1976-07-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that on May 21, 1969 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in a letter to the International Olympic Committee in support of Montreal's bid for the 1976 Summer Olympic Games, accepted on behalf of all Canadians, the responsibility of hosting the 1976 Summer Olympic Games in that city in accordance with IOC rules and regulations, supported by a further letter on November 28, 1969 from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in view of the fact that Taiwan, as the republic of China, was and continues to be a full-fledged member of the IOC in good standing under its rules and regulations, and since this government, by interfering with normal and regular international Olympic procedures in attempting to break the precedents that have existed unhampered since Adolf Hitler's interference in 1936, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House instruct the minister of external affairs to abide by the official letters of support of May 21, 1969 and November 28, 1969 and leave the handling of the rules and regulations, including participation, in the hands of the International Olympic Committee where they rightfully belong.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since a great many dairy cattle have been sent to slaughterhouses in the last few weeks and that dairy producers
suffer considerable losses of income owing to the dairy policy now in force since April 1976, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and the whole House, I hope:
That this House give permission to the Standing Committee on Agriculture to meet immediately to consider in depth the dairy policy as well as the import of dairy products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion similar to that proposed by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), and based on a feeling which exists throughout this country. I would move:
That the government of Canada abide by the original agreement made with the International Olympic Committee with respect to the designation by the IOC of countries participating in the Olympics and, in the case at issue, that participants from Taiwan, participate as representatives of the Republic of China National Olympic Committee, thus eliminating the charge by Lord Killanin that the image of the Olympics has been tarnished by Canadian government interference in the designation of who represents what, thus injecting politics into the Olympics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 5, 1976
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In view of the comments made during the weekend by the Minister of Communications accusing the government, and I quote:
"of falling on its knees before a bunch of fanatics"
... for having signed an agreement with CALPA and CATCA and also owing to the surprise publicly expressed by the Prime Minister on his return from Puerto Rico about the clause of the agreement promising a free vote in Parliament on the basic issue of bilingualism in the air-ground communications in Quebec, which is a barely veiled denunciation of the conduct of the Minister of Transport, is it to maintain, as he said himself, the cohesion of power that the Prime Minister has asked or intends to ask for the resignation of both the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Transport?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
To follow up on his answer, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he will thus allow his ministers to denounce the decisions of the cabinet of which they are members? In addition, could he expose to the House his own idea of ministerial solidarity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to give him a lecture on political theory one day, I am at his disposal.


POSSIBLE RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS IN VIEW OF CONFLICTING VIEWS ON AGREEMENT WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary. I would not have thought the Prime Minister would have taken so easy a sidetrack.
I therefore put my question to the Minister of Communications and ask her whether, in the light of the well known principles of ministerial solidarity the Prime Minister choses to ignore today, she persists in accusing the government of having knelt before a bunch of fanatics? If so, does she intend to resign, thus imitating the courageous gesture of the hon. member for Langelier?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, several of us feel that the agreement is bad, but still the best possible we could conclude under the circumstances.
I said in my statement that we could not denounce collectively what one of our colleagues, in the normal exercise of his duties, had felt he should accept and that, consequently, we are of the opinion, with regard to that agreement, whatever we feel as far as solidarity with our colleague is concerned, that the agreement is not satisfactory in every way. We have to live with an agreement that is not perfect. We remain united behind our colleague who supported the agreement, but I still feel that, faced with a bunch of fanatics, we were forced to accept an agreement that will be difficult to live with, but which in no way calls in question again the policy of bilingualism within the federal government.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an area where calm is required and less inflammation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Donald W. Munro: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport because he, too, has injected an element of confusion into this. In his letter to Les Gens de l'Air he mentions it is only a matter for the commission to "explain why they should disregard" the arguments of CATCA and CALPA. Could the minister explain what he means by taking this anodyne approach especially when in the signed agreement with CATCA and CALPA it is a matter of "justifying beyond a reasonable doubt" why any contrary view expressed by those two organizations should not prevail? To most readers, the words "explain" and "justify beyond reasonable doubt" do not convey the same meaning.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the words used in my letter stand by themselves in terms of explaining how I view the contents of the agreement and, I think, how they are viewed by other participants. If one looks at the practical situation which will face the commission one can have a view of what in fact will be before them which allows those words to be understood. As a practical matter, the time the commission will be asked to judge as to the procedures and their safety is when, at the end of the difficult simulation work, a set of procedures has been devised and Transport Canada is prepared to certify those procedures as safe and ready for implementation. At that point the issue arises as to the judgment of the commission. The agreement deals with the potential argument which may exist then, and this is obviously hypothetical, by the two organizations which would disagree with the view being taken by Transport Canada. I think if members would look either at the letter or the agreement they will see that what is to be expected is a clear and forthright statement which impresses a reader of its import as to why the commission was able to certify safety notwithstanding different arguments. That could be put in one or two different ways. I have now put

July 5, 1976

it in a third way, and I hope the hon. member will be able to understand it.


TIMETABLE FOR SIMULATOR STUDIES IN VIEW OF LACK OF INTEREST BY PARTIES CONCERNED
Donald W. Munro: In connection with this simulator study, I was wondering whether the minister has a revised timetable and how he can expect it will materialize when one of the interested parties has expressed an unwillingness to co-operate with him.


Otto Emil Lang: I have always remained optimistic that in the end we shall have the co-operation of the various parties concerned and I would invite all hon. members to join in that hope, too. The simulation exercise timetable has, without doubt, been affected somewhat by the preoccupation of a variety of people who might otherwise have been engaged in doing the work. This work will now go forward. We are seeking, and we expect, the co-operation of a whole variety of experts and knowledgeable people who can make this work a success as soon as possible.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MEASURES TO ENABLE POOR PROVINCES TO MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF HEALTH CARE AND POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance concerning his meeting tomorrow with the ministers of finance of the various provinces. Since the federal government is proposing to replace the existing cost-sharing formula with a new one which will involve cash grants and increased tax points, and since new tax points on their own do not help those provinces with a small tax base, can the hon. gentleman tell us what further measures the federal government intends to take to ensure that the poorer provinces are able to maintain high standards of health care and post-secondary education?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: It
was in recognition of the variation between the value of tax points in different provinces that we acknowledged that a continued cash payment would have to be made to a number of the provinces, those which, as the hon. member has indicated, do not have a broad tax base. The proposal is on a formula to be agreed upon that both cash and tax points would be made available to the provinces and that there would be an attempt by a transitional formula to bring them to an equal per capita level in the cash payment.


REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF REVENUE ACCRUING TO PROVINCES UNDER PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in respect of any one of the alternative proposals the government has put forward for the provinces to consider, could the minister tell the House whether his department
Oral Questions
has prepared an estimate on the share of revenue which would have gone to the provinces during the past five years on the assumption that they had implemented one of the proposals that the government is now putting forward for consideration in the future.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, some elaborate figures have been prepared which will be made available comparing the range of options from a total cash payment all the way through to a total transfer of tax points. This will be arranged over a period of years. As I say there is an elaborate preparation of figures which will be made available to the provinces.


REASON FOR RELATING PROPOSALS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION TO GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since in all the proposals which are being considered, as I understand it, the federal government is basing its share particularly on financing of post-secondary education and health care on a relationship to the change in the gross national product, I should like to ask the minister, since there does not appear to me to be any connection at all between changing real needs in either education or health care, why the federal government has decided to pin both to changes in the GNP.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is founded first upon a recognition that these are established programs, the performance under which has now matured and is predictable. Examination of the payments, for example over the last five years, would indicate that the transfer to the provinces would average out at something less than the actual increase in the gross national product. The government of course is concerned that its obligations to pay, whether under this program or others, should be predictable and within the over-all cash resources of the government and in that sense, while the payments could reasonably be expected to increase as costs increase throughout the country, they should not by this agreement alone be escalated at an even greater rate. This does not rule out of course the possibility at a subsequent date of the government entering into subsequent negotiations with the provinces for example to add additional provisions in respect of health care which of course would then have to be added on to the arrangements presently being made for the established programs at the present time.


AIR TRANSPORT
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that in the last few days the government had a particular opportunity to give evidence of its firm belief in the bilingualism policy it has been advocating, could the minister explain to the House the cause of

July 5, 1976
Oral Questions
that retreat in the application of bilingualism in such an important area as transport which is of interest to ever more Canadians across the country?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it abundantly clear before, but I am glad to do so again, that we are in no way taking a step away from our plan of bilingualism in our total government services. We indeed remain committed to the view that there is a need to provide bilingual air traffic services in the province of Quebec. We have taken certain specific steps to do so in areas where that could be done. In areas where there is a more complicated situation we were prepared to produce the procedures, having faced the difficulties and complications, and introduce bilingual air traffic service there. It is well known that a good deal of opposition to that movement did exist in certain quarters. That opposition tended to focus on the question of safety.
At all times we stated our view that safety had to be taken into consideration and that indeed we would do so. All we have done now is to re-emphasize, in ways which put beyond any doubt even for the most skeptical, that that is what we will do. But I repeated before the week end, and I repeat again now, that it is our intention, given the development of procedures which we are confident we can develop, to implement air traffic services in both languages in the province of Quebec.


INQUIRY AS TO PROTESTS AGAINST APPLICATION OF BILINGUALISM TO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
Could the minister tell the House whether, in addition to the protests he received from Quebec pilots and air controllers as well as from the provincial government, he in fact received other reasonable and logical protests from various associations of Quebec against that position taken by the federal government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to determine what communications I have received. Most of the comments I have seen to date have been ones I have observed in the press rather than ones I had directly in my own hand, but I will be looking at these later today.



BILINGUALISM


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with an interview which he gave when he was returning from Puerto Rico. I have to read from the newspaper article in order to base my question. The Prime Minister said:
Agreements reached by air pilots, air traffic controllers and the government concerning the safety of bilingual air communication mark a victory for bilingualism in Canada.
While flying back, he went on to say that the agreements are: "as total a victory on paper as was needed". His next observation was:
I think the exaggeration and even hysteria which met the government's assertion at the outset had disappeared, otherwise the kind of settlement that we reached would not have been possible.
I ask the Prime Minister whether he changed his mind in view of the fact that apparently he has not been able to convince some of his ministers who have been outspoken. Is he still of the opinion that that agreement was one that achieved a level of bilingualism that caused him to become ecstatic in his statement that it was a victory for Canada? I would ask him to explain the difference between the viewpoint he expressed while unimpeded by divisions in the cabinet and the viewpoint he expressed subsequently and also in the letter of communication to the former minister of the environment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman explained the context in which the interview was sought by the press on board the plane. He will have to remember that these were opinions which were given, as it were, on the "fly".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Fly or sly?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is flying around so much that one wonders whether his flying experience alters his viewpoint. I am simply asking: Is the observation that he made on June 29th that all was well and that these agreements were a great victory for bilingualism, still his view or has he changed this view since he came down to solid earth?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is very simple. All sides of the House have approved the policy of bilingualism. They support it and they will make sure that the country accepts it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is not an answer, that is simply a Machiavellian evasion. Has the Prime Minister of June 29 changed his mind since returning to solid earth in Ottawa, or is he still of the same impression that this was a great victory for bilingualism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House will recall that before the strike was settled, the country was rather unsettled. The opposition in particular was calling for an end to this strike. When the strike was ended, I would say that that was a victory for Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: "For bilingualism" is what the Prime Minister said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The victory for bilingualism is assured because it has the support of all parties in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 5, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman laughed at that statement. I hope he is not denying the fact that his party as well as ours supports the principle of bilingualism everywhere it can be applied.


Mr. Fraser:: Why don't you answer the question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Vancouver South has a supplementary. He is bellowing as loudly as he can. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he will not catch your eye when it comes to the end of my answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The standing orders under which we operate in the question period clearly require that the Chair has to hear at least a preliminary explanation of a point of order before determining whether it must be taken now or at three o'clock. That is the practice the Chair has followed since the implementation of the standing orders.


John George Diefenbaker: The loud and raucous interruptions from the government side indicate that I have touched a nerve.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I raise this matter as one who has always been deferential to the Chair without any exception.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: It is a strange coincidence, this is the fourth or fifth time when I have asked more than one supplementary question and that that was the end. Generally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would be pleased to hear the right hon. gentleman at three o'clock. In fact, he asked two supplementaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



OLYMPIC GAMES


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to the International Olympic Committee rules, and I quote:
Free entry must be accorded to teams from all National Olympic Committees recognized by the International Olympic Committee.
The city of Montreal's bid document to the International Olympic Committee of May, 1970, which was accepted by the IOC, stated: "All necessary entry permits will be avail-
Oral Questions
able to delegations from all the National Olympic Committees" recognized by the International Olympic Committee. This bid was supported by the Prime Minister of Canada, by the prime minister of Quebec and by the then secretary of state for external affairs. In view of these facts I would like to ask the minister if he could explain to this House his government's sudden, unprecedented political interference with regard to the International Olympic Committee, specifically regarding the Taiwanese Olympic team and the government's refusal to allow that team or any other team, for that matter, belonging to the IOC free entry to Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the first part of the question, namely, an alleged undertaking by the government of Canada to the International Olympic Committee to admit all participants to the games. I believe the basis for that allegation is a letter addressed by my predecessor to the IOC on November 28, 1969. The relevant portion of that brief letter reads as follows:
I would like to assure you that all parties representing the National Olympic Committees and national sports federations recognized by the IOC will be free to enter Canada pursuant to the normal regulations. I should be pleased to provide any further information respecting these regulations should you desire it.
It is obvious from that literal quotation that the undertaking by the then secretary of state for external affairs was not an unqualified undertaking. At no point in giving such an undertaking did Canada undertake-


John Allen Fraser: That is utter fraud; that is not what the IOC believed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to relinquish its sovereignty to an international organization, no matter how respected that international organization may be.
Further, may I add that we had foreseen for some considerable time the difficulties which would be implied for the IOC and for the government of Canada in dealing with this particular question. We had hoped that the IOC would have taken steps itself to reconcile the difficulties it finds-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in having as a member of the IOC the Republic of China when the People's Republic of China and all the sports organizations of the People's Republic of China claim that Taiwan is improperly occupying its seat on the IOC. Those difficulties were present. We drew them to the attention of Lord Killanin more than a year ago and have subsequently drawn them to the attention of the officials of the IOC. It was only when no action had been taken by the IOC that we made it clear in late May, through the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, that we would apply a formula for the admission of athletes to Canada which would respect Canada's China policy.
Let us bear in mind that it is possible for the Taiwanese athletes to come to Canada, to be admitted and to participate in the games in precisely the same way they participated in the Olympic Games in 1960 in Rome under conditions and regulations which were approved by the

July 5, 1976
Oral Questions
IOC. All we are asking is that they apply the same consideration to Canada which they applied to Italy in 1960.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I thank the minister for his speech. No matter which way he tries to twist it around, the fact is that the government accepted the Montreal bid and is harming the Olympic idea more than any other organization in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Otto John Jelinek: I would like to ask the minister if he does not find it hypocritical to allow Taiwan to compete under one name and not another. In other words, we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan; does it make any more sense to allow its athletes to participate as Taiwanese when we do not recognize Taiwan anyway?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are attempting to formulate and we have proposed successfully, I believe, a formula which would permit the participation of Taiwanese athletes at the Olympic Games in Montreal. That formula would provide for that and at the same time would respect Canada's China policy. That is what we have put forward. I ask why it is not possible for the IOC to apply precisely the same understanding to Canada which it provided earlier in the case of Italy when Taiwan came to those games and participated as representatives of Taiwan and not as representatives of the Republic of China.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Perhaps he could clarify the situation.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Oh, no! Are you kidding?


An hon. Member:: There goes your franchise.


Otto John Jelinek: The Prime Minister is the one who accepted the bid on behalf of all Canadians in this letter. I should like to ask whether he was aware at that time if not by precedents alone, that all decisions relating to the Olympic Games, including participation, is left in the hands of the International Olympic Committee and if he was aware of this fact why did the government not make its position and intentions known to the IOC at that time instead of waiting until the eleventh hour and harming not only Montreal but the whole Olympic ideal? Why the sudden flip-flop?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have been listening. The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated quite clearly that there was no sudden flip-flop. This problem has been in discussion with the IOC for more than a year. They apparently have not seen fit in one way or another to solve this problem as of yet but they have indicated to the Secretary of State for External Affairs the very obvious answer. It is the one they themselves gave to Italy in 1960. I would be surprised if the other side of the House did not think that an acceptable answer for Italy, one which is known to all parties and which was known to Canada, could not reasonably have been presumed by Canada to be the answer that they would give to Canada. There was no

problem as far as we were concerned because it had already been solved 16 years ago.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the news report last night that 27 Chilean exiles who took refuge in the Canadian Embassy in Argentina- as a result of a threat on their lives by right wing terrorists-have asked for political asylum, can the minister advise the House what action, if any, his department is undertaking to grant them this asylum?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation referred to by the hon. member. At the present time Canadian officials are holding discussions with the authorities in Argentina with a view to resolving this particular difficulty. We hope we can produce some results but I am not in a position to go beyond that at the moment.



IMMIGRATION


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? Will the provisions in Bill C-85, which is now the law, be used to prevent these Chilean exiles from immigrating to Canada even though they have not committed crimes as defined in Canadian law?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice and explore the legal implications before giving an answer.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government sent a message to the government of Israel congratulating that country on the daring rescue of hostages yesterday morning, thereby demonstrating that initiative and courage can successfully defeat terrorism? If so, would the minister announce what the message was?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
July 5, 1976

Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE
member, may I say that I have not yet sent a message to the foreign minister of Israel. I did receive a letter from him which was given to me late this morning, and I hope to reply to him as soon as possible. I should like to say in reply to the hon. member that the action taken by Israel in securing the release of the hostages was certainly a remarkable feat, well executed and responded to the widespread concern felt by Canadians that the lives of the hostages be spared. It was the first serious setback of international terrorism and as such will be widely applauded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should add in completing the answer for the hon. member that I understand the matter will be before the Security Council of the United Nations, and it will be possible to study further the implications of these events under international law.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Solicitor General regarding the apparently illegal entry by the RCMP and other police into the premises of the Quebec newspaper L'Agence de presse libre du Quebec a matter which concerns many members? Can the Solicitor General confirm reports that Messrs. Don Cobb and Francis (Frank) D'Entrement who have been investigating this apparently illegal break-in were at the relevant time when it occurred responsible, at least in part for its occurrence? If so, is this not a rather startling departure in investigative technique?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is being investigated by the Quebec solicitor general and his officials, not by the RCMP.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is no worse than your private detectives.



KNOWLEDGE OF HEADQUARTERS OF ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO QUEBEC NEWSPAPER OFFICE BY MEMBERS OF FORCE

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Solicitor General look into the matter again to make certain he is fully briefed, and report whether similar incidents have occurred and whether in fact in this case headquarters knew in advance before this operation occurred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How do private detectives proceed?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: They work better than yours.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a report that headquarters was not advised in advance of that raid and I gave that information to the House before.



RECEIPT BY CLERK OF PRIVY COUNCIL OF HOUSING SUBSIDY-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Could he advise the House whether he has been in contact with the Ontario housing corporation to discuss whether the Clerk of the Privy Council acted in good faith with regard to his receipt of an OHC subsidy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I am satisfied there was good faith in that particular case.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs? Will the minister inform the House if he has sought the advice of the obviously experienced Clerk of the Privy Council with regard to the department's inquiries into land speculation?


An hon. Member:: He was in the air, too.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises out of the story in Friday's Globe and Mail that brings back some haunting memories of wartime years and Canadian attitudes. Would the minister examine the peremptory treatment accorded to a Mr. Masaya Hamada who arrived in Toronto from Japan with a visitor's visa, a return ticket to Japan and $1,200 in cash but who was returned immediately without a hearing and without legal advice and under threat of deportation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hamada is a citizen of Japan. He came to Canada from the United States on June 29 and, at an immigration examination, indicated to the interviewing officer that he was coming to join his fiancee to marry her and remain here permanently. It turned out that his fiancee was already married and had not been divorced, therefore that suggestion was impossible to fulfil. Further evidence indicated that he was not in fact a bona fide visitor and under the regulations he was requested to return to Japan.


John Allen Fraser: Why did you not give him legal aid?


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that Mr. Hamada travelled some 10,000 miles to reach Toronto and was returned at his own expense when his expected visit was so abruptly ended, could the

July 5, 1976
Oral Questions
office in Tokyo which issued the visa be instructed to warn potential visitors of the treatment that could be theirs on arrival in Canada, considering the extreme difficulties that arise in connection with language, and considering that Mr. Hamada had done nothing illegal and that his papers were in order?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will check and double check this, but I doubt very much if Mr. Hamada was in fact issued a visa in Japan. Had he been issued a visa in Japan he would have been entitled to appeal under the Immigration Appeal Board Act. I would take that as prima facie evidence that he did not in fact have a visa issued in Japan.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General concerning a murder that took place in British Columbia on the weekend. I wonder if the Solicitor General can tell us why Mr. Marcoux, the man who has been charged with that murder, was allowed to stay in a halfway house when the people in that area had been guaranteed that there would be no people in that house with previous sexual offence records or rape records?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that individual had completed his sentence and was under mandatory supervision. He was not out on parole and therefore we had no control over him. The halfway house in question was a private halfway house.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The Solicitor General told us that the man had completed his mandatory parole. I understand he does not complete it for a short while yet and that he was still under mandatory parole. Can the Solicitor General tell us whether that individual is under suspicion in two or three other murders that have taken place in the same area?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there was some misunderstanding. I said that he had completed his sentence in prison and was on mandatory supervision. He was not out on parole. I have no information that he is suspected of other offences.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to tell the House if the athletes from the Republic of China coming to Canada to participate in the Olympics will be accorded exactly the same treatment as athletes coming from other countries in

so far as their entry into Canada to participate in the games is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I missed the last few words of the hon. member's question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I asked if the athletes who come to Canada from the Republic of China to participate in the Olympic Games will be accorded exactly the same rights with regard to entry into Canada to participate in the games as athletes from other countries who will be participating in the games.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Provided they come as representatives of Taiwan, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the government has now been successful in restraining the growth in the money supply, that is M-l, to an annual increase of close to 10 per cent, about twice the increase to be found in the United States, and noting that the Governor of the Bank of Canada stated in Fredericton that lower targets will soon be appropriate, can the minister tell the House what these new money growth targets will be and when they will come into effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, these would be announced by the Bank of Canada in carrying out its responsibilities for monetary policy. From a conversation with the Governor, I know he has it in contemplation at the moment, but I do not have a precise indication from him as to when he proposes to announce the change.



INFLATIONARY EFFECT OF GROWTH IN PRIVATELY-HELD DEPOSITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: While the government has finally held the growth of currency and demand deposits, M-l, to 10.4 per cent for the year ended May 1976, we note that other measures of money supply, such as currency and privately held deposits, M-2, are increasing at nearly double that rate, about 20 per cent. Can the minister tell the House whether he considers the continued rapid expansion of M-2 or M-3 to be inflationary, and whether he or the Governor propose to set growth targets for these measures of money as well?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Governor has often said that he considers M-l as the best indicator of growth of the money supply.
July 5, 1976



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD   DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOARD'S GUIDELINES AND NEGOTIATED SALARY AWARDS-EFFECT ON PERSONNEL OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the guidelines established by the Anti-Inflation Board which generally limit increases in higher incomes to $2,400 per year, applying for example to senior administrative personnel of school boards, and in view of the fact that this limitation does not apply to comparable incomes where increases of up to $5,000 have been negotiated through a collective agreement, such as for secondary school principals, and, further, since this in some cases reverses the historical pattern and differential which has existed between these senior employees of school boards, does the minister agree that this anomalous situation should be rectified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, provision has been made in the guidelines for an increase above and beyond the arithmetic guidelines in certain cases where a historical relationship has been established. This applies to all parties negotiating under collective bargaining agreements. The hon. member knows, for example, that in the case of a number of Ontario school boards, the Anti-Inflation Board has, on the basis of historical relationship, permitted increases in excess of the guidelines. Under the circumstances, I would accept the judgment of the board which is exercising its authority in that regard.


Bruce Halliday: Since this conflict in the regulations severely disrupts the smooth administrative functioning of large organizations, such as school boards, where levels of position of authority and responsibility carry with them corresponding differentials in remuneration, would the minister agree that it would be appropriate that an application for appeal be made, and could he assure us that the appeal hearing would be granted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for also giving me notice of the supplementary. The Anti-Inflation Act provides for an appeal procedure now. It would be possible for an interested party to make an application for an order to the administrator and subsequently to the appeals tribunal. In that sense, there would be no impediment to an interested party making such an appeal.



FINANCE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. Does the minister consider it fair and equitable that farmers who wish to sell a distant parcel of land in order to consolidate their farms with closer parcels, must first pay a capital gains tax on the distant sale? Will the minister give consideration to changing that aspect of the capital gains tax?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in discussing this with me. I, in turn, discussed it with my officials. There are some difficulties of comparison in this regard with respect to selling and repurchasing farm land as compared to selling and repurchasing other kinds of property. At the moment, I have not been able to find an effective means of dealing with this particular situation. However, by the hon. member's question, I have been alerted to the problem. I will attempt to seek a solution that will be equitable to all concerned.



NATIONAL GALLERY


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State who represents the constituency involved. I have given verbal notice to the hon. lady. Because of the public interest aroused in a lately recognized public treasure, the room painted with murals, some over one and a half centuries ago, in Karsdale, Nova Scotia, recently acquired by the National Gallery, may I ask that the National Gallery carry out its intention to restore same and then give a permanent home to the same in the federally owned Habitation at Annapolis Royal where it may be seen by more than 190,000 visitors a year? In other words, I am asking that the National Gallery decentralize a bit.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I appreciate this room is in my constituency. However, a lot of representations have been made to the Secretary of State by private individuals, non-government officials as well as myself. It is the intention of the National Gallery to restore the paintings and bring this display to Ottawa where it will have the proper temperature and humidity in a room devoted to a maritime display. However, the concerns of the local people, as the hon. member will know, have only arisen within the past month, since the National Gallery started to work on the painting. These concerns have been brought to the attention of the National Gallery.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering the resignation of the Minister of the Environment and the underrepresentation within cabinet of members from eastern Quebec where the problem of the environment is a major concern, can the Prime Minister clarify the status of this position and tell us whether he is seriously considering the appointment of a member from
15010

July 5, 1976
Oral Questions
eastern Canada, particularly from eastern Quebec, to hold this very important position in the Department of the Environment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that under an order in council there is an acting deputy minister and an acting deputy minister to the acting deputy minister. Thus, the position is not vacant now.



FISHERIES


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries). It concerns the lower Fraser River. It was reported last night that negotiations are underway between the federal government and the provincial government concerning pollution standards for the lower Fraser River. If these negotiations are taking place, will the minister advise at what level they are taking place? Are they now active?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, in my temporary responsibility for environment, I have not had a chance to look at the file. I know the minister of the environment for British Columbia and I had an exchange of views some weeks ago, in fact in May, on the question of pollution of the lower Fraser River because of its impact on fisheries. However, I will take the hon. member's question as notice and reply to him later.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of the Canada Water Act, Section 16, the minister has authority to enter into an agreement with the provincial government to declare the lower Fraser as a water quality management area. Will the minister advise if the government is proposing that the lower Fraser become a water quality management area so that we can control pollution in co-operation with the provincial government?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the question is too important for me to answer without first checking the facts very carefully.



FINANCE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance; it concerns the use of $50 and $100 bills in Canada, and I believe it goes to the root of our system of currency. Last July I raised this matter with the then minister of finance when I discovered that certain cashiers on Parliament Hill, along with others

in other places of business, were refusing to accept $50 and $100 bills. The minister explained that the design then current was too easy to counterfeit and stated that a new design was to be introduced. In view of the fact that the new bills have now been in circulation for some time, would the hon. gentleman tell us why they are being refused by cashiers on Parliament Hill unless they are accompanied by the signatures and addresses of whoever presents them? In short, I ask the minister to explain how the government expects our system of currency to operate when the House of Commons itself refuses to accept currency which is marked "legal tender"?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: should like to take that question under advisement and consider it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you caught the observation which was made by the Prime Minister following my endeavour to elucidate what he meant when he said certain things which are reported in the Canadian press. One of the great difficulties of being the Speaker is that there appears to be an iron-clad rule that only two supplementary questions can be permitted. A minister can simply evade a question and not answer; he is not required to answer. But, certainly, one of the first rules, and this is so in the mother of parliaments, is that when a minister finds himself in difficulty, that is not the proper time to say: No more questions.
I do not know whether you caught the observation of the Prime Minister when someone rose to ask a question-I do not know whether he was referring to me or to the one who rose to ask a further supplementary question. The Prime Minister said, in effect, Mr. Speaker, I hope you do not recognize him.
I hope you will look into the record, for I feel sure that any observation such as that-and there is no question that it was made-indicates an attitude to parliament and to Your Honour which is contrary to parliamentary practice and responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My recollection of the phrase which was used was that there was another phrase added to it, in other words the hope was expressed that the Chair would not recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South until the Prime Minister had finished his answer. I believe that was the purport of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no need of explanation not in accordance with the facts which apparently the Prime Minister is now prepared to make, as is not an unusual thing for him to do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, you could, of course, check the blues, but as far as I can quote myself at an hour's distance, the hon. member for Vancouver South was bellowing loudly at me and I suggested that you should not catch his eye, not that he should not catch yours.
July 5, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following 133 questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,255 to 4,300, inclusive; 4,333 to 4,355, inclusive; 4,473 to 4,480, inclusive; 4,497 to 4,504, inclusive; 4,518 to 4,530, inclusive; 4,803 to 4,810, inclusive; 4,819 to 4,826, inclusive; 4,855 to 4,868, inclusive; 5,372, 5,455, 5,696, 5,730, 5,747 and 5,772. fTextl
[Editor's Note: The following answer applies to Questions Nos. 4,255 to 4,300 inclusive and 4,333 to 4,355 inclusive.]


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre?

Question No. 4,256-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre?

Question No. 4,257-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre?

Question No. 4,258-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Millhaven Institution?

Question No. 4,259-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at LeClerc?

Question No. 4,260-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Saskatchewan Penitentiary?

Question No. 4,261-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Cowansville?

Question No. 4,262-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Ste. Anne des Plaines?

Question No. 4,263-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Archambault?

Question No. 4,264-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Frontenac Institution?

Question No. 4,265-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Rockwood Institution?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 4,266-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Stony Mountain Institution?

Question No. 4,267-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Joyceville?

Question No. 4,268-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Montee St. Francis?

Question No. 4,269-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp?

Question No. 4,270-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Pittsburg Institution?

Question No. 4,271-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Quebec Federal Training Centre?

Question No. 4,272-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Collins Bay Institution?

Question No. 4,273-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Warkworth Institution?

Question No. 4,274-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Bath Institution?

Question No. 4,275-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Saskatchewan Farm Annex?

Question No. 4,276-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp?

Question No. 4,277-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Osborne Centre?

Question No. 4,278-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Ontario Pre-release Hostel?

Question No. 4,279-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,280-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,281-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,282-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Millhaven Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?
955 70-49%

July 5, 1976
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 4,283-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at LeClerc and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,284-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,285-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Cowansville and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,286-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Ste. Anne des Plaines and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,287-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Archambault and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,288-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Frontenac Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,289-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Rockwood Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,290-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Stony Mountain Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,291-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Joyceville Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,292-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Montee St. Francis and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,293-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,294-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Pittsburg Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,295-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Quebec Federal Training Centre and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,296-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Collins Bay Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,297-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Warkworth Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,298-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Bath Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,299-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Saskatchewan Farm Annex and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,300-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,333-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre?

Question No. 4,334-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre?

Question No. 4,335-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre?

Question No. 4,336-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Millhaven Institution?

Question No. 4,337-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at LeClerc?

Question No. 4,338-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Saskatchewan Penitentiary?

Question No. 4,339-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Cowansville?

Question No. 4,340-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Ste. Anne des Plaines?

Question No. 4,341-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Archambault?

Question No. 4,342-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Frontenac Institution?

Question No. 4,343-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Stony Mountain Institution?

Question No. 4,344-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Joyceville Institution?

Question No. 4,345-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Montee St. Francis?

Question No. 4,346-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp?

Question No. 4,347-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Pittsburg Institution?

Question No. 4,348-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Quebec Federal Training Centre?
July 5, 1976


Question No. 4,349-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Collins Bay Institution?

Question No. 4,350-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Warkworth Institution?

Question No. 4,351-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Bath Institution?

Question No. 4,352-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Saskatchewan Farm Annex?

Question No. 4,353-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp?

Question No. 4,354-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Osborne Centre?

Question No. 4,355-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Ontario Pre-release Hostel?


William Warren Allmand: By written communication dated May 3, 1976, the Solicitor General informed the hon. member that, because the required information was not currently available through the computerized inmate statistical information system, approximately 30,000 files (some active and some dormant) would have to be examined in various locations across Canada and reports compiled and coordinated at one central point in Ottawa. The Ministry of the Solicitor General does not have the additional staff available to engage in this research for an indeterminate number of months nor does it have the required funds for such a mammoth undertaking.
[Editor's Note: The following answer applies to Questions Nos. 4,473 to 4,480 inclusive, 4,497 to 4,504 inclusive, and 4,518 to 4,530 inclusive.]


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Dorchester Penitentiary?

Question No. 4,474-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Laval?

Question No. 4,475-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Ontario Prison for Women?

Question No. 4,476-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Dungarvon?

Question No. 4,477-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Springhill?
Order Paper Questions

Question No. 4,478-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Westmoreland?

Question No. 4,479-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Ontario Regional Reception Centre?

Question No. 4,480-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Quebec Regional Reception Centre?

Question No. 4,497-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Dorchester Penitentiary and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,498-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Laval and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,499-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Ontario Prison for Women and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,500-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Dungarvon and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,501-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Springhill and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,502-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Westmoreland and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,503-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Ontario Regional Reception Centre and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,504-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Quebec Regional Reception Centre and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,518-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Dorchester Penitentiary?

Question No. 4,519-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Carlton Centre?

Question No. 4,520-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Portsmouth Centre?

Question No. 4,521-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Montgomery Centre?

Question No. 4,522-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at St. Hubert Centre?

Question No. 4,523-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Parrtown Centre?

July 5, 1976
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 4,524-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Laval?

Question No. 4,525-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Ontario Prison for Women?

Question No. 4,526-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Dungarvon?

Question No. 4,527-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Springhill?

Question No. 4,528-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Westmoreland?

Question No. 4,529-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Ontario Regional Reception Centre?

Question No. 4,530-Mr. MacKay:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Quebec Regional Reception Centre?


William Warren Allmand: By written communication dated May 3, 1976, the Solicitor General informed the hon. member that, because the required information was not currently available through the computerized inmate statistical information system, approximately 30,000 files (some active and some dormant) would have to be examined in various locations across Canada and reports compiled and coordinated at one central point in Ottawa. The Ministry of the Solicitor General does not have the additional staff available to engage in this research for an indeterminate number of months nor does it have the required funds for such a mammoth undertaking.
[Editor's Note: The following answer applies to Questions Nos. 4,803 to 4,810 inclusive, 4,819 to 4,826 inclusive, and 4,855 to 4,868 inclusive.]


Mr. Reynolds: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Ferndale and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,804-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Matsqui and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,805-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Mountain Institution and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,806-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Agassiz Correctional Camp and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,807-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Williams Head and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,808-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Bowden and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,809-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at Drumheller and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,810-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of self-mutilations at British Columbia Penitentiary and how many resulted in the death of an inmate?

Question No. 4,819-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Ferndale?

Question No. 4,820-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Matsqui?

Question No. 4,821-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Mountain Institution?

Question No. 4,822-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Agassiz Correctional Camp?

Question No. 4,823-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Williams Head?

Question No. 4,824-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Bowden?

Question No. 4,825-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at Drumheller?

Question No. 4,826-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted escapes at British Columbia Penitentiary?

Question No. 4,855-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Ferndale?

Question No. 4,856-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Matsqui?

Question No. 4,857-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Mountain Institution?

Question No. 4,858-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Agassiz Correctional Camp?

Question No. 4,859-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Williams Head?

Question No. 4,860-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Bowden?
July 5, 1976


Question No. 4,861-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Drumheller?

Question No. 4,862-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at British Columbia Penitentiary?

Question No. 4,863-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Pandora Centre?

Question No. 4,864-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Grierson Centre?

Question No. 4,865-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Oskana Centre?

Question No. 4,866-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Altadore Centre?

Question No. 4,867-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Scarboro Centre?

Question No. 4,868-Mr. Reynolds:
For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of attempted suicides at Burrard Centre?


William Warren Allmand: By written communication dated May 3, 1976, the Solicitor General informed the hon. member that, because the required information was not currently available through the computerized inmate statistical information system, approximately 30,000 files (some active and some dormant) would have to be examined in various locations across Canada and reports compiled and coordinated at one central point in Ottawa. The Ministry of the Solicitor General does not have the additional staff available to engage in this research for an indeterminate number of months nor does it have the required funds for such a mammoth undertaking.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence have any contracts or business dealings with Canadian Vickers Limited of 5000 Notre Dame Boulevard East, Montreal, Quebec during the period from 1963 to 1975 inclusive and, if so, in each case, what was the amount of money involved and were tenders called?
2.	If tenders were (a) called, did Canadian Vickers submit the lowest tender (b) not called, what was the reason?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Records prior to the Fiscal Year 1970-71 are not available. In order to limit research resources required to provide the information requested only contract over $10,000 are included. 1. Following is a list of contracts over $10,000 awarded to Canadian Vickers Limited of 5000 Notre Dame Boulevard East, Montreal, Quebec, by the Department of Supply and Services (Marine and Industrial Machinery Products Centre) on behalf of the Department of National Defence during the period Fiscal Year 1970-71 to 1975-76. 'Denotes tenders were not called.
Order Paper Questions
2. (a) In all cases where tenders were called Canadian Vickers submitted the lowest or only tender or only responsible (**) tender, (b) In those cases where tenders were not called the reasons are: *1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Only firm with personnel available in quantity and classification and facilities capable of providing the required technical services in respect of the Canadian Forces Shipbuilding, Conversion and Maintenance Programs. *4. Only firm with a Planer capable of doing the job. *6. Canadian Vickers had proprietary rights to the items being purchased. *8. On completion of the refit of the Margaree at Canadian Vickers in February 1976, the vessel, while being towed to Halifax (vessel unable to operate in ice), sustained damage and was returned to the shipyard to affect repairs. *9. The Riverton, one of the tugs towing the Margaree, needed emergency propulsion repairs. It was considered prudent to have the work done by Canadian Vickers, so the tug crew could use the Margaree as a base for messing and sleeping and to augment security and fire protection crew.
Contracts Over $10,000. Awarded to Canadian Vickers Limited by the Department of Supply and Services on Behalf of the Department of National Defence
Contract Date	Brief Description	Contract08-05-70	1970-71 Refit Margaree	Value $ 455,814.28-08-70	Naval Central Design Office	539,395. *1.17-08-71	1971-72 Naval Central Design Office	269,509. *2.26-07-71	Refit and Docking Fraser	1,060,081.23-08-71	Docking Preserver	39,457.23-09-71	Working Drawings DDH-280	1,090,000. *3.15-03-72	Planing Gun Mount Ring	DDE-257	14,565. *4.15-06-72	1972-73 Refit and Docking Nipigon	1,118,715.02-01-73	Refit and Docking Assiniboine	1,945,952.14-07-72	Naval Ship Design Agency	3,380,250. **06-07-73	1973-74 Refit and Docking Skeena	2,027,554.15-11-73	Refit and Docking Protector	1,828,219.26-09-73	Depth Sonar Handling Gear	Skeena	17,184.15-01-75	1974-75 Refit and Docking four	Destroyers	14,000,000.26-09-74	Hydraulic Cylinder Assembly	22,548.20-01-75	Parts for Steering Gears	14,614.21-01-75	Spare Parts	11,178.12-09-74	Diving Chamber	511,850.15-04-74	Naval Ship Design Agency	1,655,000. *5.21-06-74	Hose Assembly, Hose	Assembly Flexible, Pivot	14,738. *6.08-05-75	Arm Bushing for AN/SQA 501 Sonobuoy 1975-76 Naval Ship Design Agency	5,850,000. *7.10-03-76	Emergency Repairs Margaree	380,549. *8.09-03-76	Emergency Repairs Riverton	16,269. *9.
July 5, 1976
Order Paper Questions CMHC-ANNUAL REPORT


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many copies of the Annual Report of CMHC were printed in
(a)	1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975?
2.	For each year, what was the cost of (a) printing (b) mailing and distribution?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Acting Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. The following is the number of copies of the Annual Report of CMHC printed in each of the years 1972 to 1975:
	Number of
Year	copies
1972	10,200
1973	12,301
1974	12,125
1975	15,707
2. Provision is made each year in the Administrative Budget of CMHC for the costs of printing and distributing its Annual Report. The Administrative Budget is the responsibility of the President and the Board of Directors and it is not the policy to disclose details of internal administration.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How much of the Physical Resources Development Programme monies has been spent to date?
2.	In what areas have these sums been allocated and to whom were they given?
3.	If it is intended to expend further funds under the Programme, will consideration be given to the merit of providing assistance to a facility in British Columbia, specifically the Centennial Stadium track replacement in Victoria?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Nil.
2.	Nil.
3.	The submission for financial assistance for the Centennial Stadium track at the University of Victoria was reviewed under the Physical Resources Development Program. This proposal was not recommended for approval and the University was so advised.


Mr. Scott: 1. What will be the salary of Mr. Guy Cousineau in his new position as Special Advisor to the President of the Treasury Board for matters related to the creation of Loto Canada?
[Mr. Goyer.J
2. What was Mr. Cousineau's salary in his former position as Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: 1.
As Special Advisor to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Cousineau is paid in the Deputy Minister I salary range, the minimum of which is $41,000 and the maximum $54,000.
2. As Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Mr. Cousineau was paid in the same Deputy Minister I salary range.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Has any request been received from the Government of Ontario for permission to amend the Memorandum of Agreement dated March 3, 1958, between the federal and Ontario governments as the agreement relates to Durham Memorial Hospital?
2.	Does the government consider the agreement still valid and binding on both parties?
3.	Would the closure of Durham Memorial Hospital be affected in any way by the Memorandum of Agreement?
4.	Has the government made any representations whatsoever respecting the future of hospitals in Ontario threatened with closing and, if so, what is the nature of these representations?
5.	What is the government's contribution to the operation of hospitals in Ontario (a) in dollars (b) as a percentage of the total cost?


Marc Lalonde: 1. No.
2.	Yes.
3.	The closure of Durham Memorial Hospital will not in itself affect the Memorandum of Agreement. However, should provincial payments to the hospital cease, this would affect the amount of the federal contribution payable to Ontario under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.
4.	No.
5.	The Federal Government's contribution to the operation of hospitals in Ontario for the calendar year 1973 was (a) $521,272,098. (b) 49.7 per cent of the total shareable cost in Ontario.


Mr. Schumacher: By province and territory, how much personal federal income tax was paid in the year (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 (f) 1976 to date?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)
1971-	See Taxation	Statistics,	1973	edition-Table	5;	(b)1972-	See Taxation	Statistics,	1974	edition-Table	5;	(c)1973-	See Taxation	Statistics,	1975	edition-Table	5;	(d)1974-	See Preliminary Taxation Statistics, 1976 edition-
July 5, 1976

Capital Punishment



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Table D. Data pertaining to parts (e) and (f) are not available.
 * *

Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,252 could be made an order for return, this return could be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


EXPANSION OF RAIL PASSENGER NETWORK
Mr. Jones: 1.	Did the Department of Transport indicate in 1974 that an expansion or revision to Canada's rail passenger network would be made and, if so, what steps have been taken in this regard?
2.	Have steps been taken to urge railway companies to improve and revive the vital role of trains in a balanced integrated transportation network and, if so, what are they?
3.	Does the government and the provincial governments, either directly or indirectly, contribute to building and maintaining railway rights-of-way, terminals, railway buildings and structures, rolling stock and other services and, if so, in each case (a) in what amounts (b) what are the details for the years 1965 to 1975?
4.	Does the government and the provincial governments, either directly or indirectly, pay for building and maintaining airports, meteorological and navigational services, roads, bridges, dock construction, snow clearing, harbour dredging, etc. in order to provide services for air carriers, bus companies and shipping firms and, if so, in each case, in what amounts?
5.	Has any study been made to show the tremendous advantage of train and railway transportation over other modes of transportation in land and land use, energy and energy conservation, pollution, capacity, comfort, safety, etc.?
6.	Has any study and consideration been given of adopting, in Canada, the inter-modal concept of transportation that has been accepted in Europe and the United States whereby high speed inter-city trains are given an important role in a balanced transportation system?
7.	Does the Department of Transport adopt in its purported transportation policy a view that rationalizes an obvious anti-rail bias and, if so, for what reason?
8.	What procedures and methods has the Department of Transport employed to encourage the use of mass transportation or mass transit?
9.	Has consideration and study been given to subsidization by the government to promote more mass transportation systems in order to give economical and logical answers to energy conservation, the reduction of pollution, free choked city streets, the reduction of parking problems and the protection of the general health and economy of citizens?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 30, consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John Douglas Reynolds: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just looking at the way in which the motions have been set out. Motion No.7, with which we are dealing today, has already been proposed by one member and the allocation of speaking time is quite clear under Standing Order 75(9). My point is this: where Your Honour has grouped two motions, or three or four motions together, could we get a ruling from you as to what the allocated time would be? For example, the next motions to come before us are, I believe, Nos. 10 and 11 in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and myself. Will we be allowed 40 minutes each to speak on those motions, since they are lumped together? The Standing Order says hon. members will be allowed 20 minutes on an amendment. Will they be allowed 40 minutes because two amendments are being taken together?


Mr. Speaker:: The purpose of grouping these motions for discussion is that debate will not be duplicated. The intent of the rule, unless someone can persuade me to the contrary, would have no effect unless the Chair were able to combine similar motions for discussion and thereby limit speeches to one speech per grouping.


John Douglas Reynolds: The point I am trying to clear up is this: on the next motions to come before the House, who gets the 40 minutes, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, or myself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7, in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That Bill C-84 be amended by deleting clause 2.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, sections 46 and 47 of the Criminal Code presently read as follows:
"46. (1) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(a)	kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b)	levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto;
(c)	assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are;
(d)	uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
15018

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
(e)	without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;
(f)	conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d);
(g)	forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to
(d)	and manifests that intention by an overt act; or
(h)	conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph
(e)	or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (e) and manifests that intention by an overt act.
My right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) brought this aspect to the attention of the House a number of times during the question period before debate on this bill began. Certain incidents which have taken place over the past weekend, in particular the hostage-taking situation which caused the Israelis to go right into Uganda and free a planeload of hostages, strengthen the case that an important item of discussion in this House today should be the deletion of clause 2 of the measure before us. It is my opinion that if we delete this clause from the bill we would, in effect, kill the bill. The government has made it plain that it regards the bill as an abolition bill. If we delete clause 2 we would keep on the record capital punishment for persons who commit high treason.
I could spend many hours talking about the reasons I think we should retain capital punishment. No reason could be plainer than the events of last weekend to reinforce my statement that we in this country should retain capital punishment for high treason. Although I hope this will not be the case, with the Olympics coming up shortly in this country some hostage-taking could occur, as it did in the last Olympics. Hostages were also taken in the Uganda incident last weekend. What protection would we have in this country if hostages were taken at the Montreal Olympics?
I would like to put this very serious question to those members on the other side who are abolitionists and who voted for this bill; If 25 or 30 terrorists were to appear on the scene in Canada, would we want to put them in our jails for 25 years? I would hope not. This is why I think there should be a law on the statute books to put them to death. That is what should happen to anybody who tries to disrupt life in this country in any way.
To underline my argument against life imprisonment for 25 years, there is a man in the British Columbia penitentiary right now who has been well quoted in an article that appeared in the Vancouver Province of June 12 last, Mr. Larry Corbett. He talked about what it is like to be in jail for 25 years. This is what he said:
You know, normally speaking he'd never do that but now he's only going to get one chance. Like when you drop this 25 on a guy and he gets into a position where he can escape, he's not going to get another chance for years. They're going to swallow him up in one of these "penthouses"...
Should a prisoner be successful in escaping, he becomes desperate to stay on the loose and this puts the public generally in greater danger than before, Corbett says. If he has a heavy murder term to return to, there isn't much more than can be done to him.
Inside the prisons, Corbett says, there will be a considerable build-up of tensions resulting in more jail killings and suicides.

"It takes a hell of a lot of self-discipline to walk away from a simple little thing now. But what about when you turn around and there's absolutely no hope of me getting out for 25 years. What good am I even to myself?
"Any initiative I might have is totally lost. So now rather than restraining myself I'll be more aggressive. This guy over here isn't going to restrain himself and he's going to stick it to me. So now the paranoia sets in and you figure well, okay, I've got to get him first."
Other prisoners were interviewed and they all said the same thing. With our penitentiaries filled with people who have been sentenced to 25 years in jail, they will be vicious places to be in. The guards will have a terrible time. I can think of nothing worse than having terrorists convicted of high treason sent to jail for 25 years, with no hope of parole. These are people who will have no allegiance at all to Canada, people who have tried to destroy it. They will be in jail with others who, although they are not sweet roses, are not in prison for treason. This is why I think members on all sides of the House should seriously consider changing their minds and deleting this clause from the bill.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised this issue in the House a number of weeks ago. An article appeared in the Toronto Star last Wednesday which I read as I was heading back to my riding. It is by Robert Nielsen and is headlined "Terrorism may yet revive the death penalty issue". I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from this article:
John Diefenbaker is my kind of abolitionist because he would make an exception for terrorists. Here we are dealing not with unprovable deterrence but with an airtight case for the protection of society.
When captured terrorists are allowed to live, innocent people will surely die. Children in schools and buses, hapless tourists in aircraft and airports, will be pitilessly mowed down or blown up.
This has happened again and again already. Terrorists seize an airliner full of passengers or a school full of children-killing a few incidentally or to prove their sincerity-and then threaten to murder their hostages unless a gang of brothers-in-arms, previously imprisoned for a similar crime, are set free.
I should like to stress that point, Mr. Speaker. If this country holds in jail for 25 years terrorists who kill people, how long will it be before some other terrorists hijack an aircraft or take some hostages and demand that this country free some of their citizens who are held in our jails?


An hon. Member:: They will probably run the operation from inside jail.


John Douglas Reynolds: As one hon. member says, they will run the operation from inside jail-and that is true. We know that the drug syndicates run their operations from inside jail. That is all the more reason the House should delete this clause, to let the terrorists of the world know that they cannot come to this country and try and pull any crazy stunts during the Olympics. If I may just conclude the article by Robert Nielsen, he wrote:
If the government concerned does not yield, they carry out their threat. If it does yield, both sets of terrorists are released to kill again. The future murders are not conjectural; killing is the terrorists profession.
Don't say it can't happen here; it already has. Mrs. Pierre Laporte is a widow to prove it.
Only a fool would predict that Canada has seen the last of terrorism within its borders. And if terrorism does come back, the debate on capital punishment will revive, hotter than ever.
July 5, 1976

I shall leave that aspect for now, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that hon. members who are listening to this important debate, or are reading it in Hansard, will seriously consider deleting this clause from the bill. This would virtually kill the bill since the government has stated quite openly that this is an abolition bill. I understand there may be some agreement among the House leaders to have some of the votes on these motions later this week, and perhaps by Thursday of this week we can vote on the motions discussed to that stage. If we could delete this clause we would defeat the bill and get it out of the House of Commons.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in support of the defeat of this particular clause in the bill, and there are a variety of reasons for my doing so. I mentioned the question of treason when I first spoke on second reading debate. In the meantime, my reasons for desiring to see this clause eliminated from the bill have been widened by some rather irresponsible and inflammatory statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during his contribution to the debate. Speaking on June 15 last, the Prime Minister used expressions of high semantic value concerning the noose and the horrors of hanging a person. This, of course, is a tactic that is employed by the press; and I deplore in the strongest language I can think of the tactics used on television. Whenever they talk about this subject, their symbol for debate is a noose around the maple leaf. They do this in order to drive people away from this means of carrying out the death sentence upon those who are guilty of murder of one kind or another. We are not talking about this.
My views have no connection with hanging but, rather, with the death penalty. I even avoid use of the term "capital punishment" because that has a connotation as a result of the Latin derivation having to do with the head. I am not talking about that; I am talking about the imposition of death on a person who has taken the life of someone else. In this particular instance we are talking about treason and treachery as referred to in clause 2. The Prime Minister can make certain suggestions, if he wants, in order to get people's backs up and sort of convince some of those wishy-washy members on his side of the House that they should vote in support of this bill. Thank goodness they are not all wishy-washy.
The Prime Minister can suggest that the lives of those 11 people will be on the conscience of those who defeat the bill. This is not on my conscience now. What should be on the conscience of every Canadian is the life of those who have died and those who will die if this bill is not defeated.
I hesitate to bring forward this subject, but the Prime Minister did so when talking about treason: he delivered an inflammatory address in this connection. As the hon. member who preceded me said, Her Majesty will be here within two or three weeks, and the government is suggesting we remove from the statutes the death penalty for anyone who makes an attempt on the life of Her Majesty. What would be the case in respect of a president? Is the Prime Minister going to reinstate the death penalty when a president is involved? The Prime Minister is certainly not
Capital Punishment
thinking in terms of Canada's connection with, and value for, the Crown. It is not only the Crown which is involved in the act of treason. We all know that treason is a matter affecting the institutions of our government, and anyone who mounts a revolt or tries to overthrow or take over institutions, federal or provincial, by force is guilty of treason. If that is not a crime deserving of the ultimate penalty, then I fail to know what more serious crime there is.
This is supposed to be an abolitionist bill. I have the feeling that the government and those who drafted the bill have failed to realize that the death penalty is still very much written into our laws. The schedule of the bill provides for the removal of certain clauses of the Criminal Code and of the Fugitive Offenders Act, but there are other areas where treason and treasonable acts remain on the statute books. I am not questioning this, because this is where they ought to remain as crimes for which the death penalty should be accorded after a person is convicted by a judge and jury. I refer to the National Defence Act, chapter N-4, of the Revised Statutes of Canada. This chapter does not talk only about persons in uniform, but about every person who is held guilty of committing any one of a number of offences. In general terms, it refers to every person who does, or omits to do anything, or aids such a person who commits an offence, or abets any person in the commission of an offence, or counsels or procures any person to commit an offence. Thus, any person would be guilty of an offence.
What sort of offences are involved? For example, on'the matter of security-and this is section 65 of the National Defence Act-the death penalty is provided for a number of offences. It provides that every person shall suffer death who discloses the preparations for operations of any of Her Majesty's forces. That is one treasonable act which would undermine our country. It refers to every person who discloses, in any manner whatever, any information relating to the process, procedure, publication or document of any of Her Majesty's forces or of any forces co-operating therewith, or does or omits to do anything with intent to prejudice the security of any of Her Majesty's forces or any forces co-operating therewith. This does not refer only to persons in uniform.
Bill C-84 is a complete fraud that is being put upon the people as the abolition of capital punishment in this country. It is nothing of the sort. It is a limited abolition bill, and it is high time the real intent of the bill was made clear. Section 68 of the National Defence Act provides that every person who is a spy for an enemy is guilty of an offence, and upon conviction is liable to suffer death or a lesser punishment. Section 69 provides that every person who joins in a mutiny that is accompanied by violence is guilty of an offence and liable to death or a lesser punishment; and section 70 provides that every person who joins in a mutiny that is not accompanied by violence is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life or a lesser punishment. It then refers to the ringleaders and suggests that, upon conviction, they are liable to suffer death or a lesser punishment.
This government is deluding the Canadian people, as it has made the practice of doing for the last four or five years. It is deluding those who are sincere abolitionists
95570-50V2

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
that there is to be an end to the death penalty in Canada. This is just not true. Here we have the government trying to make lighter the sentence for the crime of treason or a treasonable act in Canada, be it against Her Majesty or against our institutions. I mentioned this in my earlier intervention in this debate which happened to be on budget day, May 25. Nobody bothered to pay any attention because the budget was the all-important thing on that particular day; but it is there in the record for May 25, if anybody wants to read it.
I fail to see how this government can put forward such a notion, depriving Canadians of all their desire to uphold, with every power in their possession, the institutions they hold dear, even to the length of putting their lives on the line to defend them. There are many of us in this House- thank God-who have done that. There are some in this House, although not too many now, who have done this even twice. I am prepared to do it a third time. This measure is absolutely unacceptable to the Canadian people. It is certainly unacceptable to me. I think I speak for a great many people in my riding and a good many people across the whole of this country who just cannot understand the reasoning of this government in abolishing treason as an offence for which the death penalty ought to be given by a jury.
The acceptance of clause 2-and I hope we will have a vote on it shortly-would have a number of consequential effects which I have listed and which I think I will save for debate in respect of certain other clauses. If clause 2 should be defeated, one of the consequences would be that clause 7 of this bill would become either superfluous or debatable, and the original section of the Criminal Code being amended by clause 7, namely, section 534, would automatically be reinstateable. I have 16 examples which follow pretty much the same pattern.
If this particular clause relating to treason or treasonable acts, whether against Her Majesty-and God help us, may that not occur-or against institutions of this country, federal or provincial, by force of arms, should be defeated, a number of very interesting consequences would occur which I propose in the course of time to mention.
I think we should look at the schedule of the bill. We have to look at it in relation, unfortunately, to clause 2, because throughout this whole part of the Criminal Code there is a suggestion in the amendments that in respect of the words "high treason or" only life imprisonment would be involved. Life imprisonment, I think, is one of the most cruel and most inhumane sentences that could be imposed by any judge. The jury may find a person guilty of an act for which life imprisonment is the penalty, but I find it difficult to understand how any thinking soul could see a person condemned to life imprisonment. What has that man to lose? I will introduce some of the horrors on the other side of those introduced by the Prime Minister. I suggest that some abolitionists volunteer to act as guardians of some of these people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.


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


Donald W. Munro: Why should I volunteer? I am in favour of retention.


Mr. Caccia:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Donald W. Munro: I am in the middle of my speech and I would prefer to wait until I have concluded it. I still think there might be a few abolitionists over there who are courageous souls who stood up against the desires of their constituents and voted for abolition who might volunteer because we will have a great deal of difficulty getting people to act as prison guards or even policemen. This will be a very serious problem in our country. I do not think the abolitionists over there have even thought of this.
A man condemned for life, whether for treason or any other act, even if his sentence should be shortened, is a man who has nothing to lose. He can kill. If he wishes to get out and kill, he will do so. That is the man's life who will be on my conscience, not the life of the man who, if we defeat this bill, will hang for his crime. Those who really concern me are the survivors of the victims of these crimes and the victims who are yet to come if this bill should pass.
I sincerely hope this bill will be defeated. I am working with everything I possess to ensure its defeat. One tiny aspect of the defeat of this bill would be the removal of clause 2 which touches on treason. The Canadian people cannot accept that treason should be set up as a crime for which life imprisonment alone is the sentence which may be given by the courts, We know, from past experience, how difficult it is to keep people in prison for two years. If people sentenced to life imprisonment want to get out, they will kill in order to get out.
There seems to be a thing about escapes in this country. I do not know quite how it happens. However, there have been a number of escapes over the last three or four years. I have lost count. Those people will be on the loose in Canada simply because we have become soft in respect of the criminal and have forgotten about the victim. Surely we are men of reason. Surely we want to protect our society. The millions of law-abiding citizens are my concern. They are on my conscience. It is not the few tens who have decided to take the law into their own hands who are on my conscience.
Many of those on the other side who are abolitionists have said that there is no deterrent value in the death penalty. I disagree. I have been told by a well known lawyer, who happens to be a member on this side and who has defended criminals, that some of them might have become murderers but for the fact that they were deterred when they became involved in a felony such as a bank robbery. They admitted to this lawyer that they refused to take a gun along with them.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: I should like at least to finish this sentence, and then I will sit down.
July 5, 1976


An hon. Member:: There are others who should finish their sentences.


Donald W. Munro: There are a good many. A particular criminal told this lawyer that he refused to take a gun with him for fear that he would use it and kill someone and go to prison or face the death penalty. That is a deterrent. Another deterrent value is that the criminal who has been executed does not commit the crime a second time.


Charles L. Caccia: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald W. Munro: Yes, if it is relevant.


Charles L. Caccia: Earlier in his speech the hon. member suggested that abolitionists should volunteer to supervise the inmates. I should like to ask the hon. member whether, along the same line of reasoning, retentionists including the hon. member, would volunteer as executioners.


An hon. Member:: That is quite irrelevant.


Donald W. Munro: I think here, again, we are encountering that abhorrent attitude adopted by abolitionists who insist on the noose. I am not talking about the noose, and hon. members know it. I am talking about the death penalty. These are many ways of disposing of people-and the noose is only one of them. There is gas, electricity, or a man could be given a handle with which to do it himself.


Charles L. Caccia: The method of execution was not my question. My question has to do with whether the hon. member would agree to be the executioner, regardless of the method.


Donald W. Munro: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I can think of methods whereby a man could execute himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member that we are getting into debate.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I think that of all aspects of Bill C-84, the one that should give abolitionists the greatest concern is clause 4 as it now stands. While the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) and members of the cabinet say this is a free vote on a piece of legislation, it is a government measure on which some hon. members have been allowed to vote against their own party, but even when they have been allowed to vote against their party, they have been placed in a situation of duress-


Some hon. Members:: Not true.


Mr. MacFarlane:: It is only true of your side.


Donald W. Munro: Garbage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has the floor, and I suggest we all listen.
Capital Punishment


Robert Carman Coates: I suggest to hon. members that if they do not agree with what I have to say, there is a very easy way of solving that problem, and that is to stand and make their own speeches. I have endeavoured to do my part, and I hope they will do theirs so that the people of this nation will know that a debate is going on and that no one is opposed to the other person's point of view so long as that person is willing to indicate what is that point of view. I watched particularly the vote on second reading and saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) take very careful note of all those who voted against the legislation before the House. I am sure that their progress in the days ahead will be minimal so far as this government is concerned.
I have listened to the hon. member for Hamilton-Moun-tain (Mr. MacFarlane) quite often making contributions from his seat. I can understand that, because he is substantial in that area, and no doubt he has a great deal of difficulty in lifting it. But I think he can get up and explain to his constituents how he changed from the position that he once held.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to have to say this to every speaker in the opposition, but if he would look at the proper page in Hansard he would see that I have already answered the question very well. However, I think it is wrong for him to assume that I changed by mind in any way or form. As far back as the time when the hon. member was still a member from that area he would remember that I was an abolitionist, which was easily 15 years ago.


Mr. Lawrence:: Well, that certainly shows inflexibility of mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member that we are getting into argument.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy very much hearing from the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain either in the House or outside, and I hope he will make longer speeches before this debate is over and explain to his constituents again-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member should address the chair.


Robert Carman Coates: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. member will explain to his constituents how he can adopt a point of view that is so contrary to the point of view they wish him to have when expressing himself on this matter.
I should like to get back to the amendment before the House to delete clause 2. I started out by saying that of all the matters in the bill, this is the one that most concerns members of the House-some of them who are not basically retentionists, who are abolitionists but who feel, at the same time, that any individual who commits high treason against one's country deserves to pay the supreme sacrifice of his life for having committed treason; and I include in that group any individual or group of individuals who would perpetrate insurrection and revolution.
Indeed, if we go back a few years and think of what happened in the province of Quebec, I think most of us would agree that the Canadian people would have been outraged if the criminals had been captured and brought

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
before the courts, rather than being allowed to escape from this country, and if the penalty of death had been pronounced by the courts, as it should have been. But the government commuted the sentences after they had, in fact, killed one outstanding Canadian and had come very close to killing a foreign diplomat in our country.
We witness more and more the development of terrorism in the world and while, fortunately for us and our people, most of the terrorism that has occurred has been outside our country and as a result we are onlookers of events of great traumatic significance to a great many people and nations, I find it difficult for us to try to wipe it from our minds. The sort of situation that occurred in Uganda, which could have resulted in the death of a great many people and which was brought about by people committed to open rebellion against society, could have happened in this country; and if it had, it could have resulted in these people being placed in our penal institutions.
The people who look after the operation of our penal institutions have a difficult enough time without being asked to guard international terrorists and people willing to commit high treason against their country and to stop them from killing either penitentiary employees or fellow inmates. We have not been able to maintain security in our penal institutions up to this point, and the number of kidnappings that have taken place in these institutions in recent months indicates how difficult it is for those who have accepted the responsibility of operating these institutions to carry out their duties. How much more difficult would their task be if we placed within these institutions even more dangerous people who are committed to destroying society as it now exists. We cannot expect those who operate our penal institutions properly to protect society against these people on top of the difficult task they already have.
Regardless of whether in the end we vote for abolition or retention, if there is one part which should come out of this bill, that is the part. For years, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) campaigned as a commitment to himself and to the public at large, for the abolition of capital punishment. It was very courageous of him to come into this House and vote against this bill.
This bill goes further than the United Kingdom has gone. A great many countries have eliminated capital punishment for high treason and for many other crimes, but the right hon. member came into this House and stated that he could not support a bill which would achieve the end against which he had worked throughout his lifetime. He came into this House and said he would not support this bill because the government should be convinced that that particular part of the bill should be eliminated, so that with the coming of the Olympics, with many international events taking place in this country, and with the volatile Middle East situation, the people of this nation should be protected from international terrorism or any form of insurrection taking place. Those who commit those dastardly deeds should pay with their lives.
Then we come to the last but, as far as I am concerned, the most important consideration, and that has to do with our monarch. We are saying to the people of the Common-

wealth that while we are a Commonwealth country, we are not willing to give to the Queen of Canada the same degree of protection the United Kingdom is willing to give her. We are saying to anyone who might consider assassinating her that he will not have to forfeit his life for so doing. We are, in effect, saying to the Queen that there is a lesser degree of protection available to her in Canada than in any other Commonwealth country. As I understand it, of the six countries which have abolished capital punishment for high treason, none is a member of the Commonwealth. That is far too extreme a degree of abolition for the government to ask of the people of Canada, especially when the great majority of Canadians do not wish the government to abolish the death penalty, particularly as it applies to the murder of police officers or penitentiary employees.
There are many in this country who would be willing to extend, rather than limit, the number of crimes which should be punishable by death. There are many who believe that the death penalty should not only be carried out for the protection of police officers and penitentiary guards, but that it should extend to all first-degree murders when mercy is not recommended by the jury. The government is going beyond what the people ask and is extending abolition to the point where anyone who kills the Queen will only be imprisoned for 15 years before consideration is given to that person's securing parole-not necessarily receiving it, but consideration being given- and life imprisonment will be for a period of 25 years. A person 20 years of age can kill the Queen of Canada and be walking the streets again at the age of 45. One gets a terrible feeling that there is something wrong with the legislation before us and that we should do something to eliminate it.
I support the amendment of the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) because it is realistic. It is the very least that those who believe in retention should expect from this government. I say to the abolitionists in this House that if this government is determined to place legislation on the statute books of this country which eliminates the protection which is now available to the monarch and to the Canadian public against terrorists, it should be defeated. The abolitionists in this House should be concerned because the government does not feel that the monarch or the public should be protected against terrorists, international gangsters, the mafia and people of that ilk. Those people know, when they consider committing crimes against individuals, that the worst penalty then can expect is 25 years in prison.
There must be something wrong with a government which believes that, regardless of what the people think, it knows better. That is an indication of a sickness in democracy which we can cure only by defeating the legislation of a government which takes this approach to politics. The best way to restore some respect for parliament and for the democratic institutions which all of us are supposed to love is to see that legislation which is contrary to the beliefs of the great majority of Canadians is defeated.
Surely, abolition carries with it some responsibility- and there is no responsibility on the part of a government which says to the Queen of Canada that we cannot afford to her the same protection which the parliament of the
July 5, 1976

United Kingdom is willing to provide. That parliament has existed longer than any other democratic institution in the world.
It is not responsible or realistic for a Commonwealth country to say to its fellow members of the Commonwealth that it cannot give to the Queen the same degree of protection she will receive when she visits other Commonwealth countries. We cannot provide her with that protection because the government has decided that any individual who attempts to assassinate, or who assassinates her, will only go into one of our institutions, and while there he will probably carry out the same type of crime against other persons, whether they be officers in the institution or inmates.
When an individual commits any kind of crime against the state, he should be prepared to sacrifice his life- nothing more, and nothing less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: He should realize that will be the only penalty and there will be no other. No mercy will be shown any person who endeavours to murder the Queen or sell documents that would be of value to enemy nations. In these days I do not know if this government would designate some of the democratic countries as enemies and the communist countries as our friends. But I cannot envisage a situation where this government should be concerned about the lives of individuals who were endeavouring to destroy this country, our monarch, our prime minister or any specific individual who represents us in a very special way.
I say to you, sir, that I will support the amendment. I hope the abolitionists in this House will support it, as an indication that we have special feeling for the Queen and our country and that we will give the ultimate protection to our Queen and extract the supreme sacrifice from anyone who does damage to our nation or endeavours to assassinate the Queen.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, it is time this government shed the "Alice in Wonderland" mentality regarding the objects and objectives of some people in society at whom this legislation is directed. It seems to me a contradiction in terms to talk about peace and security legislation and at the same time to eliminate the consequences for treasonous activity. Therefore, I plan to support this amendment which would make treason punishable by death.
The government is charged with providing good order and security for our country and its people, as well as for those people, especially heads of state, who visit our country. This good order is based on the concept of civilization. But treason denies the right of any government even to try to maintain order. This bill becomes a vote of confidence for anarchy.
In the last generation there was a notion, that has become popular in society, based upon the worship of the non-hero. There was a time when the hero was an individual who acted courageously on behalf of his country and was commended by the citizens of the country and the
Capital Punishment
government. As a matter of fact, one of our distinguished medals, the Victoria Cross, is a commendation for an act of valour on behalf of the country. But that kind of philosophy is under attack. Today we are faced with a popularization of the views of men like Marcuse who have made the non-hero popular. A man who either deserts his country or acts against his country is becoming the hero because that is seen as an act of courage. The man who goes over the hill is the hero.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: George Washington.


Benno Friesen: More like Benedict Arnold. Today, these people would put up a shrine to Benedict Arnold, instead of George Washington.
There is a very popular philosophy around today which says that everything the establishment does is wrong, and therefore, since the establishment is wrong, it is all right to attack it, to tear it down and to destroy it. That becomes a perverted sense of morality: it is more just, more righteous, more sensible to attack and destroy the establishment than it is to work with the establishment and to honour it. We have had a very notable example of this kind of philosophy in the last few days, with the taking of over 200 hostages in an airplane and flying them to Uganda. In the minds of a lot of people in the world, those seven or so terrorists were heroes. Thousands of people think those men were the heroes in all that activity because they were attacking the establishment. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the commandoes who carried out the raid yesterday are the heroes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: They set the record straight.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: An act of war: that is how you would deal with treason, not the noose?


Benno Friesen: There is a parallel philosophy which was developed in Russia and exported to China and southeast Asia which says the only way you can deal with a capitalist country is to destroy it, because capitalism is corrupt and on its last legs but it will try to fight for acceptance to its last breath, and that capitalism must be destroyed by a revolutionary act and overthrow of the government. That philosophy is still very popular in many countries. It is fine if those countries want to maintain that kind of government for themselves. Let them have it. But allied with that philosophy is the need to export the revolution. It is not good enough to have that kind of government within Russia, China, Viet Nam, Cuba or Cambodia: in order for that philosophy to thrive, the people who believe in it must carry it to other countries. There are a good many people in our country who think that our democratic institutions ought to be destroyed and are doing what they can to attack them.
Several months ago in this House, when we were dealing with the bill regarding citizenship, I spoke of the special parliamentary committee which had travelled the country to study immigration. We were confronted by these people in all the major cities and some of them were supported, would you believe, by the Department of the Secretary of State. These Maoists confronted us in every city across Canada. We were called fascist pigs because we were part

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
of the establishment. Members of the government and members to my left were on the committee and were included as fascist pigs. We represented the establishment, and they kept calling for the downfall and destruction of the parliamentary system and the democratic way of life in Canada. These people really believe what they are saying, Mr. Speaker-and in the bill as it is before us today we are saying that we want to protect these people and destroy ourselves in so doing.


Donald W. Munro: We have to be out of
our minds.


Benno Friesen: It is rather like drinking hemlock, Mr. Speaker. Who would take a viper to his bosom?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Socrates.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is one in our enlightened self-interest. If we cherish those institutions within our country which preserve democracy, which in fact provide freedom for dissenters to say what they say and what they could not do in the countries they espouse, which give us the kind of freedom that we enjoy, we cannot pass the legislation as it stands before us today. It is in our enlightened self-interest to pass the amendment before us, namely, that treasonable activity is punishable by death. Therefore, I plan to support this amendment and I shall vote in its favour.
I challenge the people who support the bill in general, who have not given sufficient thought to the implications of the bill in the case of treasonable activity, to rethink their position on this matter and to give some consideration to voting in favour of this amendment.
I began by saying that we have presented in this legislation an "Alice in Wonderland" mentality. I want to underscore that fact. The whole purport, underlying philosophy and groundwork of this bill rests upon the belief that man is indescribably perfectable, that in his most destructive state he has become that because society has treated him wrongly: either he has been deprived in his youth economically, or he has had a wrong upbringing. Somehow, all along the way we want to absolve man of the responsibility for his behaviour.
Mr. Skinner has done a lot to popularize the notion that we are no longer responsible; that we have been so conditioned by the forces of our society that we cannot make an independent decision any more. I reject that philosophy. I maintain that there are men and women in this and other countries who are deliberately villainous. They are determined and have chosen a path to do wrong. It is within the heart of every one of us to do that. None of us is immune from criminal activity; none of us is immune from inhuman behaviour. We are all victims of a depraved nature. Therefore, I cannot hold truck for that philosophy which says all we need to do is change the circumstances for criminals, give them a better environment and a little tender loving care and they will automatically become different people; give them plush carpets, nice lounges, better day-rooms and recreational areas, and they will be fine people. There are people who are determined to do wrong; people who have come to that place where they will

entertain violent notions and violent activity against the Crown, the Queen, and are determined to do wrong.
I say, again, that it is in our enlightened self-interest to entertain this amendment which will preserve freedom in our country to live in peace and tranquility. I urge hon. members to again think about their position on abolition of the death penalty and to give consideration to this amendment which will preserve the death penalty for those who are guilty of treasonable activity.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in clause 2 of Bill C-84 the Solicitor General of Canada is proposing abolition of capital punishment for any act of treason against Her Majesty, against Canada or against a province. He is also proposing abolition of capital punishment for overthrowing or threatening to overthrow the regime or for collusion with the enemy when as a country we are in a state of war. In short, Mr. Speaker, this means that the philosophy underlying the propositions of the Solicitor General of Canada, the Solicitor of the day-we hope he will not so remain for a long time-this means that any act likely to endanger the country or part of it would not be punishable by death but rather by what the minister calls life imprisonment.
As for life imprisonment, Mr. Speaker, and this is the first point I want to make, I do not believe in it since I do not have faith in the goodwill of the Solicitor General when it comes to implementing the law. Mr. Speaker, how many instances could we cite to prove that parole was granted even though we had been assured there would not be such release on parole?
We must not lose sight, in this debate, of the context in which the Solicitor General has placed us. He started with the notion that any irreversible penalty such as the death penalty is bad in that sense that it would denote that our society is prone to violence. He is himself a great pacifist who believes in the good will of all humans, that is why he tells us: "We shall apply such punishment which is not final, such as jail terms." And to make sure that imprisonment is not abusive towards the criminal the minister applies this principle which is radically opposed to the punishment provided by the Criminal Code, namely release on parole. Thus clause 2 of the bill which is before us and which amends the Criminal Code as far as murders and other major offences are concerned, mentions treason to which I referred earlier.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) suggests then the abolition of capital punishment in cases of treason. He thinks it is a serious crime to attack Her Majesty the Queen, the government of Canada, a province or the system. It is a serious crime to conspire with the enemy in wartime but it is not serious to the extent that the criminal convicted of treason should be sentenced to death as provide by the Criminal Code.
However, Mr. Speaker, if tomorrow our country were at war with any of the countries in the world, that same government would ask Canadians and the young people to fight in the armed forces to kill people they do not know, risking their lives to ensure the security and the defence of
July 5, 1976

Canada. That same minister would travel from coast to coast to ask the mothers of young Canadians to sacrifice their sons, as we can see it in the Memorial Chapel here in Parliament and where this government is proud to turn the pages to show the names of those great Canadians who fought for Canada in foreign countries where they lost their lives. Why? For the security of Canada, for the well being of Canada, to protect our ideology, our identity and our security. Thousands of Canadians risked their lives on those battlefields.
Mr. Speaker, all this is done for the security of the public. What is treason according to the Criminal Code? Treason is a threat made by one individual or group of individuals attempting to overthrow a government by force, through criminal means, threatening not only the stability of the state, but also the health and lives of citizens. This is an act of treason in general. An act of treason is also conspiration with the enemy in wartime, an act of treason is what we saw, for instance during the October crisis in Quebec, it is an act that endangers the lives of citizens and the political system as in Canada we are supposed to live in a democracy and that the most logical way to overthrow a government is democracy.
Mr. Speaker, this is the logic of the Solicitor General. We shall remember the epic fight of our ancestors against conscription, when they were told that they had to enroll to protect the country. And now, today, the Solicitor General claims that if any foreigner or any Canadian does the same thing, the death penalty will not apply.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder which side the Solicitor General is on and which aim he is trying to reach. I am trying to understand how he thinks and, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. I cannot understand why the minister supports clause 2 when Criminal Code sections 46 and 47 clearly state that everyone commits treason who, in Canada, attempts to kill Her Majesty, levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto.
Mr. Speaker, if anyone did and act preparatory to levy war against Canada, the death penalty would not be applied. It means that anybody can come to Canada to levy war, and if he can be caught before destroying us, the death penalty will not be applied in his case even if he might have killed 25, 30, 50, 100 or 200 Canadians during his military operations. The minister proposes that the death penalty should not be applied for clause 2; he proposes, if somebody assists an enemy at war with Canada or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities, that the death penalty should not be applied. The minister proposes that we be docile, that we be kind, that we respect all that and that we lay the red carpet for anybody who might use force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province.
The minister proposes that in that particular case the death penalty will not apply in spite of conclusive and cogent evidence. Mr. Speaker, I was in the House with several of my colleagues at the time of what has been called the October crisis. I still remember this Prime Minister snivelling on television and asking everyone to show restraint in that very grave moment; I remember the tearful former Quebec Minister of Justice announcing the death of his colleague minister; I remember the trucks of
Capital Punishment
the Canadian Armed Forces rolling down our streets, getting everyone edgy, controlling and watching all public buildings, members of parliament and ministers; everybody was on general alert, it was a very grave moment, Canada's security was at stake, particularly that of Quebec, that insubordinate province. Canada's security was so in danger that this government introduced a war emergency measures to stop that little outburst of revolt limited to one place in Quebec.
The army was even sent in small communities to watch alleged accused who could have been in collusion with people of the FLQ. We were in a state of general alert, and I remember that our party was holding a convention at Thetford-Mines at that time, a provincial convention for the federal party, and during the last night with beat of drum we were told about the death of minister Pierre Laporte. People were getting nervous and it was very grave. The army was on the look-out and everyone was calling for action.
What happened since then? The October crisis still remains to be explained. A lot of things are still unexplained in that file both to the public and members. A lot of things not only remain to be explained but once again I wonder how it was possible to bring in the army if today the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) suggests that this type of action is not serious. If that kind of situation is not serious, let us immediately abolish-and it is urgent-that emergency measures act. Let us put order not only in the Criminal Code but, to be consistent, in any other legislation.
Some will say, such events could still reoccur. Let us be logical. We are now having in Quebec the Olympic Games which are going to cost a lot of tax money paid by Canadian taxpayers. What is the cost of the military operations to ensure the security of athletes, visitors and prominent people? What will be the amounts paid and the role played by the federal government? Will it be to the extent of forbidding any traffic? This is quite a situation! I have been told that the federal contribution to ensure security will be about $100 million. But let us suppose a moment that such an act of treason does occur, in accordance with sections 46 and 47 of the Criminal Code, which the Solicitor General would like to abolish. On one hand, the federal government is investing $100 million for the security of athletes, very important people and visitors as well as for the general security at the Olympic Games to protect the reputation of the country. It is nice to see soldiers parading!
Let us suppose, Mr. Speaker, that an attempt is made against Her Majesty who will open the games, or against the officials of other countries or one of our public men. What will happen? A general alert, and after giving a good show to demonstrate that Canadians are safe, the criminals will be caught. Then they will be told: "We are sorry, we have to release you because Canada is an understanding country. You are released." The minister will put these people in prison. He will call a press conference. I can see him with his glasses, smiling and telling us that he has made some order in this area. What we shall learn is that a few years later, these same criminals or alleged criminals will be free once again.

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to questions in the order paper which were asked recently in June about the number of convicts who are now free in Canada and who have not been recaptured yet, and this for each penitentiary in Canada. You can find this in Hansard. Mr. Speaker, how can we believe that the minister will ensure safety in Canada if he is content with putting convicts comfortably in prison and giving them a parole or temporary freedom, since the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) believes in rehabilitation.
Mr. Speaker, I am among those who believe that our society must be protected. I am among those who believe that our society, an organized society, must have the means to protect itself against external or internal enemies. Consequently, to protect ourselves, if someone wants to cause trouble of some kind in Canada, act in collusion with the enemy, make threats of revolt or of takeover of a provincial system or of the Canadian government, we must show the whole world that we have laws, we respect our citizens and we want to protect them.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). This is why I shall oppose the minister who is asking us to pass clause 2 according to which any act of treason against the Crown in general would not be subject to capital punishment. In my opinion, not only is the philosophy which the Solicitor General wants us to adopt dangerous, but it also constitutes an invitation to throw over our government system, no longer democratically, but by force. Mr. Speaker, God knows that more and more Canadians think that this is the only solution.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion to delete clause 2 of this bill which is an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences. We are considering one particular aspect of violent crime, and that is treason. I rise at this time simply to voice my support for this amendment.
I do not propose to go into the arguments that have already been placed on the record. Suffice it to say that I agree with what has been said and the reasons given in support of this motion. It is difficult to comprehend the government's determination at this time to pass this legislation, Bill C-84. At a time when the government has announced that it is launching an attack on violent crime, we have before us a bill, the provisions of which, I suggest, constitute an invitation to commit violent crime in this country.
If everything in this country was what we wished it to be, if there was a greater awareness on the part of people of their responsibility to their fellow man, a greater appreciation of the sanctity of life and a recognition of the rights of others, then I think we could understand why the government has taken the position it has. But when we see a growing disregard for human life, with little respect for the rights of others, for the government to bring in a measure of this kind is completely beyond reason.
I have just returned from my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and if the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) would like to

get the feel of the country, I suggest he goes to Fraser Valley East where just the other day a little girl's body was found tied to a tree. This was one of a number of serious crimes committed just recently, and as I mingled with the people and talked to them this was foremost in their thinking.
Reference has also been made to the events of this past week in connection with hostage-taking. Terrorism is flourishing today, and even in this country the very foundations of our civilized society are being threatened. Yet we are being urged to pass legislation which I believe is simply an invitation to certain people to commit crimes in this country.
People are being forced to the conclusion that they cannot expect justice from this government. I am not questioning the sincerity of the Solicitor General, but I just do not know what kind of dream world he is living in. Although it appears to be futile to try to achieve any change in this legislation, I feel I have to stand today and challenge the Solicitor General to take another look at reality in this country. People are looking for some evidence that crime does not pay. Under the present administration of justice in this country, it looks as though crime does pay. Although I am not questioning, as I say, the sincerity of the Solicitor General, I am questioning his judgment in a very fundamental fashion.
The motion before us seeks to reduce the punishment for treason. As has already been pointed out, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada is once more coming to this country, yet we are removing this safeguard for her protection. Surely to goodness, if we are to be faced with a provision like this, it could have been brought in a little later in the session instead of just prior to Her Majesty's visit to Canada. I just cannot see any logic behind this legislation. I cannot understand why we are being called upon to support legislation removing this safeguard.
That is all I am going to say, Mr. Speaker; I said I did not intend to make a long speech. I just want to ask whether there is some logic for our being presented with legislation which removes the penalty of capital punishment for the most serious crimes that can be committed and which some people are committing. I support the motion before the House.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. At the outset let me say that I will lend my full support to this motion, which basically reinstates the penalty of capital punishment for the crime of treason. Treason is a most heinous crime. It is a crime much worse than murder because it is an out-and-out attempt not only to kill the head of state but to destroy the governmental system under which we live. It is, also, an act of supplying evidence or information to an enemy, allowing that enemy to destroy our country. It is a crime that strikes at the very heart of our country.
I understand the concern of the abolitionists when it comes to the crime of murder, but I cannot understand how an abolitionist could not support capital punishment in respect of a crime of the nature which would destroy our country. Murder is carried out by an individual who has no
July 5, 1976

respect for the life of another individual. Treason is carried out by a person who has no respect for his country. Does such an individual deserve to live? Should he not suffer death or capital punishment for such a crime? I, personally, believe he should and I believe the majority of Canadians feel the same way.


An hon. Member:: And one weekend at home will tell you that.


Douglas Charles Neil: If you talk with those Canadians who spent some time in the armed forces during the last war and were prepared to give their lives for their country, you will know there is no question about where they stand. Yet this government says it really cannot execute those people who commit treason, because to execute is a cruel and inhumane type of punishment. The government suggests we should send them to jail for a short period of time and rehabilate them. You cannot rehabilitate the type of person who would kill Her Majesty, destroy this country or supply secret information to another country. Such people are beyond rehabilitation.


Mr. Benjamin:: How do you know that?


An hon. Member:: Because they don't want to be.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And how do you know that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) has the floor.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has some comments to make, I am sure the floor will be available to him as soon as I have completed my remarks. I would be interested to listen to any remarks he might have to make.


John Douglas Reynolds: We would like to have them on record.


Douglas Charles Neil: Yes, I should like to see them on record. The people of Canada are concerned about law and order. They want a country in which they can live in peace and security. They want a country in which there is discipline. They want a country of which they can be proud, and they want a country in which they know we will have stable government, rather than a country that gives a licence to radical individuals to kill the head of state or overthrow the government, for which they receive a light slap on the wrist.
Let me spy, in conclusion, that I shall be very disappointed if all hon. members in this House do not unanimously support this motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: What does "Regina" mean, Les?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My city is named after Victoria-"Regina." Kings and queens come and go, and kings and queens and-


An hon. Member:: And so do MPs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -members of parliament and people in public office know that they run a risk. They live with a
Capital Punishment
hazard, whether it be from a drunk in a beer parlour or a mental case who is out to kill. These people live with that hazard every day of their lives when they are in this occupation, whether you are a king, a queen, the prime minister, the solicitor general, a member of parliament, or the mayor of a city. When you accept public responsibility you are faced with the hazard and risk of the sick mind. It may be in the person of your next-door neighbour or your brother.
The hon. member who has moved this amendment asks each of us to become paranoid, like the amendment. He asks each of us to look under his bed each night. He asks each of us to suspect anyone and everyone who comes in contact with Her Majesty or anyone else in public office. I look at this amendment as a resolution to place the crime of treason in such a category that it will apply to every person, making everyone suspect.
I would ask the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) how he, as a Conservative, in his ideology, would have fared in a country that considered treason the espousal of right-wing philosophy. We have just celebrated with and complimented the United States on its two-hundredth anniversary of a revolution. Many people died fighting on both sides of that question. The king of England at the time said that was treason. I should like to ask the mover of this amendment, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw, whether they still consider the United States of America and every citizen in that country as traitors. I am sure there were a number of people in the United States in 1776, and four or five years before that, who would have been happy with the opportunity to assassinate George III. Indeed, some of them tried to seize the opportunity. George III had a fair number of what were called Tories and Whigs in jail in those days, some of whom we have never heard from since. They were there for the crime of treason because they wanted to speak out and were condemned for having to resort to violence.


An hon. Member:: Are you defending treason?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not defending treason, I am trying to suggest to hon. members who support this kind of amendment that they are asking all of society to join them in their paranoia. Society, the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), and members of this House will do everything they can to protect both the person and the institution of Her Majesty and her loyal subjects.


An hon. Member:: Including putting up your life?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member asks me something about my life. Life lasts for so long, but for the life of me I fail to understand how responsible members of parliament representing Canadians in every part of our country could ask us to resort to this mindless hysteria that reaches back into the Middle Ages. I do not understand what motivates them.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) said he does not question the motives of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). Wasn't that big of him? He repeated that three or four times. I am not a friend of the Liberal party. Even my friends to the right will acknowledge that.

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
I have been a bitter enemy of that philosophy and that degenerate political party for as long as I can remember.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member return to the subject.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When hon. members are opposed to an amendment regarding treason and capital punishment, and then someone says that he does not question the motives of the Solicitor General and I take that as a direct reflection on all other members of this House. That, it seems to me, is beneath the intelligence and the integrity of the mover of the amendment and those who have spoken in favour of it. I remember, when I was a kid, that people were said to be guilty of treason.


John Douglas Reynolds: If he can remember when he was a kid, he has a pretty good memory.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), who was only in diapers then, should ask the people who know. The hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) know better. It was said in those days that people who were found guilty of treason should be shot. There were pamphlets and newspaper advertisements to this effect. Some hon. friends to my right might agree with those headlines and scurrilous pamphlets to the effect that the death penalty should apply to treason in the case of fellows like M. J. Coldwell and W. S. Woodsworth who were called treasonous. There was a member of Parliament who was found guilty of treason. He was convicted, sentenced and later departed. If he is still alive, he would be living his declining days in Poland. I refer to one Fred Rose. He was not executed.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the hon. gentleman would take the trouble to read Hansard for the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, he would find the reason. There were even some members of his own party who did not advocate that kind of penalty.


Donald W. Munro: I am advocating it now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is one instance. The hon. member might like to cloud the issue. There were people in the progressive party and in the co-operative movement, as well as the farmers and the livestock growers who took the CPR to court, who were called treasonous. Where do my hon. friends wish to draw the line concerning what is and what is not treason? The first socialist member who was elected in 1896 was accused of being guilty of treason. It was said that rather than being seated in the legislature, he should be hanged.
Mr. Speaker, for some reason or other some of my hon. friends seem to conclude that if one fails to support an amendment which calls for the death penalty for treason, somehow everybody else is, by definition, treasonous. The hon. member for Moose Jaw was as subtle as a baseball bat with a nail in it. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East was just about as subtle. These are the kinds of laws that people such as Idi Amin, Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler and

Mussolini like. They like those kinds of laws about treason. They not only like them, but they implement them.


Donald W. Munro: They did not even bother charging the people; they just shot them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You bet they did. Adolph Hitler, Mussolini and Joe Stalin did not bother with the formality of trying someone for treason: the right to dissent went down the drain. Let us assume the worst. Let us assume that some megalomaniac, some nut, assassinated the Queen, the king, the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, or the Solicitor General. That is a hazard which confronts everyone in public life. There have been many incidents. There was a case of an irate taxpayer trying to kill the local mayor. I guess that would be called some kind of treason.


Donald W. Munro: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, neither the Queen nor the Crown have asked for this. The royal prerogative has not asked the death penalty if there should be a crime involving the killing of a royal person. This has not been asked for, yet the royal succession and parliamentary democracy continue. This type of thing can happen to any of us. I will make one exception. I would except that in time of war, if our country were attacked and had declared war, if one of the articles of war included execution for treason during a state of war I would, however reluctantly, accept that our society as a whole had been attacked, including the Liberals, the Tories, the Socialists and everyone else; in fact even those of us whom the public thinks of as no-good Micks. If it involved all of us, then there might be some legitimate argument for the crime of treason being a specific offence, rather than a peacetime thing as a general rule.
I should like the members who support this kind of amendment to provide some additional reason for it. The hon. member for Moose Jaw says that the Canadian people question the old adage that crime does not pay.


Douglas Charles Neil: I did not say that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley East said it. You are all the same breed of cat. If there is any one thing in which people historically believe, it is that crime has paid, and has paid very well, thank you. Hon. members wonder why the slob who grew up in a slum knocks off a couple of service stations, serves a couple of jail terms and finally ends up shooting a policeman or prison guard. Naturally, the hue and cry is that he be hanged. I do not hear anyone say that the mine owners or the contractors-who are just as guilty, in my book- should be hanged. You want people to have respect for the law. Our law is for the rich.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hon. friends to my right would find it interesting, if they took the trouble, to learn who has been hanged in this country and who has not been hanged. Invariably, those who had the resources-particularly financial, social, business, and so forth-could resort to appeals and could go through all the procedures of our
July 5, 1976

legal process. Do not tell me that the poor, convicted murderer gets the same deal as the rich convicted murderer. He does not get the same deal. If hon. friends to my right, and those who agree with them, could show me how our law could be changed so that the poor, convicted murderer, whether it be for treason or for any other reason, could be treated in the same way as the rich, convicted murderer whose appeal is automatically launched by an appointee of the court, I would be satisfied. The poor man has no choice, but the rich man can get the top brains, the top lawyers and the best research.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If my fine friend wants to live on cloud nine, he is welcome to it. If he did a little research into who has been convicted of murder and who has, or who has not, been hanged he will find that the law is for the rich- particularly the implementation of the criminal law.
As a member of parliament I do not want to be party to what I consider to be bad enforcement of the law by the Solicitor General and by the government-the unequal enforcement of the law. There is no equality of opportunity before our law, both in fact and in practice. I wonder if hon. friends to my right would also explain to me, when they are discussing an amendment which has to do with treason, their definition of "treason." Is their definition narrowed down to the assassination of the monarch? If so, I wish they would say so. I still would not support the amendment. In fact, the monarch, especially the one we have now, would be the last one to ask for or to expect that kind of law. Since the British have not done it for years, I find it passing strange that all of a sudden, from under a bunch of rocks or out of the woodwork, comes an amendment to the law that has not even been suggested in the British House of Commons.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is their law now. Why are you voting with the government?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In that case, I am learning about all these people who will use any type of subterfuge, excuse or reason, however weak.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will continue for one minute only, Mr. Speaker. They will justify or use any subterfuge, reason or excuse to go back to what they really want, which is the death penalty. If they cannot have it holus-bolus, they will look for some other way in which they can satisfy their own feelings and the feelings of a large portion of the public.


An hon. Member:: Yes, 80 per cent of the public.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Perhaps the hon. member has that kind of constituency. My mail runs the other way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Capital Punishment


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to tell my hon. friend that my mail did not run 80 per cent as against 20 per cent; it ran 55 per cent as against 45 per cent. If he would like to come up, go through all my files and read all my letters from my constituents-in fact, I put it all down in a newsletter-he is welcome. I am not relying on numbers, and I am not relying on the 80 per cent. If there were 80 per cent in my constituency in favour of abolition, I would feel that way before they ever said it, and I do not rely on numbers. But I would like to remind my hon. friend that if he or any of his colleagues want to talk to me about numbers, they do not really mean anything when you get right down to the crunch.


An hon. Member:: They help in elections.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If he wants to be some kind of a blob, if he wants to run with the wind, I would like to hear if the so-called overwhelming majority of his constituents felt the same way four years running. If he wants to be like a stallion sniffing the wind when he enters the gate to the pasture, that is the way he would run. If he wants to be some kind of a blob of a member of parliament, so that whatever his constituents think or whatever his newspapers say, or whatever a dozen or ten dozen letters tell him the majority of his constituents think, then frankly we do not need such members of parliament. People can always put their social security number into a computer. They would not need a member of parliament.
If the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) wants to talk about what is good for the next election, or good in terms of politics-


Donald W. Munro: I did not say that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention, but I am sure the hon. member and I were trying to be helpful to one another.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member is making a speech. I suggest he get back to the facts.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you. I seldom rise to speak in the House, and I do not speak very much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am a kind of a half-decent fellow, but I was invited to put my views on the record and that is exactly what I am doing. I would like a definition of "treason" from hon. members who support the amendment. What constitutes treason? I am sure the late supporters and sympathizers of Louis Riel are having second thoughts about treason. In fact, it would not be difficult to get a unanimous vote of the House to pardon Louis Riel. It is a little late, but better late than never!
I put on the record what I feel about these matters. I could be wrong, but unless the argument is put forward by hon. friends to my right in a more lucid, logical and reasoned way, I am afraid I will have to be stubborn-and I am not usually stubborn. I will have to stick to my

July 5, 1976
Adjournment Motion
conviction, to the principle, to the matter of conscience on what I think is civilized behaviour and intelligence.
The one exception I would make is in the case of a declaration of war when the nation as a whole is united to defend itself. That is the only exception I would make; and even in that situation, not only in Canada but in countless countries, most of the people who were found guilty of treason were not executed. If my hon. friend would care to check the Archives and the Department of National Defence, in the Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War, and even the Korean War there were some cases of treason-and I would like somebody to tell me about anybody, particularly in the last 30, 40 or 50 years, who was executed when found guilty. Even when they admitted guilt, they were not executed. Even the rednecked dinosaurs of those days did not advocate it, and if they did they got short shrift.
I hope the lengthy statements which have been made by hon. members in support of these amendments will not be repeated. I want to say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East that the kind of statements he makes do nothing more than incite and encourage those nuts who can be encouraged to consider committing treason or murder.
I hope the amendment will be defeated. I hope the bill goes through as is. There may be some minor amendments, but surely there must be something more than we have seen so far. I hope we get something more. If we do not, I invite hon. friends to my right, some across the way and those to my left, to decide that their arguments have all been made. Then we can vote on all the amendments and third reading of the bill in the next couple of days.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows; the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Conflict of Interest- Allegation Mr. Bissonnette is linked with commercial activities of chairman of Anti-Dumping Tribunal; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Post Office- Application to Olympic stamps of provision to withdraw 12 months after issue; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Transport-Threatened strike of aircraft safety inspectors-Government action to ensure adherence to safety regulations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, we just finished listening to philosophy, ridicule and a bunch of nonsense from the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In all my 18 years in the House of Commons, I have never listened to so much nonsense as I just have. The hon. member rarely makes a speech when he does not go overtime. He rarely makes a good speech unless he is heckled, and I do not blame the hecklers in this particular case. He made a very poor speech and was only heckled a little. He should have been heckled a lot more.
The amendment before the House suggests the deletion of clause 2 of the bill which refers to the penalty for those who commit treason. The hon. member did not know what treason was. As far as the bill is concerned, treason is committed by anyone who kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, who levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto, or who assists an enemy at war with Canada. Those are the three broad definitions of treason. The clause goes on to say that everyone commits treason who, in Canada, uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada. One could go on and read the whole clause, but I suggest that I have read enough to provoke thought, and I hope enough for the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre to read the remaining portions of clause 2(2).
Let us consider for a moment the part of the clause which states, "uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada". This bill is part of the peace and security legislation program of the government. In October of 1972, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-the great abolitionist, he would like us to believe-this cabinet minister and this government brought in the War Measures Act saying that there was an armed insurrection against Canada and against the government and that there was an attempt to overthrow the government.
We had to fly the army into Montreal. Cabinet ministers, the Prime Minister, the then leader of the opposition and all other official people in Ottawa had to be protected by army officers. Those officers were armed with particularly fast guns with hair-triggers. Was this government trying to tell us that it was against treason and that it did not believe in capital punishment when there was only the slightest tremor? This House has heard no evidence to suggest it was anything more that the slightest tremor. The

July 5, 1976

Rose brothers and a couple of others looked all over the United States for a couple of guns, and kidnapped two important people in Montreal. There was a so-called armed insurrection against the government-that is what we were told in this House, and we have heard nothing since.
An abolitionist cabinet immediately conned the rest of the House of Commons into believing that we were faced with an armed insurrection and that officers had to be armed and flown in from all over Canada to protect officials wherever they might be in Ottawa or Montreal. Was that not an expression of a deliberate preparedness to use capital punishment as a deterrent to the continuance of that so-called insurrection against Canada and the government? To me it was. Surely the government of the day must have thought that people were prepared to commit treason as defined in this clause. That is what we were told people in the FLQ were prepared to do. The FLQ was banned, and that is still the case. That is the only time in Canada's peacetime that an organization has been banned.
Many people over the past 30 or so years have often talked about banning the Communist party, but that has never come about. The Communist party exists, holds meetings and fields candidates in general elections, but because of this supposed threat the FLQ was banned. I point this out to suggest that this government in the past was prepared to use the death penalty when it felt that treason was being committed. I am not suggesting that in cases such as that nearly everyone caught-the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) shakes his head in a negative manner: If I am misinterpreting-


William Warren Allmand: You are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggests that I am. He is permitted to get up after I have finished and straighten me out. I will listen to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: However, his government has yet to put the facts on the table and to prove that there was an armed insurrection. Were those army officers, who were armed with guns, prepared to use them? Yes, they were. The record of this House is that they were issued with special guns and were specially trained soldiers. The guns were equipped with hair-triggers. I know what a hair-trigger is and that those guns were so equipped, because at that time an officer shot himself getting out of a truck outside my apartment. I know very well how they were armed and the type of hair-trigger on those guns. The government was prepared to use the death penalty for what it thought was treason, without giving people a fair trial. Over 400 people were arrested, all of whom were released and very few, if any, were charged. Why am I raising this matter, Mr. Speaker? It is merely to point out that this government acknowledges that when they feel threatened themselves, they will resort to the worst kind of use of capital punishment.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) spoke about the recent terrorist incident in Uganda and the build-up of terrorism throughout the world. We can be fairly proud of our country as we have been relatively free
Capital Punishment
of acts of international terrorism since 1972. But surely we must not be so complacent as to rest on our laurels and do away with the one measure which is a forceful deterrent. Some hon. members hide behind the belief that it has not been proven that it is a deterrent. It is a deterrent, Mr. Speaker. A deterrent is in the eyes of the person attempting to commit a crime. If 80 per cent of the people of the country believe it is a deterrent, then it is.
There is no question that the kidnappers of James Cross believed they might be shot if an exchange of gunfire took place between them and the police. A great deal of caution was taken in what might even be considered the preliminary negotiations when anonymous notes were dropped off at a radio station, and so on. They went to a great deal of trouble to keep the negotiations at more than arm's length because they were fearful for their lives. That suggests to me that those who kidnapped James Cross believed that the death penalty was a deterrent The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre suggested that Her Majesty has not requested it. Certainly, I believe that in many instances Her Majesty would extend clemency to those whose who made an attempt on her life.
Another thing should be mentioned in regard to treason, Mr. Speaker. Murder is committed by those who deliberately attempt to take the life of another. Treason is committed by a person or persons deliberately acting against the wish of the government or, in this case, the wish of Her Majesty or against the country. It is quite often the case that such persons are zealous believers in a cause. I suppose if their cause has a strong following in the country, that would be taken into consideration in deciding whether their sentences should be commuted.
I am saying that clause 2 should be left in this bill, and sections 46 and 47 should be left in the Criminal Code. They may be used only rarely, but they would serve a purpose, namely, to promote peace and security. That is what this whole legislative package is about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Sections 83 and 84 are to promote peace and security. We find ourselves in an era where international terrorism is widespread. It does not seem to be on the wane, although there has been some success in recovering hostages. We are entering a period of particular importance to Canada. I think everyone in this House and in Canada would like to see the Olympics come off in grand style.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is the first time Canada has been host to the Olympics. The Olympics are being held in the city which in 1972 gave rise to some fear in the minds of the government of the day that there was a force there capable of some kind of armed insurrection.


Jeanne Sauvé: You said it was nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said it had not been proven, and this House has not learned the facts about whether it was any more than nothing.


Jeanne Sauvé: Now you are invoking it as something important.

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am saying to the hon. lady, who is now a member of the cabinet which convinced this House at that time, that it was in fact an armed insurrection, that they owe it to the Canadian people to come forth with the evidence so that we can judge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If that evidence were laid before this House of Commons today, many members on the hon. lady's back benches, and maybe even within the cabinet, would support this amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). They would see if the government's action was as great as she is convinced it was. That is the case I am trying to make. Lay the evidence on the table and then we will be able to judge. Do not ask us to judge-


Jeanne Sauvé: That's right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -on the actions of this Prime Minister who one day blows hot and on other days blows cold.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You voted with him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to say one more thing about the law, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre suggested that the law is good for the rich and bad for the poor. I like to look upon it as good for those who have hope, and not so good, I suppose, for those who are hopeless. One does not have to be rich to have hope; one does not have to be poor to be hopeless. But the law should be fair and equal to all, and the death penalty for treason should be applicable to all, whether they be rich or poor. It is the duty of the courts to administer it fairly and apply it equally. It is the duty of the legislators to make the law and to amend the law, and it is the duty of the courts to apply it equally. Certainly, those with hope will use every avenue available to them before their hope is exhausted. Those without hope, I suppose, will resign themselves to what they consider the inevitable, in any case.
I sincerely urge this House, at this time in Canada's history, when it is faced with an overwhelming desire of the Canadian people to see retention of capital punishment, an overwhelming desire of the Canadian people to see a successful and harmonious execution of the Olympic games, and an overwhelming desire of the Canadian people to see that justice not only appear to be done but is in fact done, to delete clause 2 from the bill. If it is deleted and the bill carries, then capital punishment will apply to those people who have been proven to have either killed or attempted to kill Her Majesty, who have levied war against Canada or have used force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada.
I am simplifying the three major clauses, Mr. Speaker. This law would only be applied if it were proven that a person committed such an act or was a party to committing such an act. That is of the utmost importance, because I am certain that anybody involved in the least way in threatening the life or security of a cabinet minister during the October crisis would not have had a fair trial under this government. He probably would not even have had a chance to go to court. In fact, he probably would have been 
shot. There is the irony of this same government now coming forward with a bill to delete a fair trial for an act of treason.
However, if somewhere down the road members of the government desire to call in the armed forces again at the flick of a television camera by saying that an armed insurrection is arising and they must call in the troops to deal with those attemping to overthrow the government, they are permitted to do that. The passage of this bill will not prohibit the government from doing that without first proving to parliament and the country that there are forces attempting to overthrow the government. That is the sham of this abolitionist cabinet. Its members want to do away with justice and take the law into their own hands.
This cabinet says we do not need the death penalty for treason, just leave it to them. If they think someone is trying to overthrow the government, they will not bother with a trial. They will call in the army. That is the injustice of clause 2 of this legislation.
There is supposed to be a free vote on this legislation. I therefore urge all members of parliament, including those on the government side, to think seriously about this. By supporting this amendment they will not defeat the bill. In fact it will probably result in the Olympics running a little smoother. The bill would then allow Canada to be governed a little more smoothly. It might even make the cabinet a little less eager to hoodwink parliament and the Canadian people by bringing in the War Measures Act when they believe there might be some kind of insurrection.
I therefore ask this parliament to support this amendment. I repeat that it will not defeat the bill. It will help our system of justice. It will help Canadians, whether they come from Regina-Lake Centre or not. Every Canadian would be assured of a fair trial.


Jeanne Sauvé: A judicial system that would be civilized.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, that is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I could have completed my remarks at that point. What I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. lady is that it would be better to keep this provision in the legislation. If that were the case, those hopeless people who would attempt to overthrow the government would be at the mercy of this cabinet which jumps at its own shadow and brings in the War Measures Act.


Jeanne Sauvé: We would shoot them?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not believe the hon. lady would shoot them. However, a police officer attempting to do his duty, possibly protecting the hon. lady, might accidentally shoot and kill someone. I therefore urge this House to support
July 5, 1976

the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta. It is a good amendment. It is a timely amendment at this point in Canada's history when the world is fraught with the dangers of international terrorism.
There is a deep concern about the Olympics. The primary purpose of the Olympics used to be a sporting contest. However, today there is political manoeuvering creeping in. Even the forthcoming Olympics have not been free of that. Surely it would be far better to keep Sections 46 and 47 in the Criminal Code. I therefore urge all members of all parties to support this amendment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of my colleague's amendment which proposes that clause 2 of Bill C-84 be deleted, the net effect being to preserve the treason provisions that now exist in our Criminal Code.
Frankly I am quit surprised to hear people who have taken part in this debate state this afternoon that they do not understand what treason is. They ask for the definition of treason.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) seemed to be confused about what the government is doing through Bill C-84, namely, attempting to make us not just an abolitionist state by law for ordinary crimes, but attempting to make us an abolitionist state in total. I say that because it has become a kind of Liberal misrepresentation that the world is gravitating toward abolition, that somehow or other Canada is out of step with the rest of the world by not being an abolitionist nation along with what they fancy is desirable. As we stated in the House and in committee, that is absolutely wrong. It is a falsehood.
At the present time, the vast majority of the nations of the world are retentionist nations. In fact if we pass Bill C-84 in its present form we will become part of 1 per cent of the world's population that lives in a state that is in effect totally abolitionist. Surely it is us who will be out of step with the world, not the reverse which the government is indicating. I mention this because in committee the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) made a point of stating that democracies in the western world are taking to abolition as opposed to the retentionist traditions. I pointed this out to the committee. Even if one takes into account nations such as the United Kingdom, which have limited the use of the death penalty, one finds they did not limit the death penalty with regard to treason. This is one of the reasons for .which I believe the amendment by my hon. friend is well worthy of consideration.
I should like to give briefly a little of the background to show where this concept of treason as an offence originated. This was an offence in Roman times, and is one of the most fundamental concepts of criminal law in existence. I would refer hon. members to the 1973 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica where it is stated that treason is the crime of betraying the nation or its sovereign by acts considered dangerous to their security. The article states that among most nations from very early times the punishment for treason has been severe. Death has been the mandatory sentence in England, and that provision was
Capital Punishment
not affected by the limitation on the application of the death penalty effected by that country a few years ago.
That is the first point I wish to make. We have been told repeatedly by the government that we were somehow introducing into our own penal system laws which already existed in countries such as the United Kingdom. That is not true if we include the treason provisions contemplated in Bill C-84. The Encyclopedia goes on to say:
The law of England regarding treason corresponds to a considerable extent to Roman law ... The offence of high treason was not precisely defined by the common law until the passing of the Treason Act in 1351.
So the section of the Criminal Code we are today proposing to do away with-irresponsibly, I suggest-is one which has been in our criminal law as far as Britain is concerned since 1351. And in the eyes of the British courts the statute of 1351, so far as it defines the offence of high treason, is still law.
I refer to Britain because, of course, most of our common law and criminal law come from that country. But take the practice in the United States. The crime of treason was written right into the constitution by its framers back in 1776.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: 1789.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In section 3(3) treason is defined in the United States constitution, and in section 3(2) it is stated that Congress shall have the power to determine the punishment for treason. It is interesting to note that U.S. criminal law states that whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death. There are other alternative sentences provided. So that is the practice in the two countries to which we traditionally look-the United States, our neighbour, and Great Britain from which we derive the bulk of our criminal and common law.
Speaking of the United States, I am sure no one in this House will have failed to note the judgment which came down from the U.S. Supreme Court making it clear-there has been some doubt-that the death penalty is not to be held as contrary to the constitution of that country. I am curious to know whether the Solicitor General took time this week end to read the judgment which was handed down in Washington because it is timely as far as Canada is concerned. I hope every hon. member who retains the wishy-washy impression that somehow or other the Americans are tending to favour an abolitionist state will read that judgment and note what some of the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court say about the use of the death penalty in the system of criminal law.
What is happening in the United States? The fact is that the death penalty there has been extended, not lessened, contrary to misleading statements sometimes made by government members in support of this bill. I should like to refer to some of the statements which were made in the course of that judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court made it clear that the death penalty was a constitutional penalty and should not be considered otherwise, and further that its imposition could be left in the hands of judges or jurors.

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
Perhaps I should comment that this ruling was the first on the death penalty since June 29, 1972, when it ruled by five to four that the law then on the books gave too much discretion to judges and juries. That decision invalidated death penalty laws of 36 states, the District of Columbia and of the federal government. In the aftermath of the 1972 decision, 35 states re-enacted the death penalty, but in one of them, Illinois, the law was struck down by the state's Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its judgment, said the enactment of capital punishment by state legislatures was "a marked indication of society's endorsement of the death penalty for murder."
When this question came up in committee I was surprised to find the Solicitor General unaware that while there were 13 abolitionist states at the time he introduced his last abolitionist or partial abolitionist legislation in this House, there are only ten today. He had to correct himself. He was not aware of this until he was so advised by his officials. Opinion in the United States has been reversing itself in the two or three years during which the minister has been attempting to make Canada an abolitionist nation.
It might be helpful, in considering whether the death penalty for treason should remain, to consider the differences in outlook between our Solicitor General and that of the solicitor general of the United States. The Solicitor General of Canada and the solicitor general of the United States are charged with a similar duty, that of upholding the law, yet both have such divergent views. For example, the solicitor general of the United States had this to say:

The United States believes that imposition of the death penalty may sometimes be a necessary and appropriate measure to achieve the traditional goals of criminal justice ...
He points out that, following the 1972 decision I have referred to, Congress enacted a statute providing the death penalty for aircraft piracy that results in death. Again the solicitor general of the United States, in sharp contrast to the weak-kneed approach of our Solicitor General, at page 5 of his brief said that the death penalty is a traditional sanction for those offences society considers the most dangerous. He went on in his very extensive brief to express the view that capital punishment serves other purposes as well. He said:
The death penalty serves a vital function as society's expression of moral outrage, and marks off some crimes as so repulsive that they are to be avoided by those individuals with even a trace of social responsibility. Some crimes, too, are so vicious, so offensive to society's standards of decency, that they call out for an ultimate sanction in order to reinforce the social feeling of revulsion to acts of that character. This response-retribution perhaps, although without vindictiveness-has been endorsed by respected commentators and seems an essential ingredient of a healthy society.
I am quoting directly from the brief of the United States solicitor general submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, which court in turn held substantially in favour of his representation. The U.S. solicitor general continued:
Finally, capital punishment incapacitates some individuals who, if allowed to remain alive, would be so immune to normal forms of social control that they would continue to commit murders even if sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The federal prison system now confines at least one man who, since his incarceration for
(Mr. Stevens.]
murder, has committed and been convicted of murders within prison on three separate occasions.
How often has it been pointed out in this House, Mr. Speaker, that if a man is sentenced to prison for life for committing murder, what is to prevent him from murdering a second or third time? The U.S. solicitor general makes that very point. He says that there is at least one person in the United States who, on three separate occasions, has committed murder after being sentenced to life imprisonment. He continued:
This man, and others like him, will find opportunities to kill again, regardless of the care taken to guard them ...
Although there may be legitimate differences of opinion regarding capital punishment's acceptance by modern society, its value as a deterrent, and society's need for it to reinforce social values and incapacitate dangerous offenders, those differences of opinion are to be resolved by the legislature; and the legislative judgment on these matters should be accepted by the judicial arm.
I could quote many similar portions of the U.S. solicitor general's submission, but I wish only to highlight the sharp contrast between the present trend in the United States in terms of retaining and even extending the death penalty and Bill C-84, if it should finally pass this House-heaven forbid. The reason I raise these points is to preserve the fundamental view that a crime such as treason, which I have defined for the House, is at least one crime for which any person found guilty should expect to pay with his life.
I suggest that we were right today to indicate our approval for the effective and speedy action taken by the government of Israel in rescuing refugees from the terrorists who held them in Uganda.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I believe we were right in making that response. Bearing in mind that those who were involved in treason were "eliminated", to use the terminology of the government of Israel, surely we are being inconsistent, having congratulated earlier today one government for taking such speedy action, to propose a little later on the same day the removal from the Criminal Code of the death penalty for this same crime of treason. That, Mr. Speaker, is just plain inconsistent, and even if in spirit hon. members are in favour of abolition generally, I call upon them to call a halt to this nation becoming totally abolitionist even when the crime of treason is committed.
In his submission to the U.S. Supreme Court, the United States solicitor general highlighted why he felt capital punishment does in fact deter crime. Further on in his brief he said this:
In enacting death penalty statutes, the legislatures throughout the country have not acted irrationally. Capital punishment serves several important social purposes, among which are deterring crimes and expressing society's moral outrage in a manner that shapes and reinforces the community's standards.
There is an inherent logic to the belief that the death penalty deters at least some people from committing crimes.
In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, how can we be so sure that our Solicitor General, who is a babe in the woods so far as criminal offenders are concerned, is right in proposing that we become-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.
July 5, 1976

He may continue with unanimous consent. Has he unanimous consent to continue?


An hon. Member:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock later this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I should like to inform the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) that he did not receive the unanimous consent of the House, therefore his speech has ended.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Who said that?


An hon. Member:: We agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: There was a nay from the right hand side of the House, therefore you may not continue with your speech.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that my colleague would be allowed the privilege of speaking following the dinner recess. However, I am pleased to make a few comments on this amendment which would retain the punishment of death to be administered in some form for high treason. It has been mentioned by previous speakers that at this time there are only nine countries in the entire world which have total abolition, that is, no death penalty for any crime whatever. It would seem that the present government intends to do its best to see that ours becomes the tenth country. Certainly this is a very small percentage of the total number of countries in the world. I believe my colleague mentioned that it was less than 1 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: This is a so-called free vote. At least it is a free vote in this party, and that is more than can be said for that party over there. A lot of you sanctimonious ones over there deep down in your hearts are retentionists.
It may interest my colleagues from the government side to learn that on Friday evening I appeared on a television open line show broadcast out of North Bay, which is not even in my riding. Most of my colleagues are aware that there are certain issues of vital importance to the people of Canada other than capital punishment. But on that open line show which lasted for 35 minutes there was not one question in respect of any of the other issues, including air control and the pilots' strike. There was not one question on an issue other than capital punishment, and that is absolutely true. Of all the people who telephoned in there was one in favour of abolition and the rest were for the retention of capital punishment.
Capital Punishment


An hon. Member:: So what?


Stan Darling: This just gives you an idea of how important this legislation is in the minds of everyone. Certainly in my view, and in the view of the great majority of my colleagues on this side, there should not be capital punishment just for high treason but for many types of murder as well. After spending the week end in my riding I am sure what the feeling is. I was also outside my riding in Sudbury and North Bay, and this is something that came through loud and clear.
I represent a riding which could be classed, as we say, in the near north Ontario, namely, Parry Sound-Muskoka, that great vacation riding. Of all the northern Ontario members I am the only one in favour of the retention of capital punishment. All the rest are abolitionists. The people in northern Ontario are certainly pioneers, and I am sure of their views. The majority of them would feel the same as I do.
Another thing I pointed out to the listeners was the fact that a lot of my colleagues who were abolitionists in their vote, whether they are abolitionists at heart, are going to have a pretty hot summer when they return to their ridings, and I am not talking only about the weather.


An hon. Member:: What about their principles?


Stan Darling: They will have to defend their principles. Let me also tell some of the hon. members who voted with the government, and not necessarily because of their own principles, they may have a pretty tough time returning here in 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would address the Chair. I would suggest to other members that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has the floor and we should allow him to speak.


Stan Darling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind being heckled by my colleagues over there. So far as I am concerned certainly every member of parliament who wants to do a job should be re-elected. I do not want to sell my principles down the river on the basis of being elected, but in this instance I know I have the backing of the great majority of the people in my riding and, I am quite sure, the backing of most of the people in the ridings of the members facing me, believe it or not. So shake your heads, my illustrious colleagues; I bet that if you spend any time in your ridings this summer you will find out what your constituents say about the stand you are taking if you speak or vote in favour of this bill.
When we consider high treason, the crime of attempted murder of a sovereign, or an attempted overthrow of a government, I must say there might be extenuating circumstances which would prompt one to try to overthrow the present government, whether or not it be a capital crime for which death would be the ultimate penalty. In my view, regardless of the present government, the Government of Canada supposedly represents the opinions and the wishes of the people of Canada. However, this is not

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
the case in this instance because the government knows it is flying in the face of public opinion.


An hon. Member:: No!


Stan Darling: This is one thing I do not have to prove. It is a fact in no uncertain terms. I might return to the matter of the television show I was on on Friday night. Because of unemployment and inflation and the fact that these are very important matters in the eyes of the people of Canada today, I had thought there would have been questions along these lines but there were not. This indicates how emotional the people are about this particular bill, C-84. I am hoping that some of my colleagues, and I include those on all sides of the House, will have second thoughts to that when the bill comes up for third reading they will vote on that basis that although it is fine to vote with one's party on certain things, even the best party member who votes on that basis will not accomplish a hell of a lot of good if he is defeated in 1978.
Some members over there shake their heads. I think the important thing in this business is to be re-elected, because if one wants to be in a position to present his views he cannot do so sitting back in the riding, which will be the case when he flies in the face of public opinion in his riding. When this vote comes up-and as I say I am not sure when that will be-and the votes on the amendments that have been presented by some of my colleagues, and especially this one in respect of high treason, surely even the most sanctimonious members will agree that the ultimate penalty of death should be available and should be mandatory.


Charles L. Caccia: How about your own leader?


Stan Darling: Fine. I do not agree with my leader in all things. To my illustrious colleague from Davenport I say: how about your leader? There is a hell of a lot about him which you do not agree with, but you do not have the guts to say so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please address the Chair.


Stan Darling: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I wish to state in no uncertain terms that I feel on this particular amendment the entire House should vote in favour of the retention of capital punishment for high treason, attempting to overthrow the government, and so on.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to the amendment to clause 2 dealing with treason and high treason. I think for the record it would be interesting to members, particularly those opposite, to have an indication of what countries have abolished capital punishment in its entirety and what countries have abolished capital punishment by law for only the ordinary crime of murder.
I should like to indicate that Austria, Columbia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Equador, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Uruguay, and Venezuela are all countries which have abolished the death penalty. The remaining countries provide the death penalty for treason. I think it is also interesting to note that with the exception of three of four of these countries the

majority are in the southern hemisphere, South America, Latin America or Central America. I shall not embarrass the countries by naming them specifically, but surely the diplomats, the consuls and the ambassadors know to which countries I allude. These countries have their own forms of capital punishment which, to the people of the democratic or free world, are repugnant. Whether capital punishment be carried out by black boots or brown boots according to the philosophy of the country, nevertheless it is still enforced.
I believe that unquestionably throughout the world we have entered into a period of change in the thinking of nations which at times, in my view, borders on madness, perhaps brought about by extreme degrees of frustration and, in some instances, suppression. Nevertheless we have seen the advent of a new time, a new era, throughout the world when countries are divided, with despots seeking the platform on some popular public issue and carrying a country on a wave of independence, only subsequently to rule that country with an iron fist. This bears on one thing. It bears on the absence of tradition.
I suppose any nation has a tradition, but the true, deep-seated, ingrained definition of tradition, that lies in the hearts particularly of Canadians and people associated with Great Britain or her dominions, is not easily dispelled. I know that today in Canada there are those who speak with scorn about Her Majesty, and yet there are thousands upon thousands of Canadians who fought for Her Majesty and who refer to her with admiration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: That was my schooling, and I am proud of it, totally proud of it. I ask you to reflect back to those grim days when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country had, at least for a time, the support of the nation. I think you could hear a pin drop throughout Canada as the Prime Minister went on television and told us of the terrible things that were happening in Quebec and why he would have to implement the War Measures Act. Those were serious times, times that challenged the very thread of Canadian morale, but not the thread of Canadian morality.
I ask every member of the House to ponder on what kind of a television appearance the Prime Minister would make if he were to announce that at the Olympics some mad dog of an assassin attempted or succeeded in killing the Queen. What would that type of horrible tragedy do to this nation? Would it tear us apart? It would certainly tear us apart as far as our hearts are concerned.
You may say, you are just thinking in terms of revenge if you are going to hang the individual concerned, if the crowd did not tear him asunder first. We have to go back to the very root of treason, born on tradition, carried through ever since by nation after nation, and I refer you to the Encyclopedia Britannica which says the following about treason:
Most nations have from early times provided for the punishment of treason. Punishment has characterically been severe .. . death is still the mandatory sentence-
July 5, 1976

and let hon. members on the opposite side ponder this.
-in England, and that position was not affected by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965.


An hon. Member:: What about Joe's position?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am concerned with my view and those supporting it. If hon. members opposite have something to say that they think is constructive, I think it befits them to join the debate. Either put up or shut up.
The subject of treason has been one that has been brought forward at the United Nations, because it is a separate and distinct entity. How did the U.N. agonize over the issue? In a review by the United Nations on the current situation the following was stated:
In academic circles it has sometimes become unfashionable to support capital punishment: civilization is tolerance and severity in punishment a sign of backwardness and regression, and so liberal thinking and the abolition of the death penalty are expected to coincide. Therefore the writing available on the death penalty leaves the impression that there is a certain inevitability about the movement to more "civilized standards" and fewer executions. A reader could be excused for concluding that throughout the world there is in fact an irresistible and ineluctable trend towards the abolition of capital punishment or that even where death is still a last legal resort, the penal codes have fewer offences leading to capital punishment or that methods of execution are becoming more humane or that the persons liable to the extreme penalty will usually have the benefit of the best legal safeguards.
The world at present provides no such assurances. Moreover it seems clear that in many cases governments satisfy public opinion by using the sentence, but no so in Canada. There is evidence that even the countries totally abolishing capital punishment have sometimes, if not always, acted contrary to the majority view of the population. However, that is nothing new for this government, and I do not care whether those on the opposite side would like to say that they have the opportunity to vote freely. I shall never forget that date when I watched the Prime Minister sit there as he has never sat there before through any vote, and swivel his head back and forth like a tortoise or an owl. He looked at every member who dared vote against the Prime Minister and Prime Minister's views.


William Warren Allmand: Nonsense!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Let me say that the names of those members are firmly imprinted on the mind of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: If you cannot stand the heat, get away from the stove. If the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) has something to contribute, it would be for the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member please get back to the terms of the bill, and would he address his remarks to the Chair?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I will have great pleasure in getting back to the terms of the bill were it not for the rude interruptions by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and those of his associates. If they had something valuable to contribute, I would not mind.


An hon. Member:: They are his accomplices, not his associates.
Capital Punishment


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, my interruptions were not intended for the hon. member at all; they were intended for the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member is not raising a point of order but rather a point of debate.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, thank you for advising the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that he did not have a valid point of order. I certainly agree with you that this is nothing unusual for that member.
Let me continue my remarks with regard to the position taken by the U.S. government. The United States believes that the imposition of the death penalty may sometimes be a necessity and an appropriate measure to achieve the traditonal goals of criminal justice. Congress enacted a statute providing the death penalty for aircraft piracy that results in death. How many hon. members recall the incident over Canada's air space when those murderers who kill for profit caused an aircraft to blow up, taking many lives with it? What happened to them? I clearly remember without any regret that they paid the supreme penalty.
The government would have us believe that those who are prepared to destroy the lives of 100, 200 or 300 people in one fell swoop by blowing up an aircraft, can be rehabilitated, and I ask: rehabilitated to what, to kill again? The statistics are there; the minister has his own statistics, and I have read them. The facts are there, that certainly murderers who have been released have murdered again. Why should that be allowed to happen? Particularly with regard to crimes against the state and crimes against the sovereign, this should not be allowed to happen. Does the government condone the action of some mad dog who would commit treason?
Let me warn hon. members that I am aware of the fine line between sedition and treason. I am aware of the definition, and I am aware of the difference between espionage and treason, but these things do exist, and on the basis of present day technology they are highly possible. Hon. members tell me that 25 years, 10 years or 7 years will rehabilitate the mad dog who, with full foreknowledge of his action and with every degree of premeditation he can summon, sets out to murder Canadians through an act of treason, or sets out to murder the sovereign. Do hon. members think that the penalty should be a few years in jail and that he would then be rehabilitated?
Speaking of tradition, I must say thank God the tradition in Canada, at least thus far, has not been to shoot presidents or prime ministers. Tradition in the United States would certainly seem to be the contrary, and from an examination of those who have committed this horrible act, the majority of them have paid the supreme penalty. It is only in the more enlightened days of the immediate past that we have seen attacks on presidential candidates not lead eventually to that supreme penalty.
On behalf of all those Canadians who have risen with one voice, either through the medium of the press, through the medium of writing to their MLA's and their members of parliament, through the medium of hotlines or whatever medium, I say that by a vast majority they have indicated

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
that they have been treacherously dealt with by the government, and that they consider that members of parliament who represent them here and who do not carry out the wishes of their constituents are demonstrating a failure to respond to the demands and views of Canadians.
I have no difficulty with my conscience on this issue at all. Not only do I support the wishes of my constituents, but it should be clearly elucidated and pretty well a matter of fact, and there should be no doubt in the minds of those here tonight, that my position fully supports the fact that the amendment with reference to treason should stand, that the supreme penalty should be paid as far as treason is concerned, and that this clause should be removed from the bill and dealt with as a separate entity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 7 and 10 highlight two clauses of Bill C-84 which caused me the other day to make an observation, that is on June 29 when Mr. Speaker was considering whether there was a central principle to Bill C-84, it being the abolition of capital punishment. At that time I suggested that that was not the case, and further reading of the bill has convinced me that I was right at that time. There has been a failure to appreciate one single fact with regard to Bill C-84. It is an amending bill, and all an amending bill does is amend a number of sections in existing law which themselves each embody a principle. Then there is the central theme in a total bill-new legislation. That aspect of Bill C-84 has been lost sight of. It is a bill to amend the Criminal Code. That is its principle.
When one considers clause 2 of the bill, there is created there a totally new offence, high treason. What has that got to do with the so-called central theme of the abolition of capital punishment in this bill? All the clauses which follow with regard to parole following life sentences are already dealt with under the Criminal Code, but the terms of parole thereunder are being changed. Is the central theme the abolition of capital punishment? Hardly. Therefore I am glad to participate in this debate, but I underline those arguments.
I accept Mr. Speaker's ruling. I listened to it, I must conform to it, but that does not mean I must agree with it, and I respectfully draw to the attention of the Chair this particular aspect of my remarks.
Let us look at sections 46 and 47 of the Criminal Code. Treason is dealt with in section 46, and there are eight paragraphs enumerated there which constitute treason and have constituted treason in the history of Canada much longer than you, Mr. Speaker, and I have been around. But now, for some fanciful reason, three types of treason are to be elevated to high treason, and one of the forms under section 46(1) is being totally eliminated. I wonder why? I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) why it is that conspiracy to kill Her Majesty should not be high treason if the killing, the attempting to kill or doing bodily harms is to be high treason? It was formerly part of treason. It was dealt with in section 46(l)(d). However, that has disappeared in the shuffle of setting up high treason and, I suppose, second class treason. We now have this treason affecting the life and the person of the reigning monarch.

Then there is the second question of levying war against Canada or doing any act preparatory thereto, but why would not conspiracy to do that be part of it? Is the only one who actually is levying the war the one who will be guilty of high treason? Are his partners-and I say "his" in the general sense-to escape entirely? That is not a crime under the new bill.
The third category is assisting an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. High treason? Well, the wording is the same as the first three paragraphs of what it was for treason, so what is new? It has been made high treason. That is the principle of the amending clause. It has nothing to do with capital punishment.
Then we deal with every one who commits treason, and we have the paragraphs broken down. In section 46.(1)(/) of the Criminal Code it provides that everyone commits treason who:
conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d);
We had a whole series of forms of treason where there was also conspiracy which in itself was treason, but it is no longer there. At worst it is treason to conspire with a person to commit high treason. I find it extraordinary that to conspire with a person to commit high treason is simply treason. The Solicitor General has a great deal to answer for a regard to setting up this section and the wording of it.


Donald W. Munro: He does not understand it, I am sure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In one form or another they tried to arrive at what was contained in section 46 in the definition of treason. I wish the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) had done his reading instead of that awful drivel he put on the record this afternoon about what he imagined that some other people imagine, what other people quite ungrammatically and incorrectly call treason or treasonable. We were paraded through a long speech on that point.
Let us look at what the penalty is. High treason calls for life imprisonment. That is a minimum punishment according to the terms of the bill. It means 25 years without the possibility of parole.
When I was a student whether in high school or at university one of the things that was emphasized to us was confinement to the Bastille by lettre de cachet. In other words it was possible to be banished for life into the confines of the Bastille. These provisions, Mr. Speaker, are the equivalent of lettre de cachet, although I suppose the physical conditions have changed. There will be better food and better accommodation than in the Bastille there is no doubt, but there is not guarantee that another prisoner or prisoners will not murder within the prison. Perhaps the state wants it that way, as I speculated the other day.
There was another type of punishment that was always emphasized to us as the most heinous that man could inflict upon his fellowman. That was a life sentence to

July 5, 1976

Devil's Island. That was at least 25 years. As I said the other day on second reading, we have devised our own sadistic torture of our fellowman. Has anyone here contemplated what 25 years in prison can do?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It is worse than hanging them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In many instances, Mr. Speaker, it is calculated exposure to the wolves of the prison system. Is that what we are going to do? All those high moralists in this Chamber and outside who insist that capital punishment is immoral are people whose own morality now-


Charles L. Caccia: What about your own leader? What did he say?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is a beautiful one to talk about the leader. In this bill and in this amendment it is every man for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member demonstrates a craven subservience to the views of leadership-the present views of his leader on this particular subject. The other day it was apparent in the debate, and it is apparent today.
We have this sentence of 25 years for high treason, ten years certain for treason, and the judge may impose an additional period. I think there are inconsistencies here. Why should there be any difference between an attempt to kill the reigning monarch and a violent attempt to overthrow the lawful authority of the state? Why would there be any difference between assisting an enemy during a time of war-that is someone performing that act outside the country-and someone inside carrying on a guerilla command?
One is guilty of high treason if, sitting on the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, one were to discharge long range firearms at the coast of Newfoundland, but if within the province of Newfoundland one were to discharge those self-same guns in order to upset the government of Newfoundland or the power of the Government of Canada, that would simply be treason. Can anyone in their right senses explain the difference? Who shall be the more guilty-he who stands on the shore of St. Pierre and Miquelon and fires at the coast of Newfoundland, or he who stands within a few miles of St. John's and fires the same gun at St. John's? This is treason and high treason-an act of war. I shall let my colleagues figure that one out a little later.
I am more than satisfied that my colleagues who put forward these amendments are correct-the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). I think they highlight a most important and a very substantial amendment to the Criminal Code. Incidentally, it drags in by the tail the question of capital punishment. It is only consequential on the division of the crimes. Therefore I am more than happy to support both motions, Nos. 7 and 10. I think it is an illogical mishmash in so far as all those treasonable acts that have existed in the past are concerned and which are now supposedly being redefined in some sort of modern
Capital Punishment
context which exists in the mind of the draftsman alone. His logic and that of the sponsors escapes most people. Therefore I would ask all members of this House to delete clause 2.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before speaking on the amendment this evening I wish to congratulate our American friends on their decision just a few days ago in which their Supreme Court upheld the death penalty. I have an article here headed "Supreme Court Decision on Death Penalty Hailed". I quote:
The Supreme Court is thinking like the American people are thinking," said a state senator from Maine.
It is unfortunate that this House is not thinking like the Canadian people are thinking.
And there was little doubt the court ruling upholding the concept of capital punishment for murders brings the court a lot closer to the thinking of most Americans.
I wish I were reading that it was bringing our courts closer to the thinking of most Canadians. However, that will not happen with this government.
Unfortunately many members of the opposition, especially NDP members who are supposed to be the champions of the people, are totally opposed to what the majority of Canadians want. I find this very strange.
I will read to hon. members the law as it is now so that there will be no mistake about it. This law has been on the statute book for years. I quote the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who saw the weaknesses in this bill probably better than any other member. He is to be commended for the research he has done into this piece of legislation. I quote:
The Canadian Civil Liberties Organization has not asked that the law regarding treason be repealed. Again I challenge the government to name one organization or anyone of responsibility across Canada who has asked for this. The sections in question should be placed on the record. Sections 46 and 47 at present read as follows:
46(1) Every one commits treason who, in Canada
(a)	kills or attempts to kill'Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
(b)	levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto;
(c)	assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities . ..
(d)	uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
(e)	without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada .. .
47(1) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable
offence and is liable
(a) To be sentenced to death if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(l)(a), (b) or (c)-
That is the killing or the attempted killing of the Queen of Canada, to levy war against Canada or to assist an enemy at war with Canada. Why has this been changed at this time? Nobody has answered that. Again I repeat: there is something gratuitous about the government's action in this regard. Then so far as penalties are concerned, if all one does is to use force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
government of Canada or a province, they may be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life.
There is something behind this, and that is what we have not found out. What has activated the government of Canada to bring before the House legislation which will make Canada an open place for assassination and treason subject only to a jail sentence in a world in which terrorism marches and assassinations and kidnappings with assassination take place all over the world? Just at this time the Government of Canada decides that it must be kind to terrorists, international murders and those who raise rebellion.
The only government member who has entered into the debate in the past few days has talked in defence of a number of charges contained in letters to Hamilton newspapers. It is unfortunate that he has not expounded on capital punishment because of the two different stands he has taken on it. It would be a great contribution if he would expound on this issue. I see he has left the Chamber. Possibly later this evening the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) will expand on the two different stands he has taken with regard to capital punishment.
As I stated earlier, they have brought back capital punishment in the United States. A number of states have passed laws bringing back capital punishment. I wish to go into a bit of the history and the reasons why the United States has brought it back.
In 1965 New York abolished capital punishment except for someone convicted of killing a peace officer acting in the line of duty, and for a life convict who murders a guard or inmate in prison or while attempting to escape. The same year Vermont abandoned the death penalty except for treason, kidnapping for ransom, and for those who have been convicted of murder in the first degree and commit a second "unrelated" murder and for those convicts who murder any employee of the state prison or house of correction or a person known by the offender to be a law-enforcement officer performing the duties of his office.
I presume all hon. members received today the latest communication from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It is addressed to "Honourable Members of the House of Commons". It points out the concern of our prison guards. These guards could soon be looking after prisoners convicted of treason. With the Olympics coming up, we can expect just about anything. Enclosed with the letter is a full statement on their concerns for their lives and the lack of protection in our prisons today. They state, and I quote:
Please find attached a copy of a paper presented to the Solicitor General of Canada, Honourable Warren Allmand, in his office on June 29, 1976.
In our closing paragraph to the Solicitor General of Canada we have requested that this bill be tabled until he is able to provide a special institution to ensure the security and safety of all penitentiary personnel working in institutions.
Of course the answer we will receive from the government with regard to dealing with murderers is that it will build smaller, more comfortable jails. That is not the answer.
We humbly urge you on behalf of all penitentiary personnel and their families to defeat Bill C-84, otherwise you will have to bear the responsibility that will ensue from the chaotic situation that will result from your negative vote on the security of all law abiding citizens of Canada.

This is the second document I have received from prison guards in the last ten days. They go into explicit detail concerning the problems they are experiencing. This brings me back to my original speech on capital punishment in which I suggested that the abolitionists might change places with the guards and take responsibility for looking after Mad Dog Kelly and other ruthless killers of his type, men you cannot turn your back on for one second. If hon. members want to learn in detail what it is like to look after individuals of his sort I suggest they contact some jail guards.
In the United States there are certain crimes against government and there are two crimes in particular which fall into this category, treason and perjury. Our concern today arises from the proposal to drop the penalty of capital punishment with respect to treason. Treason is the act of levying war against the government of a jurisdiction or of giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Twenty jurisdictions punish treason with death. Twelve of them demand death on conviction-there is no alternative sentence. This places treason third in the rank order of offences punishable by death and first in the rank order of mandatory sentences.
Also there are crimes against property which can become capital. They include train wrecking, arson and burglary. I should like to add another crime-that of hijacking. I am reminded of a case in San Francisco a couple of years ago. A retired couple were on a United States jet aircraft which was taken over by hijackers. There was an exchange of gunfire within the aircraft and the husband was killed before the eyes of the wife. He was down in the States looking for a place for retirement. I find it very strange that abolitionists would want to deal so leniently with hijackers. Fortunately, in this case, the two hijackers were killed by FBI agents when they left the aircraft. But our Canadian retired railway worker lay in the aircraft in a pool of blood.
Train wrecking is generally any act such as tampering with switches or signals or burning trestles with intent to derail a train. In most jurisdictions the offence becomes capital only if someone dies as a result of such wrecking. Eighteen jurisdictions provide the death penalty for train wrecking; three of them make death mandatory.
Arson is the wilful and malicious burning of the building of another. Georgia, for example, has six arson statutes all making arson a capital crime. Four of them make arson imputed murder if death occurs as a result. Arson is ninth in the rank order of offences with nine jurisdictions punishing it. There are no mandatory jurisdiction. The death penalty in relation to all these crimes is being removed and those who commit them will simply receive a nice life sentence in a comfortable jail in return for these very serious offences.
With regard to the relation between the law, crime, and executions, let me say that anyone who hopes to understand the place of capital punishment in contemporary American society must have a grasp of the latest information on at least four aspects of this subject. First, he needs to know what crimes in each American jurisdiction are at present punishable by death. Next, he needs to know how many of each of these crimes actually occur. Third, he
July 5, 1976

must understand the scope of liability for a death sentence, especially as juveniles are affected. Lastly, he should have some idea of the ultimate fate of a typical group of persons originally sentenced to death by reference to a record of those who have been executed.
It is probable that few Americans have any idea how many crimes still carry a death penalty-anywhere from 33 to 67 crimes depending on how they are classified. They range from familiar ones such as murder, kidnapping, rape, and treason, to such crimes as desecrating a grave (Georgia), attempting to set fire to a prison (Arkansas), and sexually assaulting a girl under 18-so-called "statutory rape" (Nevada and Texas). Just in the past week there has been another violent rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in British Columbia. The answer to this is apparently to build smaller and more comfortable jails in which to look after these criminals. I know the Canadian people will not accept this.
What do Americans think of the death penalty today? Their attitudes obviously govern the likelihood of retaining, extending or abolishing it in that country in our time. In 1964 Governor George E. Chamberlain, in his inaugural address to the legislature, recommended that all executions should take place within the walls of a penitentiary. In the same year a law was passed requiring that all executions take place at the state penitentiary at Salem, and two years later Governor Chamberlain said he was sure this law would be most beneficial in its results.
Just before closing, I should like to make a brief comment. A 25-year-old youth from Winnipeg, the city from which I come, was found dead in the streets of New Orleans as last week. He had been knifed to death by a mugger. Murder on the streets is becoming almost a daily event, and the majority of Canadians are demanding that we return to capital punishment. We should bow to their wishes. I have conducted two polls in my riding which show that 80 per cent want the retention of capital punishment. And one poll carried out this year shows that 90 per cent want capital punishment retained.
I hear an intervention by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain to whom I referred earlier in my speech. I hope he will explain to us tonight why he has taken two different stands on this question of capital punishment. I believe he owes us some explanation, not just a brief interjection such as he made last Wednesday. I think it might prove to be an excellent contribution, one which would help us understand the two different stances he has taken.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: On a point of order, the hon. member seems to be seeking an answer to a question. He may be thinking I will give an explanation for something he has misread, misquoted, and misrepresented. The explanation I gave him on Wednesday was very detailed, it was very clear, and I think it will suffice for him if he will read it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I made no specific reference to those contradictory newspaper articles. I simply asked the hon. member to stand up and give an explanation of his two different stands. I am asking him to make contribution to the debate. We are not hearing from anyone on the government side other than by way of brief interjections. Let the hon. member stand up and make a ten or 20 minute speech
Capital Punishment
on his position. I am not particularly interested in a little controversy about a short newspaper article.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Oh, come on! We do not want to be here all summer. That is a filibuster going on over there. I am a retentionist but I would not lower myself to that.


Mr. Nystrom:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You are filibustering. As I say, I am a retentionist but I would not lower myself to do what you are doing.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) will be getting another reward for being the most abrasive MP in the House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Yes, and I am proud of it. I don't waste the time of the House by saying nothing.


Mr. Forrestall:: You can do better than that, Joe.


A. Daniel McKenzie: No, he is getting weaker and weaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am still going to vote against the bill but I won't talk all night and say nothing.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I am not going to be talking much longer so I hope the hon. member for St. Boniface will be making a contribution.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If I do, I won't have to read what I say.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We would welcome the opportunity, whether you read it or not, to have you make a contribution. Get up on your feet. You are the government whip and you can get the deputy whip as well to make a real contribution, instead of sitting there, bellowing night after night.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. Boniface rising on a point of order?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, whether I am chief government whip or not has no bearing on the vote. I am a retentionist and I feel that my position in this House has no bearing whatever on the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface will have the chance, if he so chooses, to express that point of view. In the meantime I would bring to the attention of the House that the time of the hon. member has just expired, but in view of the interruptions I will give him a few minutes extra to compensate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I am just concluding, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that I agree with Your Honour entirely. I think that the whip and deputy whip should get up on their feet and make a contribution, instead of engaging in these ridiculous interjections.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will make my contribution when I vote against the bill.
15042

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr.   Sean@: This has been manifested in a strange and unpredictable way, through this issue that is known as bilingualism in the air. It in itself belies a far more serious problem. It tells us that what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said some weeks ago regarding those who would cause Canada to end as a nation is simply wishful thinking, is not true.
There do exist organized forces in this land prepared and ready to do our country in, to end Canada. We know now that we cannot hide from that awful fact any longer. We must be prepared to face the dire consequences that may be caused by the actions of those individuals and groups. The lesson of terrorism has been brought home to us this very day in the wake of the situation in the Middle East. There we saw an example of why the penalty for terrorism, treason and acts of piracy, which will be dealt with in another amendment similar to this, should be and, indeed, must be kept in the law.
I would ask you why those guerrillas hijacked the plane and held those innocent people captive? It was for the purpose of freeing other people who had committed political crimes, crimes of terrorism and crimes of air piracy, yet because they had not paid the penalty for these heinous crimes they were still alive in jail providing sufficient motivation to these people to commit this terrible act. They played with those people's lives so they could spring from prison their associates and accomplices in international crime.
I submit to you that the same type of devious mentality is open to committing the crime of treason. If we just lock up so-called political prisoners after they have tried to take the life of the nation, we make heroes of them to that small sect in society. What do we offer these people and their accomplices who are still on the outside and have not yet been arrested? We offer them a reason and an opportunity to commit more crime by holding other people hostage and by performing other acts of terrorism only to push forward this demented cause.
As never before, the future of this country is on the minds and in the hearts of hon. members and all Canadians. I came to Ottawa, to Parliament Hill, in 1972 prior to the general election of that year as executive assistant to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). I did not know at that time, nor in the years I was at school and knew him through correspondence and occasional visits, that we would ever have the opportunity of sitting together in parliament. To me that seemed an unreachable goal and a dream that just could not be realized. Following the election of October 1972 an unusual set of circumstances allowed me to come into this House and sit as a colleague of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert and that was an honour given me by the people of Hamilton-Wentworth that no words can adequately express.
The right hon. gentleman and I have been associated for many years. As I said, prior to coming into this House I worked on his staff. We have not always agreed, and he has never asked me to always agree with him. He has often told me that his outlook in this House and in a lifetime of politics is that strong men have strong opinions, that they are bound to disagree, but that should not interfere with the maintenance and growth of their friendship. That is how it has been with us. His record here, before the courts,
Capital Punishment
and in all his public life has been that of an unswerving abolitionist. He has said so in this House. His contribution to this country is unmatched in our lifetime. He now places before us the value of his experience. It is something to all hon. members, be they retentionists such as myself, or abolitionists by nature, such as the right hon. member for Prince Albert, and, worth bearing in mind.
He has told us that on the basis of his experience as Prime Minister of this country and as a private member that, while he still favours abolition, he would not and could not support a bill that would contribute to the demise of this country by doing away with the right of the state to impose capital punishment for the commission of the crime of treason.
Let me conclude my remarks with a non-partisan appeal to all members, be they abolitionists or retentionists, to support the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, and be consistent. There is no difficulty in doing that. I say to all of them, through you, Sir, that we would all like to live in a kind of world of which we dream, and the kind of world we came here to work for, but we dare not confuse that kind of world with a dream world, a world that still eludes us and is not here and will not be here if we capitulate to the forces of international terrorism. That world will continue to elude us if we. open up this country to the heinous crimes that can be committed, indeed, it is sad to say, would be encouraged by leaving out this right of society. That kind of world will elude us as long as those forces are at work. They are at work today, and it is about time we got to work to make sure that the people of Canada are protected and that the future of Canada is ensured, by supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 29, 1976.
95 5 70-511/2

July 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and Motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) moved: Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting Clause 3.


John Douglas Reynolds: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting Clause 3.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion for the purpose of deleting clause 3 of Bill C-84. I should like now to explain this motion and the reasons which warrant it.
Section 75(2) of the Criminal Code, notwithstanding the provisions of Bill C-84, states:
(2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life, but. ..
And it is this part of the quotation which the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has struck out:
. .. but if while committing or attempting to commit piracy he murders or attemps to murder another person or does any act that is likely to endanger the life of another person he shall be sentenced to death."
Such was the section of the Criminal Code in effect in Canada. The Solicitor General proposes in Bill C-84 that the clause that I have just quoted be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
(2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General by including a clause on piracy in his bill recognized that it is a kind of crime and therefore recognized its existence. In committee, before the end of the proceedings, the minister said that there had been no crime of piracy in Canada since 1900 and that consequently it was not necessary to include it in our bill.
Mr. Speaker, what seems to motivate the Solicitor General is that it is a crime. It was in the Criminal Code. It might look bad to abolish it completely. There has been no such crime in Canada since 1900. It is not that serious and we are going to include it to appease the conscience of Canadians. Then, piracy is still a crime but we will eliminate the penalty provided for attempted murder or premeditated murder.
Mr. Speaker, for this minister, piracy is not a crime punishable by death. I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues on that. What is an act of piracy? Is it the kind of pirate stories we had in the Middle Ages? Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, that it is not that. Modern piracy is when an individual or a group of individuals decide to take hold of a private or public transportation means. It might be an airplane, a train, a boat or a bus. A group of criminals

takes over that transportation means in a systematic, premeditated, organized way and while doing it, they endanger the lives of passengers.
Mr. Speaker, it is then a serious situation. It is a mordern phenomenon. The minister said before the committee that it has not happened since 1900 and consequently, it was not really serious. Is it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to have it happen just once and that fifty people be treatened, held hostages on any transportation means in Canada and that there be many victims for the minister to open his eyes and recognize that it is a modern act?
The minister suggested in committee that it was an outdated crime that was no longer committed in our modern times. Well, as everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, there are hijackings, piracy acts in which citizens are held hostages, acts such as what took place in Montreal, some time ago, where a criminal seized a school bus and held children-not adults but children-hostages and threatened them, because he wanted something in return and therefore, he resorted to blackmail, using children's lives, and it happened in the city of Montreal in 1976.
This is therefore a serious and modern act which must be treated seriously and positively. This kind of situation will not be solved by simply glossing over them. I suggest that clause 3 of the Solicitor general's Bill C-84 should be completely removed and that we should come back to the old Criminal Code wich provided for capital punishment in all cases of murder or attempted murder and during piracy acts.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a protection and a positive step we must take. This afternoon, I was listening to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who said that capital punishment was something abominable and totally regressive, that it is regressive to speak about capital punishment, that we are being as violent as criminals. The minister has controlled information since the very beginning of this debate by referring chiefly to Professor Fattah's studies. He published a number of booklets that were sent to hon. members. Did the people who had the opportunity, the experts who were in favour of capital punishment get the same financial resources from the Department of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to express themselves? No, only those who shared the Solicitor General's view.
Let us use his literature. In the booklet entitled "The fear of punishment", issued by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, it is said in page 73, and I would emphasize that this is a plea that the Solicitor General is using all the time in an attempt to convince members of the House of the value of and need for abolishing capital punishment, in the same kind of argument as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. The argument put forward by Professor Fattah, which the Solicitor General repeated many times like a real parrot, is that first, capital punishment is not an effective deterrent; second, it does not solve the problem and third, we should improve our deterrent methods.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring forward the following argument by beginning with a quotation. On page 72 of the booklet entitled "Fear of punishment" one can read, and I quote:
July 5, 1976

According to Ball (1955), "there is ample evidence that the complete cessation of police operations is quickly followed by a surge of crime and a chaotic social situation".
Andenaes (1965) . . .
Other examples follow. In Denmark, among other places, in Copenhagen, things have happened. I shall spare the House these quotations. I shall relate an incident that occured in Montreal on October 7, 1969, which is related in the booklet ordered by the Solicitor General, and I quote:
On October 7, 1969, the Montreal police went on strike; nearly 1600 officers and 600 policemen out of a complement of 3833 stopped working. The strikers were claiming wage parity with their Toronto colleagues. The work stoppage lasted 16 hours. During that time, there were nine bank robberies by armed people and seventeen qualified robberies in commercial establishments. A number of stores on St. Catherine Street were pillaged, in centre town. Crimes against property were four times higher than usual in this area. In others, the increase varied between 20 and 300 per cent. On the other hand, they went down in certain areas where people had reinforced surveillance of their stores and houses, certain establishments having moreover closed earlier than usual.
And more figures are used to show that as soon as there is a relaxation in police activity, there is an increase in the number and the seriousnous of crimes. This proves, Mr. Speaker, that the police constitutes a certain deterrent. Everyone recognizes this without a doubt. This is generally preventive force. I refer to the incident in Montreal where a ganster held a group of students hostage in a school bus. At that time, the Montreal Urban Community police intervened. There were called in. They tried to discuss with the criminal, but to no avail. The police forces were armed, the bandit was armed. Mr. Speaker, this was therefore an act of piracy where on the one hand a criminal committed an act of piracy by taking over a public transport vehicle, and this in a manner that was well organized, well thought-out, what we call premeditated.
On the other hand, there are the police forces, those that we pay with our taxes. These police forces are armed, prepared, trained, paid to protect private property, public property, and especially the lives of our fellow citizens. What choice is left to the policeman called in to the scene of this act of piracy by bandits in Montreal, where the criminal had taken over a bus full of children, and I repeat that they were school children? Shoot to kill? Not shoot and hope that the bandit will come to his senses, or else take roundabout ways to try to solve the conflict?
Mr. Speaker, if the bill is passed with clause 3 in its present form, the minister would like us to abolish the death penalty in the case of the bandit who is guilty of an act of piracy, who hijacks a school bus or a plane or a train, who threatens to run it off the tracks or to blow it up, who kidnaps Canadian school children. He is asking us to trust that the criminal will save the lives of those children. That is the first point. Here is the second point: he asks us to trust the police forces to try and solve that very serious problem of threat by armed criminals, but once again without risk, and therefore, I conclude that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) would ask, in a case of piracy, would ask the police force to simply watch the crime without interfering, without using their weapons, to just stand there to show that we have a police force.
I say to the Solicitor General, in conclusion, that it would be ridiculous for the police to put their lives in danger to catch somebody who threatens the lives of thirty
Capital Punishment
children, when they know very well that because of this bill and clause 3 even if they risk their lives and the lives of the children during the shooting, the criminal himself is in no danger. He is protected by the Solicitor General, in clause 3. He says that it is an old-fashioned crime that has not happened since 1900. Apparently he has not been in his constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace for a long time, Mr. Speaker. I say that to carry out its duty the police force needs the legal, if not the moral support of the government.
In the accompanying documents, the minister refers to several cases where police action must be reinforced, and there is proof how ridiculous the minister's argumentation can be. What appears even more shocking to me is that in the case referred to in Montreal, among others, we will all remember the press reports and the general outcry raised among the very ones who want the most probity, the most broadness of mind possible with respect to criminals. So there was a great many people, including journalists, observers, the League for Human Rights, the Solicitor General and such other people to blame police agents for having taken action too fast and, thus, having threatened the existence or life of anyone of the children who were in the bus. This, Mr. Speaker, is the height of absurdity! There are even people to blame police forces for having taken action not fast enough, or too fast, thus risking the bandit's life.
Mr. Speaker, that beats all! I understand the point of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Center. As far as he is concerned, we should be very understanding, we should be more trusting. He told us this afternoon that we had not reached the point where we should mistrust our neighbours and look under the bed before going to sleep at night. I understand him, Mr. Speaker, but I would like him to explain the logic in his argument. He claims the death penalty must be abolished in all cases. Oh, come on!
In this case, that, of the school bus, we are dealing with an act of piracy. Or of attempted murder, if not murder, because the police have to put a stop to it. Will the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre carry his argument to its logical end and disarm the police? I ask the question in all seriousness. Why let the police keep their arms when they run the risk of wounding children in the cross-fire when they try to capture the criminal? Why not simply stand there to prove that the criminal is doing wrong?
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre will tell me that it is a deliberate act and that, in any case, the criminal would have committed it. So, let us twiddle our thumbs and let him do whatever he pleases. Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre to see one of his children in such a bus. I would like him to tell me and to explain to me why policemen are armed in such a situation?
Mr. Speaker, this is my point. On the one hand, in the publicity it makes, the government tells us that we must strengthen the police measures and, on the other hand, he speaks about a deterrent. It says that an act of piracy makes no sense and, consequently, that its perpetrator must simply be liable of life imprisonment. Consequently, if there is a murder or a murder attempt, the death penalty will be abolished. Mr. Speaker, I claim that it is not an old crime, it is not something out of fashion, but it is an act that is committed almost every week now throughout the

July 5, 1976
Business of the House
world. The perpetrator of a such act committed in Canada should be recognized as being liable to the death penalty, as was provided for in the old Criminal Code. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to study this question very carefully.
As a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I was saying at the outset, must a single act be committed, must dozens of people die or be killed following an act of piracy for the minister to recognize that it is a modern crime, a crime which could be committed tomorrow morning.
To finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like hon. members to understand that my amendment proposes that we simply revert to the application of the old Criminal Code. If, as the Solicitor General told the committee, it is true it is a crime which does not exist, which has not been committed in Canada since 1900, so why does he change the Criminal Code? It does not bother him, he might as well leave it as it is and the problem will be solved.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) said earlier, we are accused of demagogy or, as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said, we are accused of getting angry because we present amendments or arguments.
But as far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of every hon. member in this House to analyze each line of this bill since it is life and death issue, not only for criminals but also for innocents. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for hon. members who analyze this bill only on the basis of criminals to analyze it on the basis of the protection of society and of punitive legislation, to the extent that people are punished according to the intensity or the gravity of the crime they committed.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should clarify one point. The hon. member has called it ten o'clock. Is it agreed that the hon. member will retain his right to speak first tomorrow on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that there is a House order under which the House leaders would meet to discuss the taking of votes either at the report stage or at third reading. The House leaders have met and have decided to recommend that there be votes on Thursday evening of this week at 9.30 p.m. on all the amendments upon which votes have been deferred up to that particular time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the recitation which has been made by the government House leader is a proper one, and I think we should underscore that this means that the vote on the first set of amendments-I forget the numbers, but hon. members know the ones I mean-under the House order would normally have been

held on Wednesday but are also now deferred to Thursday, so that the House order which was made has been amended to that extent to accommodate those votes. I want the House to understand that completely. I must say that I am a party to that agreement, and I concur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what has been said represents our understanding. In other words, on Thursday night at 9.30 there will be votes on motions Nos. 4, 9, 18, 38, and 7, and on any other amendments the debates on which have ended and concerning which votes have been requested up until 9.30 Thursday evening. This is what we understand to be the agreement.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, the government House leader (Mr. Sharp) consulted us on this subject, and we gave our consent on the votes which will have to be held on Thursday on the motions which will be discussed, once the discussion is over. And I specify that we are always dealing with the amendments at the report stage. We are not dealing with third reading. So we agree on this proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Because of the fact that it is my interpretation that the previous order was to have the vote within one week of any deferred division, I hope this will be done by unanimous consent. That would exclude any possibility of a question on Wednesday about taking a vote. Is it unanimously agreed that any deferred division at the report stage-

... at the report stage as stated by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) concerning this bill . . .

-with regard to Bill C-84 will be deferred to Thursday, July 8, 1976, at 9.30 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.\n15051', 'Tuesday, July 6, 1976']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Because of the fact that we called it ten o'clock earlier than ten o'clock, perhaps we can proceed with the calling of another question. Three hon. members have put questions for the adjournment debate: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, the hon. member
July 5, 1976

for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where have all the Tories gone?


Walter David Baker: We did in fact finish early.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, you didn't; it is ten o'clock.


Walter David Baker: It may be that there is some difficulty in terms of the time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was your man who called it ten o'clock. What are you complaining about?


Walter David Baker: No matter what, it does not make much difference, does it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only contribution I can make to the discussion is to indicate that I met the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) in the hall a few minutes ago, and he said he cancelled his debate for tonight.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Say goodnight, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Here's Walter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will call upon the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.



Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I seem to be late but I understood I was No. 2 on the list tonight. Now that I have the priority position I want to raise the question that I brought up in the House last Wednesday with respect to the proliferation of commemorative stamps being issued by the Post Office Department. There has been a growing concern and restlessness in the philatelic community because, as is well known in those circles, it is quite easy to kill the goose that lays the golden egg in the desire-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not treason?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Not in this respect, I might tell the hon. member. In the desire to make as much profit as possible there is a tendency to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Whether the department is trying to reduce the soaring deficit in the Post Office Department, which I think is currently about $675 million, or to make a dent in the soaring Olympic debt which is close to $1 billion, I do not know. Certainly the practice is not enhancing Canada's reputation in the international philatelic community.
In the question on Wednesday I dealt specifically with the issue of the Olympic statue stamp which came on the market on March 14, 1975, and according to a quite specific arrangement should have been withdrawn 12 months later. In his reply the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) indicated that this interpretation was accurate-that there was an understanding with the association to which
Adjournment Debate
Canadian stamp collectors belong that new issues would be withdrawn following a 12-month period. When I drew attention to the fact that this $1 and $2 Olympic statue stamp was still available over post office counters, he revised the answer by saying it does not apply to Olympic stamps; indeed, they will not be withdrawn until one year following completion of the Olympic events.
As I have indicated, rather than enhancing the coffers of the Olympics, an over issue and over exposure of stamps means that the total return will be reduced. The market cannot possibly absorb the number of stamps being issued.
This matter came to a head in 1973. Dealers were called into a special meeting at the headquarters of the Post Office on December 5, 1973. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Bill Eyre, who is the manager of the philatelic retail products and market development section. The deputy postmaster general made an appearance to reinforce the significance of the meeting. Out of the meeting came a communique which purported to cover the matters that were raised. As set out on page 3, paragraph (e) of the memorandum the meeting reached the conclusion that the new public sales policy of the Canada Post Office to be explained in detail at a meeting on February 1, 1974, would mark the implementation of some significant changes. All stamps would be sold in a package format and would be available for 12 months only from the date of issue. That was the reply the Postmaster General gave to me last Wednesday before he issued the revised version. I have confirmed by discussion since last Wednesday with people who are knowledgeable in the field across the country that this is a restatement of policy upon which there has been no consultation.
The Canadian Stamp Dealers Association assure me that their understanding of the results of that meeting in 1973 are precisely the same as the conclusion I read indicated, namely, that there is a definite agreement with the trade that all stamps will be removed after 12 months exposure on the open market. It even goes further than that. The promise was made that any remaining stocks will be destroyed. Usually popular issues of stamps are sold out within a few months. Because of the over-issue tendency, the market has been adulterated.
I think whoever replies for the Postmaster General tonight, and I presume it will be the parliamentary secretary, will agree that it would be a much more profitable venture if the number of issues were kept on a marketable basis and if the promise that was made to the trade were kept, as has been requested.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I always welcome questions and the chance to debate with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) because he is very knowledgeable about the Post Office.
There may be some confusion here. Perhaps we can clear it up this evening. Postage stamps are divided into two categories. There are the philatelic quality commemorative stamps sold to all collectors, and the regular stamps used to prepay postage.
Philatelic quality commemorative stamps are sold from philatelic outlets and the headquarters mail order service for a period of one year, in the various forms such as full

July 5, 1976
Adjournment Debate
panes, corner blocks, and so forth. In addition semi-annual pre-packs containing a single stamp of each issue are made up and sold for a period of 12 months. These also are sold only from philatelic outlets and the mail order service.
Regular quality commemorative stamps are usually sold out at post offices within a few weeks. However, a special situation has arisen with the Olympic $1 and $2 commemorative postage stamps (sculptures) which were printed in sufficient quantities to be on sale in post offices for a longer period in order to give full publicity to the holding of the Olympics in Canada. These stamps were on sale in post offices after the first anniversary of the date of issue. While they are no longer being supplied by our distribution depots, some post offices may be selling the residue until the supply is exhausted.
If philatelic quality stamps were being sold from philatelic outlets, other than the special packages, after March 14, this was in error. We are inquiring into this now, and if we find an error has been made it will be corrected immediately. I would appreciate any information the hon. member can give us to support an investigation of this kind.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST-ALLEGATION MR. BISSONNETTE IS LINKED WITH COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OF CHAIRMAN OF ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the question I asked on June 21 with regard to the activities of Mr. A. L. Bissonnette, a member of the AntiDumping Tribunal. My question arose as a result of inquiries made in this House by my colleagues, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. McKay) and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), relating to the activities of the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Gauthier.
I realize that the next day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) made a statement with respect to the activities of the chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and with respect to Mr. Bissonnette, a member of that tribunal. Unfortunately I was not able to be present at the time of the statement and the questioning of the minister and it occurred to me there were some questions with respect to this whole situation which the minister might not have answered at that time.
We shall have to draw attention to the whole question of conflict of interest with respect to the order in council activity of the government, with respect to the activities, in this case, of the chairman and members of the board which might infringe the guidelines covering conflict of interest in relation to public servants. The minister was at great pains to explain that the conflict of interest guidelines did not apply to this particular area of quasi-judicial appointments.
What bothered me about the answers the minister gave at that time was that under the act members of the board are required to devote their full time and attention to the activities of the anti-dumping tribunal. In such a situation I find it difficult to come to terms with the minister's explanations with regard to the members of the board holding directorships in various corporations, as this

reflects upon their responsibilities to the appointments they hold. In the case of Mr. Bissonnette, the minister stated he had been asked to divest himself of his seat on various boards of directors, but it seems to me the government ought to give serious consideration to establishing a particular administrative procedure to deal with situations of this kind.
In cases of this sort, where appointments are made by order in council, particularly when there is a statutory requirement that those appointed should devote their whole time and attention to their duties, such persons might be required to make a declaration periodically that they had in fact refrained from carrying on activities other than those they were required to carry out under the legislation, in this instance as members of the anti-dumping tribunal. When the act is as specific as it is in this instance, it seems to me it raises an issue quite apart from that of conflict of interest.
We could discuss ad infinitum the question of the propriety of members appointed to any tribunal involved in export and import activities acting as directors of other corporations engaged, perhaps, in similar activities. We may question that, but it seems to me that in this particular case the point was missed by the minister that there was an explicit and specific prohibition against any of these members acting in any other capacity.
The point of my grievance with respect to the answer of the minister when he undertook, in response to my question, to give a full and detailed explanation of the requirements that the government felt were incumbent upon Mr. Bissonnette, is that there is only a request by the minister that he divest himself, subsequent to the disclosure of his activities, of his directorships of corporations. There is no coming to terms with government policy regarding whether or not there should be some administrative procedure by the government respecting order in council appointments, that such people in fact make a declaration, not necessarily of their holdings but whether they are contravening the statutory provision that they shall devote their full time and attention to their particular responsibility.
This question is very important to us since we find ourselves questioning people who have been appointed by order in council using government facilities and expertise for private purposes and interests. Notwithstanding the question of conflict of interest, it seems to me that this matter-I see you are rising in your place, Mr. Speaker-is one in which this whole question of devoting full time and attention to a position should be answered by the government.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that it is true that the hon. member was not present when the minister made a statement the day after the question was raised in the House. The minister assured him that he would be making a statement in the House. The question was raised prior to that, on June 15, by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who participated in the debate the following day when the minister made his statement. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) also participated in the debate in regard to the procedure followed by the minister when he made the statement.
July 5, 1976

The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised some very interesting points, but had he been in the House following the questions raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe he would have heard the same apprehensions suggested to the minister. I feel from reading the record of that debate that these apprehensions have been answered. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar says that they were not, and indeed goes beyond that. I think he is referring to section 21, subsection (7), and to the question of whether the minister made a statement that is in accordance with what the hon. member was expecting; I think that is the point at issue at this time.
The second point I should like to devote some attention to is that we should have an annual review of the investments or directorships that the various members of the board may have. It would be of some interest to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to spend some time reading the comments made in the other place on the subject of
Adjournment Debate
conflict of interest. Possibly there are some areas that are not clear, but I think the two officers the hon. member mentioned did comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. They have taken notice of them, know what they are, and have answered all the clauses contained in the conflict of interest guidelines. This may not be satisfactory, and in the way he has raised the question there may be another procedure, but this has not been determined. It can certainly be considered when this is reviewed. As I say, it would be of some interest to the hon. member and to ourselves to look at the report which has been tabled and act on it, perhaps including some of the recommendations made this evening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.
15051

Tuesday, July 6, 1976