why, when the matter was raised by the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), by way of a motion under Standing Order 43 on December 20, it has taken all this time to bring the bill forward. What is the reason for the delay?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: What consultation had to take place prior to that time? That is the position we are in. I am going to say to the minister, with all the respect I have for him personally, that in terms of the way this was handled, which has been described as shabby-and I repeat the word here, that is was handled shabbily by this government-we want to know why has it taken them all this time? Our party took the position, and some quite reluctantly, with respect to this particular place of legislation, that in terms of parliament and a commitment to restraint which the government had not answered in any way, we had no alternative but to say as our then leader did at the first opportunity on January 29 in a press release:
Clearly there was an element of deception involved in the discrepancy between the impression which the government generated and the

May 3, 1976
Members' Salaries
bill which it presented. There was also a gross and needless breach of courtesy in the government's departure from the traditional practice of consultation with the opposition on matters affecting members' remuneration.
The government can accept this, or not, as they choose. That was the impression left among members of the House of Commons on the night of December 18. It was also the impression left with members of the press gallery on the night of the briefing prior to that, because I spoke to many of them afterwards and they felt that the allowances were subject to the same rules of restraint or freezing as were the salaries. We have had a difficult enough time in this House-


An hon. Member:: Thanks to you.


Walter David Baker: -with respect to salaries. I think it did not lie in the mouth of the government to leave the impression it did on the night of December 18, and then refuse to do anything about it until today, or until last Thursday when it announced it intended to move an amendment in committee to bring the bill into line with the perspective it had tried to create.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not the purpose.


Walter David Baker: I say that with some regret, because I am as proud to serve in parliament as anyone. The government should not play fast and loose with the traditions of this institution, however-and when it does, there should not be too much reaction from members of the government, particularly the minister, if I point out, with all the respect I can muster in the circumstances-


Some hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -that their handling of this pay issue has been had. Here we are, with Bill C-44 in place which entitles us to a salary increase as of January 1. That is the law. That increase happens to be frozen, se we are not receiving it. In the same bill we are entitled to an increase in allowances.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not "pay", you will notice.


Walter David Baker: We are in a position now where something will have to be paid back. The situation has just been exacerbated by delay on the part of the government. All I am saying to the government is that somebody on that side should tell us why. I think they should disclose to the House the reason for this. The position of the official opposition was quite clear on December 20, 1975-that extraordinary Saturday. I am sure the government had no doubt about the position of the New Democratic Party, and they had no doubt about our position and what we intended to do. The then leader of the opposition said that he intended to introduce an amendment to have the freeze apply to members' expense allowances as well as their indemnities. It would have been

as well to take the bull by the horns and do the right thing, instead of delaying. The delay has not helped parliament.
Let me repeat what I said earlier about this place. I firmly believe that members of parliament make sacrifices.
There are sacrifices involving travel which hurt the body and the spirit. There are absences from families. Many members must support two homes and meet double expenses. Many things disrupt and make difficult the life of the member of parliament. It is no answer to say, "But you volunteered for the job. You can always leave if you want to." That is putting service in parliament on the wrong basis.
As I said at the beginning, the decision to serve in parliament should not be governed by monetary considerations. I know some will say that it is easy for me to talk this way as my situation is somewhat different from that of a great many members. There are differences in circumstances. But if we all believe that service is the vital thing, and every one of us in this House ought not to let the President of the Treasury Board off easily. I am thinking of what happened on December 18 and December 20 last and the long delay in implementing this matter.
That is why we welcome this move for which we have asked time and again both inside and outside this House. We welcome the amendment to the bill which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the President of the Treasury Board said would be brought before the House. I do not welcome it because members of parliament will be entitled to less money than if the amendment were not brought forward; that is not my position. I think that members of parliament agreeing to accept restraint symbolize something important. It shows that we are willing to restrain increases in our own salaries and expenses and that members of parliament enjoy no hidden benefits.


Mr. Stanfield:: There is nothing under the table.


Walter David Baker: Yes, there is nothing under the table; everything is open and above board. All this should have been done on December 18, in my respectful opinion. I know that Bill C-44 provided for statutory increases to members well within the guidelines of the anti-inflation program. I suppose it is logical to talk about increases falling within the guidelines. I suppose we could do what is logical and permitted. But I ask hon. members to consider that this would affect how people outside parliament perceive this place.
The government embarked on the restraint program. I foresee difficulties down the road concerning pay and allowances. Nonetheless, we have embarked upon that road. That is why I regret that the government did not deal honestly, squarely and openly with this matter. I regret the impression parliament left with the people. For that reason, I welcome the amendment. We have waited for it a long time. It is a limited welcome, but a welcome nonetheless. The bill allows the government to do directly what it was afraid to do indirectly on the night of December 18, 1975.
May 3, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the important fact before the House is that the government has agreed to present an amendment to Bill C-81 so that the freeze for 1976 on the income of members of parliament and senators will apply to all the moneys we receive. Bill C-81, without an amendment, went part way and, of course, we would have voted for it. But we shall vote for it much more enthusiastically now that we have the assurance that the freeze will be put on the tax-free allowance we receive as well as on our indemnity or salary.
I agree with part of what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, but with part of his speech I am in complete disagreement. I agree that the way this matter was presented on the night of December 18, 1975, gave the press, and through the press the public, the impression that our total income was being frozen. It was not so. Sir, I do not agree that we who were in the House that night went away under any doubt as to what was happening. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), during the course of his restraint speech said, according to Hansard at page 10156:
We are introducing a bill to freeze the pay of members of the House of Commons and the Senate for one year-including the salaries of ministers. That is, the increase in pay they would have received in January under existing legislation they will not receive when the bill is enacted into law.
I recognized that the minister said "pay"; he did not say "income". But I could smell what was taking place. As soon as he sat down, I was recognized and I put the following question to the President of the Treasury Board, as reported at page 10165 of Hansard:
Mr. speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In the bill to which he referred in his statement which is to freeze the pay of members of parliament for a year, may I ask whether that applies only to the indemnity or does it also apply to the tax-free allowance?
The minister replied in French. The English version of his words reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, that applies to the members' salaries.
Sir, I remember our discussion in the lobby that night. We knew, in all parties, what had happened. We knew that the impression was being given in a public way that the pay of members of parliament was being frozen. But we knew from the minister's statement that our indemnities would be frozen, but that there would be given a $700 increase in our tax-free allowance. The next day I protested strongly. That protest reached the ears of the media. By Saturday morning it was headline news in the paper on which hon. members base most of their questions.


An hon. Member:: The Daily Worker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it was not
the Daily Worker, it was the Globe and Mail, without which the question period sometimes could he a flop. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who was then the leader of the opposition, on the morning of Saturday, December 20, moved a motion under Standing Order 43 regretting the lack of consultation on this matter. He regretted the way in which the government was embarrassing all members of parliament outside the Liberal caucus by pretending that members' remuneration was to be frozen for 1976. Later,
Members' Salaries
the hon. member for Halifax made it clear that he wanted an amendment to Bill C-81. But at that moment he was only expressing regret. A few minutes later, in the same period when motions under Standing Order 43 are considered, as recorded on page 10218 of Hansard I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the following motion:
That this House urges the government to substitute for Bill C-81 a bill to freeze the total income of members of parliament including both indemnities and the tax-free allowance.
Of course somebody said "No." There was not unanimous consent and the motion did not carry. That was the last sitting day before Christmas. When we came back on Monday, January 26, lest the issue had been forgotten I moved the following motion, this time seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman):
That this House calls on the government to indicate forthwith its readiness to move or accept an amendment to Bill C-81 to prevent any increase at this time in the tax-free allowances as well as the salaries of members of parliament, senators and cabinet ministers. ...


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
We did not get anywhere by trying to deal with this matter under Standing Order 43. However, we did make it clear on December 18, 19 and 20 and on January 26 that in our view, if we were going to take this big step of freezing the incomes of members of parliament, we should freeze our total income.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton says there has been a lot of delay. I join with him in regretting that long delay. I wonder why it has taken so long to resolve the .issue. On two or three occasions when I asked questions about it, the reply from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) was to the effect that the government was not prepared to go along with our kind of amendment. At last the members of the government have come to the point where they are willing to do it. We are glad that is the case. Today we shall support the amendment that is to be proposed when this bill gets into committee, and we shall support the bill as amended.
The public was annoyed last year about the increases that were voted. It was annoyed again when the impression was given that we were freezing our total pay, when we were not doing so. I hope the same public will now give the House credit for doing what it is going to do today, or whenever this bill goes through, namely, removing the hypocrisy or stupidity of the December 18 position to the effect that the freeze would be on salaries only. Because we have reached that position I do not think it is necessary to keep this debate going much longer. However, I was startled at the President of the Treasury Board making such utterances as telling us that members of parliament are making a great sacrifice. Those were his words. He did not say that it was a generous offer or just a sacrifice, but a great sacrifice.
We are denying ourselves, in the year 1976, $700 that we are in the process of getting, some of which we will have to pay back. Surely, for persons who are receiving indemnities of $24,000 a year and then a tax-free expense allowance or $10,600 a year, to deny themselves $700, no matter what

May 3, 1976
Members' Salaries
terms you put it on, is not a great sacrifice. When my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), sat near me I could hear his interjections. I have an idea that on this subject he and I are not in agreement as we sometimes are on other subjects.
The other interesting statement of which the President of the Treasury Board delivered himself today was that the present salary scales are too low to attract good members to this House of Commons. That is a terrible condemnation of all members who are here.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the hon. member to be misled. I did not speak about attraction. I said that for a good MP with a family, the present salary is not enough. It is not a question of attraction, because they are here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is the point I wanted to make. I did not talk about attraction. I said that to pay a good MP $24,000 is not enough. For those who are no good, it is away too much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: However, there is nothing we can do about it. I just hope that at the time of the next election the electors will kick out those who are no good. In any event, I was talking about a good MP with young children. I was not referring to those who are rich, have other incomes, or no family. I am talking about the normal, average, young MP. It is not enough. I will repeat that anywhere in the land. However, I agree with the hon. member that for a bad MP that is too much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the statement of the President of Treasury Board that for MPs who are no good, the amount of money is too much. I wonder if we can post a list somewhere showing who will come under that category!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not like quarrelling with a good friend such as the President of the Treasury Board over what he said. He did say that the amount of pay is too low for those who have work to do, other responsibilities, and so on. He also said-and I wrote it down the minute he said it-that the present pay scale is too low to attract good members. If that is the case, how did the members of this House get here, because when we ran in the last election the pay was only $18,000, plus $8,000 tax-free allowance?


Mrs. Sauve:: Because we have a fabulous sense of sacrifice; that is why we are here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) says it is because of a great sense of sacrifice. You would think that the whole crowd around here were living in sackcloth and ashes, or in third-floor, tenements, making a great sacrifice. That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: With $24,000 indemnity and $10,600 tax free allowance, we are not making any sacrifice in agreeing not to take another $700. In addition, we get free trips by air, telephone service, and all the rest. Also, there are the cars we are able to buy and the trips we are able to make. There are no great sacrifices around this place. On top of that, we have something that money cannot buy. We have the privilege of being here and playing our part in directing the affairs of this nation. I submit that is worth a great deal. In years gone by, greater persons than anybody now in this House came here for a lot less pay. Some of them really did make sacrifices.
My friend, the Minister of Communications was smiling when she talked about sacrifices. However, the President of the Treasury Board uttered those words as though he was quite serious.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I was smiling, it was not because I did not believe what I was saying. I repeat that many members here live in digs you would not want to live. If you had to provide two homes, you have no other choice. I know that some of my colleagues have big families and cannot afford to live in what the hon. member refers to as luxurious apartments. They do not. They need to have a sense of sacrifice in order to stay here for the present salary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this debate is over, I wonder if the government will be bringing in a bill to double the salary.


An hon. Member:: Would you accept it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I certainly would not. I voted against the last increase, as everyone knows.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the questions came one at a time, I should be glad to answer them. However, when there are so many interruptions they cancel out each other. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was dead right when he said how this place is perceived-as terribly important in this country. One of the ways Canadians have of perceiving this place is how much concern we show for ourselves or for the job we do. I think we are only doing as we ought to, as a place which is preaching restraint, in agreeing not to take any increase this year after the very substantial increase voted by the House in 1944.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I mean in 1975 by way of Bill C-44. The bill was brought in in 1974, but it was not passed until 1975.1 hope I have made
May 3, 1976

that clear. We support the present bill. We support the freezing of the pay, salaries and allowances of members of this place and of the other place for the year 1976.
The bill does not stop with the clauses which amend the Senate and House of Commons Act. It also contains clauses amending the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The aim of that amendment is to make sure that no one, in 1976, will get an escalation in his pension beyond a certain amount, and this applies not just to members of parliament but to retired public servants, retired members of the armed forces, retired members of the RCMP, and so on. It applies to anyone getting any kind of pension coming under the government. The provision is that no one is to get an increase amounting to more than $2,400 a year. This, I submit, is a good idea. I would remind hon. members that there are lots of Canadians who never see a pension from their work amounting to $200 a month. We are simply saying that no one should get an increase, in 1976, of an amount greater than $200 a month. We certainly support that limitation.
I regret that when the President of the Treasury Board brought in a bill containing this clause he did not see fit to deal with some other things as well. He proposed a measure to prevent certain persons from getting pensions which would be too high, but I regret he did not bring in a provision to correct a situation which we thought would be corrected last December when we were dealing with Bill C-52. I refer to the fact that retired members of the armed Forces, the RCMP and others are obliged to wait until they are 60 before their pensions are escalated unless they can qualify under a rule which is sometimes known as the 85 rule.
When we were dealing with Bill C-52 last December, it looked for a time as though that rule would be modified, and I had hoped we might have dealt with this matter by way of the legislation presently before us. In other words, while we are seeking to ensure that some persons should not receive pensions which are too high, we should also seek to deal with the positions of those who are not getting the escalation they should be entitled to receive. I hope we can deal with this aspect in the committee or at the report stage.
After this quiet speech, despite the cut-calls and interruptions, I am happy to say we shall support, Bill C-81.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy with my action this afternoon, in preventing unanimous consent to the motion by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). If I objected, it was mainly in order that the people, at least those who receive Hansard, be better informed on the subject of members' salaries and allowances.
Had the first motion gone through, everything would have gone under the veil of silence as usual, and the people would have gone on reading all kinds of suggestions concerning our salaries. I want to point out I have no grudge against newspapermen. Only, I resent that some of them take pleasure, when referring to member's salaries, in including both indemnity and allowances under salaries paid. Imagine the reaction by people believing that our salary is tax free. This is unfair to the greater majority of
Members' Salaries
newspapermen. I commend those stating the the salary is $24,000, the allowances are such and such a figure, but the salary is subject to income tax, and therefore if a member gets $24,000 and pays $4,500 in income tax, his net salary is only $18,500. The press have a duty to tell that story to the people, if they are to really inform the poeple.
Of course, allowances are tax free. Nowhere in industry or the public service are officials' expense allowances taxable. The contrary would be impossible and irrational. Why should our expense allowances be taxable? They must be deductible, as those of senior officials, considering the higher cost of living.
I refer directly to the President of the Privy Council. I did not think him capable of dealing that way. Usually he practices consultation, he acts in a less unilateral way. But today, he introduced an amazing piece of legislation. If the MP's expenses are frozen, finally they will be the ones who absorb the higher prices granted big companies, oil and other. I changed car this year, and it cost me $800 more than last year. I use it in my riding to work for my constituents. Some may find this odd but, in my riding, people find it strange because they have never seen, in 14 years, a federal member of Parliament go around visiting the riding. But for 14 years now-the federal Parliament really does exist-people see the federal MP go about the riding. May I say to the hon. members and the people that to go around our riding costs something, especially in the rural ridings.
And I say that the motion moved by the minister today, the amendment to Bill C-81, discriminates against rural members of parliament. I would like to quote some figures. We are not all in the same situation as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who stays in Ottawa and never goes anywhere else. Mr. Speaker, I live 500 miles from here; each week, I must drive 1,000 miles before covering from 300 to 500 miles in to my constituency on Saturdays and Sundays.
I drive an average of 40,000 miles a year for the government. If people want to see my figures, I will show them. Last year, with what the government paid me, I had a deficit of $2,842. This does not matter since I depend on my two companies to make ends meet. But I agree with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) when he says that if a member of parliament must subsist on his allowance alone, be will starve, and I have said so for 14 years. A member who has only his allowance must either starve or do nothing in his constituency, and if he does nothing, he will not last long in his constituency these days. This is why members of parliament who have only a salary and expense allowances live very frugally. They do not need to say so, they live very frugally. This is why I speak on their behalf today. I speak on behalf of all members who represent rural constituencies. When you have to drive 100 or 125 miles to meet a group of senior citizens who are unable to travel, this costs money, and we do not receive one penny for these trips, while members of legislative assemblies receive 10 cents a mile for their travels. I can assure hon. members that at the federal level, we look like beggars.

May 3, 1976
Members' Salaries
When the President of the Treasury Board introduced the bill to reduce salaries on December 18, 1975, I was in favour of a salary freeze. I was in favour of such a move even though it was completely different from the theories that are accepted for other workers. See how stupid we are in this House, if I may use this expression. We allow, and I speak of all other workers, increases of at least 12 per cent to be accepted, and increases of 12 per cent, 10 per cent or 8 per cent, and what do we do to give the example? We do not even allow ourselves a 7 per cent rise in the cost of living. Would you believe! In the constituencies, we pass for idiots. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly to meet the wishes of the government, because some ministers are afraid of losing their job; as for me, I am not afraid, when they vote against me, I shall go back home singing, and as long as I am elected, people will have to put up with me and I intend to go on saying the truth in my constituency. When I meet intelligent people in the departments, I say so, and when I meet idiots, I say so as well.
Mr. Speaker, I know that today most members do not support this particular motion. It is not because they like money, but because they are tired of trying to boost the government's popularity, the popularity of politics. I think that a member's salary should be at least that of a high official who earns $30,000 a year; 16t the journalists note this figure, high government officials make $28,000, $29,000, $30,000, $32,000, $40,000, $42,000 a year, excluding their expenses. And I repeat, this year, their expenses will not be reduced and, mind you, I do not blame them, I admire them, because they know how to look after themselves, they are clever, their expenses will not be reduced by a single cent. They will pay and if the price of gas goes up to $1, they will pay $1. But us, if the price of gas goes up to $1, we will have to make a gift to the government and say: For our good government, let us pay out of our own pockets. Imagine that!
Once again, if they want changes, if they want to standardize things-I have been asking this for a long time-all they need to do is to give us the status of high government officials. Yes, the status of high government officials and let us be paid $32,000 a year plus an expense account. Wait and see at the end of the year when I submit my expense account, there will be much to be paid. Instead of $10,000, the expenditures will be around $25,000. Let us be allowed expense accounts. But no, we are restricted and we have to pay the difference. Then, we have to provide service that is in adequate, unsatisfactory in our riding.
I feel that the government is now working not only against members of parliament but also against the rural people. Today the government wants to prevent those people from receiving the services they are entitled to get from their members in their constituencies. Again, the salary does not matter to me. But as regards expenses, I shall not give up. If the government wants to freeze expenses, it should first freeze the prices asked by big companies. We have been asking that for a long time. The government keeps knocking down wages, but it should first freeze the prices of all those big companies, for they are at the root of inflation. Why not touch them? The government will come begging members of parliament again in order to save these big corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I am fed up, tired of all this sham and I simply ask the President of the Treasury Board, if he is honest and sincere, to withdraw his amendment.
I was listening a moment ago to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I wonder which of the two has the power. He or the President of the Privy Council? It would seem that he follows the orders of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The minister should keep in mind that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre lives here alone; he has no family, he has nothing and he is satisfied with that. He does not have nine or ten children to look after, to educate, to clothe and to feed. Keep that in mind because he does not set an example for Canada.


An hon. Member:: He is a burden for Canada.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Someone says that, on the contrary, he is a burden for Canada. Fortunately he compensates for this somewhat in another way. He is a very learned man who, I think, is needed in this House, because of his sensible questions. I am convinced that it is important to have people of such calibre in this House, but he is not worth much for reproduction.
Mr. Speaker, the minister said earlier that we might save $600,000. Imagine all this turmoil to save the meager amount of $600,000, when we have just authorized the Department of National Defence to go into debt to the tune of $1 billion. I really say to run into a $1 billion debt and I am satisfied that most people do not know that: it passed unnoticed. We want to save $600,000, and Canadians are saddled with a $1 billion debt for national defence. But for the defence of whom? The defence of what? We have nothing to defend, we are going to defend foreign countries. And now we run into a $1 billion debt for national defence. And if I were to go on this way, I could prove one by one every extravagance made by this Parliament in its expenditures, when it appeals for anti-inflation restrictions. But the government is at the grassroots of inflation through its wasteful expenditures.
But let them not put forward such a ridiculous amendment to make believe that something is done. We, the members of parliament, the people's representatives, have to pay at each election all our election expenses, let alone those used to help the population. Let us sacrifice ourselves! Let us not complain, let us not wonder why we cannot get members I was going to say of high calibre. There are here wonderful members, good workers, but no one with the Public Service with a yearly salary of $40,000 or $42,000 will be interested in becoming a member unless he can be assured of receiving a minimum increase of $3,000 a month or a minister's portfolio. Apart from that, we will not get anybody worth while, and we are going to keep on, with the new ideas that the President of the Privy Council has just put forward, finding it difficult to get serious candidates to come to this House and defend the interests of our fellow citizens.
I hope that the minister is not in fact looking for incompetent members so that he can control them more easily. In conclusion, I hope with all my heart, that this amendment will be lost and I once again ask the President of the Privy Council to simply withdraw his amendment and please everyone.
May 3, 1976

Let us stop this. He is embarrassing his own members, his own ministers, and there is a limit to making fun of members of parliament.
I think this nonsense has lasted long enough Mr. Speaker, and the President of the Privy Council should purely and simply withdraw his amendment.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I think this debate is totally superfluous. This bill should not be before us. I do not suppose any woman giving birth to quintuplets would go through what we went through in setting the salaries of members of parliament with a formula to take care of cost of living increases. We had a fight among members of this House on all sides, and with the press and media: that is where the opposition was.
That having been settled, now we have what I suggest is a totally hypocritical and cosmetic action by the government, through the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The blame lies right there. It is said that members of parliament should forgo the cost of living increase in their salaries. Nothing is said about expenses. Of course nothing is said about expenses, and quite rightly so. The world was not discovered yesterday. We have seen the tribulations of members of parliament on all sides. We have seen good members of parliament driven out of this House because of the financial exigencies of their position.
I agree with the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). Those who speak against increasing salaries of members of parliament who must meet the obligations of their position either have an independent income or sit here in a corner in Ottawa and do not know what the constituency problems are. They do not know what it is to maintain a separate home in a constituency and one in Ottawa, or to maintain an apartment here. They do not know what it is to drive an automobile in a constituency, whether urban or rural. I have an urban constituency. I marvel at my colleagues in this House who represent rural constituencies when I see how they are able to absorb, without loud protest, the cost of moving around in that constituency at today's prices. What about the cost of hotels, the price of meals, the price of gasoline and the cost of automobile repairs? It is only a self-deluded fool who would say that these costs have not gone up. A member of parliament is supposed to absorb those costs out of his salary.
The union official, the teacher, the newspaper reporter, the news editor or anyone else who goes on official travel can deduct the cost as a business expense. They are compensated for the increase in those expenditures. However, the elected official, be he a school board trustee, a municipal councillor, a city alderman, a member of a provincial legislature, or a member of this House, is dismissed. He cannot absorb that cost. What public hypocrisy that represents! That is what I object to. I have been in this House for nearly 20 years and I object to these double standards.
The businessman is entitled to deduct his expenses in the course of business at the level of the expenditures. The union officials, the CLC officials who came to Ottawa the other day, will be able to collect their expenses and be reimbursed on the basis of today's costs. They are able to do it at any time. We have the situation in respect of the
Members' Salaries
teachers and all the officials moving around. Do not think that all the shifting around of the officials we have in respect of labour unrest at the present time does not represent a great expense. Those men and women do not give up one penny from their pockets for that. All along the line in the public service, pensions are escalated to meet cost of living increases. Old age pensions are escalated in order to meet cost of living increases. Veterans pensions are escalated to meet cost of living increases.


An hon. Member:: Escalations were denied in respect of family allowances.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They were denied in respect of family allowances; that is right. But all along the line pensions have been escalated. After that nauseous, hypocritical debate of last year with regard to the salaries of members of parliament, when a negotiated conclusion was reached about the first thing that was done by the government in order to, shall we say, sweeten the pill with regard to denying the vast salary increases to senior public servants who just previously had had a salary increase was to deny this to members of parliament.
This is purely a cosmetic and unwarranted gesture. The elected officials in this country are a small number of people dispersed in every constituency. In a school board district there may be six, eight or ten representatives. In a rural municipality or country there may be a few dozen representatives. In a city there may be from 6 to 20 aider-men. The members of a provincial legislature may total 105 or 110 across the country. We are 264. We are easy game to pick off. How do we react? People come down to this place to observe, and with less than two of three month's experience in how this complicated shop operates they are prepared to levy judgment on individual members and tell this place how it should be run. They do not even know their way to the head, to use a nautical term. If they had been here a couple of years, maybe they would have discovered the way to the head and then they would have decided how to run the bridge. I know I will not make any friends with this speech, and I do not intend to. However, I will say this; if I and the hon. member for Roberval and a few others intend to make ourselves the self-appointed ombudsmen on behalf of elected officials, I am quite prepared to do it because I think there is something fundamental to be said all through our system of government on behalf of the elected people.
I will not go into the various motives of why elected representatives seek office. But having sought office and having been rewarded with the confidence of the people, many hon. members-and I look to the left at my colleagues, all the way down to the NDP and the Creditistes, as well as to the government side-men and women who would have had far greater success in other occupations have given them up. Something that all too often John Public in the street, the reporters, their editors, and, God bless them, their publishers, seem to forget is that until you get into this game there is no way of knowing how your own personal occupation will be affected.
Those full-time parliamentarians who are professional men have seen their practices wiped out because this is a

May 3, 1976
Members' Salaries
full-time job. There are some pooh-bah colonels running around in this country. I use that phrase to express that mentality which prevails in the newspaper offices, magazine offices and among commentators who seem to think that this is a part-time avocation; that having been elected, a member can just retire without loss, senior members of the House can be shunted out without any difficulty, members in the House who do not speak very often are not the best constituency people, and representation in parliament means putting on a show for the two o'clock follies known as the question period. That is the only thing that counts with a great many people, and particularly with the press. Let us consider the constituency. I point out to members on all sides of the House, who rarely speak in the House, who are true representatives of their people and who do their jobs well-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -that this is a complex job, more complex than any man written about, because in this day and age none of our colleagues has developed that disease of instant book and instant comment-we are too busy with other things to do.
I think this bill is an insult to members of parliament. It is an insult to say that we should not increase our salaries by 7 per cent, when everybody else is insisting upon their increase. What sort of chumps do the public think the members of this House are? I have already been asked in my constituency, "What kind of silly fools are you?"


An hon. Member:: Yes, I know you are.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The only thing is that the proposal came from the Prime Minister. That is the point. This is a government bill, and he is the man who announced it. Why? Because there were some senior civil servants whom they want to whip into line. Therefore, they use members of parliament as whipping-boys on the fringe of that line. I know how many members here have spoken to me; I am a member of the members' services committee, if you have been here a long time, you get to hear confidences from members on all sides of the House, and I share their concerns because I think this bill does a total disservice to them. With all due respect to my friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), let me say to hon. members outside the city of Ottawa that the amendment is even worse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will not only ask members of the House to vote against this bill; I will ask the government to adjourn this debate and withdraw the bill. It is unworthy of the House and it should never have seen the light of day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was an aberration in somebody's thinking that they should offer, as sacrificial lambs, members of parliament. Have we seen anything comparable in other legislatures? No, not for a total freeze but for a total wipe-out! Are we going to see anybody voluntarily giving up the cost of living escalation in any

negotiated contract? Will there be senior citizens' organizations, who have as great a stake in fighting inflation as we have, writing in to say that next January the cost of living escalation formula with regard to basic pensions should be waived? Are we going to get the Royal Canadian Legion writing in to say that the war service disability pensions escalation formula should be waived next year? I challenge the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to say whether this should be done. Why should it be done only here? As an example?
Last year the hon. member participated in what I call an undignified public chase by people who did not know the complexities of public life. They did not know what it was like in several provincial legislatures where many of them are trying to catch up. I know that at the provincial level many elected individuals have to expect to live and support their families on their salaries. God only knows, but somebody seems to have forgotten families and our normal aspirations for our children in this day and age. When you get down to city councils you find that the level of remuneration there is far less than any minimum wage, yet the hours are far in excess of any union contract.
Why is one supposed to do that? For the honour and glory of the job? Is one to tell one's wife that she cannot have new drapes and the normal things in a home, and that the children cannot have what their peers or their counterparts have, because there is not any money? Everybody does not have a beautiful, cushy job. There are some people who have to earn their living today out of their own efforts, and we refuse to give them any consideration. I say that this is rank, public hypocrisy of the worst kind.
I want to ask those people who are the chief critics of this place, the publishers, what they have done with regard to their salaries in the past five years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about those editors? What have they done about their salaries? What about everyone in the media, or are we not supposed to criticize the media? Are they the sacred cows? They are people like ourselves. They live, too. They have their problems-but, my goodness, did they cut back? Does it cost me less now than it did five years ago to buy the Globe and Mail? No! I think it costs me 80 per cent more to have that newspaper delivered. I use the Globe and Mail only as an example because it was cited earlier. The Montreal Gazette is another one, as well as the Ottawa Journal and the Edmonton Journal.
Have hon. members looked at their advertising rates and considered what they will have to pay for advertising in those newspapers in the next election campaign? Have hon. members talked to the television stations and asked about their rates? They would say, "Don't be so silly. That is another thing; it is not in the same league". What is good for them is not good for us, but there are still some people who are prepared to pay, shall we say, a tribute to this gesture. I would simply call it brown-nosing, to be very blunt about it.
Mr. Speaker, I speak as one who has occupied the chair formerly. I have been in this House for almost 20 years,
May 3, 1976

and the more I see of it, the more I feel that one of the chief requirements in this country is an ombudsman for elected people, elected members all the way from school boards up to members of parliament. Having said all that, I wish to reiterate what I have said before. All I have said since I started is a preamble to the plea I make, the plea I made at the time of Bill C-44 and on other occasions. That plea is that there must be an independent board, set up by statute and required by statute to report regularly on the level of salaries of members of parliament, judges, senators and senior public servants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because of the exercise we went through last year, and this particular exercise, frankly, I would like to puke because I do not like to talk about this. This is repugnant to us, but sometimes one has to speak out. We do want to have something which is honourable and decent. Let us not have anyone come back with the hokum argument that only members of parliament have the right to set their own salaries and that this is the only place where that is done. Let us consider members of boards of directors. Who sets the salaries of publishers? Who sets the salaries of editors? Boards of directors do, but many of those people sit on those boards. In any company where the principal officers are directors, who sets the salaries but the board of directors? The officers themselves. In any private company, who determines the salary of any of the directors or any of the officers but the owners themselves?


Mrs. Holt:: This is the board of directors of Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is right, and there is no one else. The decision is made right here. But I say to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) that it would be far better for this to come under perpetual review. I do not disagree with hon. members setting the level of salaries, provided some experience, some common sense and some fairness is brought to bear upon the deliberations.
So let us get away from this charge, even if it is artificial, and let us have an independent statutory body which every year or every second year will make a recommendation that the salaries be adjusted. Let us not leave this to cabinet ukase to implement, so that there will be no political consideration. Unless there is a very substantial objection from this House and from the other place, the decision or the recommendation of that review board should be implemented. Then I think an adjustment would be safe from comment.
This bill is unnecessary, and frankly the government would do this House, the other place and the public a great deal of service if it withdrew the bill.


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would entertain a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Most certainly, if I still have time.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the hon. member that of course I find the refusal to adjust
Members' Salaries
members' expenses absolutely unfair, but I would also like to ask the hon. member who made a very nice speech on that subject why the former leader of his party, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), issued two press releases that lead to today's proposed amendment?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will very simply ask the hon. parliamentary secretary why did the Prime Minister make the very first move? I do not accept either.


Monique Bégin: No, it was your leader who started this by failing to abide by the agreement about readjusting members' expenses.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all the hon. member's protests it was indeed the proposition of the Prime Minister that members salaries would be frozen at that level. That was the first proposition, and the most unfair of all.


Monique Bégin: No, he talked about expenses.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some enjoyment to the last two speeches. They were reminiscent of all the speeches which have been made on the occasions when pay for members of parliament was discussed. I thought we had got away from that. We got to the stage of setting up a commission at considerable expense. In fact, we did that twice, and a number of suggestions they put forward finally were enacted in legislation, including such things as an escalation clause attached to the composite wage index. This seems to be a fair and reasonable way of handling the situation. It is much more fair than members having to make decisions periodically. There are some of us who believe that our expenses are detached from our salaries, that they are separate and there is merit in some of those separations.
Mr. Speaker, I very much resent the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went on television and used our salaries and expenses as the basis for eliminating some desirable and some less than desirable programs-LIP, LEAP, CYC, and one that I consider to be very advantageous, the indexing of family allowances. He indicated that he was going to cut down on the civil service. In my opinion that has not been done, and in fact a very poor example has been set in the Prime Minister's own office where a number of people have been added to his staff. The Prime Minister suggested on that telecast that members of parliament were going to help him justify his austerity program and set an example for the country.
I intend to move an amendment to the amendment that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has indicated he will introduce. I think this is the worst kind of legislation we could possibly have, where the government puts up a kite to test whether they can satisfy the public or even members of parliament. They went halfway; they put the freeze on salaries but they did not put it on the pay which included expenses. Now, after nearly six months, they have decided to amend the bill and ask for a recall of the pay that has already been collected on the expenses.

May 3, 1976
Members' Salaries
This is the worst of two worlds, Mr. Speaker, and what the government has done is a disgrace. They have delayed making a decision and putting a bill before this House for almost six months to freeze the salary increase that would have been obtained by the index. They have listened to the public and decided they have to add the expenses to the freeze as well. If they had found the public was not interested, this bill would never have been called but would have been allowed to die on the order paper.
I am sympathetic to some of the remarks that have been made. We have set a standard that can be justified. The index takes into consideration most of the negotiated contracts in other civil service fields. That criteria has been applied to our salary and the cost of living has been used in the expenses. That seems reasonable to me, but it also seems an idle gesture to make the compromise we are making in this bill and to add the amendment that the President of the Treasury Board intends to introduce.
Today we have been informed that Canada will spend a billion dollars to buy a number of outdated aircraft which are not suitable for the job they are intended for. No one in a responsible position has indicated that they can justify the role played by the Argus aircraft which they are to replace. I think the government's position is similar to that of Mayor Drapeau: when that billion dollars is multiplied over the years, it will probably amount to about $3 billion. The amount of money involved annually for the expense allowances of members of parliament is approximately $185,000. I think the government should not be allowed to pass this kind of restrictive legislation after they have tested the wind.
should elect a provincial member who was a school teacher. I had said that we probably could not find anybody less intelligent, because as a school teacher earning the kind of wages he did, for him to want to run for elected office and get less money than he was getting would not be too bright.
Talking to him, I was surprised to learn that he must meet expenses to which I have been accustomed for many years. He cannot charge them against income, against income tax, and cannot obtain the sort of relief available to other people who in their type of work charge expenses against income. Perhaps members who have no young children should sympathize with those who have. Most members of parliament are willing to make this gesture. But I should hate it to be a political gesture made only to satisfy the Prime Minister. Also, I distrust any amendment which includes a member's expenses with the rest of his income. The government is doing it this way because otherwise it could not sell the idea. But this is a shoddy way of going about it. I am not proud of the government and I am not proud of the way members of parliament have gone about this business.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
The easiest way to bring this matter to the attention of the House is to amend the amendment that will be introduced by the President of the Treasury Board and to make the operative date the date of the passing of this bill. I believe we should make this gesture, Mr. Speaker, because members of parliament should have been consulted. This House should have decided how the country could be persuaded to make the changes that are necessary to alleviate inflation. But we were not consulted. If the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) had listened to the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when this matter first came up, he would have realized that only a partial gesture was being made and he would not have added the $700 increase that members were expecting on their expenses.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, nor on the President of the Privy Council newly married though he be the ten children that were mentioned by a previous member. Such a family would be difficult to raise on their salary. Many of us in this House who have no small children now forget about the responsability of raising a family. Recently I was talking to the provincial member of the legislature just elected in my area who had an new son a few months ago. His salary is about the same as ours, but he indicated that it is $4,000 or $5,000 less that he received for teaching school. He remarked on the statement I had made to a newspaperman who had asked me why I thought we


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members. The House divided on the motion (Mr. Chretien) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 131)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander
Allmand
Andras
(Port Arthur)
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Gander-T willingate) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton) Baldwin Balfour Basford Bechard Begin (Miss)
Blouin
Breau
Brewin
Buchanan
Bussi6res
Cafik
Campbell
(LaSalle- Emard-Cote
Saint-Paul)
Caron
Chretien
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Clermont Collcnette Condon Crouse Cyr Darling Demers Dinsdale Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Drury
Duclos
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Flynn
Forrestall
Foster
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gillespie
Goodale
Goyer

May 3, 1976

The Territories


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Grafftey	Messrs. Lefebvre	NielsenGuay	Lumley	Oberle(St. Boniface)	MacDonald	O'ConnellHamilton	(Cardigan)	Ouellet(Swift Current-	MacDonald	PaproskiMaple Creek)	(Egmont)	PelletierHargrave	Macdonald	PetersHarquail	(Rosedale)	PhilbrookHerbert	MacDonald (Miss)	PoulinHnatyshyn	(Kingston and the	RailtonHogan	Islands)	ReidHolmes	MacFarlane	RitchieHolt (Mrs.)	MacGuigan	RoyHopkins	Mackasey	(Laval)Howie	MacLean	SaltsmanHurlburt	Maine	Sauve (Mrs.)Isabelle	Malone	SchumacherJamieson	Marchand	SharpJarvis	(Langelier)	SmithJoyal	Marchand	(Churchill)Kaplan	(Kamloops-Cariboo)	SmithKnowles	Marshall	(Saint-Jean)(Winnipeg	McCain	StanburyNorth Centre)	Mclsaac	StanfieldLajoie	McKinley	StewartLapointe	McKinnon	(Marquette)La Salle	McRae	TessierLavoie	Mitges	TowersLeblanc	Munro	Trudeau(Laurier)	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	TrudelLeBlanc	Munro	Watson(Westmorland-Kent)	(Hamilton East)	WhelanLee	Nicholson (Miss)	WiseAllard	NAYS Messrs. Gauthier	Woolliams-125 LambertCaouette	(Roberval)	(Edmonton West)(Villeneuve)	Rooney-5
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-National Defence-Request for details of planning for improved surveillance, search and rescue in view of possible extension of jurisdiction to 200 miles; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport-Possible abandonment of rail service in Prince Edward Island- Government action to avoid crisis.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made on Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Stanfield:-
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately introduce legislation to implement the resolutions of the Yukon Territorial Council and the Northwest Territorial Council requesting that the government apply those principles of constitutional and democratic development that will establish a fully representative and responsible system of government to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories respectively.
Mr. Speaker:: Is there an agreement or understanding about the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)?


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken with the government House leader but on February 3, 1975, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) proposed an amendment which is to be found at page 2855 of Hansard for that date. At that time the Acting Speaker reserved his ruling on whether or not that amendment would be acceptable.
In order to provide an opportunity for the Chair to consider that amendment, and in order for us to have ample consideration of the motion with the inclusion of the amendment, in private members' hour I would hope the House would consent to putting this motion over until tomorrow during private members' hour at which time the Chair could rule on the amendment of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and we could proceed with the consideration of the motion, thus having a full hour's debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The immediate difficulty with that is that tomorrow is an opposition day. I take it the intention is that it be on the next appointed day.
The House has heard the terms suggested by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Is it agreed that the motion which would ordinarily be called at this time will be put over and will retain its priority until the next appointed private members' hour, and in the interim the Chair will prepare whatever ruling was anticipated. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.

May 3, 1976
Capital Punishment


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


William Warren 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on opening the debate on Bill C-84 I am sure all of us are aware that we are beginning the latest instalment of a very old debate. Hon. members who have been here for ten years, as I have, will be participating in their fourth full-scale debate on capital punishment.
I am hoping that the House leaders will be able to work out a formal agreement among all parties that speakers will be limited to 20 minutes. I had prepared a much longer and more detailed speech, going into each of my arguments in some depth. However, in order to stay within 20 minutes I have cut the length of my speech so that we may use the time of the House in the most efficient way possible. The full text of my original speech will, however, be made available to hon. members and others, and I hope it will be read with some attention.
If in speaking today I convince some hon. members-and I am especially thinking of the almost 60 members who have not participated in a debate on this subject before- that we must look at this matter from a new perspective, then I will have done much to get this debate off to a good start.
I am convinced that if we attack this question objectively, then we must, from a logical, ethical and public policy point of view, conclude that capital punishment must be abolished once and for all.
In my view there are two central themes and two general lines of argument which embrace all of the secondary questions which must be answered in this debate. The first central theme concerns the issue of deterrence or, more broadly put, the question of how we can effectively protect the Canadian public against violent crime, in this case, murder. It is a discussion of the means to accomplish the end, which is protection.
I should like to go through the argument with regard to deterrence and protection step by step because in my view an examination of the evidence must lead us to the conclusion that capital punishment is no more effective a means of protecting society than other alternative less severe and less error prone means.
The second general line of argument concerns goals. While it is often said that arguments concerning means and arguments concerning ends or values are wholly distinct kinds of arguments, I feel that each has something to

add to the other. I am convinced that many of those debating the question of capital punishment focus too narrowly, and for that reason misconstrue the nature of our task in this debate.
There is no doubt that those opposing the abolition of capital punishment will cite statistics to show that the reported murder rate in Canada has climbed since the last executions were carried out in 1962 from 1.2 murders per 100,000 population to 2.4 murders per 100,000 population in 1974. This is a legitimate statistic to cite, but the conclusion drawn from it is often based on such a narrow view of the problem we are confronted with as to make that conclusion suspect.
Those citing the increase in the murder rate and concluding that the lack of executions in Canada since 1962 explains the increase in murders delude themselves and those who listen to them. I say this because this argument utterly ignores the dimensions of the problem of violent crime. This lack of perspective, and this facile assignment of cause and effect relationship between the lack of executions as cause and the rise in the murder rate as effect are a principal stumbling block to an intelligent and informed public discussion of the real problem.
I can demonstrate to hon. members that the real problem we must deal with is not simply one of murder here in Canada but that of crime throughout the western world. In my original text I give statistics and arguments to support that demonstration. I do not, I hasten to add, point this out with a view to sloughing off responsibility or minimizing the horror of murder. Far from it. I do so only in order to point out that we must address ourselves to the right questions and that a simple concentration on capital punishment and murder takes much too restricted a view of the questions about which Canadians are concerned.
Concentration on the issue of capital punishment does not serve us well if our purpose is, as it should be, the finding of truly effective means of protecting the public against violent crime. Such a concentration serves instead to distract our efforts, as was pointed out by Sir Robert Mark, a 38-year veteran and present commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, better known as Scotland Yard. This distinguished spokesman for the police community in Great Britain, in addressing the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in Canada last summer made precisely this point. He said:
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.
In presenting the peace and security program the government is focusing on these real problems and this focus aims at including only effective measures to protect the public and excluding ineffective measures. That is why we are now debating this bill to abolish capital punishment.
Having said this, I should like once more to come back to the two principal questions I set out a few moments ago on the specific question of capital punishment: the question of whether capital punishment is an effective means to the end of protecting the public, and the question of whether
May 3, 1976

the use of capital punishment is in keeping with the end or values which we as a society embrace.
The question of means boils down in essence to a question of effectiveness. The essential question is not whether the death penalty deters any would be murderers but whether it deters them more than life imprisonment does. As Professor James Q. Wilson of Harvard puts this issue:
It is a matter of dispute whether any penalty will have a deterrent effect on murderers, but surely the prospect of a long prison term will have as much as most others. For the death penalty to be warranted, it would have to supply an additional increment of deterrence sufficient to offset the costs of imposing it, those costs being the risk of executing an innocent man, the opportunities for discrimination in imposing the penalty, and the foregone possibility of rehabilitating the murderer. Fairness would always be a problem .. . because, though imposition of the death penalty could be made mandatory, juries in such cases might be unwilling to convict at all for fear of convicting wrongly.
If this is the question, Mr. Speaker, what is the answer? From all the studies that have been done, both here in Canada and in other nations, one cannot draw the conclusion that the prospect of capital punishment is a more effective deterrent to prospective murderers than is the prospect of life imprisonment. Hon. members need not take my word for it. Let me refer to other authors more expert in the field than I am whose conclusions, I think, hon. members should listen to with close attention.
If I had time this evening I would cite at some length the conclusions of Professor Thorsten Sellin who showed that capital punishment has no unique effect as between abolitionist and retentionist states over time, and as it especially affected the safety of policemen and prison guards. For a fuller examination of these points I would refer hon. members to the speech I gave on capital punishment three years ago and again to the original text of the speech I was to give here tonight.
Professor Sellin's findings were also supported by many other researchers. This evening I will cite only one of them who carried out research on the subject of deterrents in the Canadian context.
Professor Fattah's findings played an important role in the last debate on this subject and are worth referring to again by those who have not read them recently. The conclusion of the study on the deterrent effects of capital punishment in the Canadian context is that homicide rates are conditional on factors other than the death penalty. They suggest that the cause of homicide and murder cannot be found in any single factor but in a total social situation in which a specially important or particular punishment can have little or no effect. Professor Fattah concluded that:
The suspension (of the death penalty) is unlikely to have played a part in the ... light increase in the homicide rate in recent years ...
These conclusions of three years ago are equally supportable now, on the basis of later data. In 1973 as compared to 1972 the murder rate in Montreal and Vancouver fell and the murder rate in Toronto rose. The 1974 figures as compared to 1973 show a reversal of this: that is, the murder rate in Montreal and Vancouver rose, while that in Toronto fell. In 1974 as compared to 1973 the murder rate in Canada dropped in four provinces and rose in all the others.
Since the same law, with the same penalty, is in effect in all parts of Canada, then clearly the variation in rates of crime cannot be explained solely by that sanction. Other
Capital Punishment
factors are at work, and if we are to do anything effective about violent crime then we must focus on those other factors rather than on the illusionary effect of the statute and the penalty itself.
While I am on this topic I should like to address the question raised by the findings of the Econometric School of Deterrence and, specifically, the findings of Professor Ehrlich of the University of Chicago. In a widely cited article Professor Ehrlich's sophisticated statistical studies are purported to show that each additional execution would have resulted in seven or eight fewer murders. Because the results of Professor Ehrlich's analysis differ markedly from the results of previous research on this question, his work has naturally been very closely examined by a large number of scholars representing a variety of academic disciplines.
Robert G. Hann, in a detailed analysis of the Ehrlich study and the follow-up studies resulting from it, stresses the finding of Professor Friedman of Berkeley University, whose examination of Ehrlich's work led him to the startling conclusion that if an algebraic error committed by Ehrlich himself were corrected and if the other aspects of his work were valid, then Ehrlich's own analysis would imply that each execution is related to an increase of 14 murders, rather than a decrease of seven or eight. I cite these studies because it is important to recognize that those who would cite Professor Ehrlich without at the same time citing those who feel his study is fatally flawed by methodological and statistical errors are treading on very shaky ground.
What is it possible to conclude from all of these studies on the deterrent effect of capital punishment? It is my contention that if no irrefutable evidence can be brought forward that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent to the commission of murder than is a lengthy sentence, then we must conclude that a lengthy sentence is preferable, and that the burden of proof to conclude otherwise rests with those favouring the death penalty.


An hon. Member:: Why?


William Warren Allmand: Because you are taking life when you propose the death penalty. The burden of proof is on those who propose retention of the death penalty. They must show that retention does some good in society and has positive effect. Furthermore, I do not think retentionists can logically or ethically discharge that burden of proof.
But in saying this I am moving into the second question of major importance, the question of whether the death penalty can be supported by moral arguments, which is to say, by arguments setting out to show that capital punishment is the only adequate punishment to express society's outrage against the murderer. On the one side of this question are the many Canadians who would reject the death penalty even if it could be proven to have a significant effect in furthering the end of protecting Canadian society against murder and other violent crime. One of the most moving statements of this nature I have ever heard was written by Mrs. Pauline Maitland whose husband, Constable Leslie Maitland, was murdered in Toronto by a

May 3, 1976
Capital Punishment
man who currently awaits our decision on death row. Mrs. Maitland wrote as follows:
In no way do I wish to interfere with the course of justice and the safety of an already overworked police department, but the killing of this man would be completely foreign to all the moral standards of both my late husband and myself ... It would not bring Leslie back and it is too easy a way out for all of us. Society condemns murder, but is willing to accept the murder of this man, in the name of justice. Please do what you can to prevent this terrible second crime, before it is too late.
On the other side of this question are those who believe that it is a dishonour to the victim of murder to do other than put to death his murderer, quite aside from the possible deterrent effect on others.
There is little that argument can do to affect those who hold either absolute view. But, despite this, I do think it is reasonable to say that the vast majority of Canadians hold views on the question of the suitability of capital punishment in our society that are amenable to factual and reasoned argument, and are not based on either absolutist moral position. It is these people I am addressing this evening.
To begin with, then, let us try to define the argument that capital punishment is the only "just" or "fitting" penalty for murder a little more closely. Clearly those who call for the reinstatement of capital punishment in order adequately to satisfy society's justified condemnation of the murderer are not setting up the death penalty itself as a goal or a value for society. I am sure that those who argue this position take it up because they see capital punishment as a justified reaction, not as an end in itself. But if it is not an end in itself, what then is it? Clearly, then, it is a means to another end, and that other end is the effective protection of society and the righteous expression of society's outrage against those who violate the ultimate value of the right to live peaceful and safe lives. But just as clearly the moral discussion on this point must then centre around the question of whether capital punishment is in fact just and fair both in theory and in application.
This is a complex argument, and because of time restrictions I must leave out some parts which are included in my original text. In the first place there is a great deal of evidence that, if justice requires fairness in application, then application of capital punishment in the past has not been just, because it has been applied disproportionately to those who are poor, unrepresented, and members of minority groups. This is a fact that is well established and does not merely refer to the contentious issue of execution in error alone.
Second, the sanction of death cannot be considered merely a quantitative extension of other sanctions in our criminal law. It is qualitatively, fundamentally, irretrievably different in kind and, as such, we as policy makers and as citizens bear an especially heavy burden to show that the special disadvantages which accompany the use of capital punishment outweigh the need to demonstrate society's outrage against murderers by other, less severe means.
What are some of these special disadvantages which accompany the use of the death penalty? I have very briefly referred to the irreversibility of the act of execution, which sets the death penalty in a separate category apart from all other penalties. I have also referred briefly to the possibility of execution in error, and to the inevita-

bility-according to Professor Charles Black of the Yale Law School-of execution as a result of the application of capricious, arbitrary, and therefore discriminatory standards. Another argument frequently brought up in this connection is that juries are more reluctant to convict when the life of the defendant is at stake than when the penalty is one of fine or imprisonment. Do we have evidence to support this contention? The answer in Canada is yes, we do.
In the eight decades between 1880 and 1960 the average yearly conviction rate in Canada for murder was 37.7 per cent, whereas for manslaughter it was 49.7 per cent, for attempted murder 51.6 per cent, for shooting and wounding 64.6 per cent. A study of these figures, and of the figures between 1961 and 1974 showing that three out of five of those charged with capital murder were convicted of a lesser offence, makes it possible to infer that Canadian jurors are loath to convict for capital murder, but are quite prepared to convict for a lesser offence where life is not at stake.
From another point of view Professor Wilson takes note of the interesting fact that:
In Great Britain, where judges had less discretion in imposing the death penalty than they do in the United States, the number of murderers found insane-and so spared the gallows-dropped sharply after the death penalty was abolished in 1965. It is hard to believe that there were fewer insane persons in Britain after abolition of the death penalty; what apparently happened was that the authorities no longer felt that it was necessary to protect the accused from penalties when the penalty was no longer death.
There is one final set of facts which I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members in order to allow them to weigh more adequately the wisdom of approving the death penalty as a justifiable penalty for murder. A recent article by Daniel Glaser and Max Zeigler showed that those who would have us indulge in the violence of state-sanctioned executions would do so only at the cost of engendering more violence-more murder-in our society. Glaser and Zeigler wrote:
Demands that capital punishment be restored are raised whenever the public is outraged at a particularly heinous and highly publicized killing, but the geographic facts presented here suggest that this 'gut response' is counter-productive as a means of reducing the prevalence of murder. The evidence shows that where use of the death penalty is most frequent there is less long-run outrage against killers than prevails in states that forbid murder, whether by private parties or by the government. The alternatives to violence are, in addition to a respect for the sacredness of life, the many civilized procedures and practices of analysing, negotiating, legally adjudicating, or simply tolerating disagreements. All of these alternatives are impaired or impeded rather than nurtured when the government resorts to the murderer's methods.
If this conclusion is correct, that the carrying out of executions by the state not only does not prevent murders but actually may serve to create or maintain a climate where more murders and more violence exists, then the argument that the death penalty is a just and fitting punishment in our society in order to show our outrage against murder must be seen to be empty and dangerous rhetoric.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say a few words to those who might be inclined to oppose this bill on the grounds that it is not a perfect piece of legislation, or on the grounds that the alternative suggested in
May 3, 1976

the bill is not precisely the alternative they would like to see.
First, I am not arguing that this bill is perfect, or that in proposing this bill we are offering a guarantee that there will be no more murders in Canada. To those who have doubts about this bill because they think that abolition is right but the proposed alternative is not, I would sound a note of caution. The Canadian public are concerned about crime and have a right to expect protection. Murder is a horrible and heinous crime and must be sanctioned severely if we are adequately to express society's denunciation of the murderer.
I disagree with those who argue that a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years is worse than death. A period of incarceration, with hope of parole, and with the built-in additional incentive for the inmate, and protection for the guards, of a review of that parole eligibility after 15 years is necessarily better than a sentence of death because it removes the possibility of an irreversible error of execution.
Second, available studies, including those carried out by Joseph Vernet, S.J., provide no evidence that life imprisonment is as cruel or more cruel than is execution. His survey of European countries which have abolished the death penalty in order to ascertain whether this abolition gave rise to more cases of insanity, premature death, suicide, escape attempts, and frequent punishment among those sentenced to lengthy periods of incarceration, provided no evidence to support this proposition.
Furthermore, the government has committed itself as part of the peace and security package to improving general conditions within institutions through such measures as greater flexibility of institutional assignment in smaller and more specialized institutional centres, greater efforts toward staff training and improved deployment of staff resources in such programs as the team concept and living unit concept, new programs for training and work assignments for inmates, the completion of the five regional psychiatric centres, and a great deal of research to identify the effects of long-term incarceration and other related factors.
Some hon. members might cite their constituents as saying this sort of program costs too much and that the taxpayers do not want to bear the burden of paying approximately $14,000 per year per capital murderer over the term of a long sentence. To those who are unwilling to pay the costs of incarcerating these people and who wish to save money by carrying out executions, I would like to say the following in reply.
First, I am certain that no hon. member would agree that human life should be expended because of potential monetary savings alone. That is a principle which I am sure no serious person would argue.
Second, the whole argument is based upon a fallacy. If we were to execute the 11 people currently on death row we would not be saving $14,000 a year for each of those inmates for each year he is kept in prison. This is because the cost of maintaining the inmate is arrived at by dividing the total number of inmates into the total cost of running our institutions, and the marginal difference of eliminating 11 inmates would be so miniscule as to make practical-
Capital Punishment
ly no difference whatsoever in the over-all cost of running our system.
One recent estimate of the marginal cost of keeping one more inmate in our federal penitentiaries worked out the additional cost for food, clothing, sanitary supplies and daily wages at just over $3.50 per day. This marginal cost may even be less than the special costs of trying, appealing, detaining under special guard and executing those found guilty of capital murder, as was suggested before the United States Senate committee on the death penalty and by such authorities as the late Governor Winthrop Rockefeller of Arkansas and former Governor Pat Brown of California.
I have argued today that there are two major themes of debate on the subject of capital punishment: the first is an argument over means, the second over values. I have examined briefly each of the attendant arguments on these two major themes and would refer hon. members to my full text for a more detailed examination of the arguments involved.
As a result of these arguments I am convinced that hon. members will see that the retention of capital punishment is not only ineffective but that it may actually be counter productive to the goal of protecting the Canadian public against murder.
When we examine the question objectively, and when we study the evidence closely, logically, and with an open mind, then the conclusion we must reach, if we are to discharge our responsibility to the Canadian people as legislators of sound and effective laws, is that capital punishment must be abolished in Canada now, and that this bill should be passed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that in the four times that I have participated in the debate in connection with the abolition of capital punishment, back to the time of Prime Minister Diefenbaker up to this evening's commencement, that I too, as I am sure all hon. members do, have approached the matter with a logical and open mind, even though my views differ with those of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). I only hope that all members do not follow his example, and I say this without intending to be offensive to him-in attempting to be short, don't overshoot by ten or 15 minutes. My speech is going to be brief, as my speeches usually are in this House.
I am a retentionist and will be voting against the bill. I want to make clear at the outset that I, as with other members of this party, will be speaking for myself. All members in this party who will be participating in this debate will be speaking their own minds and will be voting as they see fit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I dare say there will be members opposite telling us that since this is a free vote the same will be the case with respect to members on their side also. Mr. Speaker, I am a cynic and I don't believe that, although I am prepared, as is customary in this place, to accept any hon. member's word to the contrary. I cannot see all those ambitious members sitting on the back benches over there

May 3, 1976
Capital Punishment
going against the cabinet, and the cabinet in this case is 100 per cent behind the Solicitor General in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.


William Warren Allmand: What about your leader?


Erik Nielsen: The Solicitor General asks: what about your leader? I can tell him that this party is, as it were, split when it comes to the support or non-support of the bill before us.


An hon. Member:: So are we.


Erik Nielsen: Members over there say "So are we", but I cannot accept that.


Mitchell William Sharp: We accept your view. You accept ours.


Erik Nielsen: When I see that the cabinet is absolutely solid on the question I cannot imagine the mass of those backbenchers over there-and they are all ambitious people-going against the will of the cabinet.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: A lot of bull.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Marchand) says it is a lot of bull. It is not a lot of bull.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why not get down to your argument?


Erik Nielsen: I am merely making the point that there will not be the kind of free expression of opinion from the benches opposite that we have been led to believe, just as there was not the last time we discussed this matter. It is just not going to happen.


William Warren Allmand: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, right now the hon. member is questioning the motives of members who voted in the last debate on capital punishment and he is questioning the motives which will lead them to vote on this particular bill. I do not think that is right. I believe members in all parties will vote in such a way as to give free expression of their views on the issue. I do not think it is proper for the hon. member to question why people will vote one way or the other.


An hon. Member:: What about the cabinet?


Mitchell William Sharp: They have consciences, the same as you have.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister will agree that it is very difficult for the Chair to prevent an hon. member from passing a judgment as to the reasons for which members are going to vote. I hope the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will soon come to the subject matter of the bill. I do not think that reflections which are of a general nature can be forbidden. I believe the hon. member was referring to the procedures surrounding this debate, and in my view he should be allowed to do so.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me make this perfectly clear. I am not attempting to cast a reflection on the vote of any particular member, because that would be offensive to our rules; I am simply making a few observations with respect to the approach taken toward the free-vote aspect of this debate. To put it very simply, there is

not going to be the kind of free vote over there as will be the case on this side of the House.


Mr. Lee:: You will see that this vote is free.


Simma Holt: This vote is free. I will be voting free on this.


Erik Nielsen: I have no doubt that that one particular vote is going to be free; none at all.
The Solicitor General will, I am sure, review the statistics, as no doubt other members intend to do. In my opinion that is a useless basis for argument. I do not think any more can be said than has been said in the three previous debates on this subject. Nonetheless I do not endorse the point of view expressed in one of the newspaper editorials tonight-I believe it was in the Ottawa Citizen-that closure should be imposed; that was the course this newspaper advocated on the ground that everything has been said which could possibly be said and therefore we should vote and get on with it. I happen to agree with the latter part of the suggestion, but I also believe members should have an opportunity to speak. However, those speeches, I believe, should be brief so that we need not be here until mid-July or mid-August.
No doubt those responsible for government strategy had the vacation in mind when they put the bill before us at this time. Speeches should be kept brief for that simple reason.
One can use the statistics the Solicitor General has exposed tonight to support an argument either for or against the retention of capital punishment. I do not intend to deal with those statistics but I am going to maintain that the death penalty is a deterrent. Obviously the government does not share that view, although I am sure the vast majority of the people of Canada do share it. The most recent polls certainly seem to support that contention.
I certainly do not put down the vast majority of Canadian public opinion as the Solicitor General attempted to do tonight, by inference if not directly, as being illogical or ill-reasoned, or opinion which is the product of closed minds. Simply because our opinion does not agree with his does not mean it is illogical, it does not mean that it has been reached with a closed mind, or that it has been formed by bias or prejudice on one side.


William Warren Allmand: I did not even mention public opinion in my remarks.


Erik Nielsen: I will accept that statement, but the hon. gentleman did generalize by referring to "those on the other side of the argument", which includes that segment of the public which holds differing views.
My belief that the death penalty is a deterrent has its roots in my early experience in the Armed Forces. There are not too many of us left in this House who served in World War II. And there are not many of us, if any, who were not scared proverbially every time we came face to face with situations in that war which might cause death. In my activities, as someone required to fly over enemy territory and shoot and drop bombs and so on, there was never a moment when death was not a constant companion or when I was not frightened of meeting the spectre of death. I maintain that every one of us, or at least every
May 3, 1976

normal one of us-I do not know how many that eliminates on the other side-would react in the same way.
There is not one normal human being on the face of the earth who does not fear death. I do not believe this can be gainsaid. One is therefore led to the conclusion, probably over-simplistic, that death must be a deterrent. No one is going to attempt to cross the tracks at a subway station if he sees a train is coming. No one is going to open the door of an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet if he believes that by so doing he is bound to fall out. No one would do a rash, foolish act if they thought death would result.
It may be that because medicine and law stand widely apart these days the provisions of the Criminal Code do not adequately provide for the treatment of those who commit murder, of those who are not absolutely normal. I am speaking of the legal definition of insanity and the medical definition of insanity. Perhaps they should be brought closer together, but that is another matter. However, it seems to me there are a large number of murders committed by persons who, even medical science would agree, are normal but for the commission of the crime of murder on their part. To them I say the death penalty is a deterrent.
I know the government does not believe this for a number of reasons, one being its recent rejection of the bill of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) respecting the carrying of firearms. The right hon. gentleman by his bill, which is on the order paper, wants a mandatory five year term imposed on any person caught with a firearm in his possession during the commission of a criminal offence. I say that is a deterrent. Before individuals commit a crime with a firearm in their possession I suggest they will think twice, knowing that if they are caught they will serve an additional five years in prison on conviction, quite apart from the sentence imposed on them for committing the actual crime.
It may be over-simplistic, Mr. Speaker, but I also believe that people will think twice about committing murder if they know that on conviction the death penalty awaits them. That is the conclusion I have reached, and I have not been swayed otherwise by the last debate on capital punishment or the two previous debates through which I have sat and listened to all the statistics and arguments pro and con.
The Solicitor General says that an examination of the evidence-and I am sure he has read volumes of it-reveals that capital punishment is no more effective than other means in deterring crime. One can cite the same statistics and adopt the same philosophy for saying that an examination of the evidence reveals there is no other more effective method of deterring murder than capital punishment. You can go around in an ever-repetitive circle in the statistical argument.
I believe my argument may be best summed up for the most part by a letter that I received very recently in the mail, as did all hon. members, from a Vancouver solicitor in connection with the recent murder there of Doreen Garbutt. He writes as of April 7 last:
At this most important time in the parliamentary debate concerning amendment to the criminal law and, seemingly incidentally, concerning
Capital Punishment
capital punishment, I thought you might wish to consider the recent murder of Doreen Garbutt in Vancouver.
Doreen had risen to be office manager in a local company and was indeed a very charming, intelligent, hardworking woman who participated actively in voluntary community affairs. My wife and I considered her to be a most delightful friend as did the hundreds of others who attended her funeral.
One day, a few weeks ago, a former employee of Doreen's employer, who had been fired and who had threatened the employer, brought a rifle-
In my own parenthesis I say not a "handgun".
-into Doreen's office and killed her instantly in her chair. So much for a meaningful, worthwhile 35 year old; death instantly, at the hands of a man who then said; "that's my kind of justice".
This murderer will receive all the protection and help that our law has provided. He will be treated politely, will be well fed, well housed, given psychiatric examination and help, should he need it, and will be provided with competent counsel. He may then be convicted and jailed after which he will probably be paroled.
Even with our law as it is, this murderer could never be executed. Even with our law as it is, no murderer is executed in Canada because our federal cabinet abuses at least the intent of the law and commutes every sentence of death. The cabinet does not follow the law-it willfully disregards the law and for individual, personal reasons, collectively applied, it refuses execution for all convicted murderers.
Again I say in parenthesis, as it has been doing for the last seven to nine years.
And so it is that a bill is now before parliament which is not a "free" vote with respect to capital punishment because the issue of capital punishment is protectively cloaked in deliberate confusion by that same cabinet which ignores the law today.
I do not wish to make Doreen Garbutt a martyr to any cause, I do not believe she would wish to be. I do wish to point out that any person who has killed any other and who has been given the protection of the police and judicial systems which Canadians previously enjoyed and who is then determined sane and then on final court appeal, found guilty of that killing, has received every reasonable human and humane consideration.
It is my opinion that the convicted killer should then be put to death. I do not approve of hanging because I believe it to be unnecessarily cruel-the least cruel, least sensational, method of all should be used.
You may, or may not, agree with my opinion but at least I can speak freely. You, as a representative of your constituents, do not have the freedom I have because the bill ties your hands. It has been seen fit to present a bill to you which refuses you the "free" vote promised.
I urge you to defeat the bill presently before you and require the government to provide you with an opportunity for a truly "free" vote on capital punishment. At that same time, by additional legislation, the permissiveness now so evident in our criminal law could be restrained.
I might close on that note, Mr. Speaker. How does the cabinet, let alone the Solicitor General, expect me to lend credibility to his argument when he and his colleagues in cabinet have for so many years been willfully disregarding the law which they themselves presented to parliament and provided the majority for its passage?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: It is indicative of the malaise which pervades this cabinet not only with respect to its approach to this debate but-


William Warren Allmand: That is not true.


Erik Nielsen: The Solicitor General says that is not true, but its actions speak louder than its words. Not one killer of a prison guard or policeman has been executed since the first law was passed in 1963.


William Warren Allmand: All in accordance with the law.

May 3, 1976
Capital Punishment


Erik Nielsen: I do not argue for a moment that those commutations have not been within the law, but what the cabinet has been doing is abusing the prerogative which lies in its hands to commute sentences which the members of the ministers own party in this parliament decided should be applied to the murderers of prison guards and policemen.


William Warren Allmand: Only five since 1968.


Erik Nielsen: They quote statistics. If I could be heard, Sir, may I say that the number does not make a particle of difference. What is important is what the cabinet is doing. It is evident from the fact of the public statement the Solicitor General has made that there will not be an execution while he is Solicitor General.


William Warren Allmand: I never said that.


Erik Nielsen: I do not think-


William Warren Allmand: If you want to hang somebody, get somebody else to do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for the Yukon should be heard.


Erik Nielsen: Again in response to the rather emotional outburst by the Solicitor General may I say I do not wish to provoke him. Even less do I want to provoke the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I certainly do not want to become involved in that kind of situation.
We are not arguing in this debate the question of hanging or not hanging. We are arguing whether or not there are justifiable reasons for the maintenance of the death penalty. Let us not colour it with the method of achieving that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you ashamed of the means?


Erik Nielsen: In case the hon. member did not hear me, I believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. It is that simple. Because of that I am not ashamed of voting in favour of the death penalty in cases of the deliberate murder of individuals, the premeditated deliberate murder of individuals. I am not ashamed at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member holds the opposite view, I respect absolutely that view. I do not wish to become involved in an emotional partisan split here in this debate. However, there are those of us who believe the death penalty should be retained, just as there are others who believe, just as deeply and just as sincerely, that it should be abolished. I am simply stating the reasons why I believe it should be retained.
I believe the death penalty is a deterrent. I have no knowledge to believe it is not. It seems logical to me that, since every human being has a fear of death, if this is on the law books it will make a person think twice before planning to kill someone deliberately. The statistics really are not convincing to me. They can be used either way.

Having said, and having promised the House, that I would be brief, I shall resume my seat after once again emphasizing the fact that those who follow me in this debate from this party will be speaking from the depths of their convictions on a personal basis and not on a party basis. That is the way the vote will go over here. I would hope there will be a change on the opposite side from the previous situation. I would hope hon. members opposite will swallow their ambition and vote from their beliefs at this one time and freely express their opinions.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I share one thing with the last speaker, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). This is the fourth debate in which I have participated on this subject of capital punishment. Having agreed with him that far, may I say I agree with very little else he said.
There is, of course, a danger of repetition. It is reasonable also to anticipate that in a matter of such emotional content it will be difficult to imagine that the attitudes of members will be much changed by the speeches made in this House. Nevertheless it is one of the most solemn obligations we have as members of parliament to deal with this issue as wisely as we know how.
In my party we agreed with the view that the subject matter, being clearly one of principle, members should be permitted to vote freely according to their consciences. It is nevertheless a fact that a common approach among the members of my party has brought all members of our party to the same view, namely, that we should vote for the bill and in favour of ending capital punishment.
In this debate I shall be speaking for myself, and other members of my party will be speaking for themselves. We understand why there are so many in society who believe that capital punishment is a necessary protection for human life and who believe, however unpalatable it may be, that the state should deliberately take the lives of individuals, and that this must be done in order to protect society. If we believed that society could be so protected we would have to support capital punishment; but after the closest and most careful study we are satisfied that capital punishment does not discourage crime nor is it the most effective deterrent. If it is not an effective deterrent, there is no excuse for it.
We reject the view that the state should impose capital punishment to satisfy public demand for vengeance. It is perfectly true that the death penalty may deter some. It is equally clear that life imprisonment may deter some. The facts on record are beyond dispute that on balance the death penalty does not perform the function its supporters claim.
A British royal commission on capital punishment noted that a study from many countries showed there was no definite evidence that the abolition of capital punishment led to an increase in the murder rate. Studies have been made in neighbouring states of the United States of a somewhat similar nature. Some of these states had abolished capital punishment and some had not. Similar studies were made of states and provinces in Australia. A study was made in two adjoining provinces, one of which had abolished capital punishment and the other which had not. All these studies indicated that the rise and fall of the
May 3, 1976

murder rate were just about the same in the states which had abolished capital punishment as in those which had not. So the death penalty was not a determining factor.
Two eminent penologists, Barnes and Teeters, in the book "New Horizons in Criminology", state:
History reveals the most varied and numerous proofs-
I underline the word "proofs".
-that there is no correlation between the severity of the criminal code and the infrequency of crime. The statistics which we have available show that there is no ground whatever for holding that the murder rate increases when the death penalty is abolished.
Canadian studies have produced precisely the same conclusion.
The chairman of the British commission, Sir Ernest Gowers, was originally a supporter of capital punishment, but after presiding over the commission for four years and hearing expert witnesses, he became an abolitionist. He referred to the situation in Belgium where the results were so conclusive that further argument has been silenced and the lesson seems to have been learned, he said, that the best way to have respect for human life is to refrain from taking it in the name of the law.
Sweden formally abolished capital punishment in 1902, and I believe has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. It has one of the lowest rates of homicide of any country in the world. I was speaking to Swedish members of parliament and they told me there is no pressure whatever to reinstate capital punishment in that country.
[DOT] <2110)
Many hon. members here may recall that in the past in Canada the crime of rape was a criminal offence. The death penalty was abolished in Canada in April, 1955, and the maximum penalty of life imprisonment was substituted for it. Since that day there has been a steady fall in the convictions for that offence. Once again it is perfectly obvious that the death penalty was not an effective deterrent. Are we to ignore these facts, or should we take facts into account in making our judgment on this solemn matter? I suggest that we are obliged by conscience and common sense to have regard to the clear facts of the situation.
It was almost 13 years ago that the British House of Commons declared by a majority vote that the death penalty for murder no longer accords with the true needs or interests of a civilized society. One could go on and on with statistics, but the picture is indeed clear enough.
There is one aspect of the matter which should not be overlooked. I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) mentioned it. I have and I retain a deep respect for the administration of justice in Canada, and believe that it is of the utmost importance to the maintenance of law and order in a decent society that we should respect the law and those who are appointed to administer it. But this does not mean that there is not a real possibility of error. The courts themselves can make mistakes and sometimes make them.
Indeed, as one who practised before the courts for nearly 40 years, I personally know of cases in which the courts did in fact make mistakes. One of the best known cases was in England, the Christie case, where a man was executed
Capital Punishment
after having been found guilty of murder, and only some years later did the person who committed the crime admit his guilt and demonstrate beyond doubt that the court had erred. There is a finalty about the death penalty which makes it impossible to correct such errors.
I was very familiar with the case of Steven Truscott who escaped capital punishment when he was found guilty of murder only because he was 14 or 15 years of age. I followed that case closely, and in my belief the dissenting judgment of Mr. Justice Hall in the Supreme Court of Canada was correct and the majority judgment of that court was wrong. Perhaps my judgment is wrong in respect of this case, but the possibility of error is very real and it is inconsistent with capital punishment.
The Solicitor General has already referred to P. C. Leslie Maitland who in 1973 was shot and died. He was a constituent of mine, and so is his wife. Naturally there was great indignation about the murder for he was a very fine police officer. I have received, and handed to the Solicitor General, a letter from Mrs. Maitland who now resides in Scotland. I have a slightly fuller version of the letter than the one which the Solicitor General read to the House. I have her permission to quote the letter, which reads as follows: Dear Mr. Brewin:
I learned from my brother-in-law that the man who killed my husband P. C. Leslie Maitland last February 1st, has now been sentenced to death. I would like you to know that the views of myself and my husband's family, on capital punishment, remain unchanged. We are totally against it. It would not bring Leslie back and it is too easy a way out for all of us. Society condemns murder, but is willing to accept the murder of this man, in the name of justice. Please do what you can to prevent this terrible second crime, before it is too late. Abolitionists may be in the minority but we still have the right to be heard. You can count on me, and my family to do anything possible to help. In no way do I wish to interfere with the course of justice and the safety of an already overworked police department, but the killing of this man would be completely foreign to all the moral standards of both my late husband and myself.
I have received, and I am sure all other members have, a number of messages from constituents, some for and some against capital punishment, but frankly I regard Mrs. Maitland's letter as one of the most cogent influences on my decision.
I want to mention another matter. Quite a few of the letters I have received have invoked religion and the Bible in support of capital punishment. The fact of the matter is, however, that nearly all the major churches have clearly and emphatically repudiated capital punishment. Included in these are the Roman Catholic church, or at least many of its spokesmen, the Anglican, Presbyterian, United, Baptist and Mennonite churches, and many others such as the Society of Friends.
I believe that the ancient precepts in the Old Testament which are quoted as supporting capital punishment were written when a barbaric system prevailed. Indeed the writers of those words were progressive. They sought to restrict the desire for vengeance to the person responsible for some crime and not invoke it and promote feuds between warring families. But they did not confine the notion of capital punishment to murder, nor did they confine the passage in the Bible in which they referred to murder but included such offences as cursing one's parents, trespassing on a neighbour, adultery, and other such
13096
May 3, 1976

Capital Punishment
offences. Can it be seriously urged that we go back to those barbaric days?
For me the basic Christian message is contained in the spirit of compassion and mercy with which Christ treated the crime of adultery. When a woman who was clearly guilty of adultery was being stoned by her accusers, Christ said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". In my view this represents the voice of true religion.
All I can say to those who have written and urged me in the name of Christianity to support capital punishment is that I think they are wrong. I do not say this arrogantly but with a clear conviction. I have also received letters from social workers, and they too have expressed the view that capital punishment should be abolished.
I am well aware of the fact that as a general rule policemen are of the opinion that capital punishment protects them. But this is not a universal view. The Solicitor General has already mentioned Sir Robert Mark, the head of Scotland Yard, who in a statement published in the Globe and Mail on August 29 of last year called for the abolition of the death penalty.
As I am sure all other members of the House do, I respect the important function that the police have in the protection of society. Nevertheless I think many people are in danger of expecting police to fulfil a function which they are not trained or obliged to fulfil in society, that is, to make the laws. In a democratic society it is the elected members of parliament who make the laws, not policemen. We should, of course, listen to what policemen have to say, but we should not permit ourselves to accept their views automatically as to what the law should be. Their function is to enforce the law, and in my view an effective enforcement of the law, the adequate training and payment of the police, would be a more adequate protection for society than capital punishment could ever be. I do not believe that capital punishment is an effective protection for society.
I want to deal now with a matter which has been discussed, and that is the position that members of parliament should take on this issue in respect of opinions expressed to them by constituents. It is sometimes said, by means of consultation of polls, that a majority of people in a particular riding, or in Canada as a whole, favour capital punishment, and therefore it is the duty of a member of parliament to reflect this opinion. I reject this argument. It is contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Of course any sensible member of parliament and one who expects to be re-elected considers his constituents' views and is sensitive to their opinions. However, we were not elected to be computers who count heads. We were elected to use our own judgment and conscience in the interest of the society we represent. We have no right, in my opinion, to put that responsibility off or to yield to what may be a temporary majority, or indeed may not be a majority.
I have received letters on both sides of the question from my constituents, and I think they are fairly evenly balanced. However, in the ultimate analysis I must vote in accordance with my own conviction of what is right or wrong. If enough of my constituents reject my view, they

can defeat me in an election, but they have no right to stifle my own conscience or principles. If we were all to adopt this philosophy-that it is the majority view in a constituency, when one does not know exactly how to determine, which should dictate our opinions and actions in the House-we would deprive the House of members of independence of character who are required for the job.
I have stated this clearly and can only add that this view of the functions of a member of parliament has been clearly expressed many times before. As far as I know the first expression was by the famous Conservative writer, Edmund Burke. The same opinion was expressed by Winston Churchill, and if one comes closer to home, by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. I am not ashamed to follow in their tradition, which I think is the true parliamentary tradition.
I regret that so many people in our society misunderstand and think that they have the right, because they believe they have a majority, to decide how we should vote. Quite recently the British House of Commons voted almost overwhelmingly for the continuing abolition of capital punishment. This was contrary to the views said by the pollsters to represent majority opinion in Great Britain. If the elected members of the mother of parliaments have the guts to stick to their convictions, I believe we in Canada should follow their example.
I should like to close with two or three quotations. The first is from the great Archbishop Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, who said:
I believe that the example of the state taking life even when it does so in return for a life already taken does more to lower the value of human life for its citizens than the deterrent influence of this penalty can do to protect lives. In this way I believe that the main influence of the retention of the death penalty is rather to increase than diminish the numbers of murders.
I want to quote another person who has already been quoted by the Solicitor General, Professor Sellin, who indeed is a scholar and expert in this field. He said this:
I have attempted to show that as now used capital punishment performs none of the utilitarian functions claimed by its supporters, nor can it ever be made to serve such functions. It is an archaic custom dying out through the world and ought to disappear in any civilized country.
There is one other quotation I wish to give to the House. It is a fairly lengthy one. It is a quotation from the writer Albert Camus, a very famous French writer who won the Nobel prize. He wrote an article entitled "Reflections on the Guillotine". It is true he was referring to the guillotine and not hanging, but I do not think the distinction is a very real one. He wrote this:
Shortly before the war of 1914, an assassin whose crime was particularly repulsive (he had slaughtered a family of farmers, including the children) was condemned to death in Algiers. He was a farm worker who had killed in a sort of bloodthirsty frenzy but had aggravated his case by robbing his victims. The affair created a great stir. It was generally thought that decapitation was too mild a punishment for such a monster. This was the opinion, I have been told, of my father, who was especially aroused by the murder of the children. One of the few things I know about him, in any case, is that he wanted to witness the execution, for the first time in his life. He got up in the dark to go to the place of execution at the other end of town amid a great crowd of people. What he saw that morning he never told anyone. My mother relates merely that he came rushing home, his face distorted, refused to talk, lay down for a moment on the bed, and suddenly began to vomit. He had just discovered the reality hidden under the noble phrases with
May 3, 1976

which it was masked. Instead of thinking of the slaughtered children, he could think of nothing but that quivering body that had just been dropped onto a board to have its head cut off.
I should like to have read more, but I will not do so. I commend "Reflections on the Guillotine" by Albert Camus as a most valuable and extremely well written statement of the case.
I conclusion I wish to say that I like all hon. members of the House, am very proud to be a Canadian. I will be even more proud if we in parliament reject firmly the backward step which would be involved in the retention of capital punishment.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, a moment earlier the speakers before me were saying that it was the fourth debate on capital punishment and I realized that they are older than I as I participate in the third debate on capital punishment which is the subject matter of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.
In 1967, the Liberal government presented the first bill concerning the abolition of capital punishment for a five year period experiment. In 1973, the present Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) tabled Bill C-2 recommending a partial and temporary abolition for another five year period but this time, to innovate, there was an exception for murders of policemen and prison guards. The Solicitor General was probably not satisfied with the results as Statistics Canada showed that violent crimes had increased during that experimental period.
With Bill C-84 we are again discussing capital punishment for the third time in ten years but this time the Solicitor General forces more firmly upon us the view that he always had about capital punishment. He proceeded progressively but so imperturbably that if he were alone against a whole population his view would still triumph. This is why he has always refused to submit this question to a public referendum. The minister knows very well that 70 per cent of the people would oppose his old bill and he still knows today that 71 per cent of the people favour the death penalty as long as social security will not be better guaranteed by the Criminal Code. And what is even more surprising is that the Solicitor General pretends to be a democrat in a one way democracy directed from the top. Mr. Speaker, I call this dictatorship. In any case, the present minister lost all his credibility with the people as he never respected his own legislation of 1973.
While emphasizing in his own Bill C-2 that murderers of policemen and prison guards would be put to death, what did the Solicitor General do with all these murderers who ridiculed the act by killing a number of prison guards and policemen between 1967-72 and 1976? He himself commuted these sentences into life imprisonment. Such is the concrete result of efforts by all members here during the past years. If the minister had spent the same amount of energy on improving penitentiary system, my assurance is we would not be faced with such a prison record that is shameful for a nation as industrialized and technologically advanced as ours, because these institutions are much more in the nature of schools for crime than rehabilitation establishments. Therefore, I cannot approve the suggestion
Capital Punishment
by the minister, in Bill C-84, that capital punishment should be reduced to 25, 15 and even 10 years according to the criminal's classification. Certainly within a few years we will have to follow the United States. They are considering reestablishing capital punishment that has been abolished in a number of states.
Since the tree must be known by its fruit, we cannot expect anything better if the minister keeps his portfolio for the next five years. After the law providing for capital punishment has been ignored for the past years, in cases where prison guards and policemen have been murdered, what will happen now that the sentence will be reduced to 25 years imprisonment? Everyone knows perfectly well that if the minister ignored the former restrictions, he will ignore to a greater extent still the maximum penalty of 25 or even 10 years imprisonment for first and second degree murder. I am even amazed there is no reference in the bill now before us to a third degree murder, for which a decoration would be provided.
What is discouraging in this bill, as indeed in every other one, is the total lack of any reference to the murderers' victims. The minister commiserates with the unhappy murderers but he cannot spare a thought for the latters' victims. Mr. Speaker, when will we have members humane enough to look into that difficult problem, namely the future of the murderers' victims. I have always felt the essential purpose of a legislation was the adequate protection of the general public, to ensure a safer and therefore more humane social life. This assumes elimination of troublemakers, and if possible their rehabilitation, and the redress of first or second degree damage done by such trouble makers. Finally, we need an effective and permanent policy for the diehards, since in my view they are the worst kind of mental cases there are in our psychiatric wards, with that difference that the latter are not first degree murderers. Before going any further with parole provisions, we will have to consider total reform of our Criminal Code to include rehabilitation, help for crime victims and also greater rights to police officers.
As long as we persist in shutting up our criminals in the schools of crime that our prisons now are, whether it be for two, three, four or even six years, they will come out even more rebellious, and I would even say even more refined in their future actions.
Let us stop deluding ourselves, Mr. Speaker, and let us listen to the opinions of former convicts who, after their release, found themselves homeless, with no money, with the identity of a former convict. What can such a man do under the circumstances if not go back to his former profession?
If we want to really help the convicts, let us forget about Bill C-84 and introduce in the House another bill which will allow us to make our prisons and reformatories more humane. We should first of all select convicts according to their age, their offence and their social condition. For this, we should have appropriate facilities, and, even more important, qualified personnel, including doctors, psychiatrists, nurses and social counsellors, to bring the required help to all those who can be rehabilitated, and especially those who wish to get out of their abnormal situation.
It is certainly not by arresting a young man and putting him in a cell with habitual criminals that we shall reach
21804-6 7Vi

May 3, 1976
Capital Punishment
our common goal. A society is made up of many elements and all its members cannot be super-intelligent beings or angels. We must therefore take it as it is, and face reality.
It is certainly not by releasing someone who is not ready to reintegrate society that we can maintain peace. However, it is up to us parliamentarians to act on behalf of those who cannot express their opinions, that is the convicts themselves. Of course, there are some habitual criminals, but the very great majority can be rehabilitated if we bring them the help that they expect from us, the elected representatives of the people, and only from us, let us not forget it.
Prisons can be compared with psychiatric institutions, and this is why I firmly believe that a selection is necessary and that the people responsible must be given the necessary tools to operate a selection and give each individual a proper orientation. I have known some young people who went to prison for a small offence, or for a trivial slip, and who became then well-known bandits because of a penitentiary system which denies them any opportunity for rehabilitation.
Have we thought for one moment of this prisoner who is labelled as a bandit and who once was a little boy with very legitimate ambitions, like any other youth but for whom, during all his childhood and adolescence the streets were the only meeting place and who often had to look into garbage cans to find his food. One day, he decided to get out of his misery at all cost, even through illegal means since he already saw himself in an illegal situation. This adolescent had all the necessary qualities to become a leader, but because of the serious faults of our society, he became the leader of a gang. But is he really responsible for his situation? Whose fault is it, I ask you, hon. members, whose fault is it?
Conditional release is still mentioned in this bill, but in order to make it less accessible. With the experience of recent years, I do not call it conditional release, but "pro-tectional" release, because unless an external influence, whether political, financial or other, apart from a few exceptions those releases are empty words. And I will go further, Mr. Speaker. In most cases, who is released and from what? Inmates from a smaller prison are released to go in a wider prison, but all the more fatal because of their lack of preparation. As a result they will become recidivists, for they will still prefer the walls of their earlier prison to those of incomprehension. As to assistance for victims of criminals, I repeat, our present code does not provide anything for them. Nevertheless, if the government is responsible for the welfare of the inmates, it is all the more so for that of the victims of criminals.
For example, take a father who is shot during a hold up; what is to become of his wife and children? Their pictures are taken at the funeral home, in church, and even back home from the graveyard, and then great silence. Often the families get only the meagre social welfare benefits to replace the income of the family's breadwinner shot while protecting our nice society.
Each time I witness such incidents, I wonder, in all fairness, what we are doing here. What does social justice mean to us? Mr. Speaker, why do 90 per cent of the
(Mr. Gauthier (Roberval).]
policemen favour capital punishment? They do so for all the reasons I just mentioned, and also because policemen feel increasingly vulnerable in front of well armed criminals. Besides the risks they run with criminals, they always fear that their efforts be destroyed before the judges.
I would even say that in some cases policemen have two enemies; the first standing in front of them, namely the gangster, and the other behind him, the judge who is waiting for him. In this regard I note some of the weaknesses of the present Criminal Code, because of the restrictions it imposes on them, namely that they must warn the criminal before firing. In short, the killer must shoot first. The consequence is logical: the policemen get it first.
I personally witnessed trials which I found simply repulsive. While I was well aware of all the precautions taken by the police agents, throughout the trial one would have sworn the real gangsters were the policemen themselves. If it is their duty to see to it that the law is respected, then the judges should give them greater support in what often proves to be a thankless task. After all those considerations, I often wonder who the real criminals are: are they to be found at the top or the botton of the ladder?
If we could question every prisoner to find out what really happened, we would be surprised to find out that 90 per cent of them are in prison through society's fault, often because of some influence which is said to be unknown but that we all know full well, that of money which has forced those people to choose the less honest way out.
I certainly do not have the time to present a table of the serious faults of our society in arriving at our judicial system, nor do I have the time to go over all the arguments that were made in this House since 1967. Everyone knows quite well why we were against the previous bills and why we will be against Bill C-84. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) repeated tonight all the arguments we heard in the past 10 years, and I am sure that a month from now we will be able to make another volume similar to that of 1967 and that of 1965.
In all those arguments, one soon realizes that the Solicitor General has a fixed idea on the issue of capital punishment. Indeed, he will necessarily continue to use his right of veto on every future conviction, and continue to have it his own way. That is why I regret this absolutely useless discussion and we should let the Solicitor General of Canada continue to commute sentences, as he has already done, without asking for anybody's permission. When the Solicitor General talks about respecting life, did he only ask himself whether murderers ever thought about the nice theories advocated by the minister? We noticed in the inquiries into organized crime that the heads of criminal organizations have much more realistic principles than the present legislators. They have their own law, and that law is beyond appeal. You notice that gangsters do not play on words, as politicians who always fear public opinion do. They do what they think is best for their own society. So I say that if you want to fight those organizations you will not win by decorating their murderers. Let us not forget that the state is there to fully protect society, and nice speeches will not make our fellow citizens feel more secure.
May 3, 1976

Let us get down to the job of reforming our whole Criminal Code, and let us stop wasting time repeating 10 or 15 year old speeches. In the meantime, let us keep the principle of capital punishment, even if the Solicitor General has his mind set on commuting all sentences to at least reassure a bit our people who are waiting impatiently for something new in criminal legislation.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the speech I made in the House on May 14, 1973, and the many memos and papers I prepared and distributed on the subject of capital punishment, I shall refrain from elaborating on any arguments with which I dealt in the past. My approach means that many substantive points relating to capital punishment per se will not be made in this particular speech. I have chosen, instead, to deal with six aspects of the problem relating to capital punishment and crime in Canada: first, the general attitude of the public toward violence; second, my general approach to peace and security; third, the exaggerated perception of violence in society and one of its primary causes; fourth, the facts relating to violent crime in Canada, as I have determined through research; fifth, the new peace and security package, and a critique on it; lastly, capital punishment itself, on which subject I intend to make a few remarks.
Events in the past few years have created a condition in which the public are demanding sterner measures for the prevention of crime and the retention of criminals. Public clamour for sterner measures is both understandable and justifiable. The public's clamour and concern stem largely from the following considerations, as I see them: a perceived increase in violent and other types of criminal activity; a feeling that the criminal law is too lax that the judicial system imposes too light a punishment for many crimes that our prisons are insecure that our parole system is too lax in granting paroles generally and that temporary leaves and day passes are abused that the government itself is hesitant if not downright opposed to implementing capital punishment even when it is on our law books and that there is too much consideration for the criminal and too little consideration for the victim and society as a whole.
There is a feeling that dangerous criminals are too readily released on bail. There is a feeling that more emphasis is given to the rehabilitation of criminals rather than the protection of society. There is a general rebellion against the permissive society that all of us have lived through since the end of World War II. My approach to the general disposition of society largely parallels the concerns as I perceive them to be.
I am convinced that the vast majority of Canadians want to be assured that they and their children will be safe on our streets and not become the victims of criminal activity. I am inclined to believe that what we really need is new and tougher legislation covering a broad range of criminal offences, not just murder. I think the public to some extent feel that capital punishment through some miraculous means will in fact achieve those objectives. There are others, and there are many parliamentarians among that group, who feel that in fact the retention of capital punish-
Capital Punishment
ment will not facilitate the return to a more peaceful and
secure society.
We must be assured that those who are imprisoned for criminal offences are held in institutions which are secure. That is self evident. We must also be assured that our parole boards do not grant temporary paroles or temporary leaves to prisoners if their release into society would pose a threat to the peace and security of the public at large.
We must take steps to guarantee that our law enforcement officers at every level are given adequate protection under the law and are provided with an appropriate legislative base so that they may perform their function of protecting society effectively.
We must ensure that our prisons are secure and that prison guards are given the maximum degree of protection in the performance of their dangerous work.
We must review our rehabilitation procedures so that the term of imprisonment itself will be conducive to rehabilitation. We must have special provision in the law to deal with the case of the "habitual criminal" so that such persons will not be released into society at the termination of a sentence if the court feels that they will constitute a continuing threat to the community as a whole.
The whole Criminal Code needs to be reviewed to ensure that penalties match the crime and to guarantee that sentences will be served so that we can maximize the deterrent effect of the criminal law. We need appropriate and reasonable control of firearms in our society so that we can minimize the incidents of their misuse. I have spoken more specifically on firearm control in a separate speech in the House of Commons and I will not go into detail on that today.
We require bail reform to ensure that bail is not granted to individuals whose release pending sentence would be a threat to society. We need to re-define first and second degree murder, and to increase substantially the pre-parole period for such offences. Police powers need to be substantially increased to assist them in successfully combating organized crime. In order to give more emphasis to crime prevention we need to broaden government activities by every level of government.
Efforts must be increased to identify the causes of alienation within our society which give rise to anti-social behaviour. Concentrated effort must be put forward to restore public confidence in the criminal law and its application through the courts and our law enforcement agencies. These and other things have to be done if we are to have a peaceful and secure society. However, governments and members of parliament must not only take into account the reality of the situation but also bear in mind the general attitude of our people.
Many Canadians are deeply disturbed by a persistent belief that their governments and institutions are "soft" on crime; there is a belief that there is more concern for the criminal than the victim. Neither of these beliefs are adequately based on fact. However, in a democratic free society the facts are almost irrelevant. The perception of the public is extremely important and governments and our institutions must behave in such a way as to restore their fundamental confidence.

May 3, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Aside from taking the measures already outlined, we must also take positive action to prevent the occurrence of crime. This is a very complex subject area and to deal with it we need to reconsider our present approach to education, mental health, recreational and employment opportunities, and a broad host of social measures. The conditions that give rise to young people turning to crime should be eliminated. The proposals for legislative change inherent in the preceding suggestions are reasonable but tough measures to provide greater security in our society. Such measures, however, will not satisfy everyone because some in our society have an exaggerated perception of the problem of violence in society. Radio, television, and the press have created in the minds of many a situation where they believe that there is more violence than actually exists.
A friend and constituent, Ann Farquhar, forwarded me the April, 1976, edition of Psychology Today. In that issue there was a research article dealing with violence on TV. The thrust of this article indicates that one of the more far-reaching effects of violence on television is to create a condition where people equate the violence they see on TV to the real world around them.
Violence on television thus has a two-fold effect. First, it suggests that violence is the appropriate and traditional means of settling disputes. Second, it creates in the heavy TV viewer a feeling that the world in reality is as violent as he sees it on television. This fear, the article indicates, may also bring increasing demands for police protection and election of law and order politicians. This has already happened.
I will continue later and call it ten o'clock now, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Ste. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question which I directed to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) on April 8 is important enough to take up a lot more time than that which is allotted tonight. The planning and implementation of a surveillance policy for Canada involves air-sea rescue and the patrol capability, not only to protect fishing vessels, but on a much broader base.
In his reply the minister stated that the imposition and extension of a 200 mile limit was hypothetical. However, he knows that Canada will declare either a 200 mile fisheries or economic zone and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) must now be making
(Mr. Cafik.]
plans for such a course of action because there is little likelihood the Law of the Sea Conference now drawing to a close in New York will achieve international agreement.
The reason I continually raise the question of surveillance is because it appears that not too many appreciate the mission that Canada must undertake to provide a surveillance capacity and the enormous funding that will be required if one can imagine the area that will have to be patrolled. We must recognize the size of Canada, the length of its coastline, the massive extent of the part of the globe we occupy. We are far from ready to provide the surveillance which is required even though the minister has told us that the Department of National Defence plans to increase the amount of equipment available for this purpose.
Looking over the various departments concerned I find that the available strength is far below what is required. For example, the Canadian Coastguard Service operates 10 offshore cutters of between 70 feet and 224 feet, only one 33 foot shore based hovercraft, six 40-foot shore based launches, nine 15-foot inflatable inshore rescue boats, 14 44-foot lifeboats, and 33 helicopters which can respond only under ideal weather conditions. In addition, the Coastguard operates 65 other vessels with a secondary search and rescue role.
The Department of the Environment is increasing its inadequate patrol capability with a 205-foot helicopter-equipped patrol vessel, and two high speed aluminum patrol boats.
Moving to the navy, I feel I should quote from articles written by two of our learned retired admirals. This is what Vice-Admiral J. C. O'Brien had to say:
It is vital for us to invest in a strong navy with a realistic number of aircraft if we are to exhibit a real presence in all the ocean areas for which we consider ourselves responsible. I have always suggested a strong naval capability to at least 1500 miles off our coasts and this requires a much bigger effort than we are exerting now.
Clearly, we must have more ships. But the most direct way to meet this shortcoming initially would be to implement a composite plan involving a common fleet in which naval aircraft, support ships and destroyers would team up with a force of armed trawlers manned by a para-military reserve. This reserve would, I suggest, be directed by the navy because only the navy has the command and control facilities as well as the professional know-how to undertake the responsibility.
The writer goes on to recommend the formation of other para-military forces.
My second quotation is from an article by Rear-Admiral R. W. Timbrell who says:
For a number of years our government has expounded that both in the national and the world's interest our seabed out in the continental shelf or at least two hundred miles will be preserved and protected, and the point is rapidly approaching where this must be accepted either at this month's resumption of the Law of the Sea Conference (now taking place in New-York) or by unilateral action.
Such action will be meaningless unless we are prepared to provide a visible force of sufficient credibility in size and determination to enforce our declaration effectively. These forces will be required to patrol hundreds of thousands of square miles frequently and must be able to follow up immediately with on-the-spot investigation. The occasional patrol is clearly insufficient and of little value in view of the vastness of the area to be surveyed and the difficulties encountered in all the forms of weather to be found off Canada's seaboard. It would be simple, say, for a large group of foreign fishing trawlers with their
May 3, 1976

factory ships to move into a declared area, reap a harvest of fish in 12-24 hours and proceed outside the national limits without being spotted, let alone apprehended, unless we provide constant patrols and presence.
The time allotted to me does not allow me to refer to more examples. It is obvious that with the task force report due to surface by this summer, and following the recommendations from the Canadian Coastguard, there must be co-ordination of effort on the part of all. The report to which I have referred should be carefully considered by a joint committee at which time witnesses such as Rear-Admiral Timbrell and Vice-Admiral O'Brien should be heard. My colleague tells me that the Americans now have a contingency plan. We must plan to improve surveillance immediately and must consider the report since in the very near future we will have to provide a massive capability, requiring a massive infusion of funds, to protect not only our fishing resources but our oil and mineral resources, as well as to build up the economy of Canada and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I think the hon. member is quite right to question the capability of Canada to patrol and survey, as well as provide search and rescue facilities in, an expanded zone off our coasts. However, when he put his question in the House on April 8 the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) made it clear at that time that the various departments involved are preparing plans to carry out that task. He also made it clear that, as the need arose, additional equipment would be acquired to carry out the tasks referred to by the hon. member.
In his question the hon. member referred to foreign fishing fleets operating in our economic zone if and when we declare a 200 mile limit, and I share his view that we will definitely declare such a zone. I agree this is a legitimate concern. However, it is worthy of note, I think, that perhaps the best way to preserve our fishing stocks, particularly in that expanded zone, is through negotiated agreements and then being able, following agreement, to put them in force. Canada has already negotiated agreements with the four major fishing nations off our coasts. I think it is also worth nothing that some figures I saw the other day, which I believe the hon. member also saw, indicated that it was not foreign fishing fleets off our shores but Canadian vessels which were the biggest offenders in regard to the ICNAF quotas.
I should also point out that at the present time the boundaries of Canada's search and rescue responsibility are much larger than the 200 mile zone, and they are recognized both by the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Consultative Organization. The military air search facilities for which my minister is responsible are located at Summerside, P.E.I., right at the hub of the active search area, and as I say they cover a far greater area than 200 miles.
While the 200 mile economic zone has not yet been established, the Department of National Defence is making plans to cover this is limit adequately once it is established. Planning is being conducted with the Department
Adjournment Debate
of the Environment. Surveillance of the zone will be conducted by increasing the number of ship days at sea and by increasing the number of aircraft patrols over areas of interest.
I also point out that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has undertaken to study marine rescue and has advised the House that he will be reporting on planned improvements before mid-summer. I cannot speak for him tonight; we will have to await his announcement before mid-summer with regard to increased marine capability.
In closing I want to thank the hon. member for asking the question, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to put on record the fact that plans are being carried out to cover-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired.


TRANSPORT-POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT OF RAIL SERVICE IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AVOID CRISIS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question I am raising tonight is a follow-up to the question I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on March 26 having to do with the possibility of rail line abandonment in Prince Edward Island. The importance of this subject has been stressed as recently as last Saturday, in an article in the Globe and Mail on Prince Edward Island's rail situation, entitled "Railways in Danger."
At the time I put my question on March 26 I asked the Minister of Transport mainly to comment on the statements made on more than one occasion by the provincial minister of highways with regard to the very serious situation concerning the railroad in Prince Edward Island, and the report which came from one of the minister's colleagues, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) before the Standing Committee on Regional Development, a report which said that the situation in respect of transportation in Prince Edward Island was in fact reaching a crisis stage and should be dealt with very shortly if we were not to be faced with a situation which would literally be irreversible. The reason I raise this matter again this evening is that apparently there have been meetings between the Minister of Transport and the provincial minister of highways, Mr. Stewart.
Perhaps it would be useful to give the nature of the problem in brief form through quotations which have appeared in articles over the last month and a half. I shall quote first from the Globe and Mail of last Saturday which is perhaps the best article at this stage in respect of the situation as it pertains to Prince Edward Island. It states;
Prince Edward Island, the first province to have all its steam locomotives replaced by diesels and the first to lose passenger service, may soon be the first to do without the railway entirely.
At a glance, the rail system looks adequate. True, 22 of 27 railway stations have been closed but derelict stations are national landmarks. And, although Canadian National hopes to gain permission from the Canadian Transport Commission to scrap a couple of branch lines this

May 3, 1976
Adjournment Debate
year, there are still more than 200 miles of track, down only 20 or 30 miles from the railway's peak.
However,-
This is really the important part of the question before us this evening.
-the railbeds have been allowed to deteriorate to the point where all trains are forced to move at a crawl and the ancient and inadequate cars relegated to hauling island produce are being scrapped at the rate of more than 100 a year.
The situation has been reported in the provincial legislature at its sessions this year. Again I am quoting from an article in the Summerside Journal. It refers to a statement by Mr. Stewart:
'The handwriting is on the wall,' he said, 'road bed maintenance has deteriorated with all trains running on' "slow order". He said in some cases there are areas where train traffic is slowed down to 10 miles per hour on road beds.
Unfortunately this is not a new but rather a continuing situation which indicates again the lack of study and the totally dreadful approach taken by the CNR in respect of its obligation to Prince Edward Island. I say it is doubly disturbing not only because this Crown corporation is committed to providing some form of national railway service, and it has certainly shown a great default in this instance, but in addition there is the fact that one of the major commitments the federal government made at the time of Confederation in 1873 was not only to maintain a continuous ferry service from Prince Edward Island to the mainland but also to provide a train service to transport basic Island produce.
This is the situation which confronts the government today. I think it should take swift and definite action in respect of the CNR. It is perhaps a little ironic that we are discussing this matter at a time when the CNR has already announced increases up to 69 per cent on the car ferry service operating between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. This is a case in which the CNR has definitely defaulted on its obligation.
One of the reasons why I put this question down for the adjournment debate-and I do not like to say this-is the rather cavalier attitude of the Minister of Transport. His answer to me on March 26 was:
Mr. Speaker, we always attempt to analyse trends in traffic and to look ahead to the steps that have to be taken to accommodate them, and this is what we are doing in this case.
That, Mr. Speaker, is no assurance at all. It is a denial of the federal government's obligation and responsibility.
It is a well known fact that there is no way possible- and the minister of highways reaffirmed this in the legislature recently-in which we can make an orderly transfer from the utilization of the railroad traffic both to move our basic produce out of the province or to bring in items to P.E.I., except perhaps over a five to ten year period. Both the time period required to upgrade the highways and to handle the amount of increased traffic that would occur through lack of railroads as well as additional cost, which would certainly be in the order of $20 million or more, would make it an almost prohibitive option at this time. Therefore I trust that my good friend, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), parliamentary secretary to the minister, will be able to assure me and the people of P.E.I. tonight that in fact the government is taking definite

action to make sure that CNR does not achieve by its neglect the total abandonment of railroad service in P.E.I.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I must say I regret the reference which the hon. member has made to some sort of cavalier attitude on the part of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in this situation, or in any situation with regard to transportation matters in Canada. His attitude is surely not that, as I think has been amply demonstrated in the House and in public forums outside the House, and certainly at his meetings with his provincial counterparts from the Atlantic region and other regions. I regret indeed any inference to the effect that his attitude can be interpreted in any way as being cavalier. It is a very serious one, and he does wish very much indeed to develop in this country from coast to coast the very best kind of transportation system that we can possibly develop.
My hon. friend on March 26 first raised this issue concerning the possible abandonment of rail service by CNR in Prince Edward Island. I would like to assure the House that no application has been made by CNR to the Canadian Transport Commission for such an abandonment.
May I also assure the House, and my hon. friend as well, that both the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act seek to protect shippers for the sake of the public interest with respect to the provision of essential services. That is to say that within the normal process that is established by statute, railway services are not allowed to be abandoned unilaterally by the railways. The railways must first make an application to the CTC and then, as hon. members know, the CTC holds public hearings in the national interest, and one of the key matters which is always considered is whether or not an alternative transportation facility or service is available to the area being served. Only after such hearings, and after due consideration has been given to the provision of alternative means would the CTC make a decision on an application.
At this point there is only one CN application in front of the CTC for the abandonment of nine miles of spur track. A hearing on this 1972 application has tentatively been scheduled by the CTC for later this year, but this will depend on priorities, such as passenger hearings for example.
There does not appear to be imminent danger that the existing rail system would not be adequate to meet immediate requirements. As to longer term needs, Transport Canada is working in conjunction with other federal departments, the railways, the provincial governments, and the local market boards to determine the nature and shape of an efficient and economic transportation system which could be implemented to deliver products to the major market areas. CN in conjunction with the Potato
May 3, 1976

Marketing Board is presently testing an intermodal transportation system.
Present load restrictions on highways would hamper potato movements during the spring break up period. The extent of the problem and the cost to upgrade the roads cannot be established at present until conclusions are drawn from the present testing of the intermodal system.
Generally speaking, on the question of federal support for provincial highway strengthening work in the Atlantic region, as my hon. friend knows the four provincial high-
Adjournment Debate
way ministers, recently at a federal-provincial ministerial conference, presented a joint report to the Minister of Transport entitled, "Atlantic Provinces Primary Highways-Ten Year program". This report represents a statement of needs as seen by the Atlantic provinces, and results directly from previous federal-provincial meetings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
2 ] 804-68

Tuesday, May 4, 1976