1976-07-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the official opposition's outstanding record of constructive suggestions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the government forthwith bring forth legislation similar to Bill C-242, an act for the relief of non-smokers in transit to ensure reasonable and expeditious attention thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can only be debated with unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I raise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, a matter that is urgent and pressing. It concerns the problem of international hijacking and terrorism. In view of the fact that several countries in the world continue to provide hospitality and landing facilities to hijackers and terrorists, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That Canada deny all landing rights at Canadian airports to aircraft of any country which provides aid, hospitality or landing facilities to aircraft hijackers and use its influence at the United Nations and in the world to encourage all other countries in the world to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government operations committee of the United States House of Representatives has released a report which has sharply criticized the planning and construction of the Garrison irrigation project in North Dakota because of the environmental damage that could be caused to Manitoba rivers and in light of the fact that the International Joint Commission is still studying the Garrison project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House instruct the government of Canada to call for an immediate moratorium on the Garrison project until the International Joint Committee presents a report on the Garrison project.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important and urgent matter.
Given the situation resulting from the government's surrender to CALPA and CATCA regarding bilingual communications over the Quebec territory; considering that the decision of the Minister of Transport is at best an alarming commitment which contradicts the very principles of the bilingualism act, besides further breaking the ties between Quebec and the rest of Canada; and considering that this protocol insults all members of parliament and particularly upsets French-speaking representatives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):

July 9, 1976
Oral Questions
That the House instruct the Minister of Transport to disavow the agreement he has signed and to apologize publicly for the offensive action he has taken.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will ask the question of the Acting Prime Minister, who probably knows less, if that is possible, about dairy policy than the Minister of Agriculture.
On Wednesday, June 30, the Minister of Agriculture in answer to questions regarding dairy policy-and Lord knows we need a new dairy policy-indicated that if he is going to make an announcement, it would be made next week some time. Remembering that last year the Minister of Agriculture made an announcement during the Easter recess when we could not rebut it and then six months later changed it, can the Acting Prime Minister tell me if the minister intends to make some statement on dairy policy today, or will there not be the required change in the dairy policy?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not in a position to make a statement on dairy policy as yet.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Mitchell William Sharp: Because consideration of the matter has not been concluded in cabinet.


John Raymond Ellis: I wonder, then, if I might ask a general question of the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the policy of this government to have confrontations with the people of Canada? There have been confrontations with air traffic controllers, with labour, and recently in the matter of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he ask it.


John Raymond Ellis: If we are not going to have confrontation, will the Acting Prime Minister please ask the Minister of Agriculture to come up with a policy some time between

now and next Wednesday which will satisfy the dairy farmers in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think we have probably had the most successful agricultural policy this country has seen because we have the present Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Moreover, as I look around the world, I see no other country which has had an agricultural policy which has been more satisfactory to producers and consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DAIRY POLICY-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. The simple statement that we have a good agricultural and dairy policy indicates that the Acting Prime Minister obviously has not been talking to farmers lately.
In view of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in this House on June 30, as reported at page 14976 of Hansard, in which he stated, and I quote: "Before we make any change we have to notify and discuss this with every province concerned with the dairy issue," I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this consultation with all provinces has taken place, has the Minister of Agriculture received agreement from all provinces and has he conveyed that agreement, or lack of it, to cabinet?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that consultation is now proceeding.


DAIRY POLICY-FINANCIAL LOSSES OF PRODUCERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, again to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture at a public meeting that Canadian industrial milk producers are the highest paid milk producers in the world, and in view of the fact that a number of milk producers have had part or complete cheques held back by the Canadian Dairy Commission, was the Minister of Agriculture expressing government policy that these producers, having been encouraged to produce by the Canadian Dairy Commission, will have nothing to worry about and the financial losses they are now facing are of no consequence?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is a very argumentative question.
July 9, 1976


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM SUGGESTION PROGRAM END IN VIEW OF LOW CANADIAN UNIT LABOUR COST INCREASES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. At the outset of the government's so-called anti-inflation program the New Democratic Party pointed out that factual support for it simply did not exist. Once again, in figures provided this time by the United States Bureau of Labour and published in today's press, it is documented that Canadian unit labour cost increases during the past eight years have been the lowest among the top eight industrial nations. Given the fact that the unit labour costs have not been pricing us out of our competitive markets and the fact that prices are continuing to rise, will the minister finally come to his senses about this program and bring it to an end?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out to the hon. gentleman many times in the past and I am glad to repeat it, that we are not blaming labour for the inflation that we encountered nationally and internationally in 1973-74. What we are saying is that if the settlements being claimed for the year 1975 were carried forward into 1976, that is 20 per cent or 30 per cent increases in our unit labour cost, we would, over time, prejudice our economic position. That is the position we have taken in the past and I shall be glad to repeat the answer, again and again, I am sure, to the hon. gentleman.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to outline the facts for the minister. In 1975, in the figures that were published today, and contrary to what the minister has just asserted, Canada had the lowest increases amongst the same eight countries in 1975 in its unit labour costs. So the minister is wrong in precisely the year he says was used to justify the program brought in last fall. Will the minister now concede that he was wrong and concede that the program has no intellectual justification and is morally offensive to working Canadians?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman to read my answer. As in previous ones I pointed out it was the anticipation of increased settlements of 20 per cent to 30 per cent which would have had this impact on Canadian business. We were not looking back over our shoulder and pointing a finger at what Canadian business and labour had done in the past; we were looking ahead and saying if they get this kind of settlement in the future then we will not be in a position to compete. It was for that reason we made efforts to restrain the increase, among other things, of wage rates in 1975. The fact that we were able to restrain them is some credit to the program.


REQUEST FOR FIRST QUARTER FIGURES SHOWING WAGE INCREASES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has said is just rubbish. He knows very well the government had no program in operation until the end of 1975. He shifted from 1975 in his argument which was of his first answer, to "anticipated" increases in 1976. I
Oral Questions
should like to ask the minister if he could provide us with first quarter figures comparing wages and salary increases in Canada with other countries to document in some way support for the argument he has just recently provided in that answer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman said I shifted. I would repeat for the third time: we were talking about anticipated labour costs. The hon. member has talked about things being morally offensive. I find it morally offensive when I have said one thing and the hon. member keeps pretending I have said another.


BILINGUALISM
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I am sorry to repeat it, Mr. Speaker, but there is interference in the unilingual communications.
In view of the many protests provoked by the action taken by the Minister of Transport in the conflict opposing him to CALPA and CATCA, and as even the right hon. Prime Minister seems to have recognized the gross error the infamous protocol of agreement constitutes by accepting the resignation of the Minister of the Environment, can the minister tell the House what steps he intends to take to make up for the affront he made to all French-Canadians generally and Quebecers in particular?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since it has been asked in those completely inappropriate terms it would be impossible to grapple with the question.


PROTESTS AGAINST AGREEMENT WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is entirely mistaken when he answers this way, since the words I have just spoken are far from being of the same sort as those he used in his agreement.
In any case, I should like to ask him whether he is aware of all the protests and if he received some, particularly from Quebec. Would he then be prepared to tell the House what he intends to do in the light of these events?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course I am conscious of the concern expressed, particularly in Quebec, following the memorandum of understanding with CATCA and CALPA. It was obvious to me that a good deal of the concern was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that memorandum and I have been endeavouring in every way I know to reassure the people in Quebec by restating that there is no move by
15202

July 9, 1976
Oral Questions
this government in any way away from our fundamental commitment to the official languages policy and bilingualism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Indeed, the whole purpose of our efforts with the simulation study and the commission of inquiry is to implement safe procedures for air traffic services bilingually throughout the province of Quebec. That is the whole purpose of what we are doing, what we intend to accomplish and what I am still confident we shall accomplish.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I direct my question to the government House leader in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister? Because of the preponderant views of most Canadians, that is most Canadians outside the cabinet and the Department of External Affairs, that the Olympic Games should proceed on schedule no matter what any international group may want to call itself, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister would condescend to let the House and public know the result of the latest negotiations and consultations which are proceeding between the government and the International Olympic Committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, discussions have been going on at various levels between the International Olympic Committee and representatives of the government in an endeavour to reach a settlement or compromise on the question of the participation of athletes from Taiwan. These discussions are not completed and I would urge on all in the House the desirability of not creating unnecessary difficulties by anything which may be said in the House today.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, that was hardly a breathtaking answer. I was asking the Acting Prime Minister to tell us what stage the negotiations have reached. Has the government made a proposal to the IOC and has the IOC made a compromise proposal to the government? Surely, the Acting Prime Minister can tell us what is going on and who is taking the initiative.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about taking the initiative: we took the initiative one year ago with the IOC, when we asked them to consider the implications of this situation; then, when nothing happened, we had to call in the representatives to clarify the Canadian position which we had indicated a year before and on which they had taken no action. We are having the discussions today. There are proposals being made from both sides. We are all hoping that within the next short time a settlement will be reached.


POSSIBILITY OF DECLARING SITE OF GAMES INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. When Queen Juliana was in Canada and her second child was being born, in order to ensure that she would have Dutch ancestry, a section of Canada was declared as being Dutch territory. This facilitated the establishment of the required nationality of the child born to Queen Juliana. Will the Acting Prime Minister give consideration to declaring the Montreal Olympic site as being international territory belonging to the IOC in order to get around what obviously is a problem that cannot be resolved by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I strongly advise the hon. member not to make that a plank in his election platform.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for multiculturalism, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the report of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism recommends that federal funds be made available for the teaching of languages other than English and French, and in view of the fact that the recent non-official languages study indicated support for the teaching of such languages in the public schools, has the federal government undertaken any discussion with the provinces on this matter in order to encourage the setting up of such a program and to discuss in what form federal support can be provided?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows education is in the hands of the provinces. Representations of that kind ought to be made more directly to the provinces concerned. As far as the federal government is concerned, it may be a useful way of maintaining the cultures of the various groups that make up the Canadian population to give support to the teaching of those languages within or without the educational system. As far as the federal government is concerned, we are giving some consideration to the matter.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the quiescent Minister of Public
July 9, 1976

Works. I understand that the East Block is now included within the buildings of parliament and that extensive renovations are being carried out. Can the minister advise this House or this member what is contemplated with regard to the use of the East Block now that the extensive political machine, the PMO, is being removed? Who will move in? All Canadians would like to know what is being done and what the cost will be in this period of restraint.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as yet no definitive decision has been taken in relation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Ask a stupid question. A committee has been appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Abbott to define the needs of the parliamentary precinct. In anticipation of that report, we are not taking decisions as to the ultimate disposition of various elements of the parliamentary precinct.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I prefaced my question by directing it "to the quiescent Minister of Public Works". The fact that no definitive decision has been taken illustrates my preface. My supplementary question relates to history. I know the minister, in another capacity, was on Parliament Hill at the time of the last change in government. It was only the change in government that saved the West Block from the intentions of the cabinet under Mr. St. Laurent. Will the minister assure the House that as far as the exterior of the East Block is concerned nothing definitive, like demolition, will take place?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You may laugh, but that was what Mr. St. Laurent was going to do with the West Block. Can the minister assure us that when definite plans are made any work to be done will be done to the interior and that the exterior will remain as it is?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think I can reassure the hon. gentleman that there will be no demolition carried out by this government. I wish I could feel as confident with regard to the alternative government.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We shall soon have a chance to say no.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO PROVINCE WILL RECEIVE LESS UNDER NEW PROPOSAL

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Two days ago, referring to the new equalization formula presently being negotiated, the hon. gentleman gave an assurance that overall equalization payments would not be less than the present figure of $2.2 billion. Since each of the options presented by the federal govern-
Oral Questions
ment involves less than that amount, and since the minister has stated that these proposals were for demonstration purposes only, could he say what increase he is prepared to consider in total equalization payments so that no province would be worse off under any new scheme than it is at present?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
have indicated both to the conference and in responses in the House, the overall impact of equalization would not, in general, be less. The impact varies, of course, from province to province and I am not sure I can give the guarantee the hon. lady is seeking. Very often, particularly if there is a shift in provincial earnings, there would be a change. However, the overall impact would be the same. I suppose the best example of what I mean would be Saskatchewan. That province might well, through economic progress, move into the category of being a "have" rather than a "have not" province. If that were to happen it would, of course, be receiving no equalization payments at all.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I realize the minister may not be prepared to give a dollar figure in relation to his commitment, but since his objection in April to the present rate of growth of equalization payments was that it was outstripping such indicators as the growth in federal revenue and the growth of the gross national product, would he be prepared, for instance, to consider a growth rate in equalization payments at least in line with one of those two indicators?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In general terms, we set out the view that these transfer payments should grow at a rate not greater than the growth in the gross national product. That would be the trend.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Some hon. Members:: And others.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canadian production, sale and export of uranium are under federal jurisdiction and regulation and that two of the Canadian producers are federal Crown corporations, what is the government doing to prevent possible extra-territorial application of United States law within Canada arising out of the current investigation by U.S. anti-trust authorities into the affairs of uranium producers both inside and outside the United States? In addition, could he or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell us whether the government was formally notified by U.S. authorities in advance of their investigation as is provided for in several agreements between the United States and Canada?
95570-6U/2

July 9, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I can reply on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would simply confirm his viewpoint and mine, as expressed by the hon. gentleman, that the United States anti-trust administration should in no sense seek to export its anti-trust law into Canada and that an attempt to do so will be an unacceptable course of action. In this context, the government of Canada recently had an opportunity to make its views known in Washington, and I would be glad to confirm with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he has been in communication with Washington as well in relation to uranium.



AIR TRANSPORT


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the government House leader in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the recent hijacking incident in Uganda. Can he advise us whether the government is now giving consideration to imposing sanctions against Uganda or, for that matter, against any other country which shelters and assists hijackers? I am particularly interested in ascertaining whether this country is considering the cancellation of landing rights to governments such as Uganda so that the Canadian people can do something more than express pious statements at the United Nations on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman will recall that Canada took the lead in the international civil aviation organisation and at the United Nations in trying to get a universal rule which meant there would be no harbouring of aircraft hijackers. Unfortunately, the rest of the world did not agree with our position. We have not, however, felt it desirable to apply the kind of sanction the hon. member has mentioned. I would remind him that far more than Uganda is involved; a great many countries in the world are involved. It is our view, however, that as a result of the tragic events which took place in Uganda there will be some change in world opinion in favour of our approach.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I thank the hon. gentleman for another pious statement on the subject. I would draw attention to the importance of providing leadership rather than waiting for the rest of the world. There are two other countries closely concerned: Libya continues to violate world opinion in this area and so does Algeria. I am asking the minister whether consideration is being given to acting alone so that Canada can show some leadership instead of waiting for some international agreement, which at present seems far from likely, or at least acting in concert with other like-minded nations.


Mitchell William Sharp: We did explore the possibility of acting in concert with other like-minded countries and we did not receive support.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he confirm reports appearing in the press today that in a fortnight the President of the Treasury Board will be presenting to cabinet a longer list with a projection in stages of how a thorough-going decentralization of the Public Service by department and agency will be carried out, the purpose being to decentralize the larger agencies in Ottawa? Can the minister confirm that report and give us some details as to the phasing of such a program?


Mitchell William Sharp: I neither confirm nor deny reports about what is going on in cabinet.


Walter David Baker: In the event that at some time the minister and his colleagues are presented with a report recommending decentralization under a program which is really, as outlined by the President of the Treasury Board, intended basically for the purpose of job creation-something which is, in principle, not an unlaudable motive-will the hon. gentleman assure the House that when considering such a report it would be in the mind of the government that it ought not in all cases to be creating yet another level of bureaucracy through which action would need to be taken by the public and that if this is basically a regional employment scheme special attention should be paid to the problems of those public servants who are employed in agencies in the National Capital and elsewhere which are to be transferred and who are remaining here? There is a great deal of concern in the public service not only with respect to the move but with respect to what will happen to those who choose not to move.


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is motivated in its decentralization program not only by considerations of employment but by the principle that it is desirable to have federal representation throughout the country as distributed as extensively as possible. That is one of the main reasons for considering, as we have, the question of decentralization and taking some steps in that direction. I can assure the hon. member that when it does consider these moves the government is very conscious of problems which may be created here in Ottawa.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of the Environment but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary would answer. In view of the continuing controversy over the Garrison diversion project, would the hon. gentleman give an up to date report of the IJC study on the matter,
July 9, 1976

particularly as to whether flood control on the Souris River was now included in the terms of reference?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. gentleman that the report is due on October 25, and I think the important thing to remember is that the report can recommend the abandonment of any portion of this project if it adversely affects Canada. As far as flood control measures are concerned, I can report to the hon. gentleman that we are in the process of negotiating three agreements with the province of Manitoba, one being a flood damage reduction agreement, the second a supplementary flood mapping agreement, and the third a study agreement. These agreements should be signed within 30 days.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary missed my essential point, the IJC consideration of this important boundary water matter. In view of the extensive flood damage this spring amounting to millions of dollars and the support of the government of the state of North Dakota for having the IJC investigate this matter, is Canada also pressing this viewpoint?


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the representation made by the hon. gentleman about a month ago, I was personally in touch with our two representatives on the IJC and the board was considering that very point.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister bring us up to date on whether Canada will be purchasing the 18 Lockheed Orions, and would he inform the House whether there is a plan under which the United States navy will buy the Orions now in their reduced form as Lockheed P-3's, and a year from now Lockheed will take them back, fit them out as Orions, sell them to Canada and make new P-3's for the U S. navy?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, the Lockheed proposal is before cabinet, as the hon. member knows. With regard to the second question, I have heard nothing about an arrangement of that kind.



INQUIRY AS TO CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT FROM COMPANIES OTHER THAN LOCKHEED

A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would point out to the minister that there have been newscasts today on the subject to which I referred. The minister said he is concerned that a number of other aircraft firms have just submitted bids two days before he was going to make a
Oral Questions
final decision. Will this make any difference to the plans for purchases, will there be further delays, or has the minister any idea from whom he will consider purchasing the aircraft?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there have been no other bids or firm bids. There have been some very vague proposals but we do not have any other firm bids before us at the present time.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Further to the questions which I put to the Solicitor General on July 6 at which time I inquired whether he would report to the House of Commons details of an escape plan for Hutchison and Ambrose and the existence of a cache of arms in Dorchester penitentiary-I understand now that the dynamite information was incorrect-is the minister now in a position to report the details to the House, or will he table the report which was sent to the commissioner of penitentiaries, particularly in relation to the comments of Mr. Ambrose when at approximately 2.20 p.m. on June 22, following the bulletin concerning Bill C-84 passing second reading, he said: "Now, we can get all the pigs we want"?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: When I replied to the hon. member on the last occasion I said that I could not recall all the details of the incident, but I have the report now for the question period.
On April 27, several rounds of ammunition were found at Dorchester as well as a homemade gun and some homemade knives. These weapons were found in the kitchen area and there was no evidence that they were related in any way to the two inmates referred to by hon. member, Hutchison and Ambrose. On June 11, another gun and some more ammunition was found in another cell block, but again no evidence was found to relate that to Hutchison and Ambrose. In both cases, the penitentiary service was able to stop whatever was being planned.


Paul Wyatt Dick: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister confirm or otherwise that in fact, as a result of a tip to the officials, a softball which was thrown over the wall with an inscription on it of the escape plan for Hutchison and Ambrose was picked up, that extra duty guards had been put on, and that a 32 revolver along with 15 rounds of ammunition had been found subsequent to the softball being thrown over the wall from the farm annex side of the prison?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have no information with regard to the softball, but it is correct that a gun and 15 rounds of ammunition were found near the entrance to cell block seven. I might say that Ambrose and Hutchison are being kept in a special wing of the penitentiary apart from all other inmates.

July 9, 1976
Oral Questions



DORCHESTER-ALLEGATION SPECIAL GUARDS FOR AMBROSE AND HUTCHISON BEING PAID BY PROVINCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Paul Wyatt Dick: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Solicitor General confirm that there are seven guards who have been taken off their regular duties to secure the area Ambrose and Hutchison are in, that these are being paid by the province under a special arrangement, but that since they have been taken from the regular contingent, the regular contingent is now light these seven guards; and that as of July 1 two posts were cut by the penitentiary service and there are seven posts short this weekend, a crucial weekend?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not have those details. However, I am told that everything is under control at Dorchester penitentiary. The hon. member is quite correct in stating that Ambrose and Hutchison were being guarded by provincial employees. Under ordinary circumstances inmates on death row are in provincial prisons. Because of the special security problems in New Brunswick, and the fact that they had no institution which they felt was suitable for these inmates, they made a special arrangement with us to keep these two fellows at Dorchester pending the outcome of their appeals.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of plans by the Noranda group to close its subsidiary company, Belledune Fertilizer Corporation, shortly, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would take up the matter with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arrange discussions to see whether some solution might be found to this problem to avoid laying off some 200 people in that area already bothered by high unemployment?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am
prepared to do so, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. The chairman of the Economic Council of Canada was quoted recently as saying that he supports the Canadian Labour Congress in the belief that, and I quote, "a system of national, social and economic planning is indispensable" for Canada. Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with Dr. Raynauld and, if so, can we soon expect position papers by the government

on this part of the government's policy when the present ill-conceived controls are lifted?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has been giving urgent consideration to the policies that would be appropriate following the end of the anti-inflation program. It has been having some discussions with various parties, including the leading representatives of the trade union movement, with the Economic Council and with a number of other agencies. However, the problem is of such complexity that I would not think it would be possible to put these plans before the House before it adjourns for the summer break. It would be our hope, however, that in the new speech from the Throne some indication could be given of the government's approach.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I should like a confirmation from the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very high unemployment in Canada, the second highest in the western world outside the United States, with the lowest per capita growth rate of any western country, will the minister confirm that this planning mechanism that Dr. Raynauld advocates will be in the speech from the throne?



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries, I would direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that river guardians patrolling our salmon rivers are getting lay-off notices this month and the salmon season does not close until September 15, has the minister been made aware of the existing emergency? What action is being taken by the Department of Fisheries with regard to extending the time of the river guardians so our salmon rivers will not face the danger of depletion of salmon stocks, providing poachers with a paradise?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have received several representations on this matter, and also confirm that notices were sent out for terminations I believe for the 24th of this month and the 15th of next month. I can also assure the hon. gentleman that the matter is presently being re-examined.



REQUEST FOR IMPROVED WEATHER FORECASTING SYSTEM FOR FISHERMEN

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, turning to another dangerous situation having to do with weather forecasting, which is causing a danger situation for fishermen and the loss of gear, specifically with reference to the timing between the weather forecasting and the time the fishermen get the informa-
July 9, 1976

tion. Does the parliamentary secretary have any information in respect of improving the weather forecasting system and an expansion of the program? What action is being taken to overcome this situation.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations from two provinces on this matter. We are attacking the problem from two fronts: Number one, a continuation and possible expanding of the special in-shore ice and storm reporting that was begun this spring and, secondly, a re-examination with the hope of increasing the number of spot coastal stations reporting to weather offices. I can also tell the hon. gentleman that we are opening a new weather office, the first one in Prince Edward Island, next month, and one is scheduled to go into the hon. gentleman's riding in western Newfoundland next spring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs. Will he indicate the present status of the proposed Montebello trilevel conference to discuss municipal financing? Is it going ahead and has the Minister of Finance given the minister any assurance that he may offer additional financing at the federal level to municipalities at the conference?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, there have been no pre-commitments. The meeting is to discuss the first and, presumably, the only report of the trilevel task force on public financing. This will be the first time that others, other than the three chairmen, have met to discuss this matter, to develop a common data base and to exchange our views in relation to it. There are no commitments anticipated as a result of these discussions. The meetings are intended to clarify some of the concerns that each level has with reference to the report itself.



FINANCE


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind that federal revenues continue to soar, will the minister confirm or otherwise his reported statement at the finance minister's conference this week that the Urban Affairs Minister may go ahead with his Montebello meeting, but the Minister of Finance hoped it was understood that there would be no federal assistance
Oral Questions
offered directly or indirectly to the municipalities, which could mean that the conference might well be pointless?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement at the finance ministers' meeting. I did canvass the provincial finance ministers as to whether they proposed to attend, and whether they would like the federal finance minister to attend. The unanimous feeling was that the finance ministers should not attend the meeting.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who I am delighted to see back in the House after some absence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to familiarize himself with the conduct and ruthless business practices of the United States firm called Heller Inc., particularly in view of the fact that a DREE established industry, Quadra Manufacturing of Trail, has been driven to its knees and shut down, with a resultant 50 unemployed, by Heller Inc. of Toronto holding back nearly 50 per cent of the cash flow of this company?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am always absent from the House of Commons on July 1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: And on December 25. I think, if possible, this question would be better directed to the Minister of Finance. If the hon. gentleman is really concerned about the problem I should think he would have sent the documentation to my department instead of waiting and trying to make capital out of it, perhaps to the detriment of the firm affected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the minister is trying to make capital of the fact that he has been absent from the House for some time. My appeal was genuine and had the minister been here I would have sent him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

July 9, 1976
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AID BRITISH COLUMBIA PRODUCERS MARKET CATTLE QUARANTINED FOR BLUE TONGUE

Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious situation in which some ranchers in central British Columbia find themselves due to the quarantine in that area by the federal Department of Agriculture because of blue tongue, has the minister any plan or is he taking any steps to help them market the 15,000-odd head of cattle which they usually market in the fall?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not intimating that the total cattle population in that area is infected with blue tongue, because we are quite certain it is not. We want to make sure that the rest of the cattle population in Canada is protected. We have a full-time, top CDA veterinarian stationed in that area. We intend to be as fair as possible in co-operation with these people, and they are co-operating with us 100 per cent at the present time in testing the cattle, rounding them up, and so on. We are sure that with the full co-operation of everyone, including the hon. member, we can have this settled in a harmonious fashion, and that everybody will be treated fairly and squarely.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is well recognized that there are many ramifications of a quarantine of this nature. I would specifically ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is ready to move, and move quickly, this fall if there are no buyers for these cattle, especially if the buyers that do come attempt to take advantage of the ranchers because of the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the large hypothetical element in that question I would hesitate to allow it.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING ON MERCURY POISONING-REASON FOR EXCLUSION OF NATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare why it was that at this morning's meeting between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the ministers of the provincial governments regarding mercury poisoning the native Indians of the area were not included in the decision-making portion?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it there was a meeting this morning with the very Indians about which the hon. member expresses concern. I have no report on the actual way the meeting took place this morning. Perhaps after the meeting has concluded, which should be in the next half hour or so, the minister might be available to answer that question.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this supplementary question to the Government House Leader. Could he indicate what was so sensitive about this morning's meeting that card-carrying press people were barred from the hallways of the Confederation Building where the meeting was taking place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer the question because I was unaware of the event.



REASON DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE CONTENTS OF PILLS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I understand that in the minister's absence he is prepared to answer a question I asked the minister on June 28 as to the reason the department refused to provide to members of the general public information as to the content of drugs, including in this instance the birth control pill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a report now from the department about that inquiry. What seems to have happened was that the inquiry was directed to the family planning branch which does not have scientists with the technical expertise to give information about the content of birth control pills. They give information about the pill in general but not about the content. The practice of that division is to refer technical inquiries of the sort to which the hon. member refers to the health protection branch where that information is available. In fact, the active ingredients of pills are a matter of public record published annually in the condominium-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You mean compendium.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The information is published in the pharmaceutical and specialties compendium. As I said, the practice of the branch is to refer such inquiries either to the health protection branch or to the physician who prescribed the pill in question. I cannot tell in this particular case whether the person who inquired was or was not referred, but that is the general practice of the branch. Apparently she telephoned again a few days later and she was referred to the health protection branch or to her physician for that information.


An hon. Member:: I hope it was on time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Following that penetrating answer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he could confirm that it is not the policy of the department to refuse information to members of the general public who inquire as to the contents of drugs.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is correct. They are referred to the branches of the departments which have the information.
July 9, 1976



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it is supplementary to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Wellington. About two weeks or more ago a question was asked also by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex regarding the licensing of civil aviators. My question relates to the fact that when the minister replied to the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex he said the following, as recorded at page 14802 of Hansard:
Nevertheless, some steps are being taken to deal with the situation.
In view of the backlog of some thousands of applications, can the minister indicate specifically what steps have been taken and would he consider reinstituting the old mechanism which was simple and practical whereby licences could be granted by approved instructors?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, certain steps have been taken in the difficult situation of serious backlogs, including the additional extension of 30 days validity of licences pending receipt of a valid medical update. There are serious limitations, however, to any further steps which we can take because of the impact upon the whole air safety system. We are looking at one or two other items in the licensing system, but I can hold out no real promise for those affected by the current strike in the absence of a return to work.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I asked him if there would be any new firm proposals and he said there had been none. I am in receipt of a telex that was sent by General Dextraze, chief of defence staff, to Mr. K. Patrick, president of Patrick Consultants Limited. The telex reads:
To confirm our conversation of yesterday, I would like you to present a new proposal for an Argus replacement next Thursday at National Defence headquarters. Your proposal should have the following features:
Then, General Dextraze goes on to list the features that Mr. Patrick is to present to him next Thursday. Is the minister aware of this or is this not a firm proposal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I do not question the right of the chair to deny me a supplementary question-that is not my point of order although it did follow upon a sequence of events on which my question was based-but I think that because a member remarks on the absence of a minister, which in this day and age is frequently necessary, and the minister then alludes to the fact that the particular member has not done his homework and has not provided the minister with prior notice, requires the answer that there is little point in providing the minister with prior notice when he is not in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty in which the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) found himself was that he was not asking a question but rather making a representation on behalf of an individual constituent. It is difficult to
Business of the House
permit the question period to be used for that purpose, although this is done from time to time, and therefore the question was put on the record. The reason for cutting the hon. member short was that-and this happens often-he got into an argument and others were waiting to ask questions of a more general scope. The question was put on the record, and in the circumstances this was sufficient since it was a representation on behalf of a constituent.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I realize that the question period has ended, but in view of the question which was asked, I simply want to say that of course I was aware of the letter from General Dextraze but it does not alter in any way the answer I gave. We have not received a firm bid.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with regard to the ruling that you made on the question I asked the Minister of Agriculture which you said was hypothetical. This is a matter of real concern and it is being discussed. The question which I asked was, whether or not, because of the quarantine in this area for blue tongue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether or not the hon. member agrees, the question was whether the minister would be prepared to move quickly if one of two things happened. In its very terms and essence it is hypothetical, and I do not see how else the chair could have ruled. In any event the question period is terminated.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table copies, in both official languages, of two orders of the administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act. One is a disposition of the matter involving the Wentworth County Board of Education in Hamilton, Ontario, under the clerical and secretarial group, and the other concerns the Sudbury District Roman Catholic Separate School Board custodial and maintenance staff.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been quite extensive discussions among the House leaders and with various leading members in the debate on Bill C-84 as to the disposal of the remaining stages of this bill. From these discussions we have reached certain conclusions. The first is that because of the nature of the remaining motions at the report stage, the report stage could be finished today and we could then proceed to third reading this afternoon, if there was unanimous consent, or if there was not, at
15210

July 9, 1976
Business of the House
least on Monday. It has also been concluded from these discussions that there would be time to debate third reading of this bill before the end of Tuesday. In order to provide some additional time, if that is required, we also discussed the desirability of adding a couple of extra hours on Monday morning just as a precaution to help us to reach this goal, if it is attainable.
Taking all these facts, as we could ascertain them, into account the House leaders have encouraged me to seek unanimous consent today for a motion which would enable us to take a vote on third reading of Bill C-84 on Wednesday, after prayers, without any other routine proceedings, and to adjourn, subject to the usual provisions about recall for royal assent and for emergencies, until October 12.
I therefore seek unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That the House shall sit from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 1976 for the purpose of considering Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences;
That if the debate on all stages of Bill C-84 is concluded not later than Tuesday, July 13, any division or divisions required to dispose of the third reading and passage stage of the said bill shall be taken on Wednesday, July 14, 1976, immediately following proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 15(1);
That immediately following the disposal of the third reading and passage stage of the said bill, the House shall adjourn and shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding or the giving of royal assent to any bill or bills that have been passed by the House at the time of the said adjournment;
That, after the giving of royal assent to the said bill or bills or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be until October 12, 1976, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
That is the motion which I seek unanimous consent to introduce, and I believe it has the approval of the House leaders. However, as this is a matter which concerns more than just the House leaders, and since it concerns, mainly, a bill which is not a matter of confidence, I felt I should give the explanation of the background of this motion and the reason it is being moved at this time.
Apart from the special provisions dealing with sitting for a couple of extra hours on Monday and the taking of the vote on third reading of Bill C-84, the remaining adjournment motion follows the usual pattern.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader has indicated, there is general agreement among House leaders, and I trust with other hon. members of the House, although in this situation they can, of course, speak if they have any questions about the matter. I have one question I would like to raise for the
[Mr. Sharp.)
purposes of this discussion, and that is the question of what might happen today. As the government House leader knows, the debate ended last evening, to all intents and purposes, in terms of substantive amendments, and we met early this morning to set a time which is somewhat short.
I do not know whether all speakers on either side of the House will be here to carry on the report stage or third reading stage today. That is not to say that consent could not be given later to move into third reading stage, but there may be one or two speakers who might not be here. Is there an understanding amongst all of us that, in the event we have moved into third reading or are still at report stage and run out of speakers, in terms of the business then before the House, the House would adjourn today at that time and the debate would commence again on Monday at eleven o'clock in the morning? It is really a question, but not a question with regard to the terms of the motion. I would just like some clarification.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was being discussed amongst the House leaders this morning, our view at that time was that apart from getting unanimous consent to deal with this motion today we would be able to deal with the remaining stages without varying the orders and rules of the House. The only complication I see is the possibility that if we do not conclude the report stage today, could we then carry out this program? It had been premised on what we thought was a fact, namely, that the remaining debate at report stage would be concluded today so that we would have the ordinary notice to proceed to third reading on Monday. So it would require, perhaps, some amendment to the House order if we do intend to move toward the target of Wednesday because there might not be sufficient time, if we were at the report stage on Monday, to finish third reading stage on Tuesday and conclude debate on the bill. I hoped there would be agreement on this order-


Walter David Baker: There is agreement.


Mitchell William Sharp: -and that if the hon. gentleman feels there may be some speakers at the report stage who want to be heard before we move to third reading, there would also be unanimous consent now to move to third reading as soon as the report stage is concluded.


Walter David Baker: I think we understand that.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate quite clearly that so far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we are happy to support the motion which has been presented by the government House leader after consultation with all the House leaders.
If I may address myself to the point which has just been discussed between the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the President of the Privy Council, it seems to me that we do not need to write anything more into the order. As I understand it, if the report stage concludes some time today, then it is a question of whether there is unanimous consent to move into third reading. If there is not, then we just adjourn.
If there is unanimous consent to move into third reading, then I think it would be reasonable, if some time later this
July 9, 1976

afternoon the House decides to adjourn, to take the rest of the debate on Monday and Tuesday. As I say, I think there is enough understanding among us that we do not need to amend the order with respect to this phase of the matter. In fact, I point out that although the proposed motion is a lengthy one, it really does only two things in so far as the present debate is concerned. It provides for two extra hours on Monday morning and then it provides-in other words, there is no closure on this motion-that if the debate is ended by some time Tuesday night, the time for the vote on third reading will be just after prayers on Wednesday next. It seems to me this is a sensible proposal that has been worked out by consultation, and we are happy to support it.
Although I said that all the motion does with regard to the present debate is the two things I have indicated, it does, of course, do other things that are quite usual at this point in a session. It provides for a few days off for the other place to consider Bill C-84 before we meet for royal assent and then adjournment of the session until October 12. I note, in that connection, that the government House leader has not indicated when a new session will start, whether on October 13 or later. 1 suppose the government wants to keep its options open on that point. By that time, however, this first session of the thirtieth parliament will have lasted for two years and 13 days so I would hope that a second session would start fairly soon.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and while we are discussing matters of the remaining day or two, may I raise one other point. Many references have been made in recent weeks to Bill C-242, a bill having to do with prohibiting smoking in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. President of the Privy Council has sought unanimous consent to put a motion at this time. Other points of order can certainly be raised, but I am anxious to get some sort of comment on this matter and I should like to keep discussion confined to this area. I do not want to get into debate on the motion itself, which can be debated later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour, I do not think I was as far afield as you might have imagined as, after all, you could not be at our House leaders' meeting. One of the points we agreed upon this morning was that no other business would be brought forward, but there was discussion about Bill C-242 and whether it could be dealt with unanimously and without debate. It seems to me the government has some justification for not wanting to bring in its own bill, but I hope that the option might be kept open for a few moments, by unanimous consent, between now and Tuesday night just to conclude third reading of Bill C-242 as it stands. As I say, this was part of the discussion this morning. It was agreed by the government House leader that no other business would be attempted between now and next Wednesday, but there was this discussion about Bill C-242.
As far as the motion itself is concerned, my colleagues and I join in giving unanimous consent for putting the motion, and we are prepared to vote for it.
Business of the House


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the House leader, I would like to point out that we took part in the discussions with the leaders of the other parties and we want to confirm that we agree on the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). Since the votes taken last night, everyone realizes that we cannot amend Bill C-84 at this stage, and it has become an established fact. Therefore the most important stage becomes third reading. As far as we are concerned, it would desirable that the debate on third reading begin as soon as possible to save the time of the House and allow the greatest number of members who want to take part in this debate to express their views on third reading.
Mr. Speaker, this could be done easily since I personally maintain the same position I took in the House last night concerning motions considered at the report stage, that is motions Nos. 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37 and 43. Therefore we could proceed very shortly with the third reading.


Mr. Clarke:: Mr. Speaker, although I was in the building until midnight last night and have been here for some time today, it was not until the government House leader rose on his motion that I was aware of the plans he announced. I am not saying that critically, but merely to explain that I am not quite clear exactly what it is that is being proposed; but more so, I am not at all clear why it should be necessary to change what, over the years I have been here, I find to be adequate procedures for dealing with legislation in this House. It is only because of the government's headstrong attitude in wanting to rush this vote through that this proposal is being made, and any urgency that exists to get this vote passed soon escapes me. I cannot understand why the government House leader wishes to get this vote through so early.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the hon. member is entering upon debate. I may say it is very clear and I think it should be understood that it is not a provision of the motion that in any event the vote will take place on Wednesday. The provision is that if the debate is concluded on Tuesday, the vote will take place on Wednesday afternoon. It does not say the vote will take place in any event and therefore terminate the debate. It is simply an arrangement for the convenience of members to know that if the vote is finalized on third reading by Tuesday evening, the vote will take place on Wednesday afternoon.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I am not certain about that, Mr. Speaker. I thought it might be appropriate to explain my thinking on this. I have no objection whatever to the government adjourning this House at whatever date it wishes, but it is not my intention to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: The unanimous consent that is sought is simply for the introduction of the motion. The motion itself is debatable, and in fact votable, and opposition can be registered in that way. The motion cannot be put at this time without unanimous consent. The President of the Privy Council has requested unanimous consent for putting forward this motion. Is there unanimous consent for putting this motion at this time?
95570-62'/!

July 9, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,376, 4,453 to 4,456 inclusive, 4,926 and 5,751.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychologists at Saskatchewan Farm Annex and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada (iii) individual salaries?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Nil. Psychological services are provided by Saskatchewan Penitentiary.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Ontario Regional Reception Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.
Note: For the fiscal years 1970-71 and 1971-72, all psychiatrists were on the staff of the Regional Headquarters, Ontario Region. For the fiscal years 1972-73 to 1974-75, all psychiatrist were on the staff of the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Ontario.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Quebec Regional Reception Centre and, in each ease, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?
(b) Program	Company
PAIT	Polyconverters Industries Ltd.
Turbo Refineries Ltd.
M&T Products Ltd.
Canadian Industries Ltd. Spring Chemicals Ltd. Canadian International Paper


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil. Psychiatric treatments are provided by the Quebec Regional Medical Centre.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Laval and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil. Psychiatric treatments are provided by the Quebec Regional Medical Centre.


Mr. MacKay: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Ontario Prison for Women and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Nil.
Note: For the fiscal years 1970-71 and 1971-72, all psychiatrists were on the staff of the Regional Headquarters, Ontario Region. For the fiscal years 1972-73 to 1974-75, all psychiatrists were on the staff of the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Ontario.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce received any applications for grants from industries interested in waste recycling and, if so, in each case, what (a) was the amount (i) requested (ii) granted (b) was the name and address of the industry concerned (c) was the performance in terms of (i) productivity (ii) profit of the industry concerned?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a)(i) This information is not readily available, (ii) See (b).
Address	Grant Amount
Hamilton, Ontario	$20,000
Edmonton, Alberta	500,000
Hamilton, Ontario	337,498
Montreal, Quebec	433,387
Toronto, Ontario	355,000
Montreal, Quebec	89,000

July 9, 1976

The Ontario Paper Co. Ltd. Multi-fibre Process Ltd.
Domtar Limited Fer et Metaux Zalev Brothers Ltd.
PEP	Forsythe Lubrication Ass. Ltd.
QSP Ltd.
DIP	I I. Selig & Sons Ltd.
(c) The following project has been completed successfully with the results indicated. Polyconverter Industries Ltd.-Sales $4 Million to December 31, 1974. Three other projects in the list above have been completed unsuccessfully. The remaining projects are not yet completed. We do not have any other information with respect to the performance of the companies involved.


Mr. Herbert: Is any consideration being given to providing financial compensation for those small companies who have lost considerable sums of money from the manufacture of large quantities of non resaleable material for Indian nuclear reactors?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Yes. Until very recently negotiations with the Government of India were continuing and there was a possibility that Canadian manufacturers might recover some of their losses through a resumption of deliveries. Following the May 18, 1976 decision to terminate nuclear cooperation with India, the government is giving active consideration to requests from industry for compensation to cover losses for undelivered equipment and materials. Export permits for these goods were suspended on May 22, 1974 following the explosion of a nuclear device by India.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 5,261, 5,296 and 5,690 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Blais: 1.	Was any money granted by the government, its departments or agencies to the Constituency of Nipissing from January 1, 1973 to April 1, 1976, with the exception of grants made under the Opportunities for Youth, Local Initiatives and New Horizons Programmes and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each such grant, what was the (a) date of approval (b) amount (c) name of the municipality, collectivity or association concerned (d) nature of the project?
Return tabled.


Mr. Nowlan: 1. How many persons were put on contract by the government for the Department of Communications in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975?
Capital Punishment
Thorold, Ontario	114,000
Montreal, Quebec	38,000
Montreal, Quebec	168,000
Laprairie, Quebec	850,000
Windsor, Ontario	417,000
Hamilton, Ontario	41,500
Lachine, Quebec	28,000
Lasalle, Quebec	131,000
2. For each such contract, what was (a) its purpose (b) its duration (c) its amount (d) to whom was it paid?
Return tabled.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the government's best estimate of the total number of 20 foot, 35 foot and 40 foot containers that (a) originated in Canada and were exported via (i) Canadian Ports (ii) US Ports (b) arrived in Canada having been imported via (i) Canadian Ports (ii) US Ports, for each year since 1970 on the East Coast of North America?
2.	What are the comparable figures for the West Coast?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 8, 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 amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and motion No. 36 (Mr. Stevens) and motion No. 37 (Mr. Fortin).
Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are now considering motions Nos. 36 and 37, but there are certain points of order on other motions, specifically those moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), that is motions Nos. 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 41 and 43.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the motions.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the following procedure would be the easiest: instead of withdrawing the motions, since they are valid, they should be passed or defeated as a whole on division as they were last evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to indicate, in respect of the motions I have just enumerated, that the Chair would have the greatest difficulty in finding such motions procedurally acceptable at this time. The motions relate in some manner to the imposition of the death penalty which, as a result of the defeat of motions last night, no longer exists in the law.

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment
The Chair would be prepared to entertain discussion at this time on why it should not rule the motions which I just enumerated, along with motions Nos. 40 and 41 which relate to commutation, as being procedurally out of order on the ground that since they are consequential upon the existence of the death penalty, the death penalty not being part of the bill they are completely irrelevant to the bill. Therefore, it would be my disposition, if there is no argument to the contrary, to rule them all out of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Considering your explanations, Mr. Speaker, with them in mind, I agree.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the mover of a number of motions, I would agree that a number of them are strictly consequential. I do not care how we dispose of them, whether with the unanimous consent of the House they are withdrawn or whether you rule them out of order; it does not matter how it is done. I point out to the Chair that two motions are not consequential but are substantive and should be considered at the report stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Our review this morning would indicate that the two motions now before the House, Nos. 36 and 37, would remain for consideration. Motions Nos. 45 and 46 are not in any way related to the death penalty, and motion No. 42 relates to the transitional provisions. I could entertain discussion on whether it is related to the death penalty. It would appear from our review that motions Nos. 42, 45 and 46 remain to be discussed. Motions Nos. 36 and 37, now before the House, also remain to be discussed, and the remaining motions which have not been voted on up to this time would be ruled out of order by the Chair. I so order at the present time, because all such motions are consequential upon the existence in the Criminal Code, or this amended statute, of the death penalty and as a result of last night's vote that does not exist.
Therefore, there is no sense, procedurally, in accepting any such motions. The simplest course would be, rather than seeking consent to withdraw such motions, to put them to a quick vote. The Chair ought to take the decisive step; therefore, I order all such motions to be procedurally unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not to indicate that motion No. 45, in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), is not without procedural difficulty. However, no argument has been made on the procedural regularity of that motion.
Motions Nos. 42, 45 and 46 have not been called. Their calling is without prejudice, in other words, to the right to raise any procedural argument which may be raised when such motions are called.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question about the deferred division on motion No. 38 in the name of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). I do not raise the matter in any argumentative

sense. I am concerned about the procedural difficulty in which we may find ourselves if there is still listed a deferred division on motion No. 38-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for bringing that to my attention. That motion is equally out of order, I would think, as a result of last evening's votes. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the mover of the motion, is in the House; I see him assenting to that decision. I should have included motion No. 38 in that ruling along with the others because it is consequential upon the imposition of the death penalty under the statute, and that is no longer possible as a result of last night's votes. Although discussion was completed on that motion and there was an order that the vote be deferred, I now rule, unless there is objection or argument to the contrary, that that motion is also out of order and therefore the possibility of a future vote on it ought not to be considered.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid confusion on my side of the House, may I raise a question? I understand that the motions still left for debate are Nos. 36, 37, 42, 45 and 46.


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct. The debate now is on motion No. 36.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of motion No. 36 moved by my colleague from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I shall try to keep my remarks brief. I think the House ought to give serious consideration to the worthwhile motion moved by my colleague. I think the amendment would, if passed, provide greater protection to the Canadian public and assure our people that the process whereby we grant absences with escort to those convicted of serious crimes will not be abused.
From my conversations with Canadians I have learned that many are concerned about abuses which occur with respect to absences, with or without escort, from prison. Sometimes prisoners who have been sentenced to long prison terms are allowed to be absent, with or without escort, and some of them have not returned and have violated the conditions under which they were allowed to be absent. The amendment which the hon. member has proposed would ensure that no absence with escort for humanitarian or rehabilitative purposes may be authorized under the Penitentiary Act without the approval of the National Parole Board.
At present it is possible for such leave to be granted by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries on the say-so of the director of the jail wherein the person is imprisoned, or in the case of a person who has been referred to a provincial mental hospital, on the say-so of the director of that provincial mental hospital. I feel that the present procedures to which I have referred are too loose, and suggest that the bill should be amended in this regard. Canadians are entitled to be reassured that the present procedures will be tightened.
Because the government has done little to reassure Canadians that it takes seriously the fight against violent
July 9, 1976

crime, that it will take strong action to deal with it, and that it is prepared to reform the overly liberal provisions with regard to bail, parole and sentencing, Canadians are frightened. They have good cause to be frightened. They are looking for extreme remedies to solve a serious problem. I hope that the government will take its reponsibili-ties seriously and will reassure Canadians that their safety is of paramount concern. Therefore, I hope the government will look favourably on the motion my colleague has proposed.
Last evening, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), alluding to the proposal made by my colleague, suggested that if this motion were passed it might not be possible for a person who had, for example, suffered a heart attack, to obtain medical attention if it were made necessary for the Parole Board to approve absence with escort. As I understand it, the amendment would not affect the ability of the inmate to receive medical attention. It would affect only those prisoners who are released temporarily for humanitarian or rehabilitative purposes. It makes no mention of medical purposes. In my judgment, if a prisoner needed, on grounds of medical necessity, to go out of prison with escort, perhaps to go to hospital, that would be possible.
It cannot be stressed too often that Canadians are disturbed by the increase in violent crime. The increase in the last several years is demonstrable statistically and from one's reading of the newspapers. Clearly, violent crime is on the rise in Canada. Canadians are entitled to expect assurance that the government will do everything it can to put the security of the Canadian public before any other consideration.
Any measure which is reasonable, moral and just which can be taken to provide safety for the Canadian public should, in fact, be taken. The reason we are in this policital situation today, where there is a question about the legitimacy of the government putting forward the legislation now before the House, is the government's failure to come to grips with this issue. They have failed to prove to Canadians that they take seriously the issue of violent crime. The Canadian public do not feel that the government regards public safety as a concern.
As an illustration of the way the government has acted in this area which cannot help but lead to cynicism and doubt on the part of many Canadians, I refer hon. members to the exchange last fall when I pointed out the fact that one half of the people in Toronto charged with murder were out on bail at that time. This concerned me. I felt there was a positive incentive for a person with the prospect of being convicted to violate the terms of his bail. I placed a question on the order paper asking the Solicitor General what percentage of those persons charged with three very serious categories of crime, murder, arson and rape, and granted bail had violated the terms of their bail.
The federal government has the responsibility of passing legislation dealing with bail, parole, prison security, and so on. Obviously, the onus is on the federal government to monitor the effect of these laws, to keep up-to-date statistics about the way they work and to make amendments where it is proved those laws are not functioning properly. I was distressed with the answer I received from the
Capital Punishment
Solicitor General, in which he indicated that the government had not bothered to keep statistics with regard to the percentage of persons violating the terms of their bail when they had been charged with serious crimes. The government's approach to this whole issue of violent crime is so lackadaisical that obviously Canadians cannot help being concerned about public security. They cannot help questioning the government's sincerity in dealing with this issue.
The motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), is a good motion. It would provide some assurance to the public about the importance this parliament attaches to their right to safety. It would do something to ensure that abuses that can take place under the present legislation will be corrected. It should commend itself to all members of this House.
I hope that when the Solicitor General has had an opportunity to consult the legal authorities in his department he will realize that this provision cannot do anything but good for the Canadian people and our prison system. I hope that all members will give consideration to the motion, will support it enthusiastically and insure that it will be incorporated in the new legislation.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am concerned about motions Nos. 36 and 37, particularly motion No. 37 on which I would like to say a few words. I share the concerns of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) that there are some aspects of Bill C-84 which suggest that not enough protection is provided for society against the serious crime of murder. There is not enough protection against those individuals who perpetrate serious types of crime, those individuals who are not capable of any resolution or correction, with our present knowledge of reform of prisoners.
There should be something in this bill to give assurance to the citizens of Canada that we intend to protect them against these heinous crimes-granted, by some other method than capital punishment, and with this I agree. I do not see anything in the bill which precludes, in practical terms, a person who has committed first-degree murder or treason being out on the street again in 25 years' time. This concerns me because some people occasionally commit more than one murder on different occasions. If a person has been given one chance to reform, and commits a second murder, he should not be permitted a third chance to do the same thing. I feel the same way about those who commit treason. An attempt should be made to get something into the bill, even as late as this, to protect society against this kind of offender.
In view of these remarks, and in view of the fact that many members of this House are concerned about providing better protection against that type of prisoner, I would like to propose a subamendment to motion No. 37. If it meets with Your Honour's approval, I will read it at this time. It is:
That motion No. 37 be amended by striking out paragraph (a) thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) Strike out lines 22 to 31 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"669. The sentence to be pronounced against a person who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be,

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment
(a)	in respect of a person who has been convicted of high treason or first degree murder, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for his natural life without eligibility for parole,
(a)(1) in respect of a person who has been convicted of second degree murder and who has been previously convicted of either first degree murder or second degree murder, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for his natural life without eligibility for parole,"
This subamendment is not unlike my amendment which was defeated in the House last night. However, it will be obvious to Your Honour and to hon. members that I have removed the offensive part which gives the prisoner the option of choosing life imprisonment for this natural life or death. I appreciate that many members find that offensive and I am quite prepared to accept that. By the same token, I believe there is no question in the minds of most people that we must protect Canadians against those who would commit murder on more than two occasions. That is the intent of the subamendment. I commend it to Your Honour and to all members of the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, the hon. member cannot introduce his amendment at this time without the unanimous consent of all members in the House. Standing Order 75 refers to an amendment to any clause of a bill. I suggest that an amendment to an amendment to a clause of a bill is included in that Standing Order and cannot be introduced without 24 hours' notice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would suggest to the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) that he put his amendment in writing. I understand it is in order to move amendments to motions, so I would request the amendment in writing.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Does he not need unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that unanimous consent is not needed because in the past amendments to motions have been allowed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with clause 36, and I understand that the proposed amendment relates to clause 37. I have no objection if there is consent on the other side to debate all the remaining motions in one group in order to hasten our proceedings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that motions 36 and 37 were to be grouped together for purposes of debate, but voted on separately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a
word on the point of order, Mr. Speaker? I am satisfied that you ruled correctly on the point raised in the first instance by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). It is clear, under Standing Order 75(8), that a report stage motion can be amended. However, there are other rules relating to amendments, and it would seem to me that at this hour of the day, five minutes to one, that aspect might be looked at more closely. It appears to me that the amendment proposed introduces substance which is new to what is already there, and on that score there might be some question about it. Has the hon. member not gone a bit far 
afield from what was contained in the motion on the order paper?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall we call it one o'clock by unanimous consent, and take this matter under advisement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 12.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At one o'clock the House had under consideration motions Nos. 36 and 37. Moved by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) was an amendment which in effect would redefine imprisonment for life in order to introduce the concept of imprisonment for natural life, without eligibility for parole, in respect of a person convicted of treason or first-degree murder and in respect to a person convicted of second-degree murder who had previously been convicted of either first or second-degree murder. The Chair at that time reserved its decision on whether such a motion is procedurally acceptable.
The ground of concern regarding the acceptability of this motion procedurally, of course, is that the introduction of a new concept of this sort should be made upon proper notice, under the provisions of Standing Order 75. If there are any further arguments on the procedural acceptability of the motion-and I must say I have serious misgivings about it-I would be pleased to hear them now.


Bruce Halliday: I appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that you feel there may be a problem with this new concept that I have added, namely, "for his natural life". If that is the case, I would be pleased to ask the House whether Your Honour would consider removing those three words, "his natural life", and replacing them with "fifty years".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the offer of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), but it is not for the Chair to propose alterations at this stage. I have seen that attempted in the past and it always seemed to lead to problems. It is really better for the Chair to stick to making decisions as to the procedural acceptability of motions. If any changes or alterations are to be made, that privilege could rest with the hon. member who already has an amendment on the floor, and he may have the opportunity to get consent to move a different amendment. Alternatively, he might be able to persuade a colleague to move the amendment for him.
In any event, I should stress that the reason for my misgiving is that the provisions of Standing Order 75 require, for the introduction of report stage motions, first of all a 48-hour period between reception of the report by the House and the taking into consideration by the House of the report stage of a bill. The purpose of this is to enable all hon. members who seek to make substantial amendments to the bill to do so upon 24-hour notice, as required by the rule.
July 9, 1976

It is not, by any means, that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Oxford offends the provisions regarding motions at the report stage: far from it. Had it been put forward as a motion under Standing Order 75, upon 24-hour notice, there is no doubt in the Chair's mind that it would have been extremely relevant and very much in order from the procedural point of view.
The only question that concerns the Chair at this time is this. If hon. members are required to give 24 hours' notice of an amendment which introduces a substantial change to a bill, how would it be possible or fair to allow other members to move subsequent amendments to one of the motions which is not in any way to be construed as a simple explanation or alteration of the language or a change in some of its terms, but must be taken to introduce an important new concept?
I am sure that the hon. member for Oxford agrees that this amendment introduces an important new concept, otherwise he would not have bothered to move it. It is a very important concept, one that would have been a worthy subject for consideration. However, in fairness, if there is to be justice and equality under Standing Order 75 which provides that 24-hour notice must be given by members who seek to make this kind of change in a bill, surely it would be improper to allow, by way of what is, in effect, a subamendment, the introduction of a rather important new concept into the whole debate and to ask hon. members to vote in that regard without having had the benefit of study and examination of the question that is provided by the 24 hours' notice rule.
In respect of paragraph (a.l) of the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Oxford, I would rule it out of order now on a different ground. The passage last night of motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in effect redefined the definition of first-degree murder so that a second offender does, if I understand the amendment correctly, become liable to prosecution for first-degree murder.
That being the case, paragraph (a.l) of the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Oxford would seem to be covered as it is in respect of a second offender and a more severe penalty being imposed. To a certain extent, therefore, it is redundant to the motion of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. However, it is only redundant to a point, because it does not accomplish the full change envisaged by the hon. member for Oxford, and that is "life imprisonment" meaning imprisonment for one's natural life, without eligibility for parole.
Therefore, I would have to rule that both paragraphs, in the final analysis, are out of order on procedural grounds because they ought to have been put forward as a substantive amendment to the bill under the ordinary 24 hours' notice provision of Standing Order 75(5). I think it would be unfair and improper to put them in this way because they introduce a substantive, new concept into the definition of "life imprisonment".
I would not want to comment again as to whether the hon. member might be in order in changing the language of the clause to read "50 years" from "25 years"; whether he could do that or get someone else to attempt to do it for
Capital Punishment
him. This is a decision I would prefer to make only if and when such a step is taken by the hon. member for Oxford or others.
I should like to add one other word. The House should remember that this is a bill amending the Criminal Code. There is absolutely no restriction at any time on the right of the hon. member for Oxford or any other member to put forward a bill amending the Criminal Code in respect of the definition of "life imprisonment" after careful consideration and refinement of the ideas that have been put forward and discussed in respect of this particular amendment. Nor is there any restriction on the right of the hon. member to put forward a notice of motion which would call on the government to take into consideration such an amendment. In any case, there is no reason to believe, if there is merit to the amendment that is proposed, that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) or others who would be responsible for such an amendment could not be persuaded privately that such an amendment might be put forward by the government.
Therefore, I rule out of order the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Oxford. Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 36?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions in respect of motion No. 36. I am not sure whether the Solicitor General is prepared to say anything yet, but if he were given the opportunity to add to this debate we might defer the putting of the question until later this afternoon.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have sought advice from the penitentiary service and the parole board in respect of the hon. member's proposals in motion No. 36. While I have some of that opinion, I have not been able to reach all those I was seeking to consult, and I would be willing to suggest that we agree to the hon. member's request that we postpone putting the question on motion 36 until later this afternoon. Maybe after we have dealt with a few other motions I will have heard from the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: We will now proceed to motion No. 37. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall it be recorded that the motion was lost on division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 37 (Mr. Fortin) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 42 in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Motion No. 42.
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 in clause 25 by striking out lines 38 and 39 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"25. (1) This act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1978,
and if, on that day any person is under a sentence of death".
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are two elements involved in this amendment. First, no matter when the law comes into effect, presumably there will still be people who will be under sentence of death. If the measure comes into effect now, comes into effect on proclamation or comes into effect six months from now-no matter when-unless commutations have been made under the existing Criminal Code there will be people under sentence of death. The whole clause refers to that probability.
The amendment before the House seeks to change the date of the coming into force of the act. The reason I would like to see the effective date of this measure postponed to the first day of July, 1978, is really a reference back to an original undertaking when the present sections of the Criminal Code were enacted in 1973. You will recall at that time, sir, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), on behalf of this ministry, undertook that there would be a further trial period of five or six years of the law as it is presently enacted, to see whether the present provisions of the Criminal Code would be effective in reducing the rising incidence of violent crime in this country.
That period will not be completed until 1978. Therefore, I feel that the undertaking which I took very seriously at that time and which has been broken by the Solicitor General and this ministry in respect of the bill now before us, should be adhered to. Obviously, the government will not stay with that undertaking, and I think they should be made to do so. That is the purpose behind this amendment. The purpose is to put off until July 1, 1978, the coming into force of these amendments. I submit it to the House for approval.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate some of the logic in the hon. member's argument, I have to say that we would work a very inequitable system if we were to do what he suggests. If I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that this law, which is an abolition law, should only come into effect after July 1, 1978. I assume he suggests that in the mean-

time we should apply the law in force at present, which is to hang some of the people on death row or selectively to commute some and hang others. In response to that, I can only say that if the House takes the decision to abolish capital punishment, I think it would not be just to hang some people merely because they happen to be sentenced before a certain date, and commit to life imprisonment those who were sentenced after a certain date. I think the House should decide either to have capital punishment or not to have it, and once we have made that decision the law should go into effect. So, with all respect, I suggest that we reject this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 42 (Mr. Lawrence) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: We move on to motion No. 45 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Motion No. 45.
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 in clause 28 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 15, the following new subsection:
"(3) Where, at any time after December 31, 1977, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less than 50 members of the House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that section 218 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by section 5, be amended, so as to reintroduce capital punishment
(a)	lor the murder of police officers and prison employees,
(b)	for first degree murder,
(c)	for any form of first degree murder, or
(d)	for treason,
for any period, fixed or indeterminate, commencing after the motion is adopted, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the rules of the House, take up and consider the motion, and if the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House, the Minister of Justice or Solicitor General shall take such steps as are necessary in order that a measure in their name giving effect to the motion may be placed before the House without delay."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting motion No. 45 partly because the present bill proposes that the death penalty shall no longer be in effect in Canada for ordinary

July 9, 1976
crimes, yet Bill C-2, to which my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has already referred and which was passed in the last parliament, provides that the death penalty shall continue in Canada, for certain crimes, until December 31, 1977.
In view of the public interest in this question and, if you believe the various gallup polls, the fact that the public is heavily in favour of the death penalty being retained, I believe it is important that the House retain unto itself some facility to allow the members to reintroduce this question, if they see fit, some time after December 31, 1977. That is why I am proposing that any 50 members in the House can introduce a motion in the terms that I have set out in motion No. 45 and that, should the House agree to the motion, it would instruct the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General to bring in whatever motion or legislation is required to give effect to the will of the majority of the House.
In short, it is a way to ensure that this parliament will always be responsive to the public will. If we are going to agree, as appears to be the case now, to end the death penalty immediately, I believe the original commitment which the Solicitor General gave, that the death penalty would continue until the end of 1977, should be acknowledged and that at some time after that date, when there has been time to see to what extent the murder rate has dropped in this country or any other consideration that may come up, it would be helpful if members of the House had the possibility of reintroducing the topic and a debate to bring them to a different conclusion.
In suggesting this 50-member approach, I would remind hon. members, and I am sure they will agree, that it is not a particularly new approach. In fact, in the last parliament and in this parliament there were two obvious examples of this being done. First, with respect to the Turner tax affecting manufacturing and processing industries a clause was put in allowing 50 members to initiate a debate concerning the effect of that tax on the manufacturing and processing industries. Second, when we dealt with that very contentious piece of legislation, the anti-inflation program, and were setting up the AIB it was specifically provided-in this instance it was really the government which in a compromising mood suggested that 50 members should have an opportunity to review the anti-inflation program after a date which was set down in the legislation.
So certainly it is not uncommon for the House to allow 50 members an opportunity to have a further debate, and in view of the fact that there is at least a token gesture in the way of a free vote on the death penalty, surely the House should try to facilitate a free vote being taken if at least 50 members of the House see fit. That is the thrust of what we are saying. Granted, any member could perhaps introduce a motion asking that the Criminal Code be amended to return the death penalty, but we know the frustrations and difficulties involved in setting any precedence so far as the order of business of the House is concerned. In short, this motion will ensure that if there are 50 members-after all, it is a significant number; about 20 per cent of the membership of the House-who would like to have the matter debated and brought to a new conclusion, it may be done.
I urge hon. members to support this motion, bearing in mind that perhaps in this parliament we should not pass a
Capital Punishment
piece of legislation that is so dramatically out of step with the public will as we are doing currently in July of 1976. I think it behooves members of parliament to say, when we are so out of step with the public will, that at least we will facilitate a new debate in the House in order to get back into step with the public in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 45 (Mr. Stevens) negatived.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved:: Motion No. 46.
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 in clause 30 by deleting lines 11 and 12 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"30. This act shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 1978."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Mr. Paproski:: On division.
Motion No. 46 (Mr. Reynolds) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my understanding that earlier we deferred motion No. 36. I would suggest that we now complete consideration of this motion.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have not finished all the consultations I wanted, but on balance I think I will accept the proposal of the hon. member and agree to it. In principle, I was in favour of it. It was the wording about which I

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment
was a bit worried. However, I have rechecked the wording and I hope there is no legal technicality which will make it difficult to live with. The principle is good, so we will accept motion No. 36.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion No. 36 (Mr. Stevens) agreed to.


William Warren Allmand: that 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, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: By unanimous consent, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the debate on third reading begins, I understand that there has been further consideration of the motion I put forward this morning and I would like to repeat my request for unanimous consent to put the motion. I hesitate to read it all again because it is a very long motion. It is on the record, and I hope I can dispense with reading it again. However, I seek unanimous consent to introduce it now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the House give the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) unanimous consent to introduce his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the third time and do pass.
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I assume we are now on the third reading debate of the bill. Quite frankly, I think at this hour on a Friday afternoon, in spite of the fact that perhaps they should be here, there are several hon. members who would like to have an opportunity to speak on third reading but who are not present this afternoon. While it is fine for those of us who are here to think that that is too bad and that perhaps they should be present, they are not present. If I may say so, I think the House leaders would be quite ill-advised to try to push the final stage of this bill through the House this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I believe some hon. members who have left Ottawa for their constituencies left in the belief that some time on Monday or Tuesday there would still be an opportunity for them to enter into some sort of meaningful debate on the third reading stage of the bill. Therefore, I hope there is no intention this afternoon to close off the third reading debate.
On that assumption, I would like to say a few words about the actions and attitude of the government in the last few years with respect to the whole field of law and order, crime and punishment and the administration of criminal law in this country. The third reading debate gives one an opportunity to do exactly that. First, I think it is a betrayal of the integrity and the moral honesty of this government that the whole subject of Bill C-84 came before the House this session.
An undertaking was seriously given-and for those of us who are retentionists it was seriously accepted over two years ago-that there would be a five or six-year period before we would be plunged once more into the emotional chaos and confusion which we have all gone through in the last three or four weeks. I think all of us have to look at the reasons or, as I am firmly convinced, the one and only reason we have gone through this heartrending and mind wrenching experience of the last few weeks in this House once more on this very emotional subject of capital punishment. It is simply this. If the full period of time is to run, as the undertaking given in 1973 indicated, then the next time this House and this country will debate this emotional issue will be during or just before a general election. I am firmly convinced-and I am led to believe that I am not the only one in this House or across the country to think so-that the sole reason the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) brought this matter to the fore is that they were afraid to face public opinion of this country when approaching a general election. There is no other reason.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I do not know whether "yellow-bellied, mealy-mouthed politicians" is a parliamentary expression; I suspect it is not, and therefore I am not going to use it in relation to this government. I merely say to you, Mr. Speaker, I am not only disappointed, I not only feel betrayed by the actions of my government, but I am sure my feelings in this regard are shared by countless thousands across this country. I do mean thousands. I do not
July 9, 1976

think there is any question that the majority of public opinion in the country is decidedly against not only what has been done but the way in which it has been done. I want to say no more than that. I think this government, if you will excuse the expression, should hang their heads in shame over what they have done on this issue. I think it is a betrayal of the principles and concepts of democracy. They may think it is sour grapes because of the way the votes have gone, and there may be an element of that.
I would point out that I did not speak on the second reading debate because I believed that this time the government was going to win. This is the fourth time in ten years that this matter has been dragged before the House of Commons. It is usually brought up when the temper of the House is getting pretty crotchety due to a prolonged session and the heat of Ottawa in summer. I think all the elements surrounding the introduction and passage of this bill through the House by the government has been despicable, and come 1978 they will rue the day. The people of this country will then have an opportunity to express their opinion. The government is counting on the public having a short memory. Maybe, they have, and maybe they have not.
If I have anything to do with public opinion in the next general election, the whole question will once again be an issue. It is not only the principle of capital punishment that will be the issue but also the moral integrity of those who have been running this government and this House and the manner in which they brought in this bill. I think they are very foolish indeed to add an extra weapon to the armanent of retentionists by behaving this way.
For several weeks I have managed to bottle up my mental outrage at what has happened here, but on third reading debate I feel I can be silent no longer. I am sorry the Solicitor General is unavoidably absent for the remainder of the debate, because the final thing I want to discuss is the abuse by this government and its predecessors of what used to be commonly known as the royal prerogative of mercy.


Mrs. Holt:: But your backbenchers supported that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has the floor.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I do not think the principle of the royal prerogative has been recognized throughout the country. When questions have been put to the Solicitor General, he has attempted to shrug them off by saying the only commutation that has taken place since he has been Solicitor General is the one case that was openly discussed in cabinet, and only after a great deal of discussion was a decision made. Nevertheless, the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister are on record as enunciating the general principles of capital punishment and unquestionably, whether they were fully discussed or minimally discussed in cabinet, the final outcome was that every death sentence that has been imposed has either been stayed or commutation has been granted outright.
Capital Punishment
There has been a terrible abuse of a worth-while discretionary power in the hands of the parliament of this country. I am firmly convinced that due to the actions of this government and the principles respecting capital punishment which have been enunciated by various ministers of the Crown, that although the royal prerogative of mercy is based on a sound principle, it has been sadly abrogated and the whole matter has been brought into disrepute. They have made a mockery of the whole procedure, and that is a shame because it is a worth-while procedure.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the present ministry has completely destroyed the concept of the royal prerogative and the discretion of the Crown. I am a member of this House, I am a citizen of this country and I am no longer going to trust the word or the integrity of the people who make up this government. I do not believe that such discretion should longer be vested in them.
There are many other discretionary matters which, although they may not be built into the statutes of this country, are traditions of this country. Most of them from Great Britain. Many of these discretions exist because they are a matter of tradition, not a matter of statute. I, for one, having watched the way in which the government have abused that discretionary privilege with regard to the royal prerogative of mercy, do not trust it with any further discretion. That is not a nice thing to say, and perhaps it is not even a polite thing to say, but it is something I must say as we debate the third reading of this bill. I cannot let this occasion pass without indicating to the front bench opposite that my opinion is neither unique nor exclusive.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; if the hon. member merely wishes to raise a question, I will not entertain it.


An hon. Member:: Chicken!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The way in which the front bench opposite has acted in the last couple of years and, indeed, in the last couple of weeks-I am speaking about their handling of this bill and the capital punishment issue-leads me and many others in this country not to trust their word any longer.
With that, sir, I will sit down. If the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), or any other prattling member opposite has a question to ask me, I will be glad to try to answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat made some comments about the duration of the debate on third reading. I assure him that the government does not intend to ask for completion of the debate today. If we run out of speakers, I will take the opportunity to move the adjournment of the House so that debate may resume on Monday.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say only a few words on third reading. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) built his case of mistrust in the government on false

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment
premises. He suggested that the commutations which have taken place in recent years are based on the royal prerogative of mercy; at least, that is how I understood his argument. I stand to be corrected, but believe that the commutations in question have not been based on the royal prerogative of mercy. There may be one or more cases in which that prerogative has been exercised. In general, however, commutations have not been based on it. They have been based on a section of the Criminal Code authorizing the governor in council to commute sentences without using the royal prerogative. Surely the hon. gentleman is misleading the public if he builds his case of distrust in the governor in council on the royal prerogative of mercy argument when this very parliament gave the governor in council authority to commute sentences without using the royal prerogative. That prerogative has been untouched.
That will be my only intervention in this part of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking just because the government House leader said we shall adjourn if there are no more speakers this afternoon. I want to say a few words on third reading. Since there are not too many people present whom I can bore, this is a good time to speak.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) who suggested there has been unfairness in this debate. In my time as a member of the House we have discussed capital punishment four times. We have gone through a good deal of emotion, discussion and soul-searching in this matter. In the end it boils down to this: either you believe in capital punishment or you do not. When all is said and done, all the arguments about capital punishment being or not being a deterrent really come down to one thing: you are either for capital punishment or against it.
About a week ago, when speaking with constituents who were berating me for being an abolitionist, I pointed out that I had fought three elections since I had made known my position publicly and they had not objected. Judging from my last questionnaire, the majority of people of my area were in favour of abolition. If they have changed their position, it is not known to me; although I must point out that retentionists have made their position known vociferously.
I asked my constituents how many people they thought would be executed in one year if we were to reinstitute capital punishment. One chap said he thought about 5,000 would be executed; another said the number was not so high, maybe about 3,000. I said to these people that if we executed that number every year we should quickly eliminate the criminal element right down to the level of pickpockets or kids who go joyriding, because it would not take long for the message to get across to people in jail that crime does not pay. But I do not think even retentionists suggest we should hang that many people.
When I told my constituents that the retention of the death penalty might mean that we would hang, say, ten or 15 people a year-unless something really drastic were to happen within the next few years-one of them, I think the one who thought we would hang about 5,000, said,

"Then you're making a hell of a lot of fuss over such a small number of people." Perhaps because of the small number involved the deterrent argument is no longer being used.
I did not vote with my party when the House divided on motion No. 4, which would allow a convicted person to choose death instead of imprisonment because I have for long felt that an extremely long prison term is the highest price anyone can pay for an offence. I felt, when the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) said that there would be imposed a 25-year mandatory sentence for first-degree murder and a 15-year mandatory sentence for second-degree murder, that he was calling for an extremely stiff penalty. I know that in certain cases the court might recommend reduction of sentence. Even so, think of it this way: the person of 40 or 50 years of age faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in jail, with no hope of getting out, with no hope of being with his friends and relations. He must be locked away for the rest of his natural life. I suggest he will pay far too great a price, and in those circumstances I would favour providing the prisoner with the means to end his own existence. That does not mean the state should execute him; it means he should make the decision. Because he is in confinement, the state must provide him with reasonable means for eliminating himself. Frankly, I think a lot of people would take that choice. It think it would be a good choice.
Mr. Speaker, we will soon be faced with the problem of mercy killing. I am thinking of the person in hospital, terminally sick and suffering untold agonies. I am thinking of those whose minds have gone, an example being the young lady in the United States who was in a coma for a long time. People like that obviously have lost the ability to decide. Equally obviously, any prudent person caught in such circumstances would, if capable of making a decision, take that way out.
Some have said that it is a barbaric situation to allow people to commit suicide. However, we may remember a situation not too long ago with our neighbour to the south which is not considered barbaric. Many of that country's citizens berated Francis Gary Power for not taking the cyanide capsule he was given when he fell into enemy hands. Because of his special mission, it was anticipated he would take the pill and destroy himself. He carried a large number of national secrets. Therefore he was a great risk to the United States. They felt he should have done the honourable thing.
If it is all right in those circumstances, it should be available to someone with no hope for the future. A society that is socially well adjusted should make that kind of provision. I am sorry other hon. members do not see it that way.
I am not the least bit pleased with the way the motion has been written. If passed, I am not sure it will accomplish exactly what is intended. That brings us to another problem. Many motions presented during this debate have been poorly constructed. This indicates that members of parliament are receiving inadequate legal advice on how to prepare these amendments. This is something that should be looked into. A member who does not have legal training
July 9, 1976

should be able to get the proper legal wording for his amendments in order to accomplish what he wants. Many motions in this debate were not properly worded.
I would not only be surprised but offended if what the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham said should come to pass because of something that he does. I have known him for a long time and have considerable respect for him. I would not like to see him travel throughout the country fanning his argument for the purpose of an election. If the Conservatives form the next government, they will not immediately change this legislation. If the hon. member gives that impression, he is being dishonest. If some opposition members argue that they have been unfairly treated in this debate, this is also dishonest. The number here today who are in opposition are very small.


Mr. Towers:: They are good, though.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think they are good. I remember two members of this House who really believed in an idea. They were here every Friday for six years. Every time that particular subject was discussed, they were here to discuss it. They put up a good fight.
With all the amendments to this bill, we have had an excellent fight. It has been a parliamentary fight. It has been the kind of fight that ought to take place here, one that is fought hard and with all the weapons at our disposal. However, when a decision is made, even though the majority is small, it should be given a chance to work.
This is only a simple amendment to the Criminal Code. It could be made by any government or any parliament. If circumstances change, and the reintroduction of the death penalty is warranted, it will be reintroduced. If new evidence comes forward or if circumstances change, I am sure the government will reintroduce capital punishment. Despite what the injured lady member may think, as circumstances change, members' opinions usually change. In my opinion, this is not a final decision. However, I am happy that it is not going to come forward on a periodic basis. It should not become an election issue.
There was another piece of legislation within the past ten years that was very important. I refer to the flag debate. That was fought hard and long during many hot summer months. The legislation finally passed. As I travel throughout this country, particularly northern Ontario, with the exception of the May 24 weekend, I am pleased to see that the Union Jack is no longer flying from the masts of this country.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Put it the other way around.


William Arnold Peters: That is the way I see it. Although I was not totally enamoured with the design of the flag, it was adopted and became the Canadian flag. Canadians accepted it. I think that they will accept this piece of legislation, although reluctantly in many cases. If it does not do what they want, I am sure they will demand that it be changed. I believe members of parliament will react in that way.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Were you happy to see it go?


William Arnold Peters: I certainly have no objection to the Royal Ensign being flown on the Queen's birthday. I fought under that flag for some time. It served its purpose. How-
Capital Punishment
ever, we made a change. The Canadian public accepted that change, and I hope they will accept this one.
I have never been particularly interested in one thing that is inherent in many of the amendments. I refer to the price we paid five years ago with regard to police and prison guards. I think most people will agree that those in our police forces have been paid a fairly good salary and have received the benefit of certain legislation. In addition, they have the right to carry a gun. That does not necessarily make the fight even, but it certainly helps. There have been a number of cases where that has been a factor.
A jury in North Bay recently heard the case of a policeman stopping a car and hauling out the driver of that car. A scuffle ensued, during which time the policeman drew his gun. The driver of the car took the gun away from the policeman and shot him. The jury found the accused not guilty, and he walked away a free man. An interesting comment made during the course of that trial was that if the policeman had not brought the gun into the fight, no one would have been killed. There is a certain amount of truth in that.
In my opinion the police have to exercise a great deal of responsibility. The other day a retentionist said that the police will now shoot all criminals rather than take them captive. If that happens we will be well on our way to becoming a police state. I believe we are headed in that direction fast enough without encouragement being given to those who want to accomplish that.
We are always happy to ask other people to do unpleasant things for us. The general public has to decide that it also has a responsibility for maintaining law and order and that when the need arises it has a duty to respond. If they have to give testimony in court they will have to do so even if they lose a day's pay. I have heard people say they would not testify in court because they would lose a day's pay, receiving only a pittance in exchange. Surely that is not the spirit in which we should approach the process of justice. We should not always depend on other people to do the proper thing.
There is no doubt that the public is demanding protection but I do not believe that killing ten or 12 people a year will make any difference to the social morass we find in our major cities. I do not think there would be any great change in habits of those in the drug-oriented sections of society or those who are involved in organized crime-the latter have been able to acquire a good deal of status in the community which they damn well do not deserve; they get it because some of them are reaping great rewards from activities which take advantage of discreditable social conditions.
I am surprised that the Solicitor General has not spent more time and effort helping to correct some of the problems which will affect our penitentiaries after the passage of this legislation. I am not thinking of the legislation itself but of some of the things which have been said during the debate, both here and outside.
It has been said, for example, that no guard will be safe in a penitentiary when there are murderers confined there because they will be able to commit murder again with impunity. The fact is that this has only happened twice in

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment
our history. Only twice has a person convicted of murder been allowed out and murdered a second person, so it is not a real argument. Nevertheless it is the kind of argument which will stir the guards up and scare the pants off them. A scared penitentiary service will be dangerous to itself and to the whole institution, and the injured lady, despite anything she may say about this, any ideas she has on this subject are purely superficial. The remarks she makes are an indication of that.
Very few guards get into difficulty unless they are violent and rough with inmates. Undoubtedly there are psychotics in these institutions to whom normal standards do not apply but in the main, and I have talked to hundreds of guards, guards who are good guys are in no trouble. Those who are not, either get out or find themselves in serious difficulty.
This was well demonstrated in St. Vincent de Paul. We remember the difficulties which occurred daily in that penitentiary. They were eliminated by giving the guards some training and using more selectivity in choosing the guards. Efforts were also made to improve relations between the guards and the administrative staffs. The situation was improved 100 per cent with very little effort on the part of the penitentiary authorities. A little instruction and a little help would be of great value in lessening the animosity which develops between the guards and the prison staff. I have in mind the situation in British Columbia, for instance. In my opinion the guards decided to shoot one of the counsellors because they were very unhappy with her conduct. That was a decision, and that kind of thing indicates a total breakdown in the relationship between the two sections. I think a lot more money will have to be spent-


Simma Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the guards at the British Columbia penitentiary have been maligned and that feeling is borne out by the inquest which ended last week. I think the hon. member's remark was grossly unfair to the tactical squad whose lives are now in jeopardy. They have been absolved of all blame.


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know anything about the inquiry which was held. I will just leave the one fact with you, Mr. Speaker. You can decide for yourself.


An hon. Member:: What fact?


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me they decided to issue guns to a number of guards, and then they got the guns back and mixed them up right away so that they would not be able to find out which one fired the shot, knowing that the bullet would eventually be recovered. This indicates to me that there is a breakdown between the two sections, the one which dealt with security and the one which was trying to accomplish a measure of rehabilitation. It is my opinion that the rehabilitation section did not come out very well.
I raise this aspect because assertions that the guards will be placed in jeopardy will create a great deal of dissatisfaction and fear among the guards and, if this happens, nervousness itself will create a situation intolerable for many of the guards and others working in that field.

I myself have no objection to violence. I am not a pacifist by any means. I have no objection to being in the armed forces and killing if necessary. That does not bother me, because it would be an action against an enemy, whoever the enemy might be. And this might apply even against my own neighbour. I could be very vengeful in many situations. But I do not think I could justify going into a court tomorrow as a member of a jury knowing that my vote, one of 12 but the only one that exists for me, would lead to the execution of some individual. I would never be sure I was right. And because I would not ask anyone else to do what I would not be willing to do myself it is not hard for me to make up my mind on this issue.
There is no need to call further attention to all the doubts and misgivings which may arise, or to the part played by such important factors as the environment or the social background of an accused person. An important consideration to my mind is that no rich man in this country has ever been hanged since the days of Confederation. And no rich man ever will. If you can buy a proper defence under our court system you will not be convicted of a capital murder. But this is not true of all classes in our society. It is not true in the case of the poor Indian who comes into court undefended, possibly unaware of the charge against him. Such a person as he would inevitably face the severest possible penalties. He is the one who is always picked on.
I firmly believe there should not be capital punishment. I think society is big enough now to take care of most of the people who are anti-social and who cannot fit into what we set as the standards for society. It is my opinion that we are getting to the stage of also being able to look after people in our mental institutions, society's misfits. We have not been concentrating our attention upon them. Surely the answer is not building more jails to hold more people; instead we should determine how these people relate to society.
Society has not the right to vengeance. If those who want to keep the death penalty are not prepared to argue on the basis of its deterrent value, then I suggest all that is left is vengeance, and surely society cannot afford the luxury of vengeance. We should continue to eliminate the cause of crime, which in many cases is committed by people who are unable to help themselves in any other way.
I suggest that whatever decision we make in the next few days, it will not be final. Most of us who believe in the abolition of capital punishment are fully aware that if the situation develops where we can no longer handle our criminals without capital punishment, we shall have to review the situation, not as moralists, not from the point of how we feel about it, but on the basis of passing the legislation that society requires. I only hope that those who fought on the other side will carefully watch what takes place and ascertain whether or not the time has come for them to renew the fight for what they believe in on the basis of what has developed. I hope they do not stir up emotions that are easily stirred up on the part of people who have not had the benefit of the knowledge imparted to members of the House by many notable organizations that
July 9, 1976

have presented their case very fairly and with great ability.
I feel that this, like most other laws, has no particular finality to it. It is an indication that most members of the House feel that society does not demand a death penalty to deal with its criminal element; but if the situation changes, then another day the other side might win.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of my colleague from Timis-kaming who said that in Canada a rich man could never hang. It reminded me of the policy of capital punishment instituted by this government over the past eight years or so. This policy does not relate so much to the life of a man as to a man's capital.
The government across the way has determined upon a new way of capital punishment. Its members tax the industrious people of this country in order to raise huge government revenues, and they then turn around and invest the revenue in businesses which compete with the businesses of the taxpayers from whom they took the money in the first place. However, that is not particularly relevant to this debate and I would not want to be anything other than relevant.
I should like to refer to the preparedness of the government in this debate. It was evident earlier today, I think, that the government was completely unprepared, even though the bill has been before the House, before committee, and then has been brought back again to the House over a period of many months. The calendar this year is very similar to the calendar last year. The government knew very well when July was going to begin and it could very well have determined when the session would end or the recess was going to commence.
This morning we witnessed what I would call a spectacle of incompetence when the government House leader tried to short-circuit the well-established rules of the House. One member cannot, of course, control the House. Even the four House leaders found that they were not completely in control this morning. Therefore I have no real complaint when I find the government House leader has finally succeeded in putting his motion and getting it approved by the House in my absence. They are the rules, Mr. Speaker; I understand them within the limit of my ability after four years in this House, and I accept them.
The point I want to make to the House, Mr. Speaker, is that the government had no need to pass this bill on any particular day. It makes not a particle of difference to anyone in Canada whether Bill C-84 is passed today, next Wednesday, July 29, or indeed October 12. Although capital punishment has been on the law books of Canada for goodness knows how many years, there has not been one instance during the last 14 years of capital punishment being carried out; every single death sentence has been commuted or deferred.
This is a typical example of the attitude taken by the government. Its members feel they can order things just as they wish to have them ordered. I hope that once in awhile they continue to get a few surprises. As I said on second reading, there is absolutely no need for this debate in the first place since the present law on capital punishment
Capital Punishment
does not expire until December, 1977, a year and a half from now.
When I first came to this House in 1973 following the 1972 election the House then considered a bill on capital punishment, the reason being that the government at that time had let things go for too long. The government does not know what timing is, it seems, except perhaps when it comes to winning elections. In 1973 the capital punishment provisions had expired and so we considered a bill. We are now being asked in 1976 to pass a law that will replace a bill that does not expire until 18 months from now.
I made what I thought was to be my only contribution in this debate on second reading, but I find myself compelled to make some summary remarks regarding the issue of capital punishment itself. I was, of course, disappointed at the result of the votes to date. I do not say this for any political or personal reasons but because I have the genuine belief, though I think some others in this House have not, that society deserves the protection that capital punishment provides.
Many questions have been raised during this debate and in committee on how the state is to protect the innocent members of the public. The government says it will put the murderers in jail. The very people to whom we have entrusted the jail-keeping and the enforcement of our laws have told the government and members of parliament on all sides, time and again, that there must be some ultimate penalty for murder in this country. I am going to use the word murder, although in the debate so far it has been obvious that a similar penalty has been called for in respect of high treason, treason, and other serious crimes such as the hijacking of aircraft.
I do not know whether it is appropriate at this time to mention the incident at Entebbe, but there was a case of air piracy, pure and simple. There is no question about it. Hundreds of innocent peoples' lives were put into danger. There was no government in a position to impose a penalty on those hijackers that was suitable or at least sufficient to ensure the safety of those hostages. What happened in that case? We had what we might describe as an international incident. Really it was a matter of a minor war in which a force from one country made a sudden, middle-of-the night invasion of another country.
There was all sorts of killing and the world in general praised that act, although one or two were moved to call it an act of supreme aggression. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) said in this House that he, if not welcomed, at least admired the action of the Israeli force that went in there in an admitted act of bravery and rescued those innocent people. Yet the Government of Canada assumes no action is needed to protect the innocent of this country. The state has a duty to protect the innocent, and what has been proposed in Bill C-84, which has been unchanged to date, is that we will take despicable murderers and imprison them for life.
Perhaps we should divert for a moment and define for ourselves what is a murderer. We are not talking about someone who in the heat of passion kills, or one who kills accidentally one way or another. There are lesser penalties

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment
for that. We are talking about the most heinous crime, murder; the willful taking of another's life.
There was an incident just this week in the United States, I believe it was. In any event it occurred on a bus when, with the slightest provocation, a passenger pulled a gun, shot and killed another passenger on the bus, then ran off and disappeared somewhere, probably never to be found again. If that had happened in Canada and he had been found, the government's proposal is that if he were convicted of murder, and that is not even certain, he would simply be sent to prison for life. Of course life is subject to definition. The bill would lead you to believe that life means 25 years. I would hope that many men who were convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment might, when they came out, be so old and feeble they could no longer be considered a menace to society. But our prisons are not always like that.
The situation in prison is untenable and certainly unpleasant, and when a man of any age whatever is facing 25 years in prison what is another life? He can only serve one. The Solicitor General and his friends over there were so accommodating to accept the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), which provided that one accused of murder for the second time would be charged with first degree murder. What a sop that is.
Those on the other side do not seem to have considered that these killers have contacts on the outside. They have certain abilities. We heard during the question period today about guns and ammunition being found inside prisons. There are countless stories of weapons being fabricated in prison workshops. At the British Columbia penitentiary in the last 16 months there have been seven hostage incidents. I do not know how many deaths have resulted from them, but certainly there have been some.
I would ask those on the other side, and the government which presented this bill, to consider the effect on the work of prison guards particularly, and on the very people we call upon to enforce our laws, the police all over this country. I do not understand how we can be so fortunate in Canada to have a force of policemen and prison guards remaining on duty today. The government have shown that it cares not at all for the lives of these policemen and prison guards.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to the retention-ists that if capital punishment were retained in Canada somebody would hang, and that such hanging would be on the shoulders of the retentionists. Of course that is the case, and I do not think there is any retentionist in this House who does not fully realize that and is not fully willing to accept the responsibility. Neither the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) nor any single member of that cabinet over there apparently had any consideration for the responsibility that would fall upon them and all of the abolitionists who voted in favour of this bill for the death, by any gruesome method, of any innocent member of society in Canada. It disturbs me greatly; more than that, it confounds me how such a caring group of people could so easily dismiss the fate of some innocent members of society.

I have heard all the bleeding heart arguments about how we must be kind to prisoners because society was mean to them and we must try to rehabilitate them because they are really good people. I could not really argue that there is some amount of truth in it, but how can that be a truth when it is applied to a hired killer, someone who has been paid thousands of dollars to kill a person? How can that be applied to the killers in Montreal last year who locked up 13 people and burned the place down? I have not heard a single argument from the government side, or from the abolitionist side, to justify the saving of the life of this kind of person.
The abolitionists are all very concerned about the lives of a few murderers in this country. How many can there be? Why should they spend all this time agonizing over this scum of the earth? Why do we not worry a little bit about you and me? Why do we not worry a little about the policemen's widows and children? Six thousand people are killed on the roads in this country, but this hardly gets a headline. People are used to this sort of thing; it is not news. But one murderer who for some heinous crime against society deserves to die, deserves to be removed from society permanently, gets all the attention. It is absolutely incomprehensible.
I often think that there is very little difference between the abolitionists and retentionists in most cases. I have spent many hours talking to my friends and my colleagues who are abolitionists and I find that we agree right down the line up to a point. My abolitionist friends agree that persons convicted of murder should be removed from society permanently. The only difference that we seem to have is in how to implement it permanently. The abolitionists say that such a person should be kept in jail for the rest of his natural life. When the bill was finally presented to us we found that "the rest of his natural life" has been reduced to 15 years, and although I cannot interpret all the technicalities in the Solicitor General's bill, my information is that many murderers will be out of prison in much less than 25 years, perhaps 15. I have even heard, and I have not had it refuted yet, that escorted absences may be allowed after one year in prison.
If the abolitionists and retentionists agree that a murderer guilty of some terrible crime against society should be removed from that society permanently, then the argument should simply evolve on how best to achieve that end. Obviously if the removal from society is achieved by executing the guilty person, that is fine. We heard from my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), that the law we are passing now is not final. Well, it may not be final for the murderers but you can be sure it will be final for a good deal more innocent victims that it would have been if the opposite case were true.
I have asked many of my abolitionist friends how we should keep these horrible offenders away from society if we do not execute them, so that the innocent members of society are protected in this so called free and democratic country of ours. Well, they say, we will put them in prison. Then we get right back to the argument about how we should keep them in prison where, skilled as they may be, they have nothing better to do all day in prison but to make their weapons, or receive them over the fence, and
July 9, 1976

dream up ideas on how to escape. What deterrent is there in a life sentence once one is serving a life sentence?
We have heard all the arguments about whether hanging or execution is a deterrent or is not, but our whole society is built on the deterrence of punishment of one kind or another. If that were not so, we would not need to worry about any kind of fines today. We would not have to worry about policemen issuing tickets here on the hill, in the city, or on the highways for speeding. We would not need to bother locking our shops and our houses because breaking and entry would not be an offence punishable in any way. The whole thread of our society is based on punishment for deviation from the accepted rule.
There are many changes that occur as society evolves, and I am not one to suggest that society should remain rigid. We can all think back 50 to 100 years when crimes which are laughed at today were considered capital offences. At one time the stealing of a loaf of bread carried the death penalty on conviction, and pickpockets had their hands cut off. Those punishments were on the books and were meted out for their deterrent effects, just as all the punishments that are on the law books today are meted out as deterrents. It was decided, as society evolved, that certain crimes did not call for quite such severe penalties as others. Whether that added to the incidence of crime I am not able to say, but the principle remains that if we are to continue our society as we know it, we must have some penalty that is a deterrent.
It may be that life imprisonment is a sufficient deterrent for some people. I think that life imprisonment might keep many in this House from committing that final act that they might sometimes think of committing. But what can we expect a prisoner under a life sentence to think, when all he has to lose by killing anyone in sight is a further life imprisonment?
The basic premise is so simple, so easy to understand, that I do not understand what the government in presenting this bill, and the abolitionists in supporting it, can possibly be thinking. They say they want a safer Canada for innocent citizens. How can you make a country safer for innocent citizens by removing from the law enforcement agencies the final tool that they have for the protection of society?
I spoke earlier about the duty of the state. I heard the Solicitor General say that the state does not have the right to impose the death penalty to protect the innocent citizens of Canada. What can the citizens expect of the state if they cannot expect protection? In fact something like 80 per cent of the people in Canada seem to be demanding that these days. I have yet to hear the government explain the difference between executing an enemy of the state in the form of a murderer or of a person guilty of treason or piracy. What is the difference between executing one of those despicable people and calling upon an ordinary citizen in time of war to kill another kind of enemy of the state? To me the difference is minuscule, and the explanations offered are not satisfactory.
I would welcome any explanation which could answer some of these arguments. Over the months I have listened to the arguments, but there has been no explanation about
Capital Punishment
how we are going to keep these heinous criminals from harming Canadians. There has been no explanation of the difference between killing in war an enemy of the state and the killing of a person who on July 17 becomes an enemy of the state. I think the people of Canada want an answer. They have let their opinion be known, and the majority of this House in its so-called democratic way has given its answer. I suspect that the people of Canada in their democratic way will give their answer the next time they get a chance.
I have mentioned some practical considerations with regard to keeping murderers in prison. Perhaps I should say impractical considerations, because I do not think it is possible. Some would raise the matter of cost. It is certainly costly to keep a prisoner locked up. I am told that the cost is about $18,000 per year per prisoner. At one time I might have attached more significance to that cost than I do now. It is obvious that this government in the past eight years has paid very little attention to costs of any kind, but I think it is fair to say that one should not argue about human life in terms of dollar costs.
People have argued that juries and judges can make mistakes, and that innocent people can be convicted. In my remarks at second reading of this bill I quoted an old friend and jurist in Vancouver, the Hon. John Valentine Clyne. He wrote to me with great concern at the time of the earlier stages of the consideration of this bill, because he was concerned about what would happen in Canada. When he was on the bench he saw many of these cases. He was concerned that too many people would feel that the system of justice in Canada would not serve to protect an innocent accused person, but he was convinced from his experience on the bench that the system available to an accused in Canada, whether he be rich, as the hon. member for Timiskaming said, or whether he be poor, assures that there is no danger of having a wrongfully accused person executed.
However, as an aside, I ask what difference would it make if a person was executed or if he was imprisoned wrongfully for 25 years? There is no way the state can bring back a life, but there is also no way the state can repay a man for 25 years of wrongful imprisonment. Arguments such as that should lead those who think that way to spend the rest of their lives in bed because, if they dare set foot out of bed, they might break their leg, be run down by a car, or fall down a flight of stairs. That kind of thinking is so antiquated and backward that it hardly deserves comment at this time.
In a week or so we shall be having visitors from around the world at the Olympic Games. One month ago Vancouver was host to representatives of 136 countries in the United Nations for the Habitat Conference. These major events invite violent visitors to this country to perpetrate their vile acts. The passage of this bill will leave Canada powerless to control that kind of violence. We know that particularly this year there have been special rules put into effect for immigration purposes so that we can keep undesirable aliens from entering Canada and causing trouble at such things as the Habitat Conference and the Olympic Games. However, we know that people can come across the border either by subterfuge or by sneaking across.

July 9, 1976
Capital Punishment
We talk about our undefended border; it certainly is. Anybody can come into this country from the United States through miles and miles of the undefended border. It is all very well to have rules for immigration if a visitor wishes to come in through the formal channels and be examined, but it is clear that there are many roads open into Canada which are not officially scrutinized. If we have an incident in this country this year, next year, or in the future, what will we do then? Are we inviting people to come here and commit crimes? It may be that some countries instil fear in their criminals by imposing severe penalties. Canada will be putting every visiting dignitary in a danger that would not exist in his own country or in many other countries. I think I referred already to hired killers. They come into the same category.
If I may summarize what I am trying to say to the good minded abolitionists who are voting for this bill, it is that they owe something to the protection of the citizens of Canada. I have never criticized the motives of an abolitionist. As I said earlier, our ideas are very close, that is, the removal of the offender from society, permanently. I am simply saying that the method of long prison terms-even for the rest of one's natural life in prison-is not a satisfactory way of removing a killer from society permanently. There is only one way to do that and it is by some form of state execution. It does not need to be hanging. I think the press has done an injustice to the people of Canada because every time the media mention capital punishment, especially on television, there is a picture of the noose in the background. The noose may not be the answer.
An old friend from Vancouver, the Hon. John Valentine Clyne, wrote to me saying that he had done a study when he was on the bench about methods of execution. He had compared hanging with the gas chamber and one or two other methods-and for whatever reasons that he was unable to give me in the letter-it was his conclusion that hanging was probably the most satisfactory.
I sense, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to rise so I will close my remarks with a final appeal to the abolitionists in this House who also represent the innocent citizens of this country that they give final consideration to the innocent people in Canada who desire, deserve, and demand the protection of the state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking that I gave a little earlier that there are no more speakers this afternoon, I move the adjournment of the debate and, if that is acceptable, I will move the adjournment of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is moved by Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Drury that the debate be now adjourned.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the government House leader properly, but if he said he was moving the adjournment of the debate then I do not think it would be acceptable, but if he meant to adjourn the sitting for today that is quite a different thing.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I did not hear him say that, Mr. Speaker. In his incompetent way he has bungled it again. Perhaps he could repeat it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister, by adjourning the debate, was postponing it until Monday morning when it would start again, to make sure that if something happens during the week end there is no difficulty. The debate is suspended until the next sitting of this House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to the order made this day.
At 4.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 12, 1976