1960-02-25

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition:
That this house do concur in the address of the Senate to His Excellency the Governor General, respectfully requesting that His Excellency may he pleased to transmit the joint address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen offering congratulations on the birth of a prince, by inserting in the first line of the address from the Senate the words, "and Commons"; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house doth unite with the Senate in the said address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Vicloria-Carlelon)
presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni) presented the first report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.
Motion stands.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hayden Stanton (Leeds) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.
Motion stands.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Stands.
Motion stands.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, February 23, 1960, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the routine motions, and in the past I have given my word to the committee that we would try at all times to hold the meetings of the committee at times when the house was not sitting. In the two previous sessions we were able to do this with the exception of one occasion, and that occasion was when General McNaughton of the international joint commission was presenting his report to the committee, which necessitated a meeting so that General McNaughton could go to Washington on the business of the commission.
During the years when the opposition were the government of the day I cannot recall any occasion, and I know they will correct me if I am wrong, when they did not ask for leave to sit while the house was sitting. Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked the committee not to sit while

External Affairs Committee the house was sitting. He put forward that plea, and then later that same day said he would be going to call General Burns as a witness, because he was going abroad and it was necessary to have General Burns appear before us.
Of course the first argument does not hold water; but with regard to the other, I know General Burns has many important duties to perform, and it might be just possible that he would be unable to attend on two or three days and consequently it would be necessary to have the committee sit while the house was sitting.
Therefore I move this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who is the chairman of this committee. I would simply say in reply that if the situation which he spoke of regarding General Burns should arise, as we on the committee hope it will, and it is necessary to sit for a protracted period, it can always be so arranged and I am sure will be agreed to unanimously. But we have to consider, as the Prime Minister said last year when speaking in this house, I think on February 13, that the first duty of all of us lies in this chamber, and that nothing should develop which would preclude any hon. member from properly discharging his duties in this House of Commons. That being the case, I regret that we cannot support the motion which the hon. gentleman has moved.
When this matter came to the attention of the house at the previous session of parliament the same effort was made early in the session that is being made at the present time. This session has just begun its work, and much lies before us in this chamber. Hon. gentlemen in the opposition, and certainly in the Liberal party, find it very difficult to discharge our functions if we are obliged to face a situation in which committees are meeting while the house is sitting.
It will not be forgotten that at one time in 1958 no fewer than six committees were sitting simultaneously while the house itself was in session, making it impossible for members to attend properly either in committee or in the house.


An hon. Member:: What did you do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member asks what we did. I think the situation then was altogether different from the situation now, but whether it was different or not the fact remains that we ought to be able to address ourselves to the merits of each question as it is presented, regardless of what was done on other occasions in the past.


Mr. Hees:: We had exactly the same number of members as you have in the house now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This motion is debatable and the hon. member who has the floor is entitled to be heard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When hon. gentlemen opposite bring us, as they always do, the argument of precedent, one can only find in that a recognition that whatever the previous administration did was, apparently, always right.
I address my remarks to the Prime Minister, who along with yourself, Mr. Speaker, is the chief custodian of the rights and privileges of parliament. The Prime Minister, I am sure, who is anxious to see to it that members opposite, as well as members on this side, are given the fullest opportunity to discharge their responsibilities properly, will, I am sure, recognize the validity of the plea which I so amiably present to him. I will remind the right hon. gentleman of his own words as recorded at page 990 of Hansard of last year:
I for one will say unequivocally that if at any time there is any action taken which would deny members of the opposition a fair opportunity of discharging their responsibilities I shall immediately see to it that a change is made to assure justice and fairness.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that this is a case to which he might apply those wise observations made on another occasion; and while I understand it is difficult for him to take issue with the members of his party, this is one occasion when in the interests of this house he should unhesitatingly line up with the opposition.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Members of this group wholeheartedly support the protest of the hon. member for Essex East. On several occasions recently we have found ourselves making hay together on behalf of democratic principles. However, I want to say this; that while hon. members who support the government and hon. members of the official opposition accuse each other of delinquencies in this connection in the past, our record is without blemish.
I listened with interest to what the chairman of the committee had to say in support of his motion. We respect the hon. member very much indeed. He is one of the "whitest" chairmen I have ever known. But we do take strong exception to this procedure. We support the reasons for this attitude given by the hon. member for Essex East. We think it is wrong in principle to ask, so early in the session, that committees should sit while the house itself is sitting.

There is a heavy and important agenda this session. As the hon. member for Essex East has said, the first responsibility of hon. members is in this house to attend these debates and, where an hon. member considers it necessary, to participate in them. We think this motion should be moved only when necessary to suit the convenience of witnesses coming from distant places, or the convenience of representatives of various organizations from across the country. There are occasions when it is necessary. Also, possibly it is necessary at the conclusion of the session when it is required to finish the business with as much dispatch as possible.
For the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Essex East, and for the additional reasons I have advanced, we take the strongest exception to the adoption of this motion.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. members for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I would point out that on this occasion we are dealing with a motion relating to the sittings of the committee on external affairs rather than to sittings of committees generally.
I should like to point out, as the hon. member for Middlesex East, who is chairman of this committee, has already done, that as a result of the suggestion advanced by the hon. member for Essex East the committee might like to call General Burns, for instance, as a witness. If the committee should decide so to do this would have to be done in the very early stages. I believe all hon. members know that the 10-power disarmament committee commences its meetings on March 15, and the committee on external affairs cannot likely begin its sittings before early in March. Consequently if General Burns were to be called as a witness he would have to be called at an early date, and undoubtedly if he were called it would be necessary for the committee to hear him when the house was in session.
I cannot understand how the arguments of the hon. member for Essex East, which may possibly apply to committees generally, could apply in this particular case. In view of his own suggestion it would seem manifestly strange to me if we should not adopt this motion at the present time. If the house does not adopt this motion at this time, then possibly at the very first or second meeting of this committee permission would have to be requested from the house to enable the committee to sit while the house is in session 79951-0-91
External Affairs Committee in order to hear a witness who the hon. member serving as opposition spokesman indicates he wishes to have called before the committee.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may say a word on this. The hon. member for Essex East has urged that we approach this question with reason. I suggest that we follow that course. The hon. gentleman does not like to go by precedent. In order that the house may be informed and the record kept straight, and without saying whether it was right or wrong, let me outline the situation that obtained in 1956. In that year, when the hon. member for Essex East and those in his party were enjoying their second last year of office, there were 152 days devoted to the business of that session. On 52 of those days the committees of the house met during the period when the house was in session.


Mr. Pearson:: At the end of the session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This occurred during the session, because the power to sit while the house was in session was granted to committees of the house quite early in the session. If you compare the record for 1956 with that for 1959 you will find a marked similarity. In 1959 there were 127 sitting days in the session. On 55 of those days committees of the house met while the house was in session. We followed what has been the practice of this house for many years.
It is impossible to carry on the committee meetings without sometimes coming into conflict with the sittings of the house. Mark you, it is preferable if it can be arranged otherwise, but that is not always possible. I recall that in 1955 or 1956 one of those periodical articles appeared in the press pointing out that there were not many hon. members sitting in the chamber, and on that very day there were 100 members of the house engaged in committee work; but that, of course, escaped notice.
That pattern occurs from time to time, and I do not know any way in which it can be avoided. There are so many problems that have to be taken up in committee. I believe it should be left to the good sense of the committee as to whether it can meet without interfering with the business of the house. But there are certain limitations. One is the number of rooms that are available for committee work. If the building were enlarged and there were more committee space available, perhaps there would not be these conflicts.
I think it would be wrong not to give the power immediately and leave it to the good
1434	HOUSE OF
Banking and Commerce Committee sense of the committee whether or not that power is used. Otherwise, if power is not given to sit while the house is in session and the committee has to come back to get that permission from the house, there will inevitably be delays. Apparently my hon. friends are going to raise this issue as to some of the other committees, but everyone knows that there are people called to appear before committees whose time should not be consumed in simply waiting for a committee to meet. There are several examples; the head of the C.N.R., the head of T.C.A., members of the wheat board, members of the board of grain commissioners. I have been a member of committees myself, so I know exactly what happens. When a committee meets two or three times during the course of a day the result is that within two days these busy businessmen are released to carry on their normal duties.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I submit it is only proper that this committee and other committees should be given this power in exactly the same way.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, without doubt this is a most important matter. There can be no question about that whatever. Recognizing that, could I through you, sir, make an appeal to all members to keep all speeches and technicalities down to a minimum, as this is the last day under the special order for Bill No. C-6 to come before the house. I would hate to see something that can be discussed at other times be responsible for preventing full discussion of that bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The remarks of the hon. member may be cogent, but they are not in order. Is the house ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Harold Edward Winch: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion on division?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


BANKING AND COMMERCE
Mr. C. A. Cathers (York North) moved:: That the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, presented to the house on Tuesday, February 23, 1960, be now concurred in.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, last year I raised a question about this particular committee, and asked that it not be granted leave to sit while the house was sitting because no case had been made out by the member moving the motion. No reasons have been given why this particular committee should have leave.
I also drew to the attention of the Prime Minister what had happened in the 1958 session when this committee was dealing with the estate tax legislation. That legislation was the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and notwithstanding an appeal made to him and to the chairman of the committee the minister persisted in having the committee sit while the house was sitting. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) had very important business before the house at that time, with the result that it was not possible for certain members to attend properly to both the business before the banking and commerce committee and the trade and commerce matters that were then before the house.
So far as I am aware there is no reason for leave to be given to this committee to sit while the house is in session. I therefore ask the house leader and the Prime Minister to have the matter reconsidered and, unless there is some particular reason for proceeding with the motion, to have it withdrawn at this time because of the unfavourable experience with this committee in the 1958 session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there is just one thing I might say. The assumption on the part of members of the opposition is that members on the government side want to be out of the house attending committees. That is not true. They want to be in the house listening to my hon. friend. We will take into account what he has said with regard to this matter, but I still think the power should be given to the committee now so it will not have to come back to the house in the future, when it may be necessary for the committee to sit while the house is in session. It does not have to exercise that power, and I think the good sense of the committee will look after the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It did not look after it in 1958.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The 1958 session was a shorter session with a great deal of business compressed into a short period. The 1958 session lasted only 93 days. There was a compression of business there which was understandable, but in sessions like this one and those of 1956 and 1959 I think it is up to the

good sense of the committee. Members of the committee will want to be in the house if at all possible. Members on our side are not anxious to be away from the chamber any more than are members of the opposition. In any case, there are enough of us over here who went through all this in the past when we sat on the other side and know all the difficulties attendant upon committee work. I wish my hon. friends had thought of these things a few years ago.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, just before you put the motion I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this is the only example we have had to date of the restoration of the rights of parliament since the 1957 election.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I assure you at once that I did not rise because of the facetious interruption of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate. That was not my reason for rising. It was simply to point out the fact that this is the 31st day of the session. The hon. member for Essex East-


George James McIlraith: He did not speak on this motion.


John George Diefenbaker: -on the prior motion quoted certain remarks of mine-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If an hon. member wishes to raise a point of order he should rise and do so.


John George Diefenbaker: He quoted certain remarks of mine made in 1959.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easf):: Just a year ago.


John George Diefenbaker: I entirely confirm the remarks I made at that time, and I would not alter or change any portion of them. However, the important part of my statement was that if at any time hon. gentlemen opposite found themselves in a position of difficulty in endeavouring to perform their duties in committees as well as in the house, no member of a committee would endeavour on such occasions to deny the house the fullest opportunity to enjoy the contributions of those gentlemen who were desirous of speaking in the house.
This is simply a motion granting a power, and I suggest that it be passed in this form. If at any time there is injustice or unfairness, hon. members may rest assured that I will do that which I said I would do in 1959 in the words quoted by the hon. gentleman.


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: Mr. Speaker-
79951-0-91J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for York North speaks now he will close the debate. Does the hon. member for Hull wish to speak?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, one point was raised by the Prime Minister with which I wish to deal. He said that if at any time after the motion is passed the opposition should feel that they are hampered in the execution of their duties they can come back to the house.
According to the rules this is impossible. We cannot bring committee matters here. However, if this motion were not accepted today the committee could at any time request the permission of the house to sit while the house is in session. We do not object to sitting while the house is in session if that is necessary, but we are afraid that some time they might use this permission to force the opposition to be away from the house when they want to pass something special.


Some hon. Members:: Shame; shame.


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: I should like to say a few words on this motion. This is the fourth session during which I have been chairman of the banking and commerce committee. On the first occasion we ran into the same opposition, and we had a vote on it. The next year I gave a promise to the effect that the committee would only sit while the house was in session if there were an emergency. We have had not a single emergency during the last three sessions.
There are a great many witnesses who have to come long distances to attend the meetings of the banking and commerce committee. I feel it is unfair to have witnesses sitting around this place waiting for us to deal with their matters. I think this is just political obstruction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Shall the motion carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a question preceding the discussion later this day on Bill No. C-6. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider recommending to the house a further day for debate on this bill, which deals with capital punishment, if at the end of today's debate

Inquiries of the Ministry there are members who have not had an opportunity to take part in that debate. My purpose in asking the Prime Minister this question is to ensure that no decision will be taken on this matter until those members who wish to state their position in regard to it have had an opportunity of so doing.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: It is a coincidence, but I have written out very much the same type of question.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps before the coincidence becomes apparent I might answer the question, and then no doubt the hon. gentleman will express his views on the matter.
In my 20 years' experience in the house I do not know that I have seen the same degree of interest in any matter coming before the house that has been shown in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition asks me whether, under all the circumstances, another day later on might be provided. I am sure there are many who wish to take part in the debate, because the question of capital punishment is one that transcends ordinary considerations and touches the conscience of individual members. This means that many members, who under ordinary circumstances would allow others to express their views in a matter of the nature of capital punishment would not be willing to give up their right to place their individual views before the house and the country.
I have asked for the list of prospective participants in the debate. This list of prospective participants in the debate covers only, of course, the members on the government side of the house, and they are some 40 in number. There are members in other parts of the house who are equally desirous of expressing themselves. The hour is now 3.15 p.m. No member would like to be placed in the position, however strong his personal predilections on the subject may be, of in any way, however conscientious his desire to speak, having done anything that would prevent a vote taking place on this subject.
This being so, and in order to guard against the possibility of members being placed in the invidious position to which I have just alluded, if the house were agreeable I would suggest that all members desiring to participate should be able to do so. If at 10 o'clock this evening there are still members desirous of speaking, then I would feel it would be proper that another day be set aside later on so the fullest and most comprehensive consideration of this matter would be given by parliament. In other words there should be no curtailment of the right of hon. members to debate. Of course, this being a private member's bill there is nothing I can

do to determine that course. In view of the question of the Leader of the Opposition I would certainly agree that his suggestion is a meritorious one.


Hazen Robert Argue: I might say that the statement made by the Prime Minister is most agreeable to the members of this party. I think I would be at liberty to say that I have already expressed privately to the house leader views along this line, namely that if it were impossible to conclude the debate today and have a vote, members who are desirous of speaking should have an opportunity to speak. I was certain this could be brought about by agreement amongst the three parties to set aside a further day.
This, as the Prime Minister has said, is an important public question that touches the conscience of the members of this house, and in which there is very great public interest. I believe the first day of debate on this question showed parliament at its best. Members spoke from great conviction, and there was no endeavour to follow party lines. This being the case, I think the Prime Minister's suggestion is most agreeable. We are quite happy to make provision for another day of debate, and we think this further obliges the House of Commons that at some stage of the debate on this bill the question shall be put.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as house leader. Inasmuch as all the standing committees have now been established and most of them have been organized, I should like to ask the minister whether he could arrange, as the first item of tomorrow's government business, to proceed with notice of motion No. 13 for the establishment of a joint committee of this house and the other place on Indian affairs, in order that this committee may start its functions also.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would hope that we could complete the study of the supplementary estimates which have already engaged the attention of the house now for four days. My hon. friends, I presume, will co-operate with me, in which event we may get on to that other business.



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour.

In view of the statement made by the minister in the house last May 15 that amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act will be up for discussion during this session of parliament, would he now advise the house whether it is his intention to live up to the commitment which he made last May?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, whatever intentions I have I usually try to carry out in my capacity as Minister of Labour. However, this is a very serious problem and the proposal as amendments are of such a nature that they deserve the fullest study by the government before they are brought before the house.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN VOCA- TIONAL AND APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, of which I have given him notice. Can the minister tell us whether he wrote to the government of the province of Quebec proposing the participation of that province in the federal-provincial program regarding vocational training school assistance, youth training, apprenticeship training; and if so, on what date he wrote and whether he received an answer.


Michael Starr: wrote to Hon. J. J. Bertrand, minister of social welfare and youth for the province of Quebec, on January 28 of this year, but to date I have not received any reply to my letter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a question with respect to a letter sent out by the regional director of the unemployment insurance commission in Quebec. I have checked into the matter. I have spoken to the Quebec regional director this morning, and he has been in touch with the office at Rouyn. The situation is that should any union official present himself at that office with any claimant in whose case he is interested, full information will be forthcoming.
As to other procedures which may be followed, the manager will have to deal with them at his discretion, the principle being
Inquiries of the Ministry observed that the claimant's interest will be observed and that co-operation with unions will be maintained.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Does this mean that the directive by the regional director barring such persons representing claimants has now been rescinded by the minister's statement of policy?


Michael Starr: My discussion with the regional director brought about this situation as I have outlined it at the moment.



INQUIRY AS TO INCLUSION OF FARM LABOURERS UNDER ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the interprovincial farm union, members of this house and others urging amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to include farm labour, and in view of statements made by various ministers on this question, would the minister inform the house whether it is the government's intention to introduce legislation this session to meet the^ wishes of the national farm organizations in this matter.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance commission has spent quite some time compiling all the information relating to inclusion of farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act. This information has now been compiled and submitted to me within the last few days. Serious study, of course, will have to be given to this report, which will have to be followed by consideration by the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister if that is not the same answer he gave to the same question a year ago?


Michael Starr: It may have been, but not quite. I did report to this house on one or two occasions that the unemployment insurance commission were compiling all the data on this matter.



AMPLIFICATION OF REMARKS IN DEBATE BY MINISTER OF LABOUR

Michael Starr: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the house I should like to correct a statement which I made yesterday and which appears in Hansard at page 1408, in the first column, the last paragraph. I stated with

Inquiries of the Ministry regard to vocational training that we were dealing with 3,000 to 5,000 people. I should have added that this related to unemployed persons receiving supplementary training.
Actually under the vocational training programs, in co-operation with the provinces, more than 100,000 persons are receiving fulltime training, some 200,000 are receiving part-time training, and 9,000 or 10,000 are taking correspondence courses.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 1
wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a press report from Bonn in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that the German government intend to press ahead with plans for establishing bases in Spain, and in view of the fact that this appears to be a contradiction of the statement by the minister to the house yesterday, does the minister care to comment further on this situation?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I very much doubt the accuracy of that report. The hon. member will recall that yesterday I told the house I had received a specific denial from the German government that negotiations had taken place with Spain concerning military bases or training facilities there for German air force or missile units. Later yesterday afternoon I had from the Spanish ambassador to Canada a communication with which he forwarded a communique which had been issued by his government, and which reads as follows:
The news published in certain foreign papers that the government of the German Federal Republic had negotiated with the Spanish government the concession of military bases or launching points for missiles is false.
Spain, true to its present agreements with Portugal and the United States, considers that these texts meet in a sufficient and satisfactory manner her moral obligation to form a part of the western defensive system. She therefore does not seek any further engagements of this nature as has been repeatedly stressed in public statements by the Spanish government.
I have checked again to see whether there had been any discussion about this question in the NATO council prior to the first press statement, and I am informed by our permanent representative to NATO that there had been no such discussion whatever. In view of all the reports there have now been in the press, Canada intends to ensure that

this question is raised in the NATO council at just as early a date as possible. It may have been raised today.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a
supplementary question. Can the minister say whether or not his information denies the report that the Bonn government sought to obtain from Spain the right to supply depots, and not just the question of military bases and launching sites? Is the minister aware that such a report has been made by the United Press within recent hours?


Howard Charles Green: Both the German government and the Spanish government denied' that there were any negotiations about these bases in Spain. I do not know any further details than that at the moment. However, we are raising this question in the NATO council, which is the proper place for a plan of this kind to be brought forward and discussed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister raise the
question of whether negotiations were under way for supply depots as well as the other matter to which he referred?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot answer that question in detail.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On this point may I ask the minister whether the Canadian government has received any information concerning this matter from any individual NATO government before the matter became public?


Howard Charles Green: No, we did not, and we do not like that fact very much. We believe there should be consultation in the NATO council on all these questions.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a further supplementary question. Has the minister any information on the press report that the government of France had also entered into negotiations with Spain to obtain supply depots in that country?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not any information of that kind.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister make inquiries in that regard?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is based on a report by U.P.I. I asked the minister whether or not he would make further inquiry as to whether France as well as Germany had sought such supply depots.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we intend to get at the root of this whole question as fast as
we can.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the answer yes?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a further question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether the denials he has received from the West German government relate to matters of supply and logistics within Spain?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member has asked enough supplementary questions to make the point clear. He has had a proper assurance from the minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the minister should answer.


CANCELLATION OF PROPOSED VISIT OF ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER
Howard Charles Green: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could have permission to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to inform the house that I have received word from Hon. Mr. Pella, foreign minister of Italy, to the effect that because of the resignation of the Italian government yesterday he will be unable to make his scheduled visit to Ottawa, which was to have taken place from February 29 to March 2. Mr. Pella has expressed his deep regret that he is unable to come to Canada, and the Canadian government for its part is extremely sorry that it will be impossible to hold consultations with him and with his officials.
I should also like to add that in a personal way I am very sorry that Mr. Pella is unable to come. He is an outstanding statesman in the western world today. Perhaps he will be able to visit Canada at a later date.


CUSTOMS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: On
Tuesday of this week the Minister of National Revenue announced in this house a proclamation of the governor in council amending the Customs Act with respect to imports of fruits and vegetables. Can the minister now inform the house whether these amendments as such will apply to potato imports?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The proclamation which I announced simply brings the section of that act into effect. The operative parts will depend upon the circumstances which will arise from time to time, at which time the Minister of National Revenue will have to deal with the individual problems with which he is confronted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could put a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister say whether potatoes are a vegetable under that section of the regulations?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would presume, generally speaking, that the answer is yes; but the hon. member, having had many more years' college education than I, perhaps is the one to inform the house about that matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the honourable and learned minister who reports for the C.B.C. and the B.B.G. whether he is now in a position to give the answer he promised yesterday.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was waiting for a relatively quiet moment in the house to enable me to give the answer I promised yesterday. The capital budget of the C.B.C. has been submitted through me to the governor in council but has not yet been approved by the governor in council. Therefore I am not in a position to say what the capital budget will contain until it has received formal approval.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then could the minister explain how the item was arrived at which appears in the blue book?


George Clyde Nowlan: It was approved as a matter of course by treasury board. As the hon. member well knows, there are two steps to be taken with respect to these matters. There has to be approval by treasury board and also a final approval of the capital budget by the governor in council. That is the procedure which was laid down by our predecessors, and which we have followed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask the minister whether the approval by treasury board is in vacuo?
1440	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Clyde Nowlan: It is exactly in vacuo, though not in quite as big an "in vacuo" as it was in the days of the former administration.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask him whether he is in a position to advise the house when we may expect publication of the revised edition of the blue book on pension plans.	'


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear what my hon. friend has in mind when he refers to the revised edition of the booklet on pension plans. There was a booklet issued, as no one knows better than my hon. friend for Kootenay West because we pursued that tortoise back and forth for about six months. However, that booklet was published shortly before the house closed last July. If that is the one to which my hon. friend has reference, then it was published in July and I know of no other which is pending.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question. Is the minister's department considering publishing a revision of that booklet?


George Clyde Nowlan: The department of course always has matters of revision under consideration, but no consideration is being given at the moment to the publishing of a revised edition.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question with respect to the acquisition of property for the station for the Rossland-Trail area. I am now advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that an agreement has been reached in principle with respect to all the problems with which the government of British Columbia and the corporation were confronted. As far as I know, although the agreement is not yet executed, it is expected to be completed within the next few weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister whether any provision is being made to serve The Pas, Flin Flon, and that area of northwest Manitoba?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter under the consideration of the C.B.C. I have not the estimates in front of me, and I suggest it is really a question which would be better dealt with when the estimates of the C.B.C. are before the house.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexis Pierre Caron: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. An article appeared in last evening's Ottawa Journal entitled "The interprovincial bridge; an outrageous situation". Has the Prime Minister taken notice of this article?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it is the view which has been held for quite a number of years.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister has read the article and this is the situation, does he not think immediate action should be taken in the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now proceeding beyond the limit of question into the area of debate.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gloucester asked me a question on February 17 last which was as follows:
Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether he has received a telegram from the Pictou county ministerial association, or from union groups of the area, asking for more orders for work for Pictou county industries; and, if so, what positive action is being taken by the government in this regard?
I informed him that I would search the record and see what the situation was, and I have found that on February 9 I received such a telegram from New Glasgow signed by Charles Shaver on behalf of the Pictou county ministerial association. That telegram indicated that the matter had been drawn directly to the attention of the Minister of

Labour, the Minister of National Revenue, the hon. member for Pictou and provincial government authorities.
After giving consideration to the telegram I asked that the representations of Mr. Shaver be brought to the attention of both the Department of Transport and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for further consideration.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wonder if I may direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask the minister whether it is his intention to appoint the fifth member to the national parole board, and whether that member will be a woman.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not in a position to answer that question at the present time.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister comment on the report in Le Devoir of February 17 that the families of tubercular refugees admitted at the end of December are being charged $60 to $80 a month for single room apartments in Montreal, which amount they will be obliged to pay themselves three months after their date of entry; that all their contacts with the immigration officials leave them with a deep sense of humiliation because they are made to feel like beggars, and that these refugees are deeply worried about how they are going to make ends meet on the low salaries they are being offered.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Without attempting to comment on some of those allegations I should like to say that to the best of my knowledge these people are not paying anything at the moment. The department is undertaking to pay the rent, and in no case is it $60 for a single room. Apart from this, the department has undertaken to look after these people until they are on their feet. There is no mention of three months in any of the arrangements; they will be looked after until they are able to help themselves.
Capital Punishment
I might add that these people are under no obligation to continue to live in the premises they are now occupying. Most of them have been placed near the hospital in which the sick members of their families are being treated and this, of course, has created some complications with regard to the acquisition of suitable accommodation. However, all the arrangements have been made with the very fine co-operation of the welfare authorities of the community involved.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister say whether any inquiry has been made respecting the accusation that they have been mistreated by immigration officials?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No such charge has
reached my office. I cannot keep track of all the accusations that may be made in the press.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. McGee for the second reading of Bill No. C-6 to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, like probably 80 per cent of the people of Canada I was conspicuously uninterested in the abolition of capital punishment until I was confronted with the necessity of making a decision. After searching my conscience and all the literature I could find on the subject I believe I should vote against this motion.
I believe that abolition is advocated by a small, sincere, but vociferous minority such as promoted prohibition, when the great mass of the people who favoured temperance, not abstinence, were not heard. I know that all advances are made by a creative minority and that I shall probably be branded as a philistine, but I am not one of those who confuse all -change with progress.
I believe this question is typical of certain degenerate and dangerous ideas current in this century and especially on this continent. Like the Deweyite theories in education which are turning out a generation of educated illiterates, we are uncritically swallowing whole the half-baked ideas of the psychologists and sociologists that anyone who commits a murder must be sick; that the action of such people is due entirely to their heredity and environment and that, therefore, they are not responsible.
There is a certain truth in the notion of corporate guilt, and society must share part

Capital Punishment
of the blame for any antisocial actions. We are all the victims of our heredity and our environment while we dwell in time and space. Many inherit recessive genes resulting in a weak mind or a weak will. Many suffer a squalid environment; and I may say the underprivileged or overindulged rich are in some respects worse off than those who were brought up in pride and poverty.
Despite these factors there must remain some residue of free will or there is no responsibility. If we have no responsibility, we are not men but automatons. There is only one sense in which this grim predestination is true, and that is the Calvinist and, indeed, Catholic belief that an omnipotent God must know our ultimate destiny before we are even conceived. This dull determinism which negates all responsibility reduces our humanity and cannot be accepted by any civilization which is to survive.
To me the only valid argument the abolitionists have is the possibility of mistake. All things human are fallible, and innocent men have been hanged. But I believe that is very rare. Lord Justice Darling of the English bench and privy council said to the House of Commons committee in 1930 that 26 years' experience on the bench had convinced him that in view of the checks and safeguards of English law it is practically impossible for an innocent man to be hanged, although a great many guilty ones escape; but that the knowledge that a person is liable to be hanged for committing a murder undoubtedly has a deterrent effect.
I have always been concerned that the verdict of any court seems to depend more on the relative eloquence of contending counsel than on the merits of the case. Some amendments to criminal law or procedure, such as introducing degrees of homicide, with the death penalty retained only for first degree murder, may be desirable. I do not believe, however, that there should be a discretion left to the judge or jury to specify death or imprisonment. One week a jury would let the murderer off; the next jury would hang him. Even judges would be inconsistent. Criminal justice must be conducted according to fixed and known standards, not by popular clamour or individual caprice.
The present system of administration of justice involves trial by judge and jury. If the verdict is "guilty" the prisoner may appeal to the court of appeal on any ground of law for a new trial, and to the Supreme Court of Canada if the court of appeal is not unanimous. If the verdict is upheld the prisoner's counsel may, and generally does, appeal to the governor general in council for executive clemency on any ground whatever. The

Minister of Justice thereupon obtains the full record of the case, always with a report from the trial judge, especially concerning any mitigating circumstances such as the jury's recommendation of mercy and any other reports necessary. The whole matter is then considered by the departmental expert in criminal affairs, then by the deputy minister of justice, then by the minister himself, and his report is considered by the whole cabinet. The minister then advises the Governor General to confirm or commute the sentence. The prisoner has then three months in which to prepare for death, a period longer than that in which the repentant thief on the cross found pardon and peace.
Although the present system of administration is probably quite adequate, I believe the whole substantive law on insanity requires a thorough overhaul in the light of modem medical and psychological insights. The law contends that irresistible impulse is unresisted impulse and that a person is insane and, therefore, innocent if he would attempt murder with a policeman at his elbow. This is plausible, but it does not go deep enough. The Macnaughton rules for determining guilt need revising.
Modern criminology recognizes four aims of punishments; protective, deterrent, reformative and retributive. Obviously if a murderer is hanged, society is completely protected from his repeating his crime on his escape or reprieve. I refer to the cases of Red Ryan and Courtauld. If the number of long term prisoners were substantially increased the chances of their again committing murder would be increased in their attempting to escape prison or recapture or by making a livelihood from armed robbery. It is important at this stage to remember that we would be dealing with desperate men who had nothing further to lose.
The deterrent effect of the death penalty on others is inconclusive, I admit, although I do believe it is significant that the home secretary of Great Britain, Mr. R. A. Butler, admitted that indictable crimes had risen by 14.8 per cent and robberies by 29 per cent since Great Britain modified its capital punishment law in 1957. At least it can be said that the psychic shock of hanging is as great a deterrent as that of life imprisonment.
What about reformation? The whole rationale of abolishing the death penalty is based on the sanctity of human life, yet there is a shocking discrepancy between a cold blooded murder and a few years' imprisonment. To have the support of society, justice must not only be done but must appear to be done, and there must be a right proportion between the penalty imposed and the gravity of the offence.

If one is to have due regard to the sanctity of human life and not outrage the sensitivity of society, the only alternative to the death sentence is life imprisonment, literally, without any reprieve. If the murderer repents and reforms he has greater scope to make restitution in prison by helping others reform than he would have outside. But is not a quick and dramatic exit from this life, after due time to prepare for death, less cruel than condemning one to be a living ghost, and condemning others to the half-life of a prison guard?
Retribution has now been discredited, but I am not so sure that there is not something to be said in favour of certain aspects of it. People say that we are now too civilized for vengeance, yet in this age we caused thousands of women and children to die a terrible death at Hiroshima and our enemies murdered 6 million innocent Jews with cool, clinical detachment in a most hygienic, scientific way.
The words of Christ, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", will be quoted many times in this debate. But Christ also said, "With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you", and the scriptures which Christ came to fulfil state, "For blood, it defileth the earth, and the earth cannot be cleansed but by the blood of him that shed it".
I think it is significant that only one church in Canada, to my knowledge, has come out unequivocally, as a church, in expressing itself in favour of the complete abolition of the death penalty. It is also significant that this church does not emphasize that lofty tragic view of life of the older churches whose theology is in such accord with the essential nature and destiny of man.
Sir Walter Moberly, although he is against the death penalty for murder, states the case for retribution very clearly in these words:
It is the function of the state to "stigmatize crime, not only as dangerous to the perpetrator, but as execrably wicked. It seeks not only to demonstrate that crime is 'an ill-bargain for the offender', but to excite against it a sentiment of horror."-"It is the verdict rather than the sentence which matters most". But the verdict is embodied in dramatic action. "The execution of the murderer is a solemn ritual act. Its object is not only to demonstrate that murder does not pay but to stamp it as shameful. The penalty is not only death but death with ignominy." And finally "the moral status of capital punishment will depend not on what it is in itself, but on what it signifies. The real test is not its direct effect in deterring potential murderers but its long term influence on the conscience of the community."
Let me attempt to express it in my own words in this manner. When a brutal murder is committed and no one is apprehended the feelings of a sensitive, civilized community
Ca-pital Punishment
are, and should be, profoundly shocked. The whole basis of order for which society was originally founded is frustrated and the law is brought into disrepute. This, I contend is a completely legitimate reaction. Similarly if through the incompentence of a crown prosecutor or the perverseness of a jury the accused against whom all the evidence points in a murder gets off scot-free, the community is outraged. This is also a legitimate reaction. If a person convicted of a brutal murder is given a life sentence which will be commuted in 10 or 15 years and the community is equally shocked, is not their reaction justified? Call it retribution, vengeance, or what you will.
If a convicted murderer is not executed but is imprisoned for life, the result is that the criminal is housed, fed, clothed, educated and amused for life at the expense of the state, whereas the wife and family of the murdered policeman or other quiet citizen have nothing done for them. Is this just or right?
Some will say that money and human life cannot be equated. Very well, then, Mr. Speaker; let the convicted murderer be executed and the money that would have been spent on his life imprisonment given to the next of kin of his murdered victim, since society is implicated in every crime and we are our brother's keepers.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? If I understood the hon. gentleman correctly he said that only one church in Canada has come out in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. Did I understand him correctly?


Grant Campbell: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, various committees of various churches have stated views for and against capital punishment, but to the best of my information only one Canadian church has taken an official position as a church in favour of the outright abolition of capital punishment. If I am incorrect in that understanding I shall be pleased to be corrected.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he file with you, Mr. Speaker, all the letters he has had from churches? I will file all of mine and he will find that there is only one against abolition.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss indeed if I did not with my very first words congratulate the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) upon bringing this very important bill before the house. A week ago today when he made his presentation I thought that he should be congratulated not only on the

Capital Punishment
ground he covered but for the excellent way he dealt with the bill he was presenting. I would also be remiss if I did not congratulate all hon. members who have taken part in the debate so far. I think it is one of the finest and most intelligent debates I have listened to, with no political bitterness whatsoever entering into it.
I was particularly impressed by the speech made by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney). Of course, he is acknowledged to be not only a successful but, indeed, a brilliant lawyer in the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario. I thought the way he covered the subject was not only intelligent but very informative to all members of the house. I would not want to say that the other speeches were not equally as good as 1 think everybody who has taken part in the debate has done a lot of research on the subject and they deserve much credit.
In taking part in the debate I must start out in a way I do not like to, in an apologetic tone, and say to members of the house that I do not regard myself as an authority on capital punishment in general or hanging in particular. We all know that there is certainly nothing pleasant about discussing crime generally or murder in particular, but we do have crime because of failures. To me those failures include failure to prevent delinquency, failure to correct delinquency, and certainly beyond that there is failure to detect crime and to prosecute the criminal.
Ordinarily when one comes to discuss a legal matter, as this question of capital punishment certainly is, one does so coldly, logically, without heat and, indeed, from the head and from the heart. Of course, there are logical approaches which one may consider if one cares to, those cold things called statistics which can be made to prove anything. As I have read some of the statistics I have come to the conclusion that the incidence of violent crime seems not to be greatly affected whether or not the threat of the gallows is present.
There is also in my estimation purely as a layman what I think could be described as the economic approach under which it is generally conceded that at least some murderers are worthless individuals from whom society should be protected, and it may be a fair question as to how much society should pay for the protection to which it is admittedly entitled. Should it pay the slight and final cost of the hangman and the rope or the very great cost of keeping the proved deliberate killer in confinement for his natural life or until authority is otherwise pleased? This of course raises the question whether it is safe to let loose again on society one who,

at least in circumstances which may recur, will be moved to kill again. If he is to be kept forever in custody, is that for the benefit of anyone, even himself, and if he is ever to be released, who shall weigh the risk?
Then there is the religious approach, if it may be so described, to which so many hon. members have referred. Certainly it is at least the biblical one. "Who sheddeth man's blood, by man let his blood be shed." So I come back to where I started, to my emotions rather than to my cold feelings with regard to the bill, and I am sure that other members have encountered this difficulty.
I was greatly interested in reading the book, "The Shadow of the Gallows", by Viscount Templewood, who was home secretary from 1937 to 1939. On capital punishment he has this to say:
Mr. Quintin Hogg, like everyone else, hated the death penalty. But the house would be clothed with "dishonour and humiliation" if it abolished it now, having acquiesced in the Nuremberg executions. The irrevocability of the penalty was a reason for every possible precaution against injustice, not for abolition. As regards deterrence, "statistics are not cogent... Patiently, honourably and scrupulously collected as they have been they only fuddle us." He preferred to look into his own heart, and there he found that if he were a professional burglar, with terms of penal servitude behind him and no death penalty to fear, he would take the chance of carrying a gun and shooting any witness of his crime.
We only have to refer back to some of the crimes of the past such as the case of Crippen and certainly that of Mrs. Thompson-I am sure the hon. member for Parkdale is well aware of these cases-to consider that theirs were crimes of sudden passion or of torment. Then there was the case of Sedden who poisoned an old and trusting woman for a few pitiful pounds, and the case of Laroque who insured the young farm labourer Bergeron for a few thousand dollars and then brutally murdered him. I have no faith that even the longest term in prison would reform such a person and I would think the result of failure too great to permit an experiment. If they are not to be reformed, if they are to die slowly in prison rather than quickly and humanely on the gallows, is that life or is it rather a living death?
Society has its rights and as individuals we have our rights, and it seems to me that it is the right and, indeed, may well be the duty of society to purge itself of those elements which are dangerous to it and my heart and my deepest instincts tell me that for some murderers death is the proper punishment.
Just a few days ago-I think it was last Monday-I was very much interested in reading a report in the Buffalo Courier respecting a bill now before the California senate and legislature to abolish capital punishment. In

polling the California senators and legislators with respect to this bill the result was that 21 of the 41 senators in that state said that they would vote against legislation to ban capital punishment. Nine said that they would vote for such a bill and seven took no stand. In the legislature 78 members were polled. Thirty three were against capital punishment, 16 for and five took no stand whatsoever. I might add that in the California legislature bills to ban the death penalty have been defeated eight times in the last 27 years. Many of the lawmakers of that state claimed that the issue of the death penalty should be decided by the people and suggested that it should be placed on the ballot in the coming November election in the United States.
My approach to the bill before us or to the question under discussion has been that of a conscientious citizen of this country. I am deeply intent, as I am sure other members of the house are, upon raising the national standard of dignity and morals, and one who studies the facts of both the past and the present should base his conclusions on actual experience rather than theory and sentiment. I cannot help but feel from reading statements in the papers and listening to the splendid speeches in the house pertaining to the bill that the opinion of the majority of judges, prison governors and police officers is against the abolition of the death penalty. Certainly their views are entitled to the fullest measure of respect. These gentlemen see the worst side of human nature and their primary duty is the maintenance of law and order. The result is that almost invariably they have been nervous about changes in our penal methods, though evidence has shown at times that at least some of their fears were groundless.
Many people are either for or against the bill, and I certainly do not want to say that they have reached their opinion through ignorance but rather on their reluctance to study the facts. For many years penal questions, and particularly the question of capital punishment, have often been treated with indifference or have been submerged in a highly charged atmosphere of sentiment and prejudice.
It must be a terrific strain and burden, not only on a judge or jury but on the cabinet itself, when they have to consider the question of whether a murderer is to die or will be given life imprisonment. What I hope is that this government will give us some leadership and that they will bring in a definite bill amending the Criminal Code which would speak with authority, clearness and compulsion. Some of the people who consider capital punishment necessary consider the method of execution in Canada and elsewhere
Capital Punishment
as inhuman, indeed, as a barbarous method. Many people have asked that some other method be devised such as the electric chair or gas chamber, because they consider such methods less gruesome than hanging. However, whatever method is used, if it is to be a punishment or a deterrent, it should be as effective as possible.
Any suggestion of an alternative to the death penalty should include an initial reference to a preventative which would give considerable attention to the identification of potential murderers, and other serious offenders, upon their first contact with the law, with a view to treatment or long term incarceration designed to prevent the commission of more serious acts. Dr. Joseph Cotton, who was considered an authority on this subject and who made a detailed study of many of the case histories of prisoners, believes that 40 per cent of murderers in the United States could have been detected and their crimes prevented by proper treatment when the offender first came into contact with the law.
Those who oppose the substitution of life imprisonment for the death penalty have given many reasons for their opposition. They mention the difficulty of preventing escape; the effect which the convicted murderer is apt to have upon other inmates and the cost of keeping that murderer. They suggest that life imprisonment is less humane than killing and refer to the danger associated with the inmate's eventual release in the community. Those who oppose capital punishment answer that these offenders may be kept in special security cells and taught a trade while they are being treated. I read an article not very long ago which had been written by the late Warden E. Lawes of Sing Sing prison. He stated that murderers make the best prisoners. They are the least troublesome to any warden and often accomplish a great deal behind bars. I also noted that he stated, and I quote:
I know of no convicted murderers released during my period in Sing Sing who reverted to crime.
As I said during the throne speech debate, in my opinion, this bill is one of the most important that has come before the house in many years. I was quite amused a day or two later to see an editorial to the effect that it was thought I had exaggerated the case to some extent. I was very happy, therefore, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) say that this was one of the most important bills to come before the house in the last 20 years, and to hear the leader of the C.C.F. agree with him. Certainly when one man deliberately murders another the question arises, not only with the government but with parliament itself, what is to be done

Capital Punishment
about it? The paramount question is, how should the murderer be treated in the interest of peace, order, public safety and, last but not least, good government. This problem faces me as an ordinary layman, and is one that cannot easily be solved simply by argument, reason or facts. It is a case simply of one hon. member's opinion against another. However, these opinions must be based on facts, consideration, good judgment and good understanding. In addition, we cannot escape from the fact that sentiment, conscience and feeling are involved.
Many people claim, and I do not agree with this, that the reason we do have murderers is that too often the Canadian home does not occupy its proper place in our national life as it did at the turn of the century. They say we are in a state of moral depression and that the breakdown of the home is both a cause and a result. In many instances, any resemblance of religious training is barred in these homes and the mention of God is frowned upon, while espousers of godless communism carry on under the guise of academic freedom. I want to be clear and state definitely that I have read many articles on this subject. The ones that have impressed me most were those in which the writers have suggested we should agree on a five-year experiment which would retain the death penalty for treason, the double offender, and certainly for a man who shoots an officer while he is performing his duties.
Brutality is definitely a nasty word, and I think we should do everything in the world to get away from it. However, such a bill as this should not have its fate decided merely upon the thinking and opinions of ordinary laymen like myself. I realize it is my duty to assume my responsibility in voting upon any question that comes before this house, but I believe this issue deserves the leadership of this government. I am hoping, as other members have mentioned, that we will at least hear from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer). According to rumours, although rumours are sometimes false, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are at odds concerning this bill. One will be proved to be wrong and the other right, and at least for once there is going to be one member of the treasury benches who has the right opinion concerning a bill brought before this house.
I was talking to an officer in the Salvation Army at Niagara Falls, one of the finest gentlemen in that organization. He said he was entirely in favour of this bill brought in by Mr. McGee. He said he based his opinion on the fact that not long ago he had to

spend the last six or seven hours with a man who was condemned to be hanged. He said, "Never again would I want to go through that." Then, too, perhaps I am more impressed with this bill because of the fact that as a young fellow I was only a short distance away from President McKinley when he was shot at the Pan-American exposition at Buffalo. Naturally, I have never forgotten that experience and I, like the rest of the people, would have liked to join in a riot against the murderer of that great president.
We now have to consider a revision of these attitudes which alternate between indifference and excitement and substitute therefor a dispassionate study of the lessons to be derived from the experience of other countries in which the death penalty has been abolished. We must review our own position in the light of present day facts which must guide us in our consideration of what we should do concerning capital punishment.
(Translation):


Mr. Roger Parizeau (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I shall limit myself to a few remarks so that other hon. members may also frankly and sincerely express their views on this bill.
Hon. members will doubtlessly remember that early in the last war, Canadian prisons were offering some of their inmates conditional release provided they joined the army.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege, during my war service, to have under my command men from all walks of life. I liked to talk over their problems with them and looked with special interest into the problems of habitual offenders, because I wanted to understand just why they had chosen to lead a life of crime. I am therefore able to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that most of those who did so were influenced by their family conditions or by the environment in which they had grown up, and many times by the lack of charity in our society, because they had been convicted when they were young and had to contend all their life with a criminal record. As they could not find any employment, they had chosen to lead a life of crime.
Our habitual offenders all said: "What we fear most are the lash and the gallows. Those are the things that keep us from carrying out our plans." Others even told me, to the last detail, the crimes they intended to commit when they would go back to civilian life.
I have just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the main factors that lead some people into a life of crime. Before abolishing capital punish-

ment, would it not be better to amend the Criminal Code and make it provide for the destruction of the police records of young delinquents who improved their ways? Would it not be also preferable, before abolishing capital punishment, to try to improve our reform schools, and make our young delinquents understand that society and law enforcement authorities aim at their welfare when they try to reform them. Let us help our young people by recreation, and pursue our slum-clearance policy, and we will prevent crime.
Would it not be wiser, in order to prevent murder, to add to the sentence of all who have been convicted at least three times for robbery one stroke of the lash a year for each offence?
Be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of criminals would think twice before committing armed robbery and would thus often escape the gallows.
Is it not said in chapter I of the Book of Kings: "He who is depraved is not corrected by words. If thou beatest thy son with the rod, he shall not die."
Let us obey those wise words with regard to those who habitually commit robbery and thus keep them from the gallows.
Psychiatrists contend that children must be brought up by reasoning. I share their views, but a good spanking from time to time is worth many words. Let us do the same with those who habitually commit robbery and we shall same them from the rope.
An attempt is being made here to abolish capital punishment by amending the Criminal Code. Before taking such action, we should give it serious consideration, because there are different kinds of murder. There is a great difference between a crime committed in cold blood for profit, and one committed in a moment of blind fury.
Abolition of capital punishment is advocated at a time when some men are prepared to blow up aircraft carrying 30, 40 or 50 people.
There is a desire to abolish capital punishment when killers, hired for a few hundred dollars, are willing to rub out any designated victim. I believe that in America the underworld is too well organized for us to even consider abolishing the death sentence.
What do you think of those young hoodlums who are addicted to narcotics and who, every day, threaten decent people with weapons of all kinds?
If we abolish capital punishment, they will kill for sport alone, and then the state will keep them all their lives in a deluxe cell.
Capital Punishment
Do you believe that the guards and even wardens of our jails would be safe? Those offenders would gladly kill their keepers just to be considered heroes among the underworld.
Some people say that according to the principles of the Christian faith killing is prohibited because the Lord said: "Thou shalt not kill". Some also argue that Cain was the first murderer and that God did not mete out death unto him. It is true; but later, when He came on earth, God gave authority, as shown in St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 to 6.
Let every soul be subject onto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. For if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
There, Mr. Speaker, the authority of human justice is set out for all to read. Justice has the power of life and death.
For those who take the liberty of falsely interpreting the Scriptures or who are opposed to capital punishment in the name of ethics, I shall quote here a very timely statement of the Canadian bishops in which no definite stand is taken for or against capital punishment:
The state has a right to condemn to death and the state has the right, even the obligation and the duty, to take appropriate measures for the efficient protection of the life of its citizens and respect for the right.
I feel therefore that we should maintain capital punishment. Let us abolish death by hanging if you wish. Let us adopt a more humane method and establish a difference between premeditated murder and crimes of passion.
Let us provide a deterrent to murder by ordering the lash for aggravated theft and revise our legislation in favour of our juvenile delinquents; if we help society to prevent crime, fifty years from now we could consider doing away with capital punishment.


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, in 1955-56, a joint committee of both houses made a close study of capital punishment, corporal punishment and sweepstakes. During 45 of its 73 sittings, it

Capital Punishment
went into all aspects of capital puishment and, in its report of July 1956, I find in section 63 the following recommendation:
While the committee considered that capital punishment should be subjected to periodic review by parliament, it recommends that the death penalty should be retained as the mandatory punishment for the crime of murder.
That committee heard experts, specialists, psychiatrists and jurists give their views on all aspects of capital punishment, and it seems that the report met with the approval of the general public. And, if my memory serves me right, nothing more was said about it between 1956 and 1958. However, in the last two years, a new stand, on the part of the government, on capital punishment has again brought this problem to the fore. Indeed this debate is the result of numerous commutations by the cabinet, in accordance with the royal prerogative of mercy, in connection with death sentences pronounced by our courts. I should like to make myself quite clear on this point. I am not criticizing the cabinet for exercising the royal prerogative in cases where it considered it proper to do so. In fact, last summer, I myself, as a lawyer submitted a request for commutation of sentence to the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Balcer).
But I must say that the systematic exercise of royal prerogative by the cabinet, which commuted to life imprisonment death sentences pronounced by our courts, places us today in a paradoxical situation and, at this time, the following question comes to my mind: After the joint committee of both houses had recommended the maintenance of capital punishment, adding that the matter should be periodically reviewed by parliament, why did the government not take the initiative of introducing a bill, if it had come to the conclusion that greater clemency should be exercised in favour of accused found guilty of murder and condemned to death?
In other words, if, in the last two years, the government has adopted, a new approach to this matter, I think the purposes of justice would have been better served through some amendment to the law, in parliament, rather than through orders in council.
Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that we were in a paradoxical situation. That is quite evident, for at this very moment when we are discussing this bill, we have in Canada partial abolition of capital punishment, but without parliament having had anything to

do with it, contrary to the recommendation of the joint committee of both houses, whose report was submitted in July 1956.
Besides, this statement can easily be proved, since there is already a precedent, and it is no longer possible now to back down. In fact, if tomorrow, before any court of Canada, an accused were found guilty of murder and condemned to death, and if the circumstances of his murder were similar to any one of those cases where cabinet thought it proper to commute the sentence, the cabinet could not refuse commutation of the death sentence, because what is good for one must also be good for the other. This, I think, is the very essence of justice.
I therefore submit that, for the good administration of justice, the government should introduce in parliament a bill confirming the new approach it has adopted for the last two years on the matter of capital punishment.
And this brings me to the question raised by the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). Should we abolish capital punishment?
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the abolition of capital punishment in all cases of murder where circumstances of the crime are similar to those of cases where royal mercy has been exercised by the government, but I believe we should keep on our statute books the death sentence for crimes that are particularly revolting and odious. Several of the previous speakers referred to the case of that devilish plot which, a few years ago, near Quebec, resulted in the explosion of a flying aircraft, causing the death of about fifty persons. That was a deliberate crime, whose execution, no doubt, required a very well conceived plan, and perhaps a few months' preparation. In such a case, I cannot possibly conceive that our statutes should not include some provisions which would be in keeping with the enormity of the crime.
Therefore, I favour the maintenance of capital punishment for heinous and revolting crimes of the type I have just mentioned.
As for all other murder cases where there are extenuating circumstances in favour of the accused, I think that we have reached a point today where we should give further careful consideration to this whole question. In those cases, I would be in favour of a life sentence.
In view of the many commutations the cabinet saw fit to grant in the last two years,

I submit it is imperative that the government introduce before parliament, as soon as possible, a bill to amend section 206 of the Criminal Code and, instead of trying to find a new definition of murder, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), with the help of his advisers, might consider the possibility of leaving the judge free to inflict the death penalty or a life sentence, according to the gravity and the circumstances of the crime.
Mr. Speaker, I shall therefore have to vote against the bill, because I am in favour of only partial abolition of the death penalty (Text):


Mr. Paul Martineau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all commend the sponsor of this bill for bringing this all-important matter of capital punishment to the attention of this house where it is receiving a full dress debate, as indeed it ought to. I can readily visualize how the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) was prodded by his conscience due to his own past close experiences with offences involving capital punishment. There may also even be in his subconscious mind reflections of his famed ancestor, a father of confederation and great Canadian statesman who fell at the stroke of an axe.
That this matter should be brought before this house is indeed fitting, and it is also fitting that this particular question has stirred the greatest interest of any issue placed before the public in many years. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was well advised when he said that everyone who by his own conscience wishes to express his ideas on the subject should be given an opportunity.
Like the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough, I think murder is certainly a ghoulish thing. It is something which is revolting and I also think that the whole matter of capital punishment may perhaps be categorized in the same way. Everything connected with capital punishment is revolting to the common standards of decency. From the moment when the trial judge dons his tricorne black hat and pronounces the awful words that signify death to the accused standing at the bar, right until the moment when the accused does pay the supreme penalty to society, it is a succession of anguish for the criminal awaiting death. Certainly it is something that cannot be faced lightly by any normal man. It is a ghastly business. But although hanging is a ghastly business, I say there is something still more ghastly and that is premeditated and foul murder with malice aforethought.
Capital Punishment
That is why I have probed by own conscience. I did not even know what stand I should take on this issue. I thought it was common, human decency to give the man who has committed the crime of murder another chance, not to make him pay the supreme penalty. At the same time I could not help thinking that the thought of what awaits the man who dares commit murder is a powerful deterrent to him. That is why I must oppose the present bill.
This fear of having to give up one's life is not something new. Shakespeare, that great immortal interpreter of human sentiments, once wrote something along those lines:
To die, to sleep:
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause.
Those are the important words-
Must give us pause.
Must give pause, too, to the intending murderer. However, it must be remembered that capital punishment is not a deterrent to the criminal who lives in a distorted, twisted world of his own, nor can it be a deterrent to people who under intense provocation use violence on the spur of the moment which results in the death of their victims.
Nevertheless, capital punishment is a deterrent to those who premeditate their crimes, to those whose crafty minds calculate what possible gain or lucre may result from their actions. I said "crafty" and I mean crafty, because these are the people who weigh in the balance the likely advantages of their crime against the possibility of the death sentence if they are found out. If such people believe they can commit murder without being detected they are likely to do so, and that is the reason why capital punishment should be retained as a deterrent to such actions.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member permit a question? In view of what the hon. member is saying-and I know he is a most sincere man-would he tell us, as a result of his study, how many cases of homicide in Canada were based on premeditated murder in the last ten years, or 50 years, or any period he cares to take?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I will try to answer that question. I do not know how many cases there were precisely because statistics have no role in determining how many murders are prevented by capital punishment. Murders that are not committed do not appear in statistics.


Harold Edward Winch: It is all on the record.

Capital Punishment


Paul Raymond Martineau: Besides this is the light in which I see the problem. It is an absolute certainty that if this particular bill is voted down, not one additional murder will be committed. But how many hon. members who are listening to me here can say, consulting their own consciences, that if such a bill as this becomes law some murders which otherwise might not have been committed may be committed? That is a point with regard to which I should like to hear the views of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) at a later stage. If we leave things as they are, we know that as a result of our inaction the number of murders committed will not increase. On the other hand, if we carry out this reform there is good basis for saying that more murders may result. Therefore, this bill must be opposed.
I do not pretend to say that everything in the present law concerning murder, capital punishment and the rehabilitation of prisoners is right. There is a need for reform. Experts are constantly studying this field. Certainly in the case of psychopaths and in the case of a man who kills under intense provocation, capital punishment should not be imposed. Nor, in my opinion, should capital punishment be imposed in any case where conviction may have been due to judicial error. In other words, I should like to see as a part of the law of the land a certain section in our criminal legislation to the effect that a board should be empowered to review all cases and be obliged by statute to remit capital punishment in every case where there was the slightest doubt. That is going further than what the jury has to decide, because a jury must decide whether or not there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I say that the role of such a board of review-and this is only a suggestion-should be to commute the sentence in every case where there was the slightest doubt that an innocent man might die.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do we not, in effect, have such a provision now, with the remission branch?


Paul Raymond Martineau: That may be so, but I do not think that at present the regulations or the statutes are explicit enough in this particular matter.
The bill also has a wider implication than that of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. There is also the question whether or not we are living in a society where the individual has responsibility. Surely we cannot say that all people who commit crimes are sick people. There will still remain a distinction between right and wrong and, surely, a man in his sound mind knows when he is

committing a murder that he is doing something wrong. He is, perhaps, accepting the chance of being found guilty and of paying the supreme penalty.
If we abandon this principle of the responsibility of the individual who commits a murder we may as well abandon it with respect to any crime and, indeed, with respect to any person who has a job to do and who feels it is perhaps more comfortable not to do that job and who may then commit crimes of omission. Once the responsibility of the individual is remitted there is no standard upon which to guide the progress of society. That is why we should hesitate before giving this bill the force of law.
It is all very well to say: this is the trend of the times; our way of life has become softer; violence is a reversion. These are all nice words. We are proud of our society and of its progress, but we should not forget that this line of reasoning has led to what society is today, a society where we have invented the nuclear bomb. This may be the end to which this whole line of reasoning has led. It is a frightening thought that society can today only continue to exist while facing the prospect of destruction by massive atomic weapons. Yet that is the situation which faces the world today. It may have arisen because we have got away from basic principles and because there is confusion in our thinking regarding right and wrong and concerning man as a responsible person, which is the distinguishing mark of man as compared with the other creatures of this earth.
In conclusion, I can only say that I hate hanging. But even more do I hate murder, and I think this parliament should have no brief for the man who murders foully, with premeditation and with the full knowledge of all the consequences in his own perverted mind. For this reason I think all hon. members should oppose this measure and I, for one, intend to do so.
(Translation):


Adrien Meunier: Mr. Speaker, the bill now being considered is extremely important. We have to decide whether we should maintain capital punishment for the man who takes another man's life, or try to rehabilitate him, knowing that this attempt of rehabilitation involves many risks.
Most hon. members know that a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate studied that question in 1954 and 1955 and made a final report on its findings in 1956.

Many of the previous speakers have looked up that report and extracted from it arguments either in favour or against abolition of capital punishment.
The report stated in its findings that capital punishment should be maintained but that we should change its method of application.
Since this bill was introduced in the house by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), it was given much publicity in the newspapers, on radio and on television, so that we had a chance to find out how the man in the street reacted to it.
Most of my constituents and of other people I have talked to are against this measure because they feel it is premature. They argue that a man who takes another man's life deserves to lose his own. In pursuing conversations with these people, I had the impression that they feel the matter should receive further consideration and, therefore, that they are not prepared to support this bill.
The mover of this bill has stated his arguments in favour of his proposal. His first reason is that "capital punishment is not an effective deterrent and certainly not a unique deterrent". I quite agree, it is not a unique deterrent, but that is a far cry from saying that it is not an effective deterrent. Often, in the course of my legal practice, young men involved in conspiracies to commit break-ins, simple thefts or armed robberies, have told me that some of their friends had refused to join them for the simple reason that some of them were carrying a gun, something which often leads to murder. They were prevented from taking part in that kind of conspiracy through fear of the serious consequences of such a crime.
Moreover, the committee that studied this matter, after hearing sociologists, psychiatrists, criminologists and experts in this field, concluded that: "Capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime, a result which neither imprisonment nor other punishments can give".
Another reason put forward by the mover of this bill is that capital punishment is based on vengeance and retribution.
Society has no vengeance to exercise against anyone. Capital punishment gained approval as a punishment, not because of a desire to exercise vengeance, but as an indication of society's disapproval for this type of crime.
The general feeling is that everyone looks upon murder with horror. We were told of the feelings of a prisoner condemned to the gallows, but we must not forget the
Capital Punishment
feelings of the victim and of his family. What about the children who are left fatherless because of some atrocious crime? What are the consequences for the future of these children who are deprived of their father, of their support? Who knows, perhaps the future of the family may be jeopardized forever.
Another reason put forward is the possibility of judicial error. I have attended several murder trials, and have always been impressed with the many precautions taken in conducting that kind of trial. The presiding judge has no prejudice against the accused; as far as he is concerned, it is just another case, and the whole procedure follows the requirements of the Criminal Code. Jurors are selected with utmost care and are questioned with regard to their views on capital punishment; they are asked whether they already have an opinion on the case, or whether they have other views that might cause prejudice to the accused; moreover, they can at any time be rejected by the defence.
It is the responsibility of the presiding judge to explain the law to the jury, to comment on the facts without expressing an opinion, and this is always done.
Besides, the accused is always given the benefit of the doubt; and if he thinks he is being wronged, he can always appeal and have his first trial reviewed by another court. The whole trial is then reviewed by the Department of Justice and the governor in council may, by royal prerogative, grant a commutation of sentence. As can be seen, Mr. Speaker, the right of the accused is well respected by his peers.
I believe that our penal system is perfect in that regard and that the accused is treated fairly. However, like previous speakers, I think that hanging is antiquated, gruesome and altogether objectionable. I suggest that our Criminal Code should be amended to provide some other method of execution.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this bill, because I believe that we should maintain capital punishment, not in a spirit of revenge on the part of society, but as a deterrent to other crimes.
(Text):


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, our Commons debate on capital punishment for the crime of murder is now in its second day. We now know that the debate will terminate in a division, that the division bells will soon ring out their clamorous call



Capital Punishment
through the corridors of this building summoning us to come to the house and vote. How shall we vote? We are divided in this house. In the cities, towns and hamlets of Canada, across the miles of our beloved land, from ocean to furious ocean, our people await the decision that will follow the ringing of the division bells.
Before we vote may one man speak quietly for man? What are we deciding? Is man incorruptible? Is man perfect? Is he perfectible? Is man everlastingly the keeper of his brother? If he is not, and if the heart, mind and body are sometimes used in such a way that man is a little less than the angels, shall we who are made in same image take judgment upon the one temporal thing that makes man different from the animal and defines him as an individual, consciousness and life?
In the quiet places I think all of us have thought as deeply as we can about this question. We should have a melting for man. Hear the words of a very great man, Albert Schweitzer, who said:
For months on end I lived in a continual state of mental excitement. Without the least success I let my thinking be concentrated, even all through my daily work at the hospital, on the real nature of the affirmative attitude and of ethics, and on the question of what they have in common. ... I was staying with my wife on the coast at cape Lopez for the sake of her health-it was in September, 1915-when I was summoned to visit Madame Pelot, the ailing wife of a missionary ... about 160 miles upstream. The only means of conveyance I could find was a small steamer, towing an overladen barge, which was on the point of starting. Except myself, there were only natives on board, but among them was Emil Ogouma, my friend from Lambarene. Since I had been in too much of a hurry to provide myself with enough food for the journey, they let me share the contents of their cooking pot. Slowly we crept upstream, laboriously feeling... for the channels between the sandbanks. Lost in thought I sat on the deck of the barge, struggling to find the elementary and universal conception of the ethical which I had not discovered in any philosophy. Sheet after sheet I covered with disconnected sentences, merely to keep myself concentrated on the problem. Late on the third day, at the very moment when, at sunset, we were making our way through a herd of hippopotamuses, there flashed upon my mind, unforseen and unsought, the phrase, "Reverence for Life." The iron door had yielded: the path in the thicket had become visible.
Many of us want the death penalty abolished for the crime of murder. We want it abolished because in the hands of the state calculatedly to take an individual human life seems to us to defy reverence for life and reverence for life is the whole essence of man. The retentionists among us, for whose views and opinions we have wide respect, argue that after all murderers have no reverence for life and therefore the state ought to be guided by a similar code. What shall we say to this argument-that it tries

to recompense the private, individual and wrongful taking of life by a public, calculated, scheduled taking of life by the state. If the taking of life is the essence, on what shifty ground do we stand if we decide that what is wrong for the individual becomes right for the state?
In this house as in our land there are men and women of many creeds and many faiths. We all agree on one thing, that in a society such as ours which attests to any spiritual purpose, if there is any reason for life in a society with any concept of spiritual faith, then the state must be governed by the same moral imperatives that govern the individual. Man is not perfectible; man is not perfect. But the retentionists throughout the debate have failed to establish the one base upon which their case could be proven, and that is that capital punishment for the crime of murder is a unique deterrent.
My faith teaches me that the state possesses the authority from God to take the life of a criminal only when such a penalty is necessary to preserve the common good of all. If it should be discovered that long imprisonment serves equally well in deterring crime then the death penalty would have to be abolished, for as soon as the need for it ceases the state no longer possesses God's authority to use it.
Earlier today in this debate it was said by one of those who support the retention of capital punishment for the crime of murder that the drive to end capital punishment was typical of certain degenerate and dangerous ideas current in this century and especially on this continent. Is it degenerate to preach mercy? Capital punishment is punitive, purgative and primitive. When we vote in this house we ourselves will be deciding whether we shall be the hangman, for if we retain capital punishment after a long and public debate on it then every man who goes to the gallows, every many who dies at the hands of the state, shall have his fate conferred upon him by the members of the house. We are indeed making ourselves the hangman if we retain capital punishment.
I do not say this in any terrifying way, but it is in our hands to take away the death penalty for the crime of murder and I am one of those who believe that it should be taken away. I do not believe that the state has the right or should act out the right calculatedly to do that which is wrong when done by an individual, and unless it can be proved that capital punishment is a unique deterrent-and it cannot be proven-then the reason for the retention of the death penalty is abolished. The state would then no longer possess God's authority to use it.


In ancient days men used to place thousands of their fellow men in arenas for a classic blood bath. Convicted and unconvicted alike were subjected to primitive forms of the death penalty, being dragged along by chariot, staked out, burned. In our century we have come to hanging and then to the gas chamber and electrocution. We do it all in the still of the night so as to conceal our shame.
The essence of the argument for the death penalty for the crime of murder is human life. This is what defines the question before us. Man is different because he is possessed of some spark of divinity. We ought not to take into our own hands the capacity to snuff out that divinity.
Our police, our protective staffs and their families, the families and relatives of the victims of past murders, are naturally concerned. We all have a great sympathy for their concern. But to say that the death penalty should be retained to provide protection for them, I believe to be illogical, because surely we are condemning our protective system. Surely, we can arrive at some way of giving assurance to these people without exacting the death penalty.
My whole case, both in the debate during this session and the debate during the last session for the elimination of the death penalty for the crime of murder is based upon my conception of man. Man is different because he possesses divine life. We ought not, calculatedly, to take it from him.


Frank Howard: I have
listened, Mr. Speaker, with extreme interest to the views which have been expressed so far. I, for one, and I am sure each member of the house as well as the people of the country are pleased that the debate has followed the lines suggested by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) when he introduced the bill and suggested the debate should not be politically partisan, but should be one in which each member reflected his own inner thoughts on the subject. This, of course, is not to indicate that if a political party wants of itself to make a determination on this question, that is not quite all right.
However, I think the tenor of the debate, following the suggestion by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, will be most conducive to a truer reflection of the feelings of the members of this house when we do get a vote on this bill than would have been the case if the discussion had been carried on on a political basis. I should like to express my congratulations to the hon. member for York-Scarborough upon his introduction and also, I am sure, express the appreciation of hon. members of this house who have been interested in this subject for more years than
Capital Punishment
I have in seeing this particular issue proceed to the stage it has already reached because we may finally be able to express ourselves by means of a vote. I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who has been a proponent of this idea for many years, and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney), who also made an excellent contribution, are happy to see that we are reaching a stage when we might be making a definite decision one way or the other.
There has been a bit of discussion about public opinion, and whether public opinion as it is assessed by the individual member should have a great influence on the actions or attitudes of individual members. I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne), who I do not think is here at the moment, and the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), dealt with this question to some extent and used it as the basis of their attitude at that time. I am afraid, that neither one of the hon. gentlemen would know what public opinion was if it came right up and smacked them in the eye, especially on this particular issue. We all know that public opinion on the question of capital punishment fluctuates from region to region, depending on the circumstances.
For example, if a person with a perverted mind makes a sexual attack upon a young child and, in the process, this young child is killed, public opinion in that particular area will become quite definitely in favour of capital punishment for a certain length of time because the circumstances surrounding that particular death are such that they influence public opinion in that area. Public opinion is divided, is an expression used sometimes. Some are in favour of the bill before us and some are against it. Opinion in this house is divided. I think this will always be so. I do not think we will find, on this particular issue of capital punishment or on any other issue, that public opinion is solidly one way or the other. There will be this division of attitude throughout the country, just as there is on many of the other bills before this house.
I would say in this case that hon. members-I say this without disrespect to their constituents or to the public-should probably be less sensitive to public opinion than they are at other times. I think that public opinion, because it can fluctuate, because it can be influenced by the circumstances surrounding a particular murder, could, if it were followed, have the same effect upon the members of this house as politics had upon the capital punishment question in New Zealand. We might find ourselves, at one stage, in a fairly relaxed mood agreeing to

Capital Punishment
the abolition of capital punishment. Shortly thereafter there might be one or two very cruel, bizarre murders take place, with all the gruesome things that attend upon such murders, and this would influence the members of the house another way. We would find ourselves oscillating between being in favour and being against the abolition of capital punishment. I think we are much better advised, as I say, to be less sensitive to public opinion and more sensitive to our own consciences; let them be our guide.
It is a well known fact, especially to the hon. member for Parkdale, that the facts are incontrovertible in so far as the death penalty being more of a deterrent than, say, life imprisonment. One is not any more of a deterrent force than the other. The great majority-this is from memory more than any reference to the statistical information contained in the proceedings of the joint committee which investigated this question a few years ago-of homicides or murders that were committed were committed as a result of emotion or passion. In those cases, certainly the threat or the possibility of capital punishment was not a deterrent, it was not even a factor. It will not be a factor when emotions are involved. A criminal, for instance, in the act of robbing a bank or breaking into a building will not be deterred from avoiding apprehension by the police by the thought of capital punishment. He will not be deterred from taking action against the police officer or anyone else who may participate in his apprehension. Not only is capital punishment not a deterrent, it is not even a factor.
The major factor involved is that a person who is caught in the midst of a crime is going to do whatever he can to prevent himself from being caught, to prevent himself from being captured or taken to jail. He wants to get away. He does not want the policeman to arrest him and he will use whatever means are at his disposal, arising out of some emotional feeling, to avoid being arrested or to prevent himself from being arrested and in the process may commit a homicide or murder.
There is the question of premeditated murder. I know we all look with as much abhorrence as we can upon the type of murder that is committed by premeditation where the lives of people other than the intended victim are involved, such as in the placing on an airplane of a bomb that in the process not only kills the intended victim but 30, 40 or 50 other people besides, as in the instance referred to a few moment ago.
In this case it is possible that this premeditated murder arises out of two reasons. One is mental unbalance or lack of mental

balance of the person who is committing that premeditated crime or is premeditating the commission of murder. The other is that the individual is in fairly good control of his faculties, knows what the consequences will be if he is apprehended but is willing to pit his ability and his intelligence against the forces of society which might detect him in the process of the murder he is about to commit.
If a person such as that placed in a plane a bomb that killed his intended victim so that he could reap the rewards, whether they be insurance benefits or otherwise, and he did it out of a mental unbalance or insanity, then capital punishment was not a deterrent in that case or even a factor. If he did it in full control of his faculties, being willing to pit his ability to commit the crime against the abilities of the police force, then capital punishment was not a deterrent in that case and in fact was not a factor. The only factor is that the individual knows that if he is apprehended he is going to be hanged just the same as he knows that if he is apprehended he might receive life imprisonment. In those cases, regardless of the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), there is no balanced reasoning to say that capital punishment is a deterrent. Certainly in those three or four instances I have outlined it is not a deterrent. It could not even be a factor in those cases. In others it is no more of a deterrent than is the threat of life imprisonment.
The hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue indicated that by the retention of the present statute we are sure there will be no increase in the number of murders that are committed but that if we vote in favour of this bill and support it, we are not sure whether or not there will be an increase. Of course the hon. member for Pontiac-Temis-camingue, experienced as he might be, does not know that at all. It is a belief that he has. He believes that there will be no increase as long as we retain the present statute. But statistics in other countries were mentioned. I think some 40 jurisdictions were mentioned by the hon. member for Parkdale where this question has been studied quite thoroughly. They indicate, as any hon. member can agree and, in fact, I think will agree, that there are many other factors affecting the rate of murder far more than does this question of capital punishment.
There is the question of the judge and the court making an error. As I understand it, there is not a clear case in Canada where a person has been hanged for murder and where subsequent events have proved that he was

the wrong person although there are cases in which grave doubt has been expressed as to whether the person hanged actually committed the crime.
Professor Borchard of Yale wrote a book called "Conviction of the Innocent" in which he makes a study of some 65 United Kingdom and United States cases, 25 of which involved murder and all of which, including the 25 which involved murder, indicated that the individual accused was initially found guilty and sentenced but that subsequent events proved that this sentence was in error and that the person in fact was not guilty either because of mistaken identity and perjury, circumstantial evidence or a combination of those factors or other factors, and that in those cases an error had been made.
There is one case in Canada, that of Mr. Wilbur Coffin-quite a prominent case a few years ago-who was hanged and about which very grave doubts were expressed as to his guilt. Nevertheless, the individual was hanged regardless of those doubts.
Courts have made errors in other cases in Canada; I refer not to murder cases but to other convictions. People have been sentenced to jail or to penitentiary and, after having served a period of time, subsequent events have shown those individuals were not in fact guilty of the offence of which they had been found guilty. Some of those cases involved robbery with violence. I think we are entitled to speculate upon what would have occurred if, in two instances particularly that come to mind, in the course of the robbery someone had been murdered. Then I think we are entitled to speculate that those persons who had been found guilty of that crime, if there had been a murder involved, could quite probably have been hanged for that murder; and in those two particular cases subsequent events proved, even although murder was not involved, that the people who were convicted were not guilty and they were released from the penitentiary after serving a certain period of time of the initial sentence.
Courts are not infallible. Juries are not infallible. The government, in its consideration of whether or not a case should be commuted, is not infallible. No one can say for sure that each case of murder in which a person is convicted is absolute proof that in each case the individual who was convicted was in fact the person who committed the murder. There is a chance for error. We should consider that chance for error very seriously. We should consider it in addition to the other reasons that have been given, both by myself and by many other hon. members in this house. We should consider this question of error and consider whether we are entitled
Capital Punishment
to cause an error to be made, or to allow an error to be made and thereby to inflict upon innocent wives and children-or husband and children, if it is a case of a woman -who may be left behind after an individual may well have been incorrectly or improperly or in error sentenced to death and in fact hanged.
I do not think parliament or the state has any right to place the benefit of doubt against the accused, especially in view of the fact of all of the other inconvertible evidence and facts that have been presented for the abolition of capital punishment.
In closing, if I have not indicated it already, I might as well say this now in order that it may be clear. I intend to vote in favour of the bill that is at present before us.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in the explanatory notes of this bill it states:
Section 206 at present reads as follows:-
"Every one who commits murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death."
There are no qualifications. It is not a matter of whether it is premeditated, or a crime of passion which is committed on the spur of the moment; the penalty is the same.
It has been said by others that the outstanding defect of the law concerning murder is that it provides a single punishment for a crime which can vary widely in the degree of culpability. The rigidity of this law is mitigated only by the prerogative of mercy, exercised in Canada by the cabinet. In the last 40 sentences of capital punishment, the cabinet have remitted 32. In one case the judge, under the wording of this act, was forced to sentence a 14-year old boy to be hanged.
This present law-I think hon. members who have spoken for and against abolition are agreed on this-in its present state is a barbarous law, the law of the jungle, a vindictive law, a law of vengeance, and a law which is repudiated by the great majority of Canadians, a law which in fact has been declared by the action of the government to be too severe a penalty in 80 per cent of the cases.
There are at present before this house three private bills and a resolution which seeks to make changes in the section of the Criminal Code having to do with murder. Through you, Mr. Speaker, this house has ruled that this debate need not be limited to the bill immediately before us but can encompass the subject matter of these other bills. The other bills seek some practical half-way house between the existing law, under which every

Capital Punishment
person convicted of murder must be sentenced to death, and the total abolition of the death penalty.
As long as we had only one bill before the house, the one we are presently debating, the issue was clear: it was either total abolition, or the law remained as it is now. The introduction of these other bills introduces new factors, and there is nothing to stop other hon. members with other ideas introducing further bills adding further variations. This confusion will only be resolved if we pass this bill, which would then dispose of the matter once and for all. However, if this bill does not pass or if it does not come to a vote then I believe the government must take responsibility of bringing in their own legislation.
It was because of this, that I placed on the order paper a resolution in the following terms:
That in the opinion of this house the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation this session to amend the Criminal Code in regard to capital punishment.
The debate last Thursday found at least nine speakers favouring abolition and eight against abolition; but almost all speakers, as I said before, favoured some change in the law. So far today we have had eight speakers, and there seem to be three-and here I declare myself-in favour of abolition, one, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) would like to have a five-year trial period, which has a great deal of merit in it, and four speakers are opposed.
What are the reasons for abolition? First of all, there is the moral and ethical one, that the deliberate taking of a human life is an act which no one person or the community should be able to exercise over another human being. The Belgian industry of justice in 1930, after 67 years with the death penalty in abeyance, had this to say:
The lesson has been learnt that the best means of inculcating respect for human life is to refrain from taking life in the name of the law.
Society in taking life harms itself because of the debasing and brutalizing effect on the community as a whole owing to this action.
There is of course another reason which has been touched on by many hon. members and that is the possibility of error. Capital punishment is irrevocable and no matter how rare mistakes may be they have happened, and can happen again. The Montreal Gazette of February 19 carried a news story in which a leading Montreal criminal lawyer, Mr. Raymond Daoust, had this to say. He was speaking, incidentally, to some 700 University of Montreal students, and he reported on 22 cases where persons were executed in

the last two centuries for crimes later found to have been committed by others.
The hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stewart), speaking against this bill, did not think the chance of an innocent person being convicted was very great. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), for whom I have tremendous respect and admiration, can be allowed the odd mistake, but I would like to quote from his remarks reported on page 1214 of Hansard for February 18 last where he quoted Lord Chief Justice Darling of the privy council who had stated in the house of commons committee of the United Kingdom in 1930 that in his 26 years' experience on the bench he was convinced that, and I quote:
In view of the checks and safeguards of English law, it is practically impossible for an innocent man to be hanged, although a great many guilty ones escaped.
The same thought was echoed by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell). I do not propose to argue the accuracy of these statements, the one of Mr. Daoust and the one I have just quoted, but I do wish to say that for society to take the life of even one innocent person is a crime against society and a blow against our fundamental, moral and religious ideals.
The real heart of the problem is not whether capital punishment is a deterrent against committing murder, but whether it is, as the mover of the bill stated, a unique deterrent. The question is: Does the danger a criminal runs of being executed act as more of a deterrent than if the sentence were life imprisonment? If the retention of capital punishment were to prevent murders which would otherwise take place, then there would be no ground for its abolition except on purely moral grounds. However, there has been placed before the house a great deal of data about experience in states which have abolished capital punishment, and although this data does not conclusively-as I would be the first to admit, and as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) said-establish that it is not a deterrent, it certainly does not establish that it is a deterrent.
There are two types of crimes, the impulsive, that mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the crime of emotion and passion, and the premeditated crime. In the impulsive type of crime the criminal does not think of the consequences; the act is done on the spur of the moment. With regard to premeditated crimes, as has been said by other hon. members, the criminal is so convinced that he will not be brought to justice that the question whether the penalty is capital punishment or not is of no effect as far as he is concerned.

The experience of Great Britain in this matter was pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary South, as reported on page 1213 of Hansard. He said that the situation in Great Britain had been outlined; Great Britain a year ago experienced a crime wave during which eight murders were committed in eight days.
If these are reasons for retention of capital punishment, then they are reasons which have the same philosophy of thinking as the presumption that if we have a 20-inch snowfall in Ottawa in three days, then in one month we will have a 200-inch snowfall. I have listened to all speakers so far, but as yet there has not been a real case made out that capital punishment is a deterrent. The record in England is a matter of fact. Indeed, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) placed it on the pages of Hansard, and I think hon. members should read this passage over and over again. I shall quote from page 1189:
Another common misconception with regard to this bill which is quoted in letters and newspapers concerns the supposed restoration of the death penalty in England. It is a fact that the death penalty was never abolished in England. It passed a free vote in the House of Commons by a small margin, and during the interval between the time it passed the house and went to the Lords the home secretary very properly deemed it advisable to commute all death sentences.
I think it is of more than passing interest while discussing England to mention some statistics which emerged from that experience. During the 18 months before the suspension period the number of murders committed were 256. The death penalty was suspended for a period of 18 months, and the number of murders during that period was 246. During the 17 months after restoration, which was the period of time which elapsed for which these figures were made available, the number of murders committed was 310.
As I said, a great deal of data has been placed on record with regard to the effect of capital punishment as a deterrent or as a non-deterrent. One can sum up the case for the retention of capital punishment as a deterrent by saying that if capital punishment prevented one murder of an innocent person it should be retained. That was the theme of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau). I suggest that if we are to accept this as a true statement and as one to which we should pay attention, we are entitled to say that if one innocent person is saved from the gallows and escapes murder by society as a result of the abolition of the death penalty, then the death penalty should be abolished. If the argument is right on one side of the ledger it is right on the other.
I have pointed out that capital punishment provides a single penalty for crimes which may be as different as night and day. A fight may cause a death and result in a sentence 79951-0-92
Capital Punishment
of capital punishment or just as easily may result in a charge of assault and battery being laid. The intent is the same, the circumstances are the same, but the result is drastically different. A slightly heavier blow can mean this difference, or the manner in which an assaulted person may fall. As the hon. member for York-Scarborough pointed out, the difference of a fraction of an inch in the direction of a bullet can mean the difference between death and life for the victim and for the murderer.
The wisest words which have been spoken in this debate were, in my view, those which were spoken by the hon. member for Parkdale when he placed upon society a certain amount of blame before a murder actually takes place. As recorded at page 1200 of Hansard, the hon. member said this:
The death penalty Is not the answer to the problem of crime and of criminals. Crime has its cause and crime has its cure. Its causes are clear. They can be stated like the litany: they are slums, they are broken homes; they are poverty; they are drunkenness, divorce, lack of opportunity, lack of education. These are the causes of crime.
The case for the abolition of capital punishment was also stated a great many centuries ago, and I am indebted to the social action committee of the Unitarian congregation of south Peel for the following illustration. When some members of a heretical African sect confessed to murdering Christians around 400 A.D., St. Augustine wrote:
We do not wish to have the sufferings of the servants of God avenged by the infliction of precisely similar injuries in the way of retaliation. Not, of course, that we object to the removal from these wicked men of the liberty to perpetrate further crimes, but our desire is rather that justice be satisfied without the taking of their lives or the maiming of their bodies in any particular; and that by such coercive measures as may be in accordance with the laws, they be drawn away from their insane frenzy to the quietness of men in their sound judgment, or compelled to give up mischievous violence and betake themselves to some useful labour.
Whatever may be the result of this debate, one thing I know, namely that a change is taking place. A change is taking place in this house and in the country. Whether the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough passes this house or not, we shall have made some progress at least in the way we deal with convicted murderers.


Mr. Drysdale:: I should like to ask the hon. member where he stands in relation to the matter of life imprisonment? Does he mean it should really be for life, or that the present system, where there is commutation, should be continued?


Ernest James Broome: That is a point which I have been considering. It is an anomaly, also, because at the present time the sentence of

Capital Punishment
a murderer may be commuted, in which case it would amount to ordinary life imprisonment, whereas the present bill would mean that the whole of a man's natural life might be spent in imprisonment. Thus a person who was sentenced under this bill would receive a more severe sentence than if his death sentence had been commuted by the cabinet. However, I think these are matters of detail which will have to be sorted out by the law officers of the crown. This is partly the reason I brought in my resolution, since one bill might provide for degrees of murder; another might give a jury the power of extending mercy; and a third might say that discretion should rest with the judge. There could be many variations in the approach, but the sum and substance is that one can either abolish capital punishment or the government itself brings in a bill taking into account the debate which has been going on now for two days and which will go on for the third, in addition to expressions of public opinion in the country.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I should like to rectify to some extent the wrong impression current among the public at large with regard to the so-called free vote. It has been said in certain quarters that, since this vote has been announced as a free vote, in other cases members were not free to vote according to their conscience.
I have said again and again, ever since I have been elected, as far back as 1935, as a member either of the Quebec legislature or of parliament, that I have always voted freely and according to my own conscience.
Caucus meetings are held by all political parties in order to help their members examine questions thoroughly. All of us at times have to fall in with the general opinion and we recognize, as intelligent men, that if the caucus majority does not share our views, either we are in the wrong, in which case we are the last ones to find out, or we are ahead of our times and we must wait for public opinion to crystallize. In either case, we freely withdraw our personal viewpoint and we invariably vote freely and according to our conscience.
Today, this debate is exactly of the kind we have in our caucuses, where each member is free to say what he thinks, in his own way, and to make his decision according to the judgment he has formed in the light of the discussion. I believe that all previous speakers and those who will follow, and even those who will not take part in this debate, have always, as I have, voted freely and according to their conscience.

Mr. Speaker, I recall that many years ago, during the first world war, a certain crisis had taken hold of the public. Good and pious people, priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis had undertaken the task of eliminating alcoholism from the face of the earth. Surely those people were the most sincere men in the world; they were well-intentioned.
They also had on their side the underworld which, for a quite different reason-that of promoting a new type of business-wanted to help them out, so both camps did their best to check alcoholism. What were the results? Alcoholism increased, the underworld made a fortune and, for the first time in history, women became accustomed to public drinking, because of the "mickey" or the small "hip" as it was then called.
Since that time, a spirit that I would describe as "Caponian" has come into being, and the underworld has established all possible kinds of institutions for the speakeasies, for the sale of narcotics, and murder has resulted.
Yet, the people who wanted this were sincere, honest and had the welfare of the population in mind; but they forgot that excess of any kind is bad. They went to extremes and fell into a worse evil.
Nowadays, a certain mood has been revived among the public. People have seized upon this idea of capital punishment, and everyone, from one end of the country to the other, is demanding either its abolition or maintenance. All of them are good, sincere and honest people; we even find among them Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, and rabbis. In other words, the best citizens of the community are asking for the abolition of capital punishment. The underworld too is asking for the abolition of capital punishment, but of course for another reason; they are requesting it, in order not to become victims of it. Communists are also requesting the abolition of capital punishment, for reasons they alone could explain.
And yet, is the idea of abolition of capital punishment a new one? No, it is a very, very old one. In the fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries in France, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were advocating abolition of capital punishment; in Italy, Vico and Beccaria were advocating the abolition of capital punishment; in Germany, you will recall that Savigny, Karl Marx and Kelsen were requesting the abolition of capital punishment. In the fifteenth century in England, Hume and Bentham were also requesting the abolition of capital punishment. On this side of the

Atlantic, Franklin and Paine spent their life asking for the abolition of capital punishment.
This discussion is only a repetition of all those that have taken place since that time. And what are the reasons advanced? For some, it is a question of conscience, because they maintain that we have no right to kill our fellow man, that the state has no right to kill, because the commandment says; "Thou shalt not kill".
But, if we accept the teachings of the bible-I have here the Catholic bible, which I compared with the King James version, and they are in every way the same-we find in Genesis, chapter 9, verse 6:
Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed-
It is not said that his blood will be shed by the grace of God only but:
-by man shall his blood be shed.
Could we therefore hold that any individual could shed the blood of another out of revenge, or punish the one who has killed another man? This means the state, as it was constituted at that time, a patriarchal state, and the head of that state had the right to render justice in the name of the state.
And, further on, if we look up Leviticus chapter 24, verse 17, we find this:
And he that killeth any man shall surely be nut to death-
Also, further on in the bible, in Numbers, chapter 25, verses 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20- about he who strikes to kill-we find this:
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, when I had to interrupt my remarks at six o'clock, I was telling conscientious objectors that they could very well base their faith on the teachings of the bible, that inspired book, to promote the maintenance of capital punishment.
79951-0-92J
Capital Punishment
We also see in chapter 35, verse 20, the following:
But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer:
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there must be premeditation. That is provided in our laws.
No one can be condemned unless there has been premeditation. Now, if we examine the judgments rendered in the last few years, we note a tendency not to condemn those who could have killed either by accident, or under the impulse of a sudden access of violence, which could then have prevented them from being in full possession of their faculties.
The bible goes even further. It refers to evidence.
We see, for instance, in Deuteronomy, chapter 19, verses 18 and 19, the following:
And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
The bible goes so far as to be as severe with regard to the false witness as it is with the murderer.
This is similar to what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said a few moments ago.
Indeed, the bible tells us that there should be two witnesses, not one only, to bring about a conviction. No conviction can be based on a single testimony.
Consequently, the conscientious objector finds, I think, enough explanation in the bible for continuing the Lord's work, i.e.: to condemn him who causes his brother's death.
Mr. Speaker, we may be looked upon as barbarians, if we continue to apply capital punishment. But what about the murderer? It is claimed that those who would maintain capital punishment have outmoded views on civilization. But people seem to forget that it is the murderer himself who has acted like a barbarian. People completely overlook the victim, who was eliminated from the world, and who might have continued living a useful life, to think only of the poor murderer who will soon be dangling at the end of a rope.
I think that is pushing sentimentalism too far. We have not the right to be too concerned over the fate of the murderer.
1460	HOUSE OF
Capital Punishment
It is claimed that this is an act of vengeance. How can it be? It is an act of retribution.
As a matter of fact, it is not the state which does the convicting, it is the criminal who convicts himself. A criminal knows that if he kills, he will suffer the death penalty. What does the state do? The state, through its courts, tries to establish the truth, or to point up the facts indicating whether the accused is guilty or not.
Indeed, under our judicial system, the duty of the crown attorney is not to try to win a case, but to try to prove, on a factual basis, whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.
Now if the accused has been found guilty, he himself decrees his death sentence by committing what he had no right to commit. We must therefore ignore the claim that the state acted in a spirit of vengeance.
It has also been claimed that capital punishment is no deterrent to crime. I think this is quite difficult to prove with figures, because statistics have not been established long enough, neither in the states which abolished the death penalty, nor in those where it is maintained, for us to be able to state in a final way that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.
There is, however, a really surprising thing. It has been said that under Napoleon, at a certain time, and more particularly after the battle of Russia, several officers committed suicide. Napoleon, who was a psychologist, then decreed that all who would commit suicide would hang. Now, do you know that from then on, suicides stopped, because officers did not want their families' name to be tarnished because of their being sentenced to hang. If such action in Napoleon's time put a stop to a wave of suicide, it is quite clear that capital punishment may incite others, who are not hardened criminals, to spare their families the shame which their sentence to the gallows would bring upon them.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it may not be due to that so much as to a softening of our way of life, but there have been more sentences commuted for the last two years than ever before. However, if we examine relevant statistics, we will find that, for the past two years, criminality has rapidly increased. Could it be that people are saying: "there is no more danger, we have every chance in the world to have our sentence commuted"?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not only in favour of maintaining capital punishment,


but in favour of hanging. I do not like the gas chamber, precisely because of what is happening in this country now. Everybody is worried at the thought of the rope. Well, as long as there is a means of worrying people at the thought of the gallows, it will be a deterrent to those who mean to kill.
Capital punishment obliterates a social evil in the person of those who refuse to obey the law. Indeed, the greatest social evil is perhaps not that which is punished by death. The greatest evil, for which I think we are perhaps responsible, is the fact that children are left to grow up with all their faults. We are afraid to correct them in the good old way, like most hon. members here and myself have been. Indeed, there are some of them who would benefit by being corrected again.
It is said in the book of Proverbs-which is also in the bible-that:
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that again is a word of truth, coming from a book of truth that has been given to man, through the light of the Holy Ghost.
It is said in the bible that children must be corrected. Besides, that is not new. We know that if a tree has a tendency to grow crooked when it is young, if we straighten it, if we take care of it, we can succeed in having it grow straight, and have a tree that will be of real value.
It should be the same for children; but, unfortunately, in our modern society, there are people who would like to have religious instruction removed from our schools, and it is with the help of religious convictions that we will better succeed in protecting children from all those miseries which incline them to do all sorts of stupid things.
It seems to be the belief, in some quarters, that religious instruction should be left to the church and the home. Well, if we had carried on that religious instruction, if we had impressed on those young minds the teachings we find in the sacred books, I am sure there would not be so much juvenile crime.
Nowadays, some people would like to replace that correction system which used to reform children. They would like to replace it by psychological methods. There are so many psychologists in the world today, that a certain thinker said a few years ago: "A

world that has so many psychologists and psychiatrists must be very ill indeed". I think this world is very ill indeed, because it is forgetting the only good method of overcoming the evil which exists at present.
Mr. Speaker, society has its responsibility, but it is not by abolishing capital punishment that we will succeed in eradicating that evil. First of all, we should start by the beginning. Before abolishing capital punishment, we should first give consideration to changing our whole penal system. We should make a complete study of it, and once we have found means to properly punish those who have committed offences or crimes, then we will perhaps be in a position to consider abolishing that practice.
At present, there are people condemned to life imprisonment who, after 10, 12 or 15 years, are released.
If a young man of twenty commits a murder and is condemned to life imprisonment, he is sometimes released after 15 years, that is at the age of 35 years.
As regards the one who commits an armed robbery in a bank and who, when a nervous clerk (who is doing a service to society), steps back in his cage, draws his weapon and kills him, if he is not sentenced to death, he deserves to be made to witness every execution so that he will know what hanging is like. Furthermore, not only should we not abolish the death penalty, but we should also extend it to other crimes. I submit for instance that whoever rapes a child under twelve, deserves hanging even more than does a murderer. The men higher up among peddlers of narcotics, the organizers of the drug traffic, who do not touch the stuff but find others to push the product, those who spread that bad habit among the public at large are more guilty than all murderers. I say that they should be sentenced to death although there is no such provision in the Criminal Code.
I submit that it should be possible to revise our Criminal Code and to come back later on that matter, but not today, because we are not ready to accept the abolition of the death penalty, and consequently I shall vote against this bill.


Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) has triggered a debate during which a number of hon. members spoke with both knowledge and ability.
Capital Punishment
Having been a member of the Quebec bar for close to 33 years, and having acted in a number of trials for murder some times as crown attorney, some times as attorney for the defence, and having constantly looked for the instincts and psychological motives which, in the last resort, were at the basis of the murder, I have acquired an experience I had never sought, and from which I have occasionally tried to draw some conclusions. That is what prompts me to make this modest contribution to an important debate. I shall try to show the same objective and unbiased attitude as the hon. members who spoke before me.
The death penalty, which is the first and most ancient penalty ever inflicted by mankind, has always been one of man's major concerns.
Throughout history, philosophers, moralists, sociologists and lawyers either denounced it as a barbarous act, or proclaimed it as a social necessity.
Some have claimed that the murderer is just irresponsible, either because of his mental state or of a natural weakness, or again because of the environment in which he has lived and grown, and that consequently, justice is always too harsh on him.
Others say: men are different from one another, and generalizations in such matters go against common sense and against the truth. Every man enjoys a certain degree of conscience and willpower, which enable him to choose his own course and which make him responsible for his actions. Every man must remain within the framework of social order, and if he transgresses that order, society has to protect itself against him. And proponents of that theory add: those criminals, who have felt no pity, will feel no remorse. They have shown no respect for human life, yet they expect society to respect their own, despite the fact that they are a danger. How can they be stopped from committing further crimes? Is there some means of frightening those who might be tempted to follow in their footsteps and threaten the life of peaceful citizens, which the state has a duty to protect? Nature and mankind in the past have replied by applying the death penalty.
Such is the dilemma inherent in the problem now before us. To find the perfect solution, one would have to be the creator of man, or have acquired a complete and absolute knowledge of man. One would have to know in detail the mechanics of his thoughts and motivations, and be able to ex-

Capital Punishment
plain each and every one of his moves. However, the science of man is the least developed of all sciences, and one of the greatest minds of our time, who published the results of 20 years of research in a famous book, found no more appropriate title than this: Man, the Unknown.
Ignorance however should not be an excuse for not seeking the answer to all the problems concerning the protection of the public, which is the main duty of every state. One undeniable principle is that every individual is a personalized being endowed with intelligence and free will, a being who ultimately-and I mean a normal man-decides for himself what he does or refrains from doing. That is the basis of responsibility.
On the other hand, the state has the strict obligation to keep order and to safeguard peace and security for citizens who respect its authority and its laws. Thence, its right to punish, to the extent of their responsibility and guilt, those who flout those rules, and justice makes it an obligation for the state to establish some proportion between the inflicted punishment and the seriousness of the crime or offence committed.
Regardless of the type of punishment, it can never be considered as a crime; it is always the exercise, by the state, of a strict obligation.
Obviously, to punish does not consist merely in striking or killing in self-defence, as if it were a snake that is crushed or a mad dog that is shot down. The extent of this right must be subject to the requirements of justice and of social usefulness. Such is its purpose. It is in this perspective, it seems to me, that an answer to the problem of capital punishment should be sought.
To punish by death is obviously the ultimate resort of justice, and this punishment should be inflicted only to murderers in full possession of their faculties. On this point, it seems that our Criminal Code does not sufficiently take into account the latest medical data. Feeble-minded and neurotic people should not be condemned to death. I have known some who have been condemned to death and whose sense of responsibility was undoubtedly impaired. In those cases, when I was acting as crown attorney, I made a point of recommending a commutation, and on every occasion, it was granted.
In this respect, it is clear that the Criminal Code should be amended. Under our system of law, through the machinery of procedure,

an accused is free to use every means of defence. Presumed innocence is a sound principle, while, on the other hand, when it comes to establishing the degree of responsibility, it may prove a handicap. Judges and juries are not always acquainted with the context of an offence, the course followed by the accused in committing it, the external influences that prompted him to act and against which he was helpless. Since medicine, especially in psychiatry and psychology, has made great progress in this respect, criminologists and even jurists should resort more and more to those sciences.
Therefore, I wholly agree with the view expressed on this subject in the January 13 last issue of Le Soleil. I quote:
Discussions perhaps indicate that the time has come to widen legal concepts regarding the death penalty; from a practical point of view, we know as a fact that, since Prime Minister Diefenbaker took office, a good many people who were condemned to death have benefited from a commutation of their sentence.
May I add that this was the spirit in which I supported the principle of the Drysdale bill.
But to place all murderers on the same level, to inflict upon them only the penalty that the Criminal Code reserves for infanticide, manslaughter, rape or robbery, would seem to me quite contrary to the standards of justice. That is the fundamental reason why I cannot get myself to support his bill. Justice requires a certain hierarchy in the penalties and that is a principle that the state must respect and enforce.
We are told that it has never been proved that the prospect of hanging truly served to save on life. What a serious mistake. I had the opportunity to talk with prisoners who were jailed for robberies. I remember one man who, to rob a bank, had used a toy revolver to scare the manager and the employees. His reason for not using a genuine one, was precisely the fear of killing and of the fatal results which might have followed. If we abolish capital punishment completely, those useless precautions will no longer be taken by the bandits.
May I add that I know of at least three cases where the murderers, after acquittal in two of those cases, and, in the other, after commutation, were able to commit further crimes and thus take the life of three innocent victims.
Despite all the pity we might feel for the man who is to receive the supreme punish-

ment, reason requires that we avoid endangering the lives that society has the responsibility to protect. And I believe that the hierarchy of judicial and executive powers which always scrupulously examines a death sentence, offers all the guarantees which are humanly possible to obtain. It is very easy for anyone to claim that a judicial error has taken place, when we know about a case only through the prism of a pamphlet or a morbid and noisy propaganda.
When a murder is committed, the population wants to lynch the murderer, but soon, this sentiment of revenge is replaced by a quite different one which sometimes tends to make a god of the criminal. All of us are more or less inclined to those sentimental contradictions. That is why I believe the problem of capital punishment should be resolved on the firm ground of the principles of sound philosophy, otherwise we risk getting confused and arriving at an extremely dangerous solution for the possible victims and for society.
In Berne, Switzerland, in 1912, a congress of jurists was held for the purpose of asking the government to re-establish capital punishment, because of an increase of criminality at the time.
A noted criminologist, professor Kebedgy, made these very appropriate remarks:
We are faced with murderers against whom it is necessary to defend ourselves through the most appropriate means. It has been proved to the hilt that penalties by loss of freedom have no deterrent effect on those criminals; they still have the hope of recovering their freedom one day, if necessary by murdering their guards; in any case, those penalties are too humane compared to the bestiality shown by those hopeless criminals.
Then, expressing the concern of the Swiss people, the learned professor went on to say:
Therefore, all the people of Switzerland are interested in the drawing up of a penal legislation providing an effective safeguard for their life. Too much thought has been given up to now to the criminal, and not enough to the victim and the family of the victim.
Somebody said: "The death penalty is as ignominious for the society which imposes it as for the one on whom it is inflicted". "We have reached," it has been said, "such a degree of civilization that we must rid ourselves of that monstruous vestige of the middle ages". With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I say that I disagree with such a weak argument which ignores what we inherited from the antiquity, the middle ages and the renaissance and in which, all in all, it seems to me there is more wheat than tares.
Furthermore, a century which has known concentration camps, torture practised like
Capital Punishment
a science, mass murders of innocent hostages, crematoria where people are thrown alive, bombing of civilians, execution for crimes of opinion, mock trials under laws which did not exist at the time when those acts which they now consider a crime were committed, that century I feel is no better than past centuries. I am sorry to say that mankind has hardly improved, even if science and technical achievements may now raise our knowledge to the stars that surround our planet.
I hope with all my heart that the day will come when all those evils afflicting this century will disappear. I look forward to the day when the whole Canadian nation will be satisfied by experience that we have no need of an executioner to protect us. That experience has not yet been made, and statistics in such matters will never convince me, as there are so many intangible factors that cut and dried figures may not express. Yet, those intangible factors are the very ones that differentiate people from one another and the only ones that could shed some light on the problems of responsibility and selfdetermination.
Now, I also think that, when it really becomes feasible and if the blessed day of disarmed peace for individuals and nations ever comes, we should welcome final and absolute abolition of capital punishment as a tremendous progress and advance, not so much in human law, but with regard to the conscience of men who will at last have understood the infinite value that must be attached to human life.
(Text):


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, as this debate draws to the close of its second day it is inevitable that there should be a certain amount of repetition. If in the next few minutes I offend in that particular regard, I ask your indulgence and the indulgence of my fellow members.
We are discussing a bill which if carried and forwarded to fruition will remove from the lips of supreme court judges across Canada those heartbreaking and tragic words, "You will be hanged by the neck until you are dead". Participation in a debate of this kind is rather difficult for a layman. My good friend from Niagara Falls called himself a layman this afternoon; I do so tonight. I use the term to differentiate between those who are trained in the law, of which we have many in this house-particularly those who are trained in criminal law and have practiced criminal law-and those of us who lack that training. I use it to distinguish between those who have given months and

Capital Punishment
possibly years of study to a subject of this kind, to wit the mover and seconder of the bill, as compared to others of us who have gathered our impression of murder and murderers through newspapers, possibly casually on our way through life.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps there is some virtue in the expression of a layman, because he may express to a far greater degree than the trained criminal lawyer or the man versed in law the viewpoint of the man on the street. Because of the limited opportunity of the man on the street, he only reads about murders. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is a curious fact that there is a perverse streak in most of us which makes a murder and a murder trial required reading. When a layman attempts to speak on this bill he faces possible criticism. There will always be critics, and some of them may be cruel. If one is against abolition, against the bill, then one is a sadist; if one is for the bill, for the abolition of capital punishment, he may be termed a sentimentalist. The term "sentiment" has been used in this house several times today, and I should like to say that with regard to this particular subject, my impression, is it has become rampant. May I hasten to add that this house has not become sentimental; the sentimentality is outside the house, and I think we can thank our good friends of the press, radio and television for engendering a great deal of it.
Let me say that before leaving home to attend this session I viewed a television show with the title, "Shadow of a Pale Horse". Why that particular exhibition was presented on a Sunday night during the family hour I will never know, but it was the most profound piece of propaganda work against capital punishment I can imagine. Since that time-[DOT] and that seemed to be the genesis of this great outpouring of sentiment-we have had column after column in our daily papers, article after article in our weekly supplements, and magazine articles in great number.
What is the theme of most of this writing? It constantly recurs. The theme has to do with the poor, dear murderer, his last day, his last meal, his last hour, his mounting of the gallows, the callous hangman, the reactions of the official witnesses. As I say, we have had a great outpouring of this type of publicity. All of the factors surrounding the hanging have been fully portrayed. We have been exposed, I am sorry to say, to sentimentality. In fact I might even call it sickening sentimentality.
What have not been portrayed, at least not within my knowledge, have been the last moments of the murdered child, woman or man. What have not been portrayed have

been the agonies and the heartbreaks of the survivors, not for a day, a week or three months, but for years.
It is quite true that the seconder of this bill made a passing reference when speaking on the bill to the survivors of a murdered person, and he said, in effect: Don't let us make a widow and fatherless children when we hang a murderer just because the murdered person left a widow and fatherless children. Mr. Speaker, to me that is hardly appropriate. No one remembers the bereaved after a short time. I can remember attending two or three funerals of persons murdered. They were gigantic affairs. Everyone attended. The flowers were magnificent. But I can also remember that a few months later the widow was applying for widow's allowance and wondering how she was going to feed her brood.
This afternoon the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) traced briefly the safeguards which are thrown around a person who is tried for murder. It seems to me we might dwell on that subject again for a few moments. Let me repeat I am not a lawyer, but I have a tremendous admiration and respect for the Canadian judicial system. It is patterned after that of Great Britain and it is respected throughout the entire world.
A murder is committed. A suspect is arraigned and, as the hon. member for Stormont said, the first step is a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. That may be a technicality. If there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the accused to a higher court, he goes. Very seldom is he dismissed by a magistrate. He goes before a jury and a trial judge and, as my hon. friend said, the trial judge is eminently fair and completely impartial. Those of us who have lived in Canada -and I am speaking particularly, now, of my own part of the country-have grown up with some of our judges. I can think of seven or eight justices in the province of Alberta whom I know intimately and whom I have known for many years. They are men of very high calibre, and certainly a murderer who appears before a trial judge in a supreme court in any province of Canada is assured of an impartial umpire.
Should the accused person be convicted, his case then goes to the court of appeal. Here you have the collective wisdom of several judges. The bench is composed of men of wisdom and high quality; men without any interest in that particular case except to see that justice is done; men with a tremendous knowledge of the law and a deep understanding of humanity. The next step is, of course, the supreme court, another outstanding court Lastly we come to the cabinet. Cabinets come and go, but certainly a cabinet in a country



I960

[Stage Direction]
such as Canada attracts to its membership the highest type of mentality available, the type of person who is activated entirely by a desire to be fair in the consideration of matters of this kind, and to see that justice prevails.
It is all very well to say, as some have said, that a poor man has no recourse to these various tribunals. I can think of no poor murderer that I ever knew or heard of who was denied access to this procedure. Indeed I can remember public subscriptions being made to make sure that such people received the full consideration of all these tribunals, and I find it hard to understand the statement made by some of my colleagues that if you are poor you hang but if you are rich you escape.
A further word with respect to the careful analysis of crimes of murder which is given by these various bodies. I well remember- and the speech of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) reminded me of this-a very famous case defended by the hon. member's late father, a beloved member of this house for many years, the late A. L. Smith. This crime was of particular interest to me because the boy accused of it lived in the house next door and he was tried for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to be hung. A retrial was ordered. The young man went through the second trial and eventually was acquitted. There was a scintilla of doubt, and I feel, as a layman, that where there is a scintilla of doubt the accused is favoured.
We have heard a great many statistics, and a lot of work has been done documenting the case for and against capital punishment. We have had statistics from Luxembourg, New Zealand, Sweden and some of the middle western states. We have been told that the abolition of capital punishment has reduced the incidence of murder. We have also been told that the maintenance of capital punishment has increased the number of murders. I have been wondering since this phase of the discussion first came to the front what is the reason for the favourable statistics from such places as Luxembourg, Sweden and the mid-western states, and it occurred to me that part of the answer lies in the fact that these countries have homogeneous populations. They are all one people. We in Canada -and this is one of our great glories-are not a homogeneous people; we are a heterogeneous people. We have in Canada a mixture of all the bloods of Europe and some from outside, and we have the volatile temperament which goes with certain races and it will be some years before we become homogeneous. Perhaps then we will become 79951-0-93
Capital Punishment
much more peace loving and much more able to settle our difficulties without murder.
Is hanging a deterrent? The hon. member for Halifax dealt with this question this afternoon. I cannot agree with him. I cannot believe that the spectre of the gallows has not stopped many a would-be killer's hand. There are no statistics to prove this; only one's knowledge, fragmentary though it may be, of human nature which tells one that the vision of the noose has probably prevented many murders in the initial stage. There is another thought which occurs to me, and it is a very sad thought, namely that a killer may kill again. There was the very famous case-some of the younger men will not remember it-of Loeb and Leopold in which the accused were brilliantly defended by the late Clarence Darrow. I have no library of criminal history at my disposal but I am sure that this has happened in Canada, too. I know of one case in Alberta where it did happen, and I am wondering whether society is justified in making it possible for one who has killed to contemplate killing once more.
My hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) reminded us this afternoon that we may discuss all three of these bills during the present debate. I am not particularly interested in the rest of the bills. Over the coffee cups in the cafeteria and in the smoking lounges we have been talking for days about which is the most humane method of executing a condemned murderer-by hanging, by the electric chair or by the gas chamber. Quite frankly, Your Honour, I think if a man is going to be executed it does not matter too much which method is used. I believe that the process of hanging is quick, eminently successful from the point of view of the hangman and that we have no real reason to consider a change.
Another question that has come up is as to whether an insane murderer should be hanged. I cannot remember any insane man being carried to the gallows to be hanged. I can remember many being incarcerated in asylums. A lot of men possessing low I.Q.'s who have killed, have been hanged and I suggest properly so.
Murder is the most heinous of crimes, utterly ghastly. Every time we read in the newspaper of a new murder we shudder in horror and are filled with revulsion. We all wish to stamp out murder but in my humble opinion we in Canada are not ready to abolish capital punishment. Those indubitably proved guilty should continue to pay the penalty. This viewpoint may change in the years ahead and indeed I hope it will but I do not feel that time is now.
In conclusion with a great deal of humility and without one trace of sadistic thought,
[Stage Direction]
Capital Punishment
thinking only of the protection of Canadian society, of little children, of unprotected women and of unarmed men, let me say I am at this time definitely, irrevocably and completely opposed to this bill.
(Translation):
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, the debate we are taking part in today is one that has been attracting public attention more than ever.
I wish, first of all, to congratulate the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) on having given the members of this house the opportunity of voicing their opinion on this matter of extreme interest and concern to all classes of society in our great country.
Since the start of this debate, the discussion has been neither political nor partisan. We have remained very objective and members on both sides of the house have expressed their personal views.
We have considered this question objectively and we have managed to avoid what happened in another country, that is, in New Zealand, where that question became a question of party politics and of political partisanship.
Mr. Speaker, this debate has focussed public opinion, because for more than a year the question has received extensive publicity.
We, as members of this house, have received from our constituents many petitions and many letters containing their views and many newspaper editorials have carried the views of those who were for or against the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend tonight to repeat all the arguments that were given for or against the abolition of the death penalty, but I do want to say, at the outset, that if I rise to take part in this debate, I do so like all the members who have spoken before me, not because I enjoy it but because it is my duty.
It is a good thing that Canada should hear the views of the representatives of the people on so controversial an issue. I know that some people are critical of their representative in parliament.
The mover of this bill is said to have received threats, Mr. Speaker, from a person who did not see eye to eye with him in this field.
I should also like to tell the house that, this very morning, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), who spoke last week and was careful to say that he was expressing his own personal opinion and not that of his electors, received a telegram worded as follows:
Take notice that if you do not vote for abolition of capital punishment, you will lose at least nine votes in my family.
[Mr. Brunsden.l
And the telegram bears the signature and the address of the sender.
Mr. Speaker, obviously a member who would risk defeat at the polls because he dared make a speech in this house had better remain seated. But we must make all the population understand that, when we rise in this house to express our personal opinion, we do it to perform our duty, to make our voice heard in the parliament of Canada.
The proof that the population is interested in this highly topical debate is the great attendance in the galleries tonight. They were just as crowded last Thursday.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. Let me say at the outset that I am in favour of maintaining capital punishment.
The mover of the bill explained the other day that he favoured abolishing capital punishment, except in cases of treason. He said, among other things, that he was afraid of judicial errors.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend might be afraid of such errors in cases of treason just as much as in ordinary criminal cases.
A man who is charged with betraying his country is not necessarily guilty. The chances of a judicial error in a treason case may even be greater than in an ordinary murder case, because feelings are usually stronger in matters involving politics.
Mr. Speaker, arguments advanced by those who want to abolish capital punishment are of a very contentious nature, and I do not propose to review them one by one, because several hon. members who spoke before me have done so.
Society, they say, has no right to take life. But we may answer: "Has a murderer the right to do so?"
We are told we should put an end to such conditions, to the position where the state takes the life of the Lord's creatures.
Mr. Speaker, every day we see policemen on duty taking away thieves, killing and threatening to kill, and yet, nobody protests among those who would like to have capital punishment abolished. The life of a murderer is being taken away because we want to prevent him from going on killing, and thus protect society.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared, like all others, to pity the families of those who are hanged. But I pity, above all, their victims and the victims' families.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members who claim that capital punishment should be abolished would like to change it to life imprisonment. Well, I think that when a murderer is sent to prison for life, he is still a threat to society. The killer who is committed to prison may very well escape some day, and in order to do so, he will not hesitate to kill his jailor; he might even kill five of them and if there are policemen in his way, he will kill them too.
He will say to himself: "What punishment shall I get? Absolutely nothing, except get back to this same cell, with the same life sentence."
Mr. Speaker, as far as the Criminal Code is concerned, I would prefer to leave to my lawyer friends, the legal aspect of the matter. But those who want to abolish capital punishment seem to believe that we are somewhat heartless.
Mr. Speaker, in previous debates, a very striking example was given us by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere (Mr. Paul), who said that when one's limb is affected by gangrene, even if the prospect is not very pleasant, the limb must be cut off in order to protect the rest of the body. Well, the gangrened limb of society is the criminal. And even if we do not like to see a criminal going to the gallows, civil authorities have the responsibility of protecting society against that evil.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now conclude my remarks by saying that if I am against abolishing capital punishment, or rather in favour of maintaining the death penalty, it does not necessarily mean that my constituents share my views. And, more particularly with regard to that point, I shall say, before I sit down, that there is no hon. member who could rise in this house and state: "The people in my riding are for-or against-capital punishment".
Hence, when the question is put-if we are called upon to cast our vote in this house-it also will not necessarily mean that people of Canada are satisfied with the decision of their representatives.
In my opinion, the only way to give satisfaction to our fellow citizens is to allow the public to provide an answer to this question. The people are not given this opportunity during this debate. However, it is useful in that it enlightens the public, enabling the people to consider the pros and cons of the question and to think it over in the quiet of their homes. But, I say again that the vote we will be asked to cast will not 79951-0-93J
Capital Punishment
necessarily mean that the people of Canada want capital punishment abolished or maintained.
Not one member in this house was elected in the last election by telling the people: "Vote for me, because I am in favour of the death penalty, or do not vote for me, because I am against the death penalty".
Hon. members were elected on a purely political platform, involving only political principles and administrative plans. None of them brought before public opinion this matter which involves not only the very conscience of members, but the conscience of the whole population.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this government-which I commend for informing the public-really wants to know the views of the Canadian people, there is only one way. That cannot be found out through a debate in the House of Commons, but through a national plebiscite in which every person in Canada would be called upon to take a stand for or against the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, in a number of countries, capital punishment has been abolished. Those who are in favour of maintaining capital punishment in those countries obviously do not condone such a state of affairs. They wonder whether it has been beneficial or detrimental to society.
In Canada, which is one of the most advanced countries in so far as democracy is concerned, the government should show the way to the whole world by deciding that it is not a responsibility of parliament to abolish or maintain the death penalty. Canada must, if it is to be an example to all nations, sound out the people's opinion through a plebiscite, so that every citizen may take a stand on this important matter, which concerns the conscience of every individual.
Mr. Speaker, there is to be a national census next year, and people will be going from door to door taking down the names, ages and number of voters in each home; why should we not take that opportunity to ask them-and it would save money too- if they are for or against keeping capital punishment.
In this way we would obtain a freely given opinion from all across Canada, and the government could consider this opinion obtained from door to door, an opinion that would itself have profited from the one expressed by the parliamentary committee which sat in 1955 and 1956 as well as by the debates of the House of Commons, as the basis to maintain or abolish capital punishment. Then, we would act in a democratic way, and it is only then that the population of Canada would be entirely satisfied.

Capital Punishment
The best example I could give, Mr. Speaker, is this: In the last election, I was not a Conservative. That is evident; well, if I had been asked to recognize the Conservative government because some members in this house had chosen the present government, I would always have been unhappy about it; but in the last election, the Conservative government was elected by the whole population of Canada, so I bowed my head and accepted the verdict. If the whole population want to abolish capital punishment, I will bow my head and accept the verdict, but, I will not if parliament alone makes the decision, because the matter would remain open to discussion. However, if we ask the people, we will get their opinion. Some quote the bible to support their arguments. They quote certain sentences of the bible, some in favour, others against abolition of capital punishment. Let me emphasize one truth: Vox populi, vox Dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God. If you want to know what God thinks, ask the people and you will know.
(Text):


Mr. J. W. Kucherepa (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate I should like to say that I hope the debate will prove exhaustive and that it will bring some positive results. The subject with which we are dealing today has come to the fore in recent years. On June 27, 1956 a parliamentary committee appointed to look into this matter submitted its report on this question and it recommended three things; first, retention of the death penalty; second, substitution of electrocution or a gas chamber for hanging; and, third, the abolition of executions for convicted murderers 18 years or under. With these recommendations I do not quarrel. In my opinion they are just as sound today as when they were made.
However, I should like to elaborate on the committee's second recommendation that electrocution or a gas chamber be substituted for hanging. Death by hanging is a brutal thing. The anxiety of some persons awaiting sentence of death over the possibility of inefficiency on the part of the hangman is something to be considered. Of the 42 states of the United States of America retaining the death penalty only 9 retain hanging. Twenty four have adopted electrocution, 8 have chosen lethal gas and one,

Utah, gives a choice of shooting or hanging. Only 9, as I said before, have retained hanging.
There is also in my opinion the desirability of having some centrally designated place set aside for the purpose of execution. This I think, would also provide that efficiency to which I have already referred. I am one of those who believe that there is no harm whatsoever in keeping the death penalty on the statute books even if we may not ever have to use it. Those who have spoken in favour of abolition have not dealt with the case of the convicted murderer imprisoned for life who murders his guard and perhaps murders again. What can society do under circumstances where capital punishment does not exist? I am afraid there is no answer to this question if capital punishment should be abolished.
I believe capital punishment is a deterrent, notwithstanding the statistics, because the number of people who have been deterred can never be known or even guessed at. I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temisca-mingue (Mr. Martineau) this afternoon with regard to the question of a deterrent.
I believe, the greatest deterrent of all is that basic instinct of man, self-preservation. I believe that when any murderer decides to follow that path with premeditation he must take this into consideration otherwise, in my opinion as a physician, he would not be a sane man. We have heard much regarding statistics which supposedly prove that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I am not in agreement with that view, however. I should like to put on the record part of an editorial which is to be found in the February 1, 1960 edition of Christianity Today which is published in Washington, D.C., with regard to the question of statistics in the "modern debate on the death penalty". I quote:
Statistics have been cited both to support and to oppose the claim that execution deters capital crimes. But a Christian lawyer, Eoscoe G. Sap-penfield of Geneva, Illinois, reminds us of an observation made by Judge Marcus Kavanaugh of Cook county superior court, Illinois, before the Detroit college of law.
May I remind you, sir, that Michigan does not impose the death penalty.
"Detroit with 1,600,000 residents, has had 484 homicides in two years, while Windsor, only 20 minutes from here, and with 75,000 residents, has had no homicides. Do you need any further arguments for capital punishment?" When capital crime statistics are unfavourable in jurisdictions

that impose the death penalty, Attorney Sappen-field adds, the law is not a deterrent because it is not really enforced."
I should like to commend the present government for their record in commuting 32 out of 40 sentences reviewed during the past 2J years. Here I see the greatest degree of consideration being extended to convicted murderers, despite the fact that under British law I believe there has never been a conviction made in a case in which there has been reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. I believe also that our rules relative to the admission of evidence are very strict, and are designed to protect the accused. I think we should keep in mind the old adage of British common law that it is better that 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man hang. The burden of proof in these cases is always on the crown, from the beginning to the end.
Some of those who have spoken here, especially the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) whose experience in this field goes back for many years, have presented this question in what 1 would consider to be a very sound way. The hon. member for Bellechasse has had experience, and I agree with his remarks, as well as the remarks of all other hon. members, to the effect that under British law there are safeguards which I believe do not easily lend themselves to that type of thing to which some hon. members who favour abolition have referred.
At this time, in all fairness, I should say something of the previous government and its attitude toward this problem. I want to assure those who are still here that I have the highest respect for the decisions which they made in this regard which resulted in few commutations. In that government there were outstanding men, some fine Christian gentlemen like the previous prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, a great lawyer in his own right, and along with him there were other competent men. I feel they expressed the public opinion of that day. I feel today public opinion probably is being fully expressed through the present government, although some members have suggested that perhaps there has been an undue pressure campaign in the direction of the abolition of capital punishment. Nevertheless I do think that the majority opinion has been seeking out something more in the direction in which the present government has been going.
There have been references made in the course of the debate, which I would not like to repeat, regarding statements made by leading jurists in the United Kingdom and in our country. I think, for the most part,
Capital Punishment
they all tend to support the principle which I believe is important, that is that capital punishment be retained on the statute books of our country, even though it may never be used in the years which lie ahead.
There is an important issue which has to be faced by every member in this house in giving consideration to the bill which is before us, and that is the moral issue. As a physician I have to make decisions every day in my life having in mind the moral laws, having in mind the moral question. In so far as this particular bill is concerned, I think the No. 1 consideration is the moral issue. Some of those who support this bill claim that they do so on moral grounds, that it is wrong even for society to take a life. However, the bill permits society to take a life in the case of treason. How my hon. friends resolve this dilemma, I do not know. I do believe the moral issue should be considered fully. These are my beliefs in this field.
I believe a policeman, acting on behalf of society, who is confronted with a situation which results in the killing of a lawbreaker is morally justified. I believe that an individual, criminally attacked and acting in self-defence who kills is morally justified. I believe that a member of the armed forces of a country waging a just war, according to the conscience of that individual, is also morally justified in his actions. I further believe, that the state has the right to use capital punishment in cases which the state considers to be serious crimes. In that category today in our country we place treason and murder. There can be, from time to time, other serious crimes of such a nature that they would warrant, in my opinion, capital punishment if society is to defend itself and if it is to preserve itself.
Many leading churchmen have expressed the view that capital punishment should not be abolished. The Archbishop of Canterbury in the Church of England believes that this is strictly a matter which should be dealt with on the grounds of whether it is in the interests of public safety, peace, order and good government. On that basis he believes that the death penalty should be retained. I certainly agree with him. Another leading churchman, Rev. E. L. H. Taylor, in his role as chaplain to the Canadian Legion, stated in an article published in the Toronto Star of February 16, 1960:
The Christian church, far from being traditionally opposed to capital punishment, was responsible for its original introduction into the legal systems of western Europe.
As I said before, in our country, where there are mitigating circumstances such as a jury's recommendation for mercy, that is

Capital Punishment
given very serious consideration. The whole matter is then considered by the department of the Solicitor General, through his experts. Then there is consideration given by the deputy minister of justice, the Minister of Justice and then the entire cabinet. A final decision is made and the governor in council is advised as to whether or not there shall be commutation. In fact, therefore, there are all kinds of safeguards to protect an innocent man from capital punishment. I really believe we have a most effective system and I doubt that under our system any really innocent person could possibly be executed.
Mention has been made during this debate of the fact that in New Zealand capital punishment had been abolished but was reinstituted at a future date. As a practical individual I cannot help but point out that the present government, even with its outstanding champions of abolition of capital punishment, have not seen their way clear to commute all death sentences, the last execution having taken place just a few weeks ago. I believe this fact is of the utmost importance, demonstrating as it does the need for the statute permitting capital punishment-but, I hope, of a more humane type-for dealing with those cases which shock public opinion to the extreme.
This serves to prove that the time has not come to abolish capital punishment at the present time. It seems that in the opinion of the majority of our present government there is still considerable need for capital punishment. We should not want to put ourselves into that embarrassing position of abolishing capital punishment today, only to find that at some future time there is a great demand for it by public opinion as a result of some terrible crime which may be committed. In my opinion, a person should not be tried under a retroactive law. This would be the gravest miscarriage of justice. In order to prevent any chance of such a situation developing, it seems to me that the wise thing to do is to retain capital punishment but, as I said before, of a more humane type, just in case it be necessary.
In conclusion I should like to say that I am strongly opposed to the present method of execution which is hanging. I should like to see the government bring forward a measure which would substitute a more humane method of execution than hanging; and also perhaps give consideration to establishing degrees of murder so that the courts may have more opportunity of carrying out their functions, not relying to that degree to which they now do on final government consideration of all death sentences, regardless of the degree of the crime. Parliament should retain

capital punishment of a more humane type so that parliament may never find itself in the position of being reconvened in order to pass emergency retroactive legislation.
In conclusion I should like to quote again from the February 1, 1960 edition of Christianity Today. The words I am quoting are those of Dr. Gordon H. Clark, head of the department of philosophy at Butler University, wherein he considers articles written on this subject. In his final paragraph he has summed the matter up as follows:
In other words, the opponents of capital punishment offer no theory of civil government, they seriously misinterpret the bible, and they are in conflict with the principles of Christian ethics.


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cariier):: From time to time in the life of a parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker, he is faced with a measure that creates difficulties for him in reaching a decision. This measure now before the house is one of those pieces of legislation that, I confess, I cannot rationalize. So many features come into play. There is so much to be said for each side and so much has been said for each side. I have sat through every speech and have been groping and seeking for some measure of enlightenment that will satisfy my own conscience that this is the way I can vote with peace of mind. I cannot say that I have reached such a decision, even at this late date of the debate.
I realize also-and I am a little stirred by it-that this is not a debate in a high school where we have debate on an academic basis, or even a debate at college on capital punishment. I realize that this is a debate on a level where we carry our own responsibilities. I can only bring my mind to a decision and I would place other hon. members in the same position as that in which I see myself.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I see every member of this house as sitting on the bench as a judge in a murder trial without even benefit of a jury or without benefit of a mandatory order by the code as to how he must act. We are all at liberty. We are all free and completely untrammeled. We must reach a decision. I ask myself this question: Can I in good conscience say that I will find a man guilty and by my own mind and by my own tongue pronounce those words that will put him to death? I am afraid, Mr. Speaker,-and I confess it again-that I could not bring myself to do that. I am afraid that what will guide me is my conscience and my thinking.
I have heard eloquent arguments by men who know the subject perhaps better than anyone else in this house. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney), an eminent

defence counsel, a man who has met murderers, who has talked with them, who has attempted to delve into their minds, has taken a very strong position and a very convincing one. Then we heard tonight from the hon. member from Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion), an equally eminent criminal lawyer, who presented as forceful a case for capital punishment. I confess that I would be in a frightful dilemma if I were obliged to decide between those two eminent men who know their subject, who know the whole theory and who know the whole problem of what is entailed in this matter.
I came to the house with a feeling of repugnance by nature to putting human beings to death. I am sure the house can well appreciate that I would have a natural repugnance to putting human beings to death. Because I have that repugnance I came here with an open mind, with the idea that maybe something will be said in this house that will be sufficiently forceful to make me change my mind. I must say that I have not found it.
I have been groping for an answer to one question above all others and it is this: Is capital punishment a deterrent? I would be prepared-and I speak for myself as an individual-to support capital punishment if it had been convincingly stated beyond the shadow of any doubt-and that is the way in which we as judges tonight must look at it-that it is a deterrent. As long as it has not been convincingly stated to us as judges that capital punishment is a deterrent, if we were to support it I think we would be making an unfair judgment in a vital criminal matter. We would not be giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused in these circumstances.
Because I have that doubt in my mind I am duty bound to my own conscience, to my own training in the law, to the vast jurisprudence that has been created, to give that benefit of the doubt to the accused; and the accused tonight, Mr. Speaker, is everyone in the future who will ever come to trial for murder. We must give the benefit of that doubt to guard those potential hundreds of accused, God forbid, and that is our guide. It is certainly my guide.
I must take issue with the proposer of the bill on one point. If in theory the death penalty is not a deterrent, then why retain it even for one crime? Why retain it for treason? If it is a deterrent, then it should also be a deterrent for treason. I see a serious contradiction here in the measure which the hon. member now presents to us.


Mr. McGee:: Did the hon. member hear my speech?
Capital Punishment


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, I heard your speech, but the fact is that if I am asked to vote tonight on the bill, then the hon. member who has presented the bill must also vote on the question whether there shall be capital punishment at least on one item. If the philosophy of capital punishment is such that it is not a deterrent, then most certainly it should not be retained for even a single crime.
In those circumstances I really do not know how I would vote tonight. If I vote for the bill I am voting for the removal of capital punishment; but at the same time I would be voting that it would be retained for one item or two items. I am afraid, therefore, I would in all conscience perhaps have to abstain from voting. I would prefer to vote for a straight measure to eliminate capital punishment.


Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad of the privilege to take part in this debate. Before I launch into any of my arguments to substantiate my opinion on this question I should like to congratulate the mover of this bill, particularly for bringing it before the house. I was not too impressed with the arguments with which he backed his bill. As one who has had over 25 years' experience, I cannot see things as he sees them. But I also want to pay my compliments to many other speakers in this debate. As many other hon. members have said, I think this has been a wide-open, conscientious debate where hon. members have spoken according to their conscience or belief.
I would like to pay special tribute to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney). I think that anybody who came in here and did not understand the issue before him should be convinced by his argument. It would be very difficult, with a man with the experience of defending criminals which this hon. gentleman has had, not to be convinced, I will grant him that. However, I would like to say that in my experience lawyers associated with a certain type of case become very much sympathetic toward that type of case, and his argument had no effect on me.
I should like to read this particular section which the bill suggests should replace the existing section 206 of the act:
Every one who commits murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Those last words mean nothing. There is only one way you can vote on this question today, unless you want the criminals who commit the worst crimes in this country to be running abroad. I feel very strongly on this issue. I am one of just a few hon. members of this house who sat on the special committee. We heard the evidence. We saw

Capital Punishment
the witnesses. We listened to their stories, and the majority of our committee came to a very sound conclusion, in my personal opinion, and we recommended that capital punishment be retained. We also recommended, of course, that it might be reviewed.
Capital punishment has been narrowed down to two crimes, and the one we are discussing in particular is murder, the worst of all crimes. I defy anyone to prove to me that a man who commits murder ever gives any consideration to the person he murders. As far as I am concerned I am not prepared to give any consideration to the murderer.
That does not mean to say that I am in full accord with the type of execution, and on this point I think there is a great deal of confusion. I know there is a lot of confusion in the minds of the public. I know that they are mixing the two questions, one of conviction and the other of execution. They should be considered separately, but in the minds of the public they are not considered separately; and I know from listening to the speeches of hon. members in this house that they are somewhat confused. I will admit that it is rather difficult for those who have not much experience in criminal matters to think about these two things separately.
The next thing is that I am not interested in the deterrent. Statistics? We had books of them. We had briefs full of them. You can get statistics to prove the case either way, depending on which way you are thinking. Statistics have been quoted here, but they mean nothing. What have we got a law for in this country anyway? Did we not start back in the beginning to draw up a law for the protection of society for order and good government? If we are going to maintain it we must maintain punishment also to keep it worth while. I suppose I am the only speaker who has mentioned that word. Everyone has refrained from using the word "punishment". If you break the gaming laws you are punished by a fine. If you break the liquor laws you may be punished with a jail sentence and a fine. Every law we have must carry a punishment if it is broken, and there is no reason why the worst crime of all should not carry the heaviest penalty of all, the death sentence.
Let me say that I respect the opinions of these good-thinking people who go about the country trying to be reformists. I think most of them are sincere but I do not agree with their arguments. I will agree with the hon. member for Parkdale, who was so fair. He said that it is not the only deterrent, and I agree. He made another statement with which I also agree. He said, if I understood

him aright, that it was not morally wrong. A lot of hon. members in this house and also people outside argue that it is morally wrong to put a man to death after he has committed murder and was proven to have done so. I think, if I quote the hon. member for Parkdale correctly, he said we are morally entitled to do it but we are not morally obligated to do it. I agree with that; I think it is a very fair statement.
Another argument which was raised was that of error. In my experience, and I think it can be proved by the debates in this house, we represent here a cross section of this country and amongst us are professional men, businessmen, farmers, representatives of many forms of work and labour. We represent in the best sense of the word the type of men who sit on a jury. You get a crosssection of the community, all good, law abiding, honest reliable men and women, and in all my experience I will tell you right now, and any other lawyer will back me up, in nine cases out of ten the jury is usually right.
I have not got time to tell stories to illustrate these things or to go into the history, but if the jury are hearing the evidence on a person who has been sent to trial they are very careful and, as they are warned by the court, if there is any kind of doubt they will give the benefit of that doubt to the accused person. The prisoner has every chance in the world to get off scot-free, because the old theory is that it is better that 99 men should go free than that one innocent person should be condemned. Under our system here in Canada there has been no evidence in a criminal case-the crime of all crimes-that an innocent man has been convicted. I will go further and say that when a man or a woman is convicted and all the subsequent legal steps open to them have been taken, including appeals on legal questions and so on, the matter then goes before a remission board. I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) said that all these cases were considered very carefully. Certainly, within the last few years, they have been.
I remember well that when the committee was sitting the then minister of justice of this country, Mr. Stuart Garson, told us that every aspect of these cases was reviewed; the mental state of the convicted person, whether his offence was a crime of passion, or due to drunkenness, and so on. Submissions are made by a lawyer on behalf of the accused, the judge who tried the case files a long report, relatives of the accused may submit briefs and, in short, the man is given every chance in the world. There is a medical examination. When all these things have been



[Stage Direction]
taken into consideration, if any of these factors can be interpreted in favour of the accused man, he is not executed.
For this reason I was surprised to hear hon. members here today, and on the last day when this debate took place, saying we should abolish capital punishment because the government was using the royal prerogative too often. At least the opinion seemed to be getting around: what is the use of sentencing these people; the government is going to let them off, so why not change the law making it possible for the judge to sentence them to life imprisonment. Life imprisonment does not mean a thing under our law. Until that is fixed there is no way in which anyone can vote with regard to this bill unless he is an abolitionist and wants murderers to be running around this country after a very short period in the penitentiary. In my opinion, members of this house are bound to vote to retain capital punishment until there are a lot of other changes made.
One hon. member said it was unfortunate that a person convicted of murder had to go through weeks of torment before his execution or before he found out that he would be reprieved and sent to prison. I may be awfully hard boiled, I do not know, but I will tell you there are a lot of things I can be sentimental about just as much as the other fellow, but unfortunately I cannot be sentimental about the man who strikes down a little child or a woman and does not care what sort of crime he commits. I consider such crimes to be premeditated crimes, and nothing is too bad for that man. I think he should be executed, to put it shortly, and I think in fact that this is the type of criminal who is subjected to the death penalty under our present system. This is the only type of criminal who is being executed. Everything is taken into consideration. It is only when a man was not drunk at the time he committed his crime; when he did it in a fit of passion; when he did it deliberately and knowingly, that the full penalty is exacted.
I may say, incidentally that I have not too much sympathy with a man who commits murder in a fit of passion, either. But if a man goes out armed with a gun or other instrument with intention to commit a burglary, and makes up his mind that he is going to kill anyone who gets in his way, I consider that to be premeditated murder and I have no sympathy with it. As to the other type of murderer, the man or woman who is upset psychologically, I do not think hon. members will find that any of them are executed.
I feel very strongly on this subject, and many of the things which I think of saying
Capital Punishment
have been said before. However, before I finish I should like to say to those hon. members who are not able to make up their minds that they are either badly confused, just as many people outside this house are, because they do not understand the procedure during the trial of a criminal, or else there is some other reason why they do not want to make up their minds. It seems to me that any man who has been sent here as a member of parliament should be capable of making up his mind one way or the other. It is our business to give leadership to our constituencies. It is not for us to follow them. For example, how many people in my constituency know what steps are taken from the time a person is apprehended until the day of his reprieve or execution? A very small percentage, I would say. I have talked to people in Ottawa and I find that they do not understand our procedure. Besides, there is another thing: they are mixing the execution with the conviction.
I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that most of the people of this country who are sound, solid citizens, feel that the law of this country should be observed. In order to make this country safe for society we cannot allow these people who deliberately plan to kill and do kill to suffer, in the end, less than an execution. They should be removed from society. As long as they are imprisoned they will not be permanently removed from society. As an hon. member said a moment ago, they could commit as many murders as they like and there would be nothing we could do about it but put them in prison.
I could not support this bill and have no hesitation in taking a strong stand against it. However, I appreciate and respect the opinions that have been expressed by the mover of the bill and those hon. members who have spoken in favour of it. I cannot help but wonder, though, if some of them really understand the nature of this question. I wonder if some have had terrible crimes committed in their constituencies, practically on -their door steps. I wonder if they have, as it were, come face to face with heinous crimes.
After a man is apprehended and convicted several months elapse before the time for his execution arrives. People have forgotten the revulsion they felt at first hearing of the crime. The newspapers and television and many good people in the community sort of play up the terrible fact of hanging. I do not care whether you do it by hanging, electrocution or the gas chamber-I am not particularly stuck on any of these means of execution-but I feel that murderers should pay the supreme penalty. I say you pay your money and you take your choice.
[Stage Direction]
Capital Punishment
We want to make Canada a safe, happy society. We want this to he a place where we can feel that our wives and daughters will be safe on the streets even in the evenings. We want it to be a place where you will feel safe walking down the street with a thousand dollars in your pocket, although I do not imagine that many hon. members will ever have that experience. I feel that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and keeps our country safe.
We must remember that our country is different from England and various European countries. This all came out in the joint committee where this question was considered. It was pointed out that Canadians lives alongside another country that has a different outlook on life and plenty of crime. We do not want to make our backyard a resting place or haven for people from across the line who are evading the law. One way we can rid society of these people is to have United States criminals come over here and commit these serious crimes, and we will take them out of society.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity of presenting my views on this bill and I am sorry that I must inform the mover of the bill that I am going to vote against it.
Mr. H. E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate in the house there has been a great deal of discussion of the problems concerning capital punishment. For me the problem can be resolved by answering the following six questions.
The first question is, is the death penalty an effective deterrent? Second, is the imposition of the death penalty un-Christian? Third, are innocent persons ever hanged? Of course, bound up in this question is the question of whether or not insane persons are ever hanged. The fourth question is, is life imprisonment a sufficiently effective protection for the public in cases of crimes warranting a sentence of capital punishment? Fifth, does the carrying out of the death sentence brutalize those who are involved in its execution and does it lower the moral tone in the community in which it was carried out? Sixth, is capital punishment merely retributive justice?
Before dealing with the deterrents I should like to take issue with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) who suggested that the burden of proof as to whether this bill should be supported is on those of us who do not support the bill. I would suggest that the burden of proof as to whether the law should be changed is on those who support it. It is their duty to make out a sufficiently strong case as to convince us that the law should be changed.

Many statistics are available in relation to the question of deterrents. Statistics in relation to this question do not impress me in the least because in the first place we have no means of knowing how many people were deterred from committing the crime of murder and, in the second place, the crime rate and the kind of crime in any country depends on various external factors which make it impossible to determine it statistically. The moral climate of a country determines the crime rate and thus the murder rate. The economic conditions of a country also have a bearing on the matter. One would have to rationalize these problems before one could say statistically that the murder rate has been increased or decreased by the abolition of the death sentence.
For guidance in this question I feel that we must look elsewhere to those who have had great experience in the administration of justice, in police work, prison management, the rehabilitation of criminals, judges, criminal lawyers, police experts, prison wardens, penologists and others. Here, too, opinion is divided, but I feel that the opinions of those in whom I place the greatest reliance is that the death penalty is an effective deterrent in many kinds of killings and for that reason if for no other I would oppose this bill.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) who has so eloquently stated the case for opposition to this bill was a member in 1955 and 1956 of the joint committee of this house and the other place which made a long and exhaustive study of the statistics involved in crimes and also conducted an examination of witnesses and experts in these matters. The conclusions embodied in the report of that committee state in part:
The committee has concluded that the death penalty is most likely to operate as a restraint and a deterrent to professional criminals who are obviously not deterred from crime by the risk of imprisonment alone, and that it is necessary to retain capital punishment to minimize the tendency of Canadian criminals to use violence in the commission of other crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the business will be for tomorrow and Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow, we will continue with the supplementary estimates. If they are completed we will take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works

dealing with the National Housing Act. Should that be completed we will take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
Monday is a private members' day. On Tuesday the order of business-subject to change if necessary on Monday-will be the supplementary estimates, the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the tenure of office of judges, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with the National Housing Act, to be followed by the motion in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to set up a joint committee to consider the Indian Act. After that we will take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport
Business of the House dealing with the Railway Act. That business would be continued on Wednesday in, I hope, that order.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire when the
debate on this motion will be resumed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give an answer to that question tonight. It will be the subject of consultation among the parties. Full notice will be given so that hon. members who want to be here for the continuation of the debate will be certain of the day. It will be brought forward before the house by special order naming this particular bill for discussion on the appointed date.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions