1960-02-18

REPORT ON FIFTH MEETING OF JOINT CANADA-U.S. COMMITTEE

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report briefly to the house that in Washington yesterday and the day before there was held the fifth meeting of the joint Canada-U.S. committee on trade and economic affairs.
The United States was represented by Hon. Christian Herter, secretary of state; Hon. Douglas Dillon, undersecretary of state; Hon. Robert B. Anderson, secretary of the treasury; Hon. Fred A. Seaton, secretary of interior; Hon. Ezra T. Benson, secretary of argiculture; Hon. Frederick H. Mueller, secretary of commerce, and Mr. Don Paarlberg of the White House. The Canadian government was represented by my colleagues the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and myself.
The meetings covered a very broad range of questions pertaining to trade and economic matters of mutual interest to the two countries. The meetings afforded an opportunity for friendly and frank discussion and very helpful and constructive exchanges of views and information.
The representatives of both countries were able at the conclusion of these meetings to express satisfaction at the very high degree of understanding and co-operation between the two governments.
Mr. Speaker, may I table for the information of the house a copy of the communique which was issued at the close of the meetings. If it is the wish of hon. members perhaps it could be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that the document referred to by the minister be printed as an appendix to Hansard of today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of document above referred to, see appendix.]

On the orders of the day:


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the report of the Minister of Finance on the
conversations in Washington, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who took part in those conversations, whether the uranium industry was discussed and, in particular, the possibility of the United States resuming purchases from Canada of this vital defence product?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the subjects of conversation at the meetings in Washington. The United States position remains unchanged. They see no need for increasing their present stockpile of uranium for the purpose mentioned by my hon. friend.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether at the present time or previously he has taken up this matter with the President of the United States?


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is one of those that were discussed by members of the government with representatives of the United States, and it was made perfectly clear during those discussions that the United States, having such a surplus of uranium, could not consider any extension beyond 1962 of the existing contracts.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would he tell the house when those discussions took place?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally I cannot categorically answer that type of question, but the discussions took place on a number of occasions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether the Prime Minister himself had taken up this matter with the President, and it did not relate to general discussions between the two governments.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, any discussion between the President and the Prime Minister in these matters, I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree having regard to past experience, is not generally brought before parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking for details of discussions. Quite properly, I think, I was asking whether the subject matter had been discussed by the Prime Minister with the President of the United States, not the details of the discussion.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go any further than I have gone.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES UNIVERSITY GRANTS    INQUIRY AS TO ARRANGEMENT WITH QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance whether a question which I asked on Tuesday has been brought to his attention. It was as follows:
May I ask whether an arrangement was made with respect to the university grants at present held by the conference of Canadian universities and the capital grants available through the Canada Council?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last Saturday I was in Quebec, and had the opportunity there of discussing with the premier of Quebec and two other members of the Quebec government questions pertaining to federal grants to universities. I may say that the meeting proceeded in a very happy and harmonious spirit. I hope to be introducing in the house very soon a resolution to precede the introduction of a bill to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act, at which time there will be full opportunity to discuss this question.


Lionel Chevrier: Was there any discussion of hospital insurance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister consider the removal of the burden of double taxation on those people who have received or will receive payments under the Ontario health plan, and who cannot deduct those medical expenses from their taxable income even though they have paid tax on their contributions to the Ontario hospital plan?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this is hardly an appropriate question for the orders of the day. It concerns an amendment to tax legislation. I am not commenting on the way in which the hon. gentleman has undertaken to lay a factual foundation for his question. There may be some observations which would be appropriate in that respect. But as the question relates to tax policy I must take the ground that it is entirely out of order on orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to say something on that question? I think the point is well taken, that this relates to fiscal decisions which are not ordinarily decided by answers on orders of the day.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Bell):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister advise the house, in the light of his answer the other day, whether he has now made arrangements to visit Elliot Lake shortly?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to both the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as house leader, and ask whether it would be possible to arrange for early consideration of the motion to establish a joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place on Indian affairs, in order that we may proceed with that important committee as early as possible.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion will be given consideration. The earlier we get on with some of this business the better. It depends on the house, of course, and how rapidly it proceeds with other matters.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the restrictive trade practices commission investigating the charges of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada that the recent Canadian Gallup poll on the trading stamp issue was not as independent and unbiased as would seem to be desirable in the public interest?


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question I must advise the hon. gentleman that the restrictive trade practices commission is not making any such investigation and would not, as I conceive its responsibilities, be called on to make such an investigation because it does not seem to me to fall within the area for which that commission is responsible.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue, in his capacity as reporter for the C.B.C., if he can say whether there is any provision in the capital program of the C.B.C., which is included in this year's estimates, for the proposed television station at Edmonton.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I will have to take that question as notice and give an answer later.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate asked if I was aware that the Canadian National Railways is discontinuing the cafeteria car on the maritime express, and requested that the management be asked to reconsider the matter.
I have been in touch with the management, and they advise that cafeteria service has not been discontinued but that there has been some rearrangement of meal car facilities in line with passenger demands. The management assure me that there will continue to be meal service on the maritime express.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielefs (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Because of the controversial opinions expressed by the federal government and the provinces on their respective jurisdictions relative to
Inquiries of the Ministry trading stamps, does the government contemplate the advisability of referring the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a reference?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
Mr. Speaker. There is no uncertainty about this matter in the mind of the federal government, and no such reference is contemplated.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the stand taken by the attorney general of the province of Quebec in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member is on solid ground in asking a question about the opinion of the attorney general of another province, and I am not sure that that is within the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Justice.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: With respect to your decision, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice was on his feet ready to answer.



MANITOBA-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST TO MAKE CORRESPONDENCE PUBLIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can answer today my question about Manitoba.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact the latest information I have is that the file is being checked. The information is not complete.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister consider tabling the correspondence, if there is no objection on the part of Manitoba?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I would have no reason not to table it under those circumstances.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I regret that I was unable to send him notice of it, because it just came to my attention. I wonder whether the minister's attention has been drawn to an article in this morning's Globe and Mail which indicates that Dr. D. L. Gibson, head of the dairy department of the University of Saskatchewan, stated that strontium 90 can exert less effect on the human

Inquiries of the Ministry body if it is consumed with large amounts of calcium, found notably in milk, and whether this opinion coincides with the opinions of the officials of the minister's department.


Mr. Speaker:: I recall that we had answers to questions about the effect of strontium 90 earlier in the session, and I question whether it is a matter of urgency or immediacy that should be asked orally. I think it had better go on the order paper.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question arising out of a report by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that it had received certain assistance from the United States atomic energy commission. May I ask whether this is, as reported, a new departure in the relations between these two agencies, and whether it is direct aid on the part of the United States agency?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no direct aid whatsoever involved in this, Mr. Speaker. There was a misinterpretation by the press of the announcement by Atomic Energy, corrected in the issues of today, I think, and very well stated in the article I saw in the Globe and Mail this morning.
There is no direct aid here at all. The United States authorities are anxious to pursue research in the field of the use of natural uranium and heavy water, and are asking for an appropriation for that purpose. All along there has been a free exchange of scientific information in atomic research between the two countries, and that will continue as in the past.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue and I admit that I have not given him notice, a most unusual proceeding. On January 15 last I asked the minister if he could tell the house what was happening with respect to the acquisition of a site by the C.B.C. to provide television facilities for the Rossland-Trail area. At that time he said in reply that negotiations were going on between officials of the C.B.C.


and officials of the government of British Columbia, and he hoped that the problem would be solved very soon. Can he tell the house whether that period, "very soon", has now elapsed, and the developments to date?


George Clyde Nowlan: I will get some information on this matter, but negotiations have been carried on between the corporation and the government of British Columbia, and my last advice was that there was no difficulty in the way and the matter would soon be completed. It may have been finally completed or it may not, but I will inquire and advise the house in the immediate future.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, if I may have the indulgence of the house I should like to make a suggestion with regard to the debate which is about to commence, in which there is great interest.
I think everyone realizes the difficulty from the point of view of time in reaching a firm decision when we are concerned with private members' matters, but I have this suggestion to make. If in the opinion of the house a second day is desired for the continuation of this debate, we are prepared to provide a government day for that purpose and that day will be next Thursday, February 25.
This will require unanimous consent, for it means setting aside a third Thursday for private members and, second, retaining Bill No. C-6 in first position on the order paper under the heading "Public bills and orders". The house may wish to consider this suggestion at this time or later today after the debate has progressed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestion that has been made by the leader of the house I do not think there will be any objection from this side of the house, if the house feels that more than one day is required to discuss this bill, to having the discussion continue next Thursday. However, there is another point that has come to our attention and I should like to bring it to the attention of either the house leader or yourself, Mr. Speaker.
The bill about to be discussed by the house deals with one aspect of the subject only. There are members on this side of the house

who feel that they cannot intelligently or appropriately discuss the bill without giving consideration to the other bills concerning capital punishment which are now on the order paper as alternatives to the proposal that will be under discussion.
If Your Honour applies the rules strictly, then I presume that the discussion will have to be related to this bill only. There is a feeling on this side of the house that in view of the fact this is to be a general debate which will go on for more than a day, Your Honour perhaps might allow those of us who feel like discussing the other alternatives to do so. I believe there are three such measures other than the bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough, which will be under discussion, and we feel that we should be allowed the opportunity to consider the other proposals as alternatives during the course of the discussion.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the house leader is most welcome. I trust it may be a good omen that the offer is being made of a government day rather than a private members' day. We trust that this means there will be favourable progress in the discussion of the bill, and that a decision will be obtained at an early date.
Far be it from me to endeavour to anticipate your ruling on the question raised by the hon. member for Laurier, but on the basis of my experience in the house I would think that on second reading of this bill the whole question of the abolition of capital punishment and everything related thereto, including the proposals raised in other bills, would be considered in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we might deal with one thing at a time. I will come to the question of the scope of the debate. The proposal is that if the debate is not concluded today, next Thursday be regarded as a third private members' day and the debate be continued on that day, with priority being given to the adjourned debate on the bill in question; that is assuming, of course, that if the debate is concluded it will be a government day and the house will then proceed with government business. Does the house give unanimous consent to this order, so that it may be settled now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: On the other point, if the house wishes to give its unanimous instruction with respect to this debate, it could be done; but normally the discussion of other bills by name and their contents in detail would be out of order, as was indicated by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), although 79951-0-75J
Capital Punishment
a debate on the abolition of capital punishment, as it is set out in this particular bill, would naturally permit some reference to the extent of the bill or alternatives. Perhaps the house leader may have something to say on that question, because the house might make an order that would free the Chair to allow discussion of the particulars of the other bills which are on the order paper relating to the same subject matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would think that in the discussion of the original bill, alternatives could be suggested; but it would not be following the practice of the house to take the other bills into consideration as such.


Mr. Speaker:: No; that is not the suggestion. The suggestion simply was that the Chair might not exercise the usual limitation which might preclude some of the discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the house will support the Chair if it allows a little bit more latitude than would otherwise be possible.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-6, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks of the party leaders concerning the arrangements and agreements which have been reached in the house, I feel somewhat at a disadvantage. I based my remarks and preparation therefor on the assumption that we would be discussing only this bill, the specific issue of the abolition of capital punishment. However, if time allows at the conclusion of the debate, I hope I might be permitted to make a few observations in a general sense concerning those other bills.
I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if I indicated what my personal motivations were in introducing this bill and how we have come to this position in the house today. A few years ago I served on two successive murder juries in the city of Toronto. As I have indicated in this house previously, both accused were found guilty of murder and sentenced to hang. Both sentences were appealed successfully at a later date on the ground of misdirection of the jury.
Following that experience, having been brought face to face with the practical issue of capital punishment, I decided it would be appropriate at least to examine more

Capital Punishment
thoroughly the case for and the case against capital punishment. In the intervening years I have made it my business to read just about everything I could find on the subject, on both sides; I should like to underline that fact.
I think it would be appropriate to mention in passing, Mr. Speaker, that the remarks of Mr. Chief Justice McRuer in his instructions to one of the juries on which I sat were to the effect that the jury room is not the place in which to alter the law of Canada; that the law is as it is and must be treated as it stands. He added, almost as an afterthought, that the place in which to change the law was the parliament of Canada. Although at that time I had no anticipation or expectation of it, I now find myself in parliament and I propose to do just that.
One of the books I read was written by Sir Ernest Gowers who served as chairman of the royal commission in the United Kingdom in 1949; I refer to the royal commission established to inquire into capital punishment. The remarks he made so closely parallel my own experience and my own conclusions in this matter that I should like to read into the record of this debate the remarks that appear in the preface to that book:
Before serving on the royal commission I, like most other people, had given no great thought to this problem. If I had been asked for my opinion, I should probably have said that I was in favour of the death penalty, and disposed to regard abolitionists as people whose hearts were bigger than their heads. Four years of close study on the subject gradually dispelled that feeling. In the end I became convinced that the abolitionists were right in their conclusions-and that so far from the sentimental approach leading into their camp and the rational one into that of the supporters, it was the other way about.
Quite apart from the parallel situation in the much more modest way in which I experienced it, I attach considerable significance to that statement.
I would ask the indulgence of the house in allowing me to clear up a few matters before I come to the nub of the argument on the issue of capital punishment. On both sides of this issue I have been accused of going too far, and not far enough in the matter of not attempting to amend the law concerning treason. It has been many years since anyone was executed for treason in this country. In the main the law concerning treason relates to and presupposes a situation in which war is declared or is about to be declared. I felt it would be better to leave that matter apart from this debate, and to settle the clear issue. In this bill we are proposing to abolish capital punishment for murder and this, as I said earlier, is the clear, single issue before us.
When this bill was introduced for first reading, Mr. Speaker, it was seconded jointly

by a member of the Liberal party and a member of the C.C.F. party, as I indicated, as the rules would allow. My reason for this was that in my reading on this subject I encountered the development which unfortunately took place in our sister commonwealth country of New Zealand. In case hon. members are not aware of the fact, I may say that it did become a political issue in that country. One government commuted all death sentences for a number of years and in 1943 proposed a bill to abolish capital punishment. This bill carried over strenuous opposition, and when that government was defeated the former opposition introduced a bill to restore capital punishment.
This happened about 1949. Capital punishment was again in effect in New Zealand from 1950 to 1957, when the first government was re-elected, and since that time have commuted all death sentences. The pattern would indicate that one of these years it will reintroduce a bill to abolish capital punishment. These are consequences of this matter becoming a party issue; and I submit, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to our sister country of the commonwealth that it is most undesirable to arrive at a situation where a change of government involves a fundamental change in the criminal code.
It is interesting to note in connection with New Zealand that during the immediate postwar period, from 1946 until 1950, the average number of murders per year was 6.7. This was a period when capital punishment was abolished. In the years from 1950 to 1956, the latest figures I could obtain from the New Zealand high commissioner's office show the average number of murders was 8.7. That is one indication, Mr. Speaker, of the sort of statistics which result where experiments under given circumstances have taken place.
I would like to raise another point at this time, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the number of letters I have personally received and letters which have appeared in many newspapers in my constituency and other newspapers across the country, dealing with the question of sympathy for the murderer. There are a great number of people who are under the impression that among my motives and the motives of those who support the abolition of capital punishment is sympathy for murderers at the expense of sympathy for the murderers' victims and their families. I would like to state categorically, Mr. Speaker, that of course there is not an hon. member in this house, or in any other house, who has not the most profound sympathy for these people. But my main

concern is for this society in which I live. As a member of this parliament I would like to make my contribution, and change the law as I and many other hon. members in this house feel it should be changed.
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 eighteen 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, and I would assume that if the eighteenth month had been added this figure would have been higher. That again underlines the fact that the non-existence of capital punishment at a given point in time in a given country does not relate in any provable way to the contention of those who support the retention of capital punishment.
I would now like to put on record very briefly the reasons-and they are not emotional reasons-why those of us who favour this bill are in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.
First, we contend that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, and certainly not a unique deterrent. Second-and perhaps I speak for myself on this matter, Mr. Speaker-I feel it is morally wrong that the state should take a human life. Some religious groups argue that it is morally defensible, but I think no religious group takes the view that it is morally mandatory. The qualification is always if it is necessary that the state should take a human life, then that is a moral justification. Many other religious groups are very fundamentally opposed to capital punishment, in addition to the groups I have mentioned. The question whether or not capital punishment is necessary revolves, in my opinion, around the question of the deterrent, and I will come back to that later in my remarks.
The third reason, Mr. Speaker, is that capital punishment is based on revenge, on
Capital Punishment
retribution. Punishment, in my opinion, should be reformative, not retributive, and certainly the sanctity of human life and the Christian concept of redemption should apply as far as this question is concerned.
I read in the record of debates in other years a statement which I still believe is one of the more powerful statements on this subject, and I would like to put it on record again at this point. It is the statement of Rabbi Feinberg of Holy Blossom temple, Toronto, and is as follows:
Is any human being exempt from the desire to be appeased by a criminal's contorted agony? I remember the gratification I derived from the hanging of the nazi war criminals. They had steeped their hands in the blood of six million Jews, the evil they visited on mankind was beyond reckoning-yet I recall my feelings with shame, as unworthy, and as more excusable only in degree than the cries of the mob milling about the gallows at Cornwall prison recently.
The next reason, and perhaps the most obvious of all, Mr. Speaker, is the risk of error. Lafayette said, "I shall ask for the abolition of the death penalty until I have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me". Innocent men have been hanged and innocent men will be hanged as long as human beings are human beings and subject to error.
I have reviewed at length, and I shall not repeat those arguments here, some of my personal observations and opinions concerning the capacity of the legal system as presently constituted to reach a sufficiently certain conclusion to justify absolutely the taking of a human life. I spoke of the tendencies of judges, the tendencies of juries, the position of the crown versus the defence in terms of their respective capacities and knowledge of the law. I spoke of the resources available to the police versus the resources available to the defence lawyer, particularly in the case of legal aid.
There is another reason, Mr. Speaker, which can be demonstrated, and it concerns the adverse effect on justice of capital punishment. Juries, being composed of human beings, are reluctant in many cases to bring in a verdict which will result in a hanging; and as the law stands today a verdict of guilty of murder automatically carries with it a hanging sentence. This, in terms of the protection of society which must flow through our consideration of this matter, is clearly illogical and not in my view desirable.
Another reason advanced concerns the unequal results of almost identical actions. The position of an attempted murderer whose bullet misses by a fraction of an inch a vital organ of his victim, compared with that of the murderer whose bullet goes through a victim's

Capital Punishment
heart, is an example. How, under the present law, can we judge that one person in this situation should be hanged and the other set free in a relatively short time to return to society? This difficulty accounts for the contradictions in the attempts which have been made to resolve this question of the degree of culpability in situations like this.
I should like to return to this question of the deterrent effect of capital punishment upon which, as I said earlier, the debate will largely hinge. In the early days in England- and it was not very long ago-public hangings were the order of the day, and among the categories of crime which were punishable by hanging was pickpocketing. Reports from those days indicate that when pickpockets were publicly hanged-and certainly if hangings were ever to be a deterrent, a public display of hangings was to be expected to have that effect-pickpockets were busier than ever. As a matter of fact the moment of the drop, all eyes being riveted on the victim, was exactly the moment when the pickpockets made hay in the audience. Public hangings were finally stopped when a committee investigated the matter and produced evidence, one part of which was that out of 167 candidates for hanging 164 had personally witnessed a public hanging. Clearly the deterrent aspect of public hanging was not working, and it was discontinued.
This question, and arguments concerning deterrents, were dealt with by a number of writers on the subject, and one of them has put it this way:
The gallows obviously failed as a deterrent in all cases where murder has actually been committed.
Surely this is the most obvious statement of all.
It is certainly not a deterrent to murderers who commit suicide, and one third of all murderers do. It is not a deterrent to the insane and mentally deranged or to those who commit murder in a quarrel, or in drunkenness or in a sudden surge of passion. This type of murder amounts to 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all murders that are committed.
It is not a deterrent to the type of person who commits murder because he desires to be hanged, and these cases are not infrequent. It is not a deterrent to the person who firmly believes in his own perfect method-by poison, acid bath, and so on-which, he thinks, will never be found out.
It seems to me with regard to this question of deterrence that ultimately one comes down to the fact that the only effective deterrent is the certainty of apprehension and conviction. Elsewhere in Sir Ernest Gowers' book, which I mentioned earlier, the following comments appear:
The verdict on capital punishment as an instrument of retribution must be that it satisfies a

popular demand in a way that no other punishment could. How widespread that demand is no one knows, but it is certainly not negligible. Whether it is right or necessary for the state to encourage its satisfaction is another matter.
This is the matter with which we are concerned today. It has been argued, concerning the deterrent factor, that the abolition of capital punishment would result in a spectacular increase in crime. Throughout history when the categories of crimes punishable by death have been reduced the cry has been the same, and undoubtedly it will be the same today. Up until 1956 some 36 countries had abolished capital punishment, and nowhere in the statistics or in the analysis of the crime rates in those countries and states has any evidence been produced before any royal commission on this subject, which I have encountered, to support such a proposition.
In the case of the United States, which perhaps is a convenient example, there were until 1958, when Delaware abolished capital punishment, six states which had abolished capital punishment, many of them for many years. The murder rate per 100,000 population in the other 42 states at that time was exactly 7.04; in the six states which had abolished capital punishment, including a state such as Michigan with a large metropolis comparable, perhaps, to many in our own country, it was 1.838. Surely this is an answer in advance to those who contend that the murder rate would immediately bound upward if capital punishment were abolished.
There are other examples, and I think these are even more pertinent in view of the fact that arguments have been raised concerning this matter in and out of the newspapers and certainly in my correspondence. What happens when a country or a state, adjoining another state which has retained capital punishment, abolishes the death penalty? It has been asked, is it not reasonable that those who are bent on a life of crime should gravitate to the area which has abolished capital punishment.
Again, this argument is based on what I think is a false premise, namely that capital punishment is a unique deterrent. However, let us take the example of North and South Dakota. For a number of years North Dakota abolished capital punishment and South Dakota retained it. When one examines the crime pattern which emerges one finds that the murder rate fluctuates in a very similar way on both sides of the boundary, and in more cases than not, in those two very similar areas, the rate in the abolitionist state is lower.
A similar comparison can be made between Massachusetts and Rhode Island, states side by side in another area of the country, Rhode

Island having abolished capital punishment and Massachusetts having retained it. The picture which emerges is the same. Again I underline the fact that the only effective deterrent in the way of murder or any other crime is the certainty of conviction.
I should like to mention in passing certain statistics concerning an action taken in Chattanooga, Tennessee not too many years ago which had the effect of reducing crimes of violence in a specific 12-block area, which had a high crime incidence, by between 80 per cent and 90 per cent. This action was not, as some might suppose, concerned with any more severe application of the penalties of the law. Indeed, this surprised me when I read it. The authorities simply provided additional street lamps. Action as simple as that produced the spectacular result that I have cited.
These are the basic reasons upon which the case for the abolition of capital punishment is based, and I repeat not emotional reasons. In the time that remains I should like to deal with the arguments that those who would favour retaining capital punishment may advance, and perhaps in anticipation of their arguments answer some of the objections and satisfy some of the qualifications and reservations which I know exist in hon. members' minds.
In the main the arguments advanced in favour of the retention of capital punishment boil down to three. It is claimed that capital punishment is a unique deterrent, that no satisfactory alternative exists, and that in any event public opinion is not in favour of it. I challenge hon. members who are going to participate in this debate to demonstrate by reasonable arguments the validity of the first claim, that capital punishment is unique in terms of a deterrent. My very humble submission is that this cannot be established. I feel the onus should be on those who wish to retain this thing to make their case and state it. I have looked everywhere for a reasonable case and have been unable to find it. Perhaps those in this house who take this position may find a convert in me if they can advance a reasonable case.
As far as a satisfactory alternative is concerned, as I mentioned before, some 38 countries and states have abolished capital punishment and have in operation a satisfactory alternative.
With respect to the third argument concerning public opinion, there has been a dramatic change in public opinion on this question in this country, which I am confident still is continuing. As the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) mentioned last year in referring to public opinion polls on
Capital Punishment
this matter, not too many years ago 72 per cent of the people of Canada indicated that they were in favour of retention, and a few years later that figure had dropped to 52 per cent.
In any event the arguments on this matter, I feel, should be based on the merits of the logical and unemotional reasons advanced on either side regardless of the specific position of public opinion on this question at the moment. In my view parliament and we here considering this matter should lead public opinion rather than follow it, making sure, of course, that we stay within hailing distance.
The question is raised by those who would retain capital punishment, how can the protection of the public be guaranteed if capital punishment is abolished? I submit that it can be achieved by following something along this pattern as a basic approach, altering our laws concerning these matters when the occasion arises:
No person convicted of murder be released from care in a correctional institution so long as his retention therein is essential to the well-being of society and to his reformation.
Surely we are capable of so framing our laws and establishing our institutions as to achieve that end.
There is a fascinating argument I encountered in many debates that occurred in the British House of Commons and House of Lords, and in many books. It is a heads I win, tails you lose argument. It has to do with the question of the incidence of crime. Over the years when this question has been debated it has been argued that crime has been increasing or decreasing. I am sure that at this very moment there may be an increase of crime in certain areas and a reduction of it in others. Those who support the death penalty have argued, in times when crime has been increasing, that this would be a most dangerous moment to undertake so hazardous an experiment. On the other hand, when crime has been decreasing the argument has been to the effect that the fact that crime is decreasing shows how effectively capital punishment serves as a deterrent, and therefore it would be a great mistake to hazard the experiment just when crime is reduced and everything is going so well in this field. One cannot have it both ways, and I would suggest that those who are speaking in favour of retention should take one or other of these positions and stay with it.
A further argument which is often raised in discussions on this subject, and which I feel should be answered at an early stage in this debate, is one advanced by no less a person than the former commissioner of

Capital Punishment
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Nicholson, in an article which appeared in a local paper and was widely circulated and commented upon. It was also commented upon and supported by the chief of the Toronto metropolitan police force. Mr. Nicholson advanced the suggestion that if Canada abolished the death penalty there would be an immediate migration of murderers and of the criminal element across the border from the United States to conduct their affairs in this country. If these gangsters and criminals are interested in finding a place where capital punishment is not in effect, surely they do not have to come across the border. If it is true, as some have contended, that the center of crime is focused in Chicago, it is a much shorter trip from Chicago to Detroit and one that can be made more easily than a trip to Canada involving expense, trouble and the immigration problems these people would no doubt encounter in attempting to cross the border.
Another argument that has arisen from time to time is that of cost. There are those who say that taxpayers should not be saddled with the burden of paying taxes to support the criminal element in prison. At first blush this would appear to appeal to certain people, but when one considers that in many cases this is the last argument put forward on this question, one realizes that one is reducing to a question of dollars and cents the problem of whether we can afford to keep certain persons alive in our society. It does not take too much imagination to see where that sort of thinking leads.
There is also the question of the protection of policemen and guards. With respect to a policeman apprehending a criminal at large, surely under the law as it is now he would be in much more danger than he would be if capital punishment were abolished. With respect to guards in prisons containing these individuals if capital punishment were abolished, surely the ingenuity of man, in the light of the invention of amazing machinery and devices and rockets that land on the moon, is capable in this day and age of devising some method of confining these individuals in prison without endangering the guards who are their custodians.
I feel that my time is drawing to a close. I have endeavoured to outline some of the arguments for and against the retention of capital punishment. Far more eloquent and able speakers than I will follow and speak in favour of this resolution, and I am sure they will have a more profound impression

on the house than I. I should like to conclude by reading the final remarks of Sir Ernest Gowers in the book to which I made reference:
There remains the argument that without the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment more murders would be committed. That is the only serious utilitarian argument in favour of capital punishment, and the one on which thoughtful supporters of it almost wholly rely. It is also the argument that can be put most readily to the test of evidence in the proper sense of the word; and, as we have seen, such evidence as there is goes to show that the abolition of capital punishment does not in fact have this result.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in order that there will not be any misunderstanding may I say immediately and categorically that I am opposed to the principle of capital punishment. Apparently if one has strong feelings on this matter there is among some a violent reaction. I was interested to note in reading this morning's newspaper that the mover of this bill had received a couple of threatening letters. May I, sir, through you tell him not to worry about that; I have received five myself in the past two weeks, and the only place for those is the wastepaper basket, where a lot of newspapers should go, too. But I read them first, both of them.
I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that this sort of reaction is rather amusing at times; and in introducing a serious subject perhaps we might do it in an amusing way. About two weeks ago I received one of those letters and read it. It amused me and I still chuckle about it every time it comes to my mind. This letter said, "I notice that Mr. McGee and yourself are still trying to abolish capital punishment. I believe in capital punishment but I want you to know I am glad that both Mr. McGee and yourself believe there should be capital punishment for treason. I am glad you take that position and I hope you are the first s.o.b. who gets hanged under that".
Well, we get those letters and I introduced that subject in a kind of humorous way to introduce a most serious matter. I want to follow perhaps the same procedure as that of the previous speaker. I first became interested in this matter about a quarter of a century ago, when I had the honour of being a member of the provincial legislature of British Columbia. I was asked 25 years ago if I would interest myself in something which had taken place in that province. Three Indians felt that two policemen were using their authority in a way they should not by demanding certain privileges from Indian women. These three Indians ambushed the two policemen one night and threw them over a high bank into a river. The three



I960

[Stage Direction]
Indians were arrested, found guilty of murder and sentenced to be hanged, and they were hanged.
I was asked if I would look into the matter of the hanging, because it was alleged that they were all dropped through the trap door at the same time. The smallest of the Indians was in the middle; the two on the outside held him up and his neck was not broken. He strangled to death. Because of that being brought to my attention, and being asked if I would interest myself in it, I raised the matter in the British Columbia legislature. I was told by the attorney general of that day that I was not in a position to talk of capital punishment unless I had seen a man hanged.
I did not know then, and I do not know now, just what that had to do with it, but I was a very young man and that was the considered view of the attorney general, that I could not speak on capital punishment unless I had seen a man hanged. I went to see a man hanged, a 21 year old boy, the driver of a get-away car at a bank robbery where the teller was shot. Incidentally, the bank was only a block away from where I lived.
It was in the same year that I had my attention first drawn to capital punishment in the two ways I have told you, sir, that a friend of mine-and he was a very good friend of mine-in the hungry 1930's tried to maintain his farm and his family, and wandered all over British Columbia searching for employment. Well, there was no employment in British Columbia, and he went back to his home unannounced, sir. He walked in and found his best friend with his wife. He took up a shotgun and killed them both. He was accused of murder, found guilty and sentenced to hang. The sentence was commuted. May I just add, sir, that, he was paroled some three years ago and is a good citizen.
This is what created my interest in this question of capital punishment 25 years ago. And, sir, I do not think in all my time in public life I have made such an intense study of any subject as I have tried to make of this question of capital punishment, right or wrong.
Just like the mover of this bill, I have read everything, every study, every commission, every report I could put my hands on, anywhere in the world; and, Your Honour, I hope I can approach this from an unbiased position. I hope hon. members will accept what I say, based on a quarter of a century of study of this question; that I can stand in my place this afternoon in support of this bill and say that from analysis and study of the history of capital punishment in the world, I do not know of, I have never 79951-0-76
Capital Punishment
yet been able to find, one logical statement or position that can be taken in support of the retention of capital punishment. Emotionally, yes, you can talk for and against; but I say on the record and on the history I do not know of one factual, logical, reasonable, Christian basis for capital punishment.
For over 25 years I have received literally hundreds of letters from those who believe that we should maintain the death penalty, and their reasoning falls into these categories: (1) the bible is the authority and gives the right; (2) it is a deterrent to homicide; (3) it is a protection of the police forces; (4) because of the suffering of the loved ones and friends of the victim, the loved ones and the friends of the guilty person shall have to suffer, too.
These, sir, are the basic reasons I have been given as to why we should retain the death penalty. Under analysis, Mr. Speaker, these reasons will not stand up. Within the past three weeks in particular, sir, since the hon. member gave notice and filed his bill, I have received a number of letters, as a matter of fact most of them quoting the bible. I am not going into that now, but I say to those here who know the bible, and to some I can see who are not members of this house and who wear the cloth, that for every quotation that can be given from the bible saying "thou shalt kill" I will produce three that say "thou shalt not kill".
That is a fact. It is claimed that the retention of the death penalty is a deterrent to homicide. Records on penology throughout the world show that statement is not correct. We in Canada believe and maintain that we are a civilized people, but do we say that we are different from people in other parts of the world, in Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Portugal? Is there some difference between us? I do not think so. Do we take the position that the people of Canada are more criminally-minded than the peoples of the countries I have named? I do not think so. Then why should we maintain that as a deterrent to homicide in Canada we have to retain capital punishment, when it has been proved over a period of 100 to 150 years in other countries of the world that they have a lower homicide rate than we have, and they do not have the death penalty?
Read the record as placed before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which considered this question for some three years. The last execution in Belgium was in 1863; the last execution in Denmark was in 1892; in Finland in 1826; in Holland in 1860, exactly 100 years ago; in Luxembourg in 1822; in Norway in 1876;
[Stage Direction]
Capital Punishment
in Portugal in 1867, and in Rumania in 1838. To come closer to the present day, the last execution in Sweden was in 1919. For a period of 100 to 140 years there has been no death penalty in these countries, whose people are people of flesh and blood and emotions the same as the people of Canada.
What is the rate of homicide in these countries? Read the record; read the facts as given to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons by some of the world's most famous penologists. In most cases there is a lower homicide rate per
100,000	than we have in Canada. According to the last official figures I have the homicide rate for Canada was 1.2 per 100,000 of population. Let us take the countries that have had no death penalty for 100 years or more. In Holland, where the last execution took place 100 years ago, the homicide rate is 0.4 per 100,000; in Norway, 0.5; in Sweden, 0.8; in Switzerland, 1; in Denmark, 1, and in West Germany 1.2, the same as Canada. That is the record; those are the facts.
As was pointed out by the sponsor of the bill, if the death penalty is a deterrent then how do we explain the situation in the United States? I do not want to go into too much detail, because the hon. member dealt with this, but let us take the situation in the United States. Capital punishment was abolished in Michigan in 1847; in Wisconsin in 1853; in Maine in 1887; in Minnesota in 1911; in Rhode Island in 1952, and in North Dakota in 1895. In addition, a number of states that had capital punishment abolished it and then restored it. Tennessee abolished it in 1915 and restored it in 1919. Arizona abolished it in 1917 and restored it in 1919. Missouri abolished it in 1917 and restored it in 1919. Colorado abolished capital punishment in 1897 and restored it in 1901. I am not going through the list.
Let us look at the history of the states of the United States; those that have always had capital punishment, those that have abolished it as far back as 1847, as I have mentioned, and those that abolished it and restored it, and compare the ratio of homicide year by year. What is the story? As pointed out by the mover of the bill, the homicide rate has varied up and down in the same way as between abolitionist and non-abolitionist states. So the history of the countries of the world which are abolitionist and the history of the United States demonstrate that capital punishment is not a deterrent and has no bearing.
One phase of utmost importance to all of us is the protection of our police forces. If there were a sound argument that capital punishment is a protection for police forces,

that would be a very important factor in deciding whether we should retain or abolish capital punishment. I noted that the police representatives who appeared before the joint committee asked for retention for their protection. About two weeks ago I noticed in the press that the former commissioner of the R.C.M.P. was advocating the retention of capital punishment as a protection for our police forces.
But, sir, where is the evidence that it is a protection? May I repeat that if it is it should be retained, and that would be a powerful argument for its retention. But is it a protection? To the best of my knowledge only one study has ever been made anywhere in the world on the question of whether capital punishment is a protection for police forces. That study was made four or five years ago by Professor Sellin of the University of Pennsylvania, one of the world's outstanding penologists. He used his postgraduate class to conduct a study of this question. The chief of police of every town in the United States with a population of
10,000	or over was asked to send in a compilation of homicides in his city over a long period of years where policemen had been killed in the performance of their duties.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge this is the only study that has ever been made of this question. When the replies were received they were tabulated at the university. What was found? It was found that there was no difference in the homicide ratio in the abolitionist states as compared with the non-abolitionist states. It was found that as the homicide ratio moved up and down year by year in the general picture for all states, it moved the same way with regard to the deaths of policemen who had been performing their duties in guarding the rights and property of the people. Hence on that basis, on that study-and it is the only one that we can find-it is not a deterrent to homicide generally nor does it afford added protection for the police force of a country. I am trying desperately, Mr. Speaker, to stand or to base my arguments on my reading of the facts and what has been discovered by the penologists of the world.
May I then move on just briefly to another plane and deal with something which was also mentioned by the mover of the bill and which had not come to my attention until this year. I have noted, as has he also, that of recent weeks in particular objections to the abolition of capital punishment from some people come forward on the basis that it is going to cost the taxpayers money. I know that in the past month I have received

a number of letters from people whose chief reason for maintaining capital punishment is that it will cost the taxpayers money to put prisoners in jail and keep them there for life instead of breaking their necks at the end of a rope.
I want to add my words to those of the mover and say that we have come to a "pretty pass" in Canada if our approach to penology or to murder is going to be on the basis of whether or not it costs the taxpayers money. If that is a valid argument-I say "if that is a valid argument"; in my opinion it is not-then there is only one thing to do and that is to go back to the law of 50 or 100 years ago when hanging was the penalty for almost every crime. Then you would save money.
Surely that is not an intelligent approach to this kind of question. May I just add that if it is, then perhaps in order to stamp out crime we ought to do what was done a few centuries ago when Wales was a monarchy. I forget the name of the king, but a few hundred years ago there was a king in Wales who determined that he was going to stamp out crime; and he stamped out crime in three years. He hanged 5,000 men, women and children in three years. That may have been the approach then but surely it is not our approach today.
I started off by telling the house how I became interested in this subject 25 years ago. I tried to give the house some of the facts that have been made available by the penologists of the world. I have tried very briefly to point out the ratio of homicides in various countries of the world and states of the United States, as between the abolitionist principle and the non-abolitionist principle. More than that, I do not think it is possible to do.
May I conclude in the way I began. If the bible means anything, it means Christianity. If it can be used by some as the foundation for society's right to put a man to death, then may I point out that the bible also has plenty to say about the sanctity of life and "Thou shalt not kill". World's records show that capital punishment is not a detriment to homicide, so why maintain it unless it is from a feeling of revenge and retribution? If, as the record shows, it is not an added protection to our police forces, then why should it be used as an argument for maintaining the death penalty? If in a situation the friends and the loved ones of the victim suffer, is that any reason why we should then say, "We demand that the loved ones and the friends of the murderer, who are innocent, shall also be made to suffer"? No matter how you look at the matter-emotionally, 79951-0-76*
Capital Punishment
as a Christian, statistically or factually-I feel firmly convinced that any thinking man or thinking woman or any parliament can come to only one conclusion, namely that capital punishment is inhuman, out of date and should be abolished.
Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a rather difficult position this afternoon following two such learned members who have given such great study to this matter. I am not going to put myself forward as an expert on their level. But notwithstanding that consideration, I must say at once that I completely reject the arguments they have put forward. I do not believe that in any way the principle of abolition of capital punishment reflects public opinion in this country. Indeed, it is rather surprising to me that people so far from public opinion could find themselves in the House of Commons.
I believe the situation is somewhat difficult, though, for us as members of parliament in connection with this matter. In rejecting the argument for the abolition of capital punishment I do not in any way indicate that I am satisfied with the present situation. I believe public opinion does demand that a change be made in the Criminal Code. But as to what extent that should go, I believe that matter could be much better debated on some of the other bills that will be coming before the house. While I do not want to go beyond the rules of debate here, I simply want to mention the fact that the hon. member for Burn-aby-Riehmond (Mr. Drysdale) has on the order paper a bill which I believe comes a great deal closer to meeting the wishes of the people of Canada in this regard than does the one now before the house.
I believe there are certain instances in which capital punishment or the death penalty does not act as a deterrent; and in those instances it is evident that the public want us to do something about removing the death penalty. In crimes of passion, I think it is quite clear that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. But in general, having regard to the protection of our police officers, surely common sense would tell us that, if a man has committed a crime where he is going to be committed to life imprisonment, is being apprehended by a police officer and is armed, there is going to be the temptation for him, knowing that he can escape, knowing that if he shoots the police officer he can be no worse off than he was before. Surely it is going to act as a deterrent to that man if he knows that he is gding to be hanged, something which is considerably more abhorrent to him than is life imprisonment in most cases.

Capital Punishment
As I see it, it is the same in principle as the national defence of the country which is based on deterrence. Surely if it works on that principle-and it has worked successfully for many years now since the formation of NATO; we have had the principle of deterrence in our national defence; we have contained the enemy in that regard and it has been proven to have worked-then I suggest that in the case of criminals it will work to the same extent.
I do not feel that it would be proper for me at this time to go into exactly what length we should go in changing the law. I have mentioned the bill that I believe will meet the wishes of the people, and it will be coming forward for debate. As I see it at the present time, it will be useless for us to deal with all of the other bills in detail. I felt very much that I should like to have the opportunity of voting not only on this measure which gives us two choices. We can vote for abolition or we can vote for retention.
I feel that neither of those is what the public wants. They require a change in the Criminal Code. However, it would appear that the only course that we are now able to follow is to see that this bill is disposed of, that it be voted down, because I am absolutely certain that it will be, and I am also absolutely certain that that will be in accordance with the wishes of the public.
I say that as soon as possible we should direct ourselves toward changing the Criminal Code, perhaps in these respects. I believe that one of the things the public do not like about our present system is the hanging, and perhaps some other method of carrying out the death penalty should be instituted, such as the gas chamber or the electric chair. That is one way in which it might be changed. Second, certain crimes should be exempted, and perhaps we should consider the degree of evidence which should be required where there is the slightest doubt. Naturally, we would not want to see someone put to death in that event, and I think that is one other field where the public is concerned if a man is convicted on circumstantial evidence. It is a matter which needs a great deal of study.
As far as this bill is concerned, I believe the principle of abolition is absolutely wrong. It does act as a deterrent and we should retain the death penalty, but in a different form from that existing at the present time.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, as I enter this debate I wish to make it clear that I am for the abolition of the death penalty. However, in order to enable as many hon. members as possible to participate in this debate, my remarks will not be too long.

To hang or not to hang is the question of the hour. One can hardly pick up a newspaper or a magazine, or join a group in conversation, without finding opinions for and against capital punishment. This question has been treated on non-party lines and above politics, as indeed any measure of humanitarian interest should be, and without any partisan bickering. It is regrettable that questions of great importance to the welfare of the nation are not more often treated on similar non-party lines, because I think the country would be the better for it.
I would say that not very often does a subject of debate go deeply into the feelings of a large number of our constituents. It is undoubtedly because of such a widespread interest that a vote on non-party lines will be made on this bill. In voting for or against it we are expected to reflect the opinions of the majority of the Canadian people.
The issue appears to be as between two schools of thought; one thirsting after justice in a mood of vengeance, the other urging the practice of Christian charity and the rehabilitation of criminals. On the other hand, notable figures in the religious life of our country have gone on record as being in favour of abolition.
During the past several months we have been literally bombarded with letters and briefs. I have received, indeed, several within the last hour. I have one here consisting of several pages closely typewritten which I have not read, but I take it from the heading that the author is against abolition. Then there have been letters to editors of every newspaper in the country, many of which are replete with quotations from the old and new testaments, giving various interpretations to the scriptures, according to the view of the individual concerned. I am not going to quote the bible, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that I do not feel competent to interpret the writings in the old book; I prefer to leave that to spiritual advisers whose training and vocation qualify them to speak with authority on the subject of religion.
Some hold to the belief that fear of the death sentence is a restraining force -against murder. Personally, I share the views of those who believe that there is no valid guarantee that the fear of punishment by death is a definite deterrent. Consider the proportion of murders committed in circumstances of sudden passion which are not deterred by threat of the consequences. Crimes such as robberies, from which murder might result, are deliberately planned to avoid detection. Consider also the risk of executing an innocent person.

11S7
To those who would anticipate a rise in crimes leading to murder in the event of parliament approving this bill, I would point out that the experience of countries where capital punishment has long been abolished is, indeed, ample proof that such a conclusion is unfounded.
Here I wish to mention some of the countries which have had no death penalty for years. Luxemburg has had no dealth penalty since 1822, Belgium since 1863, Portugal since 1867, Holland since 1870, and Italy since 1890. It was restored in that country during the fascist regime, but it was again abolished in 1948. Norway has had no death penalty since 1905, Sweden since 1921, Denmark since 1930, Switzerland since 1942, and it is so in dozens of other nations, including several states of the union.
I would like now to quote from a report of a British select committee on the subject made in 1930, as follows:
Our prolonged examination of the situation in foreign countries has increasingly confirmed us in the assurance that capital punishment may be abolished in this country without endangering life or property or impairing the security of society.
If the remission of death sentences during the last two years by our government-and there were 31 out of a total of 38-is the criterion, then I would say that it has gone a long way to abolish the death penalty. So why not do it by an act of parliament, which is the voice of the people and not just the voice of the cabinet? There may be some justification to retain the death sentence for specific 'Crimes in time of war or for treason. I do not know the considerations which made the cabinet commute the death sentence of 75 per cent of those condemned to death by judges during the past two and a half years. No doubt there were good and sufficient reasons for those commutations, but in my humble opinion I believe that justice would have been best served if capital punishment was not mandatory in respect to murder.
In order to avoid the danger of a murderer sentenced to life imprisonment regaining his liberty after only 20 odd years, provided there has been good behaviour on his part, the Criminal Code should be amended to make the penalty 99 years. Assuming, then, that a person being so sentenced was 20 or 30 years old-the average age of a criminal- and that remissions for good behaviour would amount to 20, 25 or 30 years, if he lived to a ripe old age and had his sentence reduced by that extent he would still be close to 100 years old upon his release, and no one would begrudge the respite of a year or two which would probably be worse for him. This, I believe, would be a real deterrent and one
Capital Punishment
which would literally mean life imprisonment for certain crimes, a punishment which would be worse than death.
I have come to the conclusion, not without having made a deep study of this subject, having regard to the suffering caused to innocent people by criminals who commit murder that the time has come to do away with the archaic method of killing the guilty by hanging them by the neck until they are dead.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: I should like at the beginning of my remarks to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) for having been instrumental in bringing before us today this bill which I wholeheartedly support. I want to commend him, too, on the excellence and the clarity of his presentation.
I should like, if I may to take the opportunity to express my admiration for some earlier pioneer efforts in the field which we are discussing today, earlier bills brought before this house by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who, I thought, spoke very effectively this afternoon and, before him-some considerable time before I came into this house-by Mr. Ross Thatcher.
I want to say a word also about the policy of the present government in respect to capital cases which come before it for consideration. The death penalty is still the law of Canada and over the last three years I have been more than gratified to observe that this penalty has been reserved for those cases which one could characterize as being most gruesome, the most clear-cut, the most premeditated type of killing. That, to my mind, is the kind of reservation which should always be applied so long as this law remains on the books of our country.
Once in a while from different quarters one hears some criticism of the frequency of the commutations. What the critics fail to appreciate is that the same Criminal Code which places upon the trial judge the mandatory obligation to impose the penalty of death upon a convicted murderer also confers upon the governor in council the right to review each sentence with a view to commuting it to a period of not less than two years imprisonment, thereby placing upon the government of the day the very important obligation of reviewing all such cases for the purpose of determining whether the awful penalty of the law should or should not be carried out.
There is, therefore, absolutely nothing inconsistent about a policy which requires a trial judge on the one hand mandatorially to impose the sentence of death, and upon a

Capital Punishment
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. As a lawyer, day after day, I see far too often, and still see far too often, in far too many cases those factors, or some of those factors, or a combination of all those factors. Those factors are the cause of crime; they are the common denominator in a great majority of cases that come before our courts from coast to coast day after day.
Why do you worry about your children? Why do you care what happens to your little boy? Why do you wonder where he has gone, how long he is going to be out, who he has been with? What do you fear, if not that by virtue of companionship^ with others or other places he will lead himself to the road of moral and social disaster? You check the background of every man who has been executed in Canada in the last 25 years and I wager you will find there are a good many cases in which there was no parent who displayed that kind of anxiety for him. Those are the things that we have to keep in mind.
Anatole France once said that the law had a majestic equality. He said, "The law equally forbids the rich and the poor from doing the following things: from sleeping under bridges; from begging alms on the streets and from stealing a loaf of bread". That may be the only thing he ever said that I will ever agree with, but it is a statement that causes one to sit back and to think. As legislators we should ponder less about the need for the penalty of death, and we should ponder more about co-operating with government to eradicate some of the roots from which crime stems; help clear up the slums in co-operation with provinces or municipalities; help build recreational centres to which underprivileged boys and girls can come to find opportunity that they are denied at home, to find friendship and affection that they are denied at home. Those are the sorts of things we should all be doing. We should be placing emphasis on prisons; we should be encouraging a continuance of the development of the present policy to modernize and humanize those places, places in which the emphasis will be upon the reformation and the reclamation of the people who live within them, places from which the graduates will leave restored to dignity and prepared to take their place in society.

The death penalty is out of date; it is not an answer, nor will it ever be. The slow march of civilization has brought us to a point in our history where we should be ready here and now to vote in favour of its abolition.
(Translation):


Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to abolish capital punishment and replace it by life imprisonment. This is an attempt to learn hon. members' views by asking them to express their opinion freely, and to let their conscience speak on a problem which has been for some time the subject of various comments in our society.
However, before rendering a final judgment on that issue, it would be well, I think, to consider whether the criminal who has to pay a debt to society should always pay in proportion to the offence committed. In Canada, until now, this principle has always been reaffirmed, because our Criminal Code in this respect is based upon the concept of retributive justice.
Does that mean that today we are still the victims of this obsolete law, which is contrary to the principles of a civilized nation, and still blindly applying the law of retaliation, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There seems to be attempts to base this principle, one of the Lord's commandments formally prescribing to men to exercise Christian charity and justice by the words: "Thou shalt not kill". True, this was an imperative order, without any reservation, but I do not think that the Lord ordered authorities responsible for the administration of justice to put to death those who infringed his command. If we just review His life on earth, we shall find that His sojourn among us was one of continual forgiveness to His antagonists.
I believe that capital punishment is a human institution and that its application is questionable in many respects.
A brief outline of the background of abolition of capital punishment will clearly indicate that we are not the first ones to consider such a matter. We know that in central and southern areas of America, as well as in western Europe, with the exception of France and other countries, capital punishment has been abolished, Switzerland having done so in 1921.
Now, the rate of murders committed in that country, per 10,000 inhabitants, for the years preceding 1921, was 0.72, while it went down to 0.52 and even as low as 0.46 for the ten-year period which followed abolition. This

means that the abolition of capital punishment in those parts of the world did not increase the number of murderers.
If you wish, let us now compare the proportion of murders committed in certain American states that have abolished capital punishment, with those committed in those who have maintained it. The following table, which I will submit to you, shows the rate of murders committed, per 100,000 population, during the five-year period following the abolition of capital punishment.
In 1928, in the states where capital punishment had been abolished, the murder rate was 4.2; in those which had maintained it, the rate was 8.8.
In 1933, in the states which had abolished capital punishment, the murder rate was 3.7; in those which had maintained it, it was 10.5.
In 1938, the rate, where it had been abolished, was 2.2, and where it had been maintained, 7.6.
In 1942, the rate where capital punishment had been abolished had gone down to 2.1; while in areas where it had been maintained the rate was 5.5.
Some may say that these figures are uncertain. They nevertheless show a decrease in the number of murders in states which have abolished capital punishment. However, to obtain from that compilation an accurate picture of the situation, we would have to take into account, I believe, the degree of social and intellectual culture of the population of these states. I think the ratio of murders depends not only on whether capital punishment is used or not, but also and mainly on the degree of education and on the social factors of the population.
Being a lawyer, I have had the opportunity to study the antecedents of hardened criminals. I have noticed that the road which leads the criminal to revolting crimes often has been traced by the "weakness, the irresponsibility and the negligence of parents about their educational duties, particularly when they failed to apply at the right time, punishment which could have halted the young man's progress on the dangerous path he was following. How many young people, Mr. Speaker, went to the gallows as a result of an unhappy and misguided childhood, for not having been taught in due time the basic principles which could have made them good citizens. How many parents deeply regret, even now, their failure to understand their responsibilities when they realize that a member of their
Capital Punishment
family is in jail, or perhaps went to the gallows through their own fault. Even if, occasionally, evidence of good character is allowed by the courts when a plea of leniency is made in favour of the accused, nevertheless we sometimes witness distressing scenes when the accused takes his parents to task for their failure to foster in him in his youth, feeling that would have enabled him to have a more serious outlook on life.
Modern psychoanalysis tends increasingly to prove that many criminals are unbalanced and at the time of their crime, could not, with few exceptions, use the full consent of their will in the accomplishment of their misdeed.
We know that in the economy of our law there exists a fundamental element which must be proved, when we decide to have an accused exonerated on grounds of insanity or madness. Obviously, it must be proved that at the time of the crime, the accused was not sufficiently in possession of his mental faculties to determine the gravity of a legally reprehensible action, and be responsible for it. Now, we know that, on examining the accused after the crime, some psychiatrists will try to determine, deductively, that at the time of the crime he was not sufficiently in possession of his faculties to determine that the action he was committing could constitute a crime, that is to say mens rea et actus reus.
But how often will such arguments, however scientific and conclusive they may be, incline the jury to believe in such technical evidence, for the members of the jury, in my opinion, with the sound common sense we know them to possess, like to know whether the accused, at the time of his crime, was in a position to explain, in practical terms, the motives that would have impelled him to commit such a crime. There, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are probing the unfathomable. Unless the accused, in the past, has committed actions which, by presumption, reveal him to be insane, it is practically impossible for us to prove that, at the time of the crime, he was suffering from some aberration or temporary insanity which would have deprived him of all his faculty of thought and of understanding the full implications of his acts at the fatal moment.
Of course, this brings me to the subject of possible miscarriage of justice and, in so doing I do not intend to condemn our present judiciary system. I just want to point out certain

Capital Punishment
contingencies which, I believe, might be sufficient to determine our full responsibility regarding the maintenance or the abolition of capital punishment.
The accused, who is brought before the criminal assizes, is judged by a judge and a jury. I have always had the deepest respect for this judiciary organization, and have often admired its constant efforts to bring in a fair and honest verdict. However on the principle that the jury decide about the facts that unfold before them, we can nevertheless come to the conclusion that the means they have to assess those facts are quite limited, even if our jurisprudence confers upon the judge, at the trial, the power to give the jury some directives on certain cogent facts. But what frightens me is the unscrupulousness of certain witnesses with regard to perjury. I believe perjury is so common nowadays, and often so systematic, that it frequently goes undetected. We cannot possibly detect it, and it very often goes unnoticed by the jury and even by the judge.
How many pernicious ambitions, how much infernal evidence have often sent an accused to the solitude of a jail cell.
During my career I have had many opportunities to realize the infamy of perjury. I recall that one day I was handling the case of a man accused of theft. I was adducing a quite convincing alibi. It was obvious that I was going to win an acquittal when suddenly my client leaned towards me and asked that the court be adjourned so he could tell me something important. The poor wretch, smitten with remorse, told me that the alibi I was pleading before the judge was the fruit of his imagination, and he confessed that the three witnesses I had just called to the stand had perjured themselves. I advised him to change his plea at once, with the result that the three witnesses were also given sentences.
This is an isolated fact, but how many witnesses have perjured themselves without the court being able to destroy their false evidence? It happens that, in many murder cases, we ar.e faced with a sentimental enigma. Those love triangles often lead witnesses to hide the facts and it may be that innocent people have been sent to the gallows because of such unfortunate wrongs. Thank God, I believe that our court records have not yet shown clear cases of miscarriages of justice, but in other countries, there have been cases where innocent people have been put to death and where the real culprit has been found some time later. Should we wait, Mr. Speaker, until we are faced with such a problem before we take the necessary steps to avoid this?

The mere thought of executing an innocent person should be enough to make us question, at least, the necessity of retaining capital punishment. We also know that the concept of freedom and of the value of human life has evolved considerably throughout the centuries. In the past a person was put to death for trifles. Drastic justice was merciless for the adulterer, the thief and even the liar. But with the passage of time nations have become more civilized. The principle of individual freedom has been recognized and ennobled to such an extent that many countries have abolished gruesome executions to teach men a more logical and positive philosophy.
In my opinion, there is also another argument that may be put forth in discussing this resolution, and it is the sad legacy left to his family by a person who has been hanged. Throughout their life his children drag a burden of disgrace and contempt. Though not responsible for their father's crime, they are deeply branded by it. They are social outcasts because society fears that they may carry the fateful germ of criminality.
A short time ago, a client called at my office and asked me to institute proceedings for libel and tort against a person who was always harrying my client's children because their grandfather, in a moment of aberration, had taken his own life. The children were being told, for instance, that they were "dragging their grandfather's rope". Under such taunts my client's children were developing feelings of inferiority and shyness to such a degree that the father had to send them to another school to prevent them from being victimized by this scoundrel.
Society will forgive a criminal who has served his term and has reformed, but the reputation of a man who dies on the gallows is never forgotten.
It has often been argued that the death sentence is the only way of deterring certain criminals from murder. Court records show that people who commit murder usually have a life background of disorder, dotted with minor infractions which inevitably lead to crime. I think at this preliminary stage, society should improve its rehabilitation centres so as to teach good citizenship to those youngsters, to the point where a young criminal might develop a genuine desire to live an honest life.

Unfortunately, there is often a lack of segregation when people are put to jail, and first offenders, coming in contact with more vicious individuals, learn more effective ways of evading the police and justice.
This bill provides for a substitution of life imprisonment to capital punishment. There are people who might have preferred a less radical measure at this time, and some hon. members feel that this bill should provide for various degrees of homicide.
If legislation is to follow that trend in the future, it is an absolute necessity that the principle of abolition be discussed objectively and frankly so that public opinion will be enlightened on the problem.
I am in favour of abolishing the death penalty and replacing it by life imprisonment, because a criminal who is thus put behind bars will suffer all his life from the lack of that essential element of survival which we call freedom. Every hour, every minute, nay every second of his life, may be an occasion to reflect on his past errors, and under the effect of remorse he may set an example for anyone who might already be on the road to crime.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that custom and cultural and social factors, have sufficiently evolved, in Canada, to at least consider the possibility of a five-year trial period, with respect to the abolition of capital punishment and its replacement by life imprisonment. If the experiment failed we could always revert to the present legislation.


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, it is with much apprehensiveness that I rise this afternoon to take part in this very important discussion. This time we are not being called upon to discuss, as members of this house the desirability or necessity of voting sums of money for the construction of a public building or of passing some social security legislation, but to decide, as it were, upon the right of life or death over our fellow men. We are being, to a certain extent, the judges of future criminals which, unfortunately, we will have to prosecute in this country.
We have to determine whether it is preferable for society to punish murderers by death or by life imprisonment and, while trying to rehabilitate them, risk endangering further the life of our fellow citizens.
Knowing that we would have to vote on this bill, I questioned some of my colleagues
Capital Punishment
from the bar, certain sociologists and a few psychiatrists. I even put questions to some of my constituents, businessmen, and parents, on the advisability of abolishing capital punishment today. Mr. Speaker, I also interrogated-and with much anguish I must tell you-my own conscience before coming to a decision on the question submitted to our judgment, and I found myself for some time facing a conflict. I wondered whether it would be better, for the protection of society, to sacrifice the life of a bad citizen who had killed one of his fellow men or whether if it would be better to rehabilitate him, as I said before, at the risk of his committing further crimes.
I listened with much attention to the excellent explanation given by the mover of this bill, the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. McGee) and I noted with great pleasure that he had a thorough knowledge of the matter. He spoke dispassionately and logically, after making a thorough study of the matter.
I was afraid that those who would speak in favour of abolishing capital punishment would lapse into sentimentality. I am pleased to say that hon. members who took part in this discussion and favoured abolition, have hereto avoided this danger. That was the right attitude to take, as this bill will have a considerable impact on Canadian society.
In fact this bill is of paramount interest to this nation.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough was very clear in his remarks. His statement was concise and we felt that he was moved by a sincere feeling to be of service to the Canadian people.
For some time, following the reports, we saw on television, or heard on the radio, or read in the papers, we have been given to understand that the government would leave hon. members on the government benches free to discuss the bill and to cast their vote according to their conscience. We have definitely the impression, today in this house, that the reports given to us through the various media of publicity were correct. The same is true with regard to hon. members sitting on this side of the house who belong to the Liberal party. We are absolutely free to express our own opinion according to our conscience, and all Liberal members who will take part in this discussion will do so and cast their votes according to their own convictions.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the bill put before us this afternoon is, to say the least, premature. It is easy to discover that public opinion throughout the country is divided on the question whether it is advisable to abol-

Capital Punishment
ish capital punishment or whether the status quo should be maintained. One readily realizes also, as a result of this afternoon's discussion, that the opinion of Canada's representatives here is divided.
If it has not yet been deemed proper to adopt an essentially Canadian flag, because of the belief that Canadian opinion is divided on the matter, the same can be said of human life.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if public opinion is divided about the abolition of capital punishment, we should be even more cautious about this matter than we have been in the case of a Canadian flag.
In 1955, as was pointed out by previous speakers, a joint committee of the house and the senate was established to consider the advisability of abolishing capital punishment. That committee, which met several times, was composed of prominent lawyers and people able to pass judgment on the matter.
The committee heard evidence from prominent Canadian psychiatrists and well known criminologists, sociologists and even a person whose sad duty it is, unfortunately, to execute criminals in this country, that is, one of Canada's hangmen. Following those various testimonies the committee ruled against abolition of capital punishment.
Hardly four years later, an hon. member sitting on the government side, but who is not a member of the cabinet, is now suggesting a piece of legislation for the abolition of capital punishment in Canada. We have to consider today, Mr. Speaker, whether it is proper to abolish or maintain capital punishment; and that project is being introduced by a private member. I would have preferred, for my part, that the government-if such is its intention-shoulder its responsibilities and introduce its own bill for the abolition of capital punishment in Canada. If this is the government's intention, why doesn't it shoulder its own responsibilities, and why does it not introduce its own bill, instead of entrusting that duty to a private member, in which case the bill is liable to be talked out like moist bills introduced by private members?
Since I have been in this house, Mr. Speaker, I have always been of the opinion that any government must assume its responsibilities, and that it is its duty to take its own decisions. In my opinion, it is not up to a private member to take the initiative of decisions that will affect the administration of the country. And the role of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, is to accept, when it

is proper, any wise legislation introduced by the government, or to criticize or condemn any that is harmful to the nation.
It has been decided, on the government's suggestion, to by-pass the procedure of the house and to extend for a few days a debate on the bill introduced by a private member. In view of the importance of this bill, and of its implications for the nation and for society, I think no member of this house can regard it with indifference and that every member should be called upon to state his position on this vitally important measure. That is the reason why I have decided to state my position, and to indicate how I intend to vote if the matter is put to a vote. In so doing, I feel I am discharging my responsibility as a representative of the people. I want to vote on this matter to the best of my knowledge and according to my conscience.
Mr. Speaker, in stating my views on this matter, I fully realize I may not be expressing the views of the majority of my constituents or of Canadian citizens. As I indicated early in my remarks, public opinion is divided on this question, and I am sure that is also the case for the citizens of the constituency of Dollard which I represent in this house.
It was Burke, a member for the city of Bristol, who in 1794 made the statement that every citizen has a right to express his views, and that while a representative of the people must hear and analyse the opinions of his constituents, his duties clearly require him to participate in the discussions in the house, and to vote according to his judgment and conscience, in the best interest of the country and nation as a whole.
Those words which he spoke in 1794 are still valid today for each and everyone of us. It is therefore in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I rose to speak this afternoon, and that I shall vote on the bill before us, when the time comes. Unfortunately, especially since the end of the war, there has been an increase of crimes and murders, not only in Canada but everywhere in the free world. Police authorities both in Canada and the United States are always on the watch for criminals. The role of the legislator, our role as members of this house and representatives of the people of Canada, is to protect Canadian society and to try to apply protective methods against individuals who live in contempt of the law.
The numerous submissions and letters that we have received from various people from all across the country in favour of the adoption of this bill stated among other reasons

that, when a criminal take's someone's life, he does so in a moment of mental aberration. Much has been told about sentimentality, about the anguish suffered by the condemned during the last week, the last day and the last hours before his execution.
We were also told, in those submissions and letters, about the grief of the victims' families. We were told too-and some of the speakers referred to it again this afternoon-[DOT] of the risks of miscarriages of justice. And some of the submissions we have received stated that capital punishment is contrary to the law of God. Well, Mr. Speaker, may I answer briefly those arguments that have been submitted to us. First, I say that crimes committed in moments of mental aberration are rather uncommon. I also say that a man who plans a crime and who can go as far as committing murder, that the man who is loading his gun, is not at the time suffering from mental aberration; he knows what he is doing and he is acting deliberately because, when he is loading his gun, he knows that he risks taking the life of one of his fellow men.
It is a matter of current interest because in the last few years there have been some serious disasters because of such crimes. The man who makes a bomb that he intends to put on board an aircraft carrying 50 to 60 passengers knows full well that when the bomb explodes it will take the life of 50 or 60 of his fellowmen, of 50 or 60 men, women and children. This man acts deliberately when he manufactures his bomb, when he gets his gun ready, and he is responsible to society because he knows what he is doing.
We have been told about the anguish of men under sentence of death. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not like to be in the shoes of a man who is sentenced to death, a few hours before he ascends the gallows. True enough, a man who is under sentence of death must go through terrible moral suffering, but you must not forget the victim of that criminal, who was killed because of a criminal act committed by the very person who is sentenced to death, and who probably suffered terribly before dying. In my view, we must consider the moral suffering of the victim, the innocent citizen who is murdered. The moral suffering that the victim goes through should be taken into account by society, and society should take means to
Capital Punishment
avert further crimes by those against whom it seeks protection.
A case has been made for the loss suffered by the families of executed criminals. Mr. Speaker, what about the cruel loss suffered by the wife of a man who is murdered by a criminal? What about the cruel loss to the children who are left fatherless because their father was killed by a criminal who wants to lay hands quickly on some money?
Mr. Speaker, mention has also been made of the danger of miscarriages of justice. I have practised law for ten years, and I can assert that the danger of miscarriage of justice, in criminal cases, is very small indeed. Before a man is found guilty of murder, his case is investigated by police authorities, and then he is brought to trial before a Canadian court of justice.
He has to face a jury, as stated by a previous speaker, who admitted that jurors always hesitate to render a verdict of guilty, because they do not like to condemn a fellow man.
The criminal is judged by his peers. Moreover, in the last resort, the cabinet always has the prerogative-which indeed has been used frequently for several years-of commuting a death sentence.
Arguments put forward in favour of abolishing capital punishment, state that divine law forbade to judge one's fellow men and to put them to death.
If we look up a certain chapter of the bible, we find that those who rule over men are entitled to commit to the courts anyone who transgresses the law, and even to condemn to death whomever has killed his fellow man.
Chapter 21 of Exodus, verse 12, says that he who kills his fellow man should be put to death.
In Genesis, chapter 9, verse 6, it is also written that whoever spills another's blood must spill his own.
This is to say, Mr. Speaker, that the courts of this country, who have the responsibility of administering the law according to the statutes passed by the government of the Canadian nation, have the right to judge criminals and murderers.
All reasons adduced in favour of abolition of capital punishment have not convinced me that such punishment is not a deterrent of crime.
During my career as a lawyer, I had the opportunity of meeting some of those crim-

Capital Punishment
inals. In some eases, I was trying most particularly-as a previous speaker said- to know the motives that had driven them to crime.
What I discovered gave me food for thought, since many of those would-be criminals had hesitated, before consorting with murderers, precisely because they feared capital punishment.
The fear of such punishment was enough to deter them from attempts on the life of their fellow men.
Canadian police authorities state that capital punishment is not only an efficient deterrent of murder, but is a protection for them in the exercise of their duties.
I was told, no later than today, that if capital punishment were replaced by life imprisonment, and if a criminal, under such a sentence, attempted to escape, 'he would not hesitate to kill one, two or even three prison wardens in order to do so.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, what means will remain at our disposal to reform confirmed criminals?
For all those reasons, and after consulting my own conscience, it is my duty towards society, and most particularly towards my constituents, to oppose this bill with all the strength at my command.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to make a suggestion: let the government set up a new committee to consider the various crimes which are now capital offences, under the criminal code, and to list the category of crimes punishable by death.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough said that capital punishment is a relic from the middle ages. He recalled that, in former days, citizens of various countries have been condemned to death for theft or for misdemeanours.
Of course, if we had maintained capital punishment for such crimes, the middle ages could be pointed out to us as an example. But when it is a case of judging a man or woman who has killed his fellow man, in my opinion, legislators are entitled to mete out the death sentence against the one who took the other one's life.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is our duty to maintain capital punishment. It is not a matter of revenge for society, it is a matter of prevention against other crimes. We have been told that hanging is a relic of the middle ages. It may be so, Mr. Speaker. That is why I would be in favour of changing the methods of execution of criminals in Canada, and I

have another suggestion to make in that respect. We should replace hanging by the electric chair.
Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to know the opinions of my colleagues on this bill.
I hope that this bill will be voted on and that all members who sit in this house will vote for the protection of the honest citizens of this country. I am firmly and honestly convinced that capital punishment must be maintained and that this bill should be defeated.
(Text):


Mr. Laurier Regnier (Si. Boniface):: I consider it a great privilege to speak for the abolition of capital punishment. I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) on the wonderful manner in which he has spoken on behalf of the abolition, as well as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. As-selin), and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) who have by now almost covered the whole range of the arguments in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.- I cannot understand why the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) has not been convinced by what has been said this afternoon.
The hon. member for Charlevoix cited figures showing that in those states in the United States where capital punishment has been abolished the incidence of murder has been much less than in those states where it has been retained. The hon. member for Vancouver East stated that the rate in Canada on the basis of population-per 100,000 population, I assume-is 1.2. In Canada, of course, we have capital punishment. He gave the rate for Norway as 0.5, for Portugal 0.4, for Sweden 1 and for Denmark, 1. Those figures should speak for themselves.
There are no valid reasons why we should retain capital punishment. Civilization has been advancing very slowly. As recently as 1810 in England you could suffer a sentence of capital punishment for stealing goods from a shop to the value of five shillings or over. When the matter was brought before the British House of Commons for discussion and amendment the chief justice of the queen's bench stated that to abolish the death penalty for thefts in the amount of five shillings or over from a shop would lead to the abolition of the death penalty for thefts of goods of the value of five shillings or over from a dwelling and that nobody in England would be able to leave his own home for fear that his property would be stolen. That, of course, has been proven false.

To those who say that capital punishment serves as a protection to society I state that capital punishment has the reverse effect. In the first 49 years of this century there were 2,346 persons charged with murder in Canada. Only 895 of that total were convicted and only 480 suffered capital punishment. That is a rate of approximately 20 per cent. That is to say that four out of five escaped capital punishment. In other words, out of a total of 2,346 persons charged with murder, 1,451 went scotfree. They are free to walk our streets and enter our homes. Someone will say that these people were acquitted. Yes, they were acquitted but I invite hon. members to consider why they were acquitted. I maintain that because of the horrible character of the punishment juries would not convict. If you ask the judges, policemen and crown attorneys who have attended murder trials where the accused has been acquitted they will tell you that those people were murderers, in the large majority, who escaped punishment. What protection is that to society?
I have described the situation in England in 1810 when the death penalty was inflicted for thefts of goods of the value of five shillings or over. This was later amended to thefts of goods of the value of 40 shillings or over, It is known that the victims themselves would not want to complain and witnesses would not testify and juries would not convict in many of these cases. If juries did convict they would find the accused person guilty of having stolen goods to the value of 39 shillings even though the accused had often testified to the fact that he had stolen goods to the value of over 40 shillings. The same result is obtaining in Canada in connection with murder. Those Canadians who are chosen to sit on juries are so opposed to the horrible results of finding a person guilty that they will find a way to acquit an individual who may really be guilty.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Yes.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Is the hon. gentleman aware that before the trial takes place each individual called to serve as a juror has to state whether he is opposed to the death penalty?


Frank Charles McGee: That is not so.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I am not aware of that condition and if the hon. member for York-Scarborough says it is not so I am inclined to accept his word. In any event, even if it were so that would be a stronger argument
Capital Punishment
supporting my contention that the people who believe in capital punishment would hesitate to see it imposed.
It has already been proved this afternoon that capital punishment is no deterrent to murder. The figures cited have proved that. No one who is in favour of its retention has adduced any figures. I should like to challenge those who want to speak on this matter to bring forward figures to support their argument.
The only reason I can think of why we are retaining capital punishment is that we have not yet reached a sufficiently high degree of civilization. We are like those people in England in 1810 who felt that the goods of the people of Great Britain would not be safe if capital punishment were abolished in relation to crimes involving stolen goods over the value of five shillings.
We hear talk all the time about abolishing war, bloodshed and violence. I think we should start by taking the first step in abolishing violence on the part of the state. We should place a higher value on a human life. Governments would then naturally have a greater respect for human life when it came to a matter of going to war where millions are killed. We have to start at home with the abolition of violence before we go into the world and abolish war. We have to demonstrate that human life is sacred.
I believe that nearly all points in connection with this subject have been covered. The hon. member for Parkdale has mentioned the inequalities confronting the accused when he goes to court. As the hon. member said, often it depends on whether the judge has a feeling of revulsion toward capital punishment or whether he thinks the law as it stands should take its full course. The inequality of the means of the accused enters the picture and much depends on the type of person the crown prosecutor is. A judge can swing a jury just by the inflection of his voice and there is an element of inequality there. I have heard a judge in court-thank heaven it was not a murder trial-ensure, just by the inflection of his voice on one word, that the accused would be sentenced. This is what the judge said:
You can pronounce two verdicts, one of guilty and one of not guilty.
What would you make out of that? The judge clearly indicated to the jury what he wanted them to do, and this could happen in a murder trial. You cannot go to a court of appeal on the inflection of the voice of a judge, who sometimes is more eloquent in what he does not say than in what he says.
I do not want to take up any more time because many hon. members want to express

Capital Punishment
themselves on this subject. I am very grateful that I have had the privilege of speaking against capital punishment.


Mr. Alan Macnaughfon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the remarks of the previous speakers. There is no doubt that capital punishment, and whether it should be retained in certain cases or abolished in toto, is a question of great importance and a hard one to decide. I think congratulations are certainly in order to the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and, in fact, to those other hon. members who have introduced in this house bills on the subject of capital punishment. It seems to me these are all steps in the creation of public opinion leading to the abolition of the death penalty.
There is no doubt that the present government has been exercising an unusual degree of mercy in cases of condemned criminals. I believe the figures show that out of 40 cases, 32 have been commuted in the last 2J years. This commutation of four out of every five cases by the government has, I think, created a rather confused situation. Does it mean that the government is really in favour of the elimination of capital punishment and is slowly creating public opinion to that end. If so, it seems to me that the government should stand and declare itself.
This morning in the Montreal Gazette in its lead editorial "An important private bill" seems to refer to this confusion in the minds of the public generally. I would like to quote just two or three paragraphs from the lead editorial:
Others, who favour capital punishments, might say that the present tendency offers only the worst of both systems: it does not allow enough executions to be a true deterrent, and yet, by allowing some, it fails to prove that capital punishment is unnecessary.
Still others (such as a clergyman whose letter was published on this page on Tuesday) questioned whether degrees of guilt may be sufficienty estimated by any cabinet, so that 80 per cent may be commuted and 20 per cent may be hanged.
It may be true that the government, in increasing commutations so greatly, has been following no policy, but only exercising the power of mercy according to the sentiments of men more than usually merciful. Yet there can be no doubt that this tendency has immensely sharpened the urgency of a decision on the central question whether capital punishment should be retained at all.
Then, later on in the editorial we find the following:
But "a little capital punishment"-which amounts to the occasional hanging of a condemned murderer-would seem to be capital punishment in its most repellent, least deterrent, and least defensible form.
Basically, if one can set aside the emotions inherent in this question, the matter I think

becomes one for the individual conscience of each member. My own feeling is that we have now reached the stage in public understanding of this question which calls for a very careful study of the death penalty.
In principle, I am opposed to capital punishment for three basic reasons: in the first place, capital punishment emphasizes the punitive aspect of justice. I think we have got beyond that. The word "punitive" of course means punishment. Punishment is a penalty imposed by the state to discourage crime. We think of it as making the criminal experience himself some of the consequences of his own act and today, a further qualification has crept in, in that we now try to reform the criminal either by changing his outlook or working on his character. I say that today, therefore, the punitive aspect of justice really comprises four elements: that of acting as a deterrent to the commission of crimes; the element of a certain retribution, or making the person who has been convicted of a crime suffer for it; the element of reformation, or making an effort to reform the person's character or outlook; and, finally, the protection of society.
It is well understood that law and justice exist for the protection of society. We incarcerate persons who have committed crimes; we put them in institutions or we lock them up in jails. It seems to me that the issue with respect to capital punishment is this. If the taking of life is wrong, does a second wrong accomplish anything positive?	Is a capital sentence the best and
surest way for a community to repudiate the evil action of one of its members?
Punitive justice is the oldest, most primitive form of social justice and, in my opinion, it is now outmoded. It can be compared to the punishment given to a child which is supposed to mend his ways but often has the very opposite effect. I say that punishment by itself is not enough. Punitive punishment is not in keeping with our cultural advancement as of today. If capital punishment is a deterrent, then the custom of public hangings of condemned criminals should be revived on our public squares, and I think everyone in this house will admit with me that this is not only outmoded but it would shock the present day conscience of society.
The second problem we run into with regard to the matter we are discussing at the moment is the problem of human error in judgment. No man is infallible. Even under the best conditions men make mistakes. Even under the best conditions witnesses make mistakes.



196U

[Stage Direction]
We are all well aware of the classic example of the class at college studying psychology when suddenly at the end of a room a fight starts and subsequently the professor asks the various students to make a report on what they have seen and heard. We know that if there are 24 students in the class there are 24 different reports, depending upon what the various 24 members have seen and heard. The reports vary to a large extent. What happened in the classroom has just as many interpretations as there are students in the classroom.
It is a matter of public record that under stress crimes are particularly odious. Frequently the cards seem to be stacked against a fair trial for the accused. There is a famous trial going on in the country to the south of us which might even fit into that category, which may even be an example of whether a trial is fair or unfair. The point I want to make is that there is such a thing as human error. Where prejudice has already been created, due to the circumstances of the crime or to the external factors of publicity, emotion and stress, this prejudice greatly adds to the possibility of error. Once a person is executed he is dead and there is no appeal.
My third reason is based on an ethical objection. The state may not take what it cannot give. The state cannot give life and therefore it should not take a life. There is a point at which the omnipotence of the state should end.
The Belgian ministry of justice, in a memorandum prepared and sent to a select committee of the British House of Commons set up to study the death penalty in 1930, had this to say in part:
The lesson has been learned that the best means for inculcating respect for human life is to refrain from taking life in the name of the law.
The state, of course, has a duty to society. I say that the state fulfils that duty when it withdraws these convicted criminals from society. When a person is incarcerated or sent up for life and kept there the state accomplishes at least three things. First of all, the convicted criminal is punished; second, society is protected from the danger of that criminal; and, third, the state takes out of our society those persons who foul the law.
When we attempt to outlaw war we are attempting to do the same thing in the international field that this bill seeks to do in the national field. We are attempting to go beyond the level of punitive punishment, for I maintain that punitive punishment is the oldest, most primitive form of justice.
I have advanced these three basic arguments, to my way of thinking, in the hope
Capital Punishment
that they may make some small contribution to this general subject. I have here the issue of The Bulletin for November 15, 1955, a publication of the council for social service of the Anglican Church of Canada. At that time capital punishment was under consideration in this house, and it seems to me that on page 15 there is a passage which summarizes my position fairly well. It reads:
It may well be that public opinion is not yet ready for the abolition of capital punishment by law. Several courses are open:
1.	An adequate educational program designed to convert responsible opinion to abolition.
2.	The deletion of the mandatory clause as regards the death penalty in the Canadian law.
3.	Following this, that the use of the power to respite murderers be more commonly used in those cases where the murderer was not previously an offender.
4.	And it is also suggested by some that before any abolition of capital punishment is possible there must be a more or less lengthy period during which the law that allows it is in abeyance.
In conclusion, it would appear to me that public opinion with regard to the abolition of capital punishment is in a very confused state; that the record of the present government in commuting 32 out of 40 sentences has only added to that confusion; that the present bill, while good in itself in that it brings the matter up for discussion and to the attention of the Canadian people, nevertheless is very inadequate. Therefore I shall do my best to keep an open mind and fair attitude and listen carefully to those arguments which will be advanced shortly, and then I shall vote in accordance with my conscience.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked a question of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) and I am afraid my question was badly put. I did not want to give the impression that the question is asked of a prospective juror whether he is against or in favour of capital punishment. I had in mind to say that the fact that a prospective juror declares that he is against capital punishment gives cause to challenge his right to serve as a juror.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. R. D. C. Stewart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this important debate, one that might have far-reaching significance as far as all Canadians are concerned, I find myself cast in a slightly different role than is customary for me. For almost 27 years I have practised law at the bars of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and in the majority of cases my role has been that of defence counsel.

Capital Punishment
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) and I shall later refer to them. Psychologically my approach and my feelings have always been for those who, possibly through no fault of their own or as a result of circumstances, found themselves in the toils of the law.
I also had the advantage of studying law under the late Sidney Smith, the former secretary of state for external affairs, and I practised law at the bar of Nova Scotia before extremely humanitarian judges who would have preferred to lose their own right arms than to feel that an accused person had not received a fair trial. I refer to the late Chief Justice Chisholm, the late Mr. Justice Mellish, the late Mr. Justice Hugh Ross and others.
Tonight as we approach this problem, let us do so calmly and realistically. We are dealing with human lives; and a human life, no matter how simple it is, is related to other human lives and can become extremely complex. There is no one in this house or outside of it who has a greater appreciation of the sanctity of human life than have I. I believe that it is one of the characteristics inherited from our English forebears that we must keep in mind.
I want first to commend all those who have spoken in this debate, whether for or against the abolition of capital punishment. I believe them all to be sincere. I particularly want to compliment the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) who gave a masterly exposition of the reasons why we should at this time retain capital punishment. I should also like to compliment the hon. member for Parkdale. Although I do not agree with his end result, I agree in the main with his premise and I shall refer to it later. I suggest that through a course of education and through the improvement of our social agencies we should so educate the Canadian people that there will come a time when capital punishment can be abolished with safety. We find-and I think the hon. member for Parkdale will agree-that crime is related to the educational standards and the mental characteristics of people. We must bring that level up before it is safe to abolish one of the safeguards we as Canadian people now enjoy.
I must say now that I intend to vote against the bill. In voting against the bill I am just deciding the single issue of whether or not we should retain or abolish capital punishment. It does not mean that I agree with the present law or the enforcement of it. It does not mean that, in my

opinion, changes are not necessary or advisable. I shall also refer later to that matter.
The mover of the bill set out a number of reasons why, in his opinion, capital punishment should be abolished. With all due respect to the hon. member, I do not think that any of those arguments will hold water in the light of the common sense field of law and common sense.


Frank Charles McGee: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Slewari:: Certainly.


Frank Charles McGee: Would he care to point out why these arguments do not hold water?


John B. Stewart: Certainly. I intend to do so, if I am given the opportunity.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) set out six points. The first was that capital punishment was not an effective deterrent. I think that argument has been disposed of by the hon. member for Parkdale who said that it was effective. It might not be the only one, but it is certainly the most effective deterrent that we have at the present time.
Then his second point was that capital punishment was morally wrong. I have a great deal of respect for those who hold religious beliefs to that effect. I have great respect for any person's religion which differs from my own, and I do not intend to get into the metaphysics of the matter or discuss religion or theology. But I will say that religious tenets should not be made the basis for law except for those who agree with those tenets. The religious beliefs and the doctrines of certain organizations should not, I contend, have any bearing on this motion.
Then the third argument was that we hang convicted murderers with a feeling of revenge. I think that argument has been very effectively dealt with by the hon. member for Parkdale. Surely the hon. member for York-Scarborough would hardly stand in this house and say that a properly constituted judiciary composed of judge and jury would sentence a man to be hanged for revenge, or that any jury would convict a fellow man out of revenge. I say that that argument does not hold water.
The fourth argument was the risk of error. Apparently the hon. member for York-Scarborough has forgotten those many safeguards which British and Canadian law provide for a person accused of a criminal charge. He probably has forgotten that our forefathers, obtained from King John on the banks of the Thames the Magna Carta which was a codification of those inherent desires for fair

play and justice that have been common to the English people. That same Magna Carta- it is still the law today-says that no man shall be imprisoned, dispossessed of his land, or in any other way punished, without a fair trial before his peers and equals.
Mr. Speaker, let us examine the safeguards for an accused person in a criminal trial. I am not going to go into the matter in detail. I think every lawyer in this house will agree with me that there are no safeguards that could be added to protect and preserve the life and safety of a person accused of a capital charge. That applies even when the accused person is caught in the act; he is given the same protection as the person apprehended merely on suspicion.
What is the first safeguard? The first safeguard is our judges, and I disagree to this extent with the hon. member for Parkdale on this point. I think that we Canadians can be very proud of our judges. It is true that we have weak judges, that we have strong judges; but after all, a judge in a jury trial has not too much to say regarding the verdict of the jury. Bacon's advice to the judge I think bears repitition: "You shall be a light to jurors to open their eyes, not a guide to lead them by the nose." A judge might dislike the verdict of a jury, but there is nothing he can do about it.
Then we have the jury. Any ordinary individual tried before a jury of his peers and equals, if he has any kind of standing in the community, will certainly get a fair trial. An accused person in the case of a capital charge is allowed twenty peremptory challenges, which means he can say to a juror "I don't want you to serve". He does not have to give any reason. He is also entitled to challenge them for cause.
Those are some of the safeguards. More than that, the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. All twelve jurors must agree. That is another safeguard for the accused person.


Frank Charles McGee: I hate to interrupt the hon. member again, but would he permit another question?


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Certainly.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member has just stated that any person of good standing in the community is guaranteed a fair trial.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I did not use the word "guaranteed".


Harold Edward Winch: There is the difference.


Frank Charles McGee: As I understood the hon. member, he said that any person of good standing will get a fair trial. Is this a condition he is attaching to a fair trial?
Capital Punishment


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I am sorry, I did not hear the question.


Frank Charles McGee: As I understood it, you said any person of good standing in the community will get a fair trial. This obviously excludes some other people.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I said, if the hon. member had been paying attention, that any person with a reasonably good standing would.
Mr. V/ir.ch: Is not anybody worthy of a fair trial?


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I say that any person in the community is entitled to a fair trial and will get a fair trial if he is of decent standing.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the point. The hon. member means that he has to have a decent and good standing to get a fair trial. That is not British justice as I understand it.


Frank Charles McGee: The hon. member is attaching qualifications to the person who will get a fair trial.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should be allowed to make his speech.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: I say, as I said before, under British justice whether a man is caught in the act of committing a crime or just picked up on suspicion, he is entitled to these safeguards under our law. That is what I said.


Frank Charles McGee: As long as he has a good reputation.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: In addition to the jury, the law has placed around the accused person, regardless of his innocence or guilt, certain rules that must be observed during the course of a trial. If these rules are not observed, if there has been wrongful admission of evidence or wrongful rejection of evidence, or improper identification, or a score of other reasons, then the case can be reversed on appeal.
Then we have further the appeal itself. A convicted person is entitled as of right to appeal to the appeal court of the province where the crime was committed. He is also entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada if there is dissent by one of the judges in the appeal court on a point of law, or with leave of the Supreme Court on a question of law.
In addition to those things we have the provisions of our Criminal Code relating to pardon, the review by the executive, the ordering by the minister of justice of a new trial or an appeal, just to the same extent as if the accused had made the appeal.
Those are some of the safeguards. I will admit that possibly there is a slight chance of error, and I will go this far and say to the

Capital Punishment
hon. member for York-Scarborough that that is the only real argument that he or the hon. member for Vancouver East has advanced regarding the abolition of capital punishment. That is the only argument which I feel should have any bearing. If by any chance an innocent person should be put to death it would be a catastrophe, but X say that the law has placed on our statute books and in our jurisprudence safeguards to protect the life and liberty of a person accused of a crime.
There has been some suggestion that there is discrimination between a poor accused person and a rich accused person. I submit that is not so in practice. We have at the bars of our respective provinces trained men who are willing to appear for persons accused of crimes should those persons be unable to provide counsel for themselves. This is one of the practical aspects of the question. Possibly the Criminal Code should be revised to provide that in the event of a person not being able to afford counsel some provision would be made for his defence.
I submit that on the whole no case has been made out for the abolition of capital punishment. I said I would refer to the hon. member for Parkdale. I want to commend him on his speech. I appreciate his feelings. I appreciate the vigour with which he approached the problem, and I say that the only difference between that hon. member and myself is that he wants to abolish capital punishment and then educate the people while I think that the education should come first. When we have raised the moral and educational standards of our people we shall be in the position to abolish capital punishment.
Some reference has been made here to the remarks of Colonel Nicholson as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of January 25 and I quote:
I told the parliamentary committee I would hope the time would come as to the general level of Canadian social behaviour when it would be safe to abolish capital punishment, but I did not think then that time had arrived. My opinion has not changed, I still think the time has not come yet to abolish capital punishment.
Whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent or a sufficient deterrent is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it acts as a deterrent to the professionals who plan the crimes they commit, though it might not have too much effect on a person engaged in a minor crime who then becomes more seriously involved. As a Canadian people we want liberty and freedom, but liberty does not mean licence. It is freedom and liberty under the law. When the anti-social element in any area conform to the law we shall have a decrease in delinquency and crime, and,

consequently, a lessening of the need for strict enforcement. When this becomes common throughout the nation, the harshness of the laws can be relaxed, but until that happens we as legislators owe a duty to protect and safeguard by proper law enforcement the rights of individuals and we should leave no stone unturned to honour and preserve the sanctity of life and, I suggest, the lives of the innocent. Before we remove the present safeguard should we not through education, through increasing the work of our social agencies, through providing more and better recreational facilities for our teenagers, so improve the educational standards of our people that capital punishment becomes unnecessary There will no doubt come a time when not only will capital punishment be abolished but a great increase will be seen in other fields of human endeavour.
I should like to refer to the house a statement made by a great German philosopher entitled "Our One Hope". I think this should be our watch word and our motto in this debate:
There is this one hope: we must return to the main road from which we have wandered. We must substitute the power of understanding the truth that is really free, for propaganda; a noble kind of patriotism which aims at ends that are worthy of the whole of mankind, for the patriotism current today; a humanity with a common civilization, for idolized nationalisms; a restored faith in the civilized state, for a society which lacks true idealism; a unifying ideal of civilized man for the condition into which we have plunged; a concern with the processes and ideals of true civilization, for a pre-occupation with the transient problems of living; a faith in the possibility of progress, for a mentality stripped of all true spirituality.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Parkdale I should like to quote to him the words of Sir Patrick Hastings in the trial of Arthur Greenwood who he was defending for murder, when he said to the jury:
Let us not extinguish the light that we cannot relight.
Let us not abolish one of the protections that we have. Let us rather go to the code and make those changes which we consider necessary so that as a Canadian people we may grow and prosper.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: I should like to make a brief intervention at this point to express some views which I have long held. One hesitates, being not a member of the legal profession, to enter into a discussion which has to a large degree involved the legal aspect of this bill but, as I am certain the gentlemen of that profession who have contributed in such an eloquent manner to this debate would be the first to agree, no profession and no group of individuals has any

particular corner on logic, and I hope to make what appeal I can purely on the basis of logic.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the mover of the bill before us (Mr. McGee) and he presented to us an interesting dissertation on the history of capital punishment. The hon. member suggested that there were four basic considerations which we must review and have before us in coming to a conclusion. I do not present them in the same sequence in which he did. I recall, however, that he questioned the moral right of the state to take a man's life.
I believe the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) did an excellent service to this house this afternoon. He not only made an admirable speech but as a long standing proponent for abolition he stated that the state does have a moral right in this regard. In fact, with respect to the religious basis of the question it is I believe well established that the churches in their opinion, are as divided as are our citizens as to the right or wrong of capital punishment.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough quoted a number of outstanding jurists and one in particular who had expressed their views in support of the abolition of capital punishment. I propose in a few minutes to cite statements made by people who are equally as prominent and experienced in their field but who take a completely opposite view. I do so because it is a practice of the legal profession in a trial when counsel for the prosecution is endeavouring to establish a point of evidence to call for what is described as expert witnesses to produce testimony and defence counsel in turn will call his own expert witnesses to nullify the effect of the argument and evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The hon. member then went on to question the usefulness of capital punishment as a deterrent. He concluded that the onus or responsibility of proving the case that capital punishment is necessary or required rests on those who wish to see continued the provisions of the Criminal Code as they exist today. I suggest that the reverse is true. It is a long established legislative practice that before an act is repealed or before an important revision of a statute is made, those who seek the alteration, must accept the onus and responsibility of substantiating their claim that there exists a requirement for these changes.
Capital punishment has been with us for a long time. It has proved to be a deterrent, in my estimation, and I hope to substantiate
Capital Punishment
that this is the case. How unique or how effective a deterrent it is I concede that I among others have not the answer nor, I suggest, has anyone else in this house.
I should be remiss in my duty if I attempted to ignore the very forcible arguments advanced by the hon. member for Parkdale who today was at his eloquent best. No one is going to suggest that he has not held for a great many years the sincere conviction which he so ably presented to the house this afternoon. He has presented his arguments on previous occasions, of course, but I suggest that at no time in addressing a jury has he been any more persuasive than he was today.
I believe we must examine the hon. member's remarks to determine if they are based primarily on fact or primarily on emotions, whether his appeal was to our hearts or to the facts before us, and only then are we in a position to agree or disagree with his submission. As I said before, I seek to take nothing away from what was presented by the hon. member and I believe it was one of the greatest contributions to the debates of this house it has been my pleasure to hear in my short experience in this chamber.
Many hon. members today quoted facts and statistics. For example, reference was made by the hon. member who moved the bill to the situation in New Zealand. He implied that New Zealand restored the death penalty on the basis of political considerations. It is utterly a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. There are a great many people in New Zealand and some in this country who are familiar with the situation in New Zealand at that time, and who argue that the death penalty was restored as a consequence of two revolting murders that shocked the conscience of that nation.
The situation in Great Britain has been outlined to us. Great Britain a year ago experienced a crime wave during which eight murders were committed in eight days. I understand, again from the information available to me which of course may be refuted, that the crime rate had increased by 14.8 per cent after the abolition of capital punishment. One must remember it was by the narrowest vote that the parliament of Westminster decided to make the change in the British act, the House of Lords having rejected any change whatever.
What about other jurisdictional areas to which reference was made by the hon. member for Parkdale? I believe that it is important to read into the record a portion of the report of the joint committee of the

Capital Punishment
House of Commons and the other place. Conclusion No. 54 at page 14 of their final report reads as follows:
The committee has already indicated in paragraph 28 that comparisons between different countries on the basis of available statistics must, of necessity, be made with reservations. However, the committee considered that criminals in North America appear more prone to the use of firearms and violence than European criminals. The committee does not attempt to explain why this should be so, although it appears likely that it results from the comparative youthfulness of North American society and the variegated nature of its population. Whatever the reason may be, the committee is of the opinion that it is obviously more imperative to retain the stern penalty of capital punishment as a continuing restraint against the use of violence by professional criminals.
In a subsequent paragraph of the report it is stated:
The committee also noted a difference in the types of murder committed in Canada and the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, murders of the familial-passion type which are not subject to control by the death penalty, or any other penalty, constitute an appreciably higher proportion

Further on in the same paragraph it is stated:
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.
I concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Parkdale that hon. members of this house should examine not only the evidence but the conclusions of this committee which spent many months in examining this question. This report represents the considered views of the hon. gentlemen who served on that committee, after a comprehensive examination of all the evidence. Let us not stop at that point, however. Both the hon. member who moved the introduction of this bill and the hon. member for Parkdale quoted various authorities when they spoke today. I was impressed as I am sure all hon. members were by the remarks made by the hon. member for Parkdale when he pointed out his special knowledge of this subject through his long study of it and his relationship with the prosecution and the defence- I would assume both-of criminals. No one would suggest he has not had a great deal of experience.
There are other people who have also had a great deal of experience in this field. Here is one example. Lord Chief Justice Darling of the privy council 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:

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.
Then he goes on to discuss the aspect of the importance of capital punishment as a deterrent. Perhaps one of the most convincing arguments is to be found in the report of the special parliamentary committee of 1956. They come to this conclusion, on the sole point of whether capital punishment does represent a deterrent:
In considering the arguments for and against abolition, the committee was conscious of the view of the provincial attorneys general and other officials responsible for law enforcement from whom it received evidence that capital punishment is an important and necessary deterrent to murder.
The report goes on to say:
The committee has concluded that capital punishment does exercise a deterrent effect which would not result from imprisonment or other forms of punishment.
Not so very long ago, a very close relative of mine spoke in a debate on a similar bill. After some 20 years experience both in the prosecution and the defence of men convicted of murder, he said this:
Mr. Speaker, I speak tonight, and I hope the expression I use will not be misinterpreted, as a firm believer in capital punishment for murder. I go even farther and say that I am a firm believer in hanging as the method.
I am quoting from page 3280 of Hansard of June 6, 1950, a speech made by Mr. A. L. Smith, who was speaking at that time on a similar bill.
I could offer, a number of other examples of people who are recognized as authorities because of their experience, their association, with this important legislation before us. I merely offer them to suggest that because one authority, undoubtedly with a great deal of experience, does not agree with the principle of capital punishment it does not follow that we cannot readily draw from the experience of a great many others who do agree it is absolutely essential. Therefore, I come to what after all is the basis of this bill. We are asked to consider one question, and one question only, namely do we believe that the state should take the life of a convicted murderer? We should not clutter it up with any other considerations at this point. We have before us, then, the question of whether or not capital punishment does represent a deterrent.
I subscribe to the theory, based on the history of the United States where certain states saw fit to abolish capital punishment and re-establish it later, that it is a deterrent. I suggest that the history of New Zealand, which followed exactly the same pattern; I suggest that with the controversy

raging today in Great Britain over the increase in the crime rate; I suggest that with the committee of this House of Commons and of the Senate making a similar recommendation two years ago that a deterrent did exist; all these things are ample evidence-based on all the facts and statistics that this house should require-and are indeed an answer to those who would ask us to remove capital punishment.
It would be wrong for any of us to become involved in sheer emotionalism or sentimentality in discussing an issue as important to the public of Canada as this. The hon. member for Parkdale spoke of the condemned man awaiting his final days. He suggested to us that he would be experiencing a fate far more horrible than that which he had inflicted on the individual whom he had murdered. How more, I ask, can one become involved in emotionalism? No one questions that the individual, the convicted murderer, is very much alone and will experience some unusual sensations while waiting to die. I remind the house that no one will also deny the fact that he did have a fair trial; that he had a fair opportunity to have his sentence commuted to life imprisonment if the cabinet considered there was justification for it; no one will ever question the fact that the Solicitor General did read the evidence and had to make a recommendation to the cabinet; no one would question the fact that he had the right of appeal to the courts. Therefore, while I agree he has had an experience which is peculiar only to one who is about to lose his life. Perhaps there is one exception, namely the individual, the relative, perhaps, of the man who was knocked down and killed by the bullet of the convicted murderer, or perhaps that child who was lying on the road, having been knifed by the convicted murderer. If we are going to insist on dealing with sentimentality or emotionalism I ask that this house look on the other side of the coin as well.
This is a problem that we cannot take lightly. We have been asked to eliminate a provision which has made, or contributed to making Canada relatively free of serious crime in relation to many other countries. It is one factor. The other factor, of course, must be credited to our magnificent law enforcement officers. I suggest to you, sir, that the moment we eliminate this deterrent-how big or how small, who knows, but which does exist, if we judge by the words of the hon. member for Parkdale and by the findings of the parliamentary committees and by the remarks of most of the greatest authorities who have considered this matter-we shall be making a mistake. So long as this
Capital Punishment
deterrent exists, so long as there is in the mind of the individual who pulls the trigger that he may lose his life in the event that he takes another man's life, only then will the public continue to have a feeling of safety. This house will be doing a disservice to the public of Canada by removing anything which in any way will prevent the furtherance of crime in our country.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I have waited ever since 1953 for an opening to express myself on this matter in this House of Commons. I am happy indeed to see that for once in a long long while members of the House of Commons have been freed from the restraint of party discipline and as members are able to examine their conscience and express themselves as their conscience dictates. I wish that occasions such as this would happen much more often. I feel the parliament of Canada and the government of Canada would be much the better off for it.
I regret very much the growing power of political partisanship and of political parties to determine issues in the nation and the lessening of the rights of individual representatives of the people of Canada to express what they feel in their hearts the people back home would like them to express on so many other issues. I feel that we have in this matter arrived at the stage in Canadian history when the House of Commons ought to give very serious consideration to what has happened.
Time after time we know that the people who are selected to act on a jury in a murder case will return a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder because they know the result of a murder verdict.
I agree wholeheartedly with the contention I heard made earlier this afternoon that the place to change the law is in this house and not within the confines of a jury room. I regret very much that in this respect the parliament of Canada, in my opinion at least, is lagging behind the opinions of the men and women who are from time to time asked to serve as jurors. I do not like to see juries subvert the law because of their hesitation when they realize the possible result of a verdict of murder. I feel that the House of Commons is lagging and has lagged for a goodly number of years. All we have to do to find evidence of the fact that we are behind the times is to make a survey of all the cases where men or women have been hauled before a court on a murder charge.
In the presentation of the idea of the abolition of capital punishment I believe that possibly we have not given adequate consideration to some of the problems that may

Capital Punishment
be involved, and I am impressed by the representations that have been made to me by those responsible tor looking after people who are condemned to spend a goodly part of their lives in penitentiaries. If we adopt the bill sponsored by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), and I hope the house will vote for it, I believe we should consider immediately the establishment of an institution to look after all men and women who are found guilty of murder. I believe that these people should not be confined in our existing penal institutions. If we abolish the death penalty the problem created would be very much worse and even the very lives of the guards in the penitentiaries would be endangered because if there is no longer a death penalty then the temptation to escape at all costs, even at the cost of the lives of a number of guards, might be a lure to a goodly number of those who had been found guilty of murder and who might not hesitate to commit murder again in the vain hope of escaping confinement. I think that a new national institution ought to be created that would ensure the protection of our public servants and in which there would also be a specific program of rehabilitation for these individuals.
I believe that one of the basic ingredients of a good law is that the people having the authority to make the law should also be willing to assume personal responsibility for its implementation. The present death penalty is the only penalty for murder under the Criminal Code and that is the responsibility of the House of Commons. In my opinion it is bad for members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of any piece of legislation for which they are unwilling to assume immediate and direct responsibility. I do not like to think that we may vote for the retention of capital punishment by voting against the bill now before the house and that we can then get away from our responsibility by hiring a hangman. I have every respect for the good intentions and integrity of every member of the House of Commons, and if members of the house decide in their wisdom to retain capital punishment I believe that each and every member of the house also has a responsibility to implement that law.
I think that what we are doing now by hiring a hangman is merely escaping our responsibility. If the house should decide to defeat the bill today or next week when the debate is continued, which I hope we will not, I believe that the carrying out of all future sentences of death ought to be set for the month of May, possibly around tulip time in Ottawa, and the hangings should take place on the beautiful lawns of parliament hill and each and every one of us-


Mr. Brunsden:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member within the confines of the debate or is he straying into other fields?


Mr. Habel:: He is still in the house anyhow.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose it is a question for me to answer but the hon. member who raised the point of order has not given me anything on which to base my judgment. I think the hon. member is perhaps talking about the repulsiveness of executions and it may be relevant to this debate.


Erhart Regier: I believe that no law should be passed by the House of Commons and the other place if members of the house and the other place are not prepared to assume personal responsibility for the implementation of that law. That is why I propose, if the law is going to continue as it now stands, that hangings ought to take place at a beautiful time of the year on the beautiful lawns of parliament hill, that they should be exposed to the public view and that each and every one of us should accept his responsibility. Despite my repulsion I will be willing to assume my fair share of the responsibility because I believe in democracy. If the house should vote for the retention of capital punishment then I am equally responsible for the decision of the house. In that event I think there should be 265 plus 102 yanks at the rope and I am offering to supply my yank at the rope.
I think all law, in the last analysis, must be considered in that light, namely that we have not the moral right-and this whole debate is a matter of conscience and morals -to hide behind an anonymous hanging. We must realize our personal responsibility. I am offering to realize mine and to abide by the majority decision.
Over the last several weeks I was greatly disappointed by representations made to me by certain religious organizations on this matter and I was highly pleased by the representations made by other religious organizations. However, human progress is slow indeed in the light of world history. I greatly regret to note that some of the leading Christian communities of Canada have not yet heard of the new testament and of the message of the new testament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erhart Regier: I have been greatly disappointed on receiving a number of the representations I have received in this regard.
The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) referred to sentimentality or emotionalism in this regard. May I humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that our whole democracy, our

whole western society, depends greatly for its very fibre and base on belief or faith. The hon. member for Calgary South may well label it emotionalism or sentimentality. However, I am willing to continue to adhere to a faith in mankind because it is the basis of our whole western civilization. I would much rather run a few risks than be found guilty of what to me personally is an unpardonable crime, namely the taking of human life. We have not the power to grant life and I feel that neither as individuals nor as organized groups of individuals have we the moral right to take away life in any way, shape or form.
(Translation):


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to express my opinion on the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). The practice of criminal law has made it possible for me to form my own concepts in the issue before us.
I have no doubt that hon. members of this house, who are in favour of abolishing capital punishment, are convinced that they are right. But that certainly does not entitle them to conclude that those who want capital punishment maintained are wrong.
Should we look upon the death penalty from a sentimental angle? No, Mr. Speaker, for this is in fact much more a question of reasoning. Some will maintain that it is illogical to keep up corporal punishment that goes way back to Roman law. But may we not also state, that a custom, a principle or a tradition can still be applied even though it is of ancient origin.
Humanity has not always erred in the things it has done. In every nation there are customs and basic social principles, which in spite of being as old as the world, are as necessary and appropriate today as they were originally.
Nothing is more degrading and morbid, people will say, than capital punishment, and by imposing such punishment and more particularly by maintaining it, society is debasing itself by debasing someone else.
Yet, society is composed of individuals who must live with one another, and it has the responsibility of enforcing rules and laws to protect itself and its members. Some thinkers and social scientists will carry this reasoning to its ultimate conclusion and maintain that nobody has the right to deprive a man of his physical or intellectual freedom. If such a theory were accepted, it could also be claimed that a community composed of individuals can neither surrender nor assume rights which individuals themselves do not have.
Capital Punishment
However, no society could survive if its best elements lacked the necessary material means to repress those who disturb the established order and transgress the laws.
What is the definition of law? Philosophy gives the following definition:
Law is ordered reason for the common good, enacted and applied by authority.
The term "ordered" suggests direction and obligation. Therefore, there is intervention of the will, but ordered by reason.
Law must have as its direct purpose the common good, that is to say, the good of all mankind. And it must never be forgotten that the common good is the general good, which must be ordered for the proper ends of society.
Any law must have a general implication and provide, first of all, for the general good, the good of the community, and if the law is to cover the individual as a unit, it must do so in so far as the individual co-operates to the good of the community or of society as a whole.
If law derives from authority, we must ask ourselves whence and from whom such authority comes. As far as the common good of Canadian society is concerned, we, as members of the House of Commons, are that authority, because we have been entrusted with the duty of governing. While authority proceeds from God, God delegates that authority to those who have been legally chosen to govern. Law, therefore, must come only from members of the house, and not from private reason alone. Since we have the power to legislate, we must do so for the common good of society and not for any particular good or purpose.
We must never forget that the primary source of all law is in the eternal law; however temporal law, which is a secondary one, must regulate individual actions, that is to say, actions of reasonable beings. Temporal law is therefore positive in addition to being divine or human, and the latter, as far as we are concerned, is either civil or criminal.
Civil or criminal law has a particular character, that is to say, it must aim at the common good. Now, in order to ensure the common good, it is necessary to define what constitutes a crime or an offence, and necessarily, some appropriate sanction must be imposed on those who commit a crime; and it is the duty of all members to "organize" suppression of crimes on behalf of society.
This repression of crime requires that punishment be meted out to those who are guilty of the crime. In considering this bill,

Capital Punishment
we must stop to assess the seriouness of the punishment already imposed by law, and see whether such punishment should be decreased or maintained in regard to the particular crime, which is murder.
Should murder be penalized by imprisonment or by death? Does the common good, today, require the abolition of capital punishment more than it did previously? Every person's opinion on the problem of capital punishment depends on that person's personal background. The purpose of capital punishment is to deter other citizens from committing a similar crime. The principle underlying such punishment is not vengeance, or the argument that a murderer is unworthy of living. That is certainly not the motive inspiring our judges, jurors and the people who urge that the law be carried out and enforced.
Is the death penalty a good deterrent of crime? In my humble view, so long as men are not assured that they cannot take another man's life and get away with it, this deterrent will be necessary to society.
There is no doubt that a man who takes another man's life is in contempt of human law as well as divine law, and must, therefore, be punished for his crime. Many will say that divine law does not authorize the death penalty, in view of the commandment which says "Thou shalt not kill", and that therefore, the state is not authorized under divine law to transgress this principle through positive legislation.
Father Janvier, the prominent French sociologist and preacher, makes the following statement on pages 116 to 118 of his book entitled "Justice and Law":
When a man, through his own viciousness, becomes a public menace, the regular authority cuts him out of the social body, just as a physician cuts out an eye, an arm or a leg when gangrene threatens the whole physical body. There is no injustice involved, because in falling into certain extremes which are repugnant both to reason and to the heart, the criminal has divested himself of human dignity and has fallen, so to speak, into animality. Having become similar to a wild beast, indeed even worse and more harmful, he deserves the same kind of treatment. Courts do not execute criminals out of a lack of respect for human life, but on the contrary, out of love for human life, in defence of it, and as a means of preserving it for all. In passing a capital sentence, they are motivated not by feelings of vengeance or of hatred for the wicked, but by concern for the innocent. They pronounce a death sentence to make the punishment fit the crime, in order that in the community, the fear of punishment might inspire hate of evil, in order that scoundrels whose conscience is indifferent to good and deaf to the call of duty, will refrain from killing for fear of being killed.

To what extent is it appropriate for justice to avail itself of this terrible right? To the extent necessary or appropriate to protect society. Prudence should determine the cases where it is appropriate for justice to use either clemency or greater severity. To consult general interest and to act according to its requirements, such is the duty of those who lead the people and legislate.
I quite humbly believe that we show too much commiseration for the criminal, and the disguised feelings of pity and charity lead many people to make requests to society to do away with capital punishment. It is unfortunate that they do not always show as much pity for the family of the murderer's victim. Very often a tearful wife is left alone, having to assume the responsibility for the education of her children orphaned by a murder committed by a man who, often for reasons of jealousy, spite or hatred, has decided to kill his fellow man, with the hope that he himself will escape capital punishment, convinced that he will never be found.
To abolish capital punishment would mean that we believe that the right lies in the power of the individual, that might is right and that justice leans towards the strong.
Would it not be dangerous then to leave the impression that each man has a right to take his own revenge for a wrong that might have been caused to him?
The Creator has seen fit to implant in man's mind, as a primordial instinct, the fear of death. If this is a primordial instinct, as it necessarily must be, capital punishment is certainly a deterrent of crime, and, in this case, it is a necessity at this stage of our civilization. When the human mind has changed, when the improvement we aim at is attained, we shall then be able to afford abolishing capital punishment which, I think, the security of our society strongly demands today.
I have great respect for the views of those who hold opposite views. I commend there for wanting to do something in the interesl of humanity. Yet, I ask the same right foi myself and those others who also are acting in the best interest of mankind, even if the} be of different opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the legislation moved by the hon. member foi York-Scarborough, as I am convinced of th< necessity of maintaining capital punishmen in this country.

(Text):


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to detain the louse for more than a very few moments. [ feel it is only fair and right that all hon. nembers have the opportunity to explain ;heir vote on this very important, indeed /ery personal, matter that is before the louse at this time, upon which I presume ve will be asked to vote.
May I say, with all due respect to the nover and seconder of the bill, that I jelieve that the subject matter under discus-ion is so complicated, and the consequences >f our decision in this matter are so far *eaching, that the bill should have been ponsored by the government rather than >y a private member. I do not think it vould be right if we lost sight of the fact hat if this particular bill passes the house t will become law after third reading and fter passing the usual procedure in the ther place. An extremely important and onsequential amendment will have been aade in our Criminal Code.
The government, in my opinion, is shirk-lg a serious responsibility in this matter nder the guise of magnanimity in letting a rivate member introduce this bill on which ; is still rumoured, though not yet con-rmed, there will be a free vote. Recently lere has been hesitation and confusion on le part of the government with regard to lis matter and this has made it very diffi-Jlt for members of the opposition to find ut the plan which the government intended ) follow in bringing this measure before the ouse. Even now the government is playing lis particular matter by ear as is evidenced y the necessity of obtaining the unanimous msent of the house to permit the widest 'ope in discussing this bill and to allow iscussions of the other bills on the order aper which deal with the same subject atter. This, of course, is an extraordinary rocedure.


Mr. Pallelf:: May I ask the hon. member question? Does he think only one day lould be allotted for this debate?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, on the contrary.
Mr. Pallet!: Then what is the hon. member implaining about?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the hon. member would t me finish my speech-


Some hon. Members:: Playing politics.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -I think he will find I will i very objective throughout this whole ing.


An hon. Member:: Get on to the bill.
79951-0-77J
Capital Punishment


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The very fact that the house will be allowed to discuss other bills, the principles of which are not only different from the bill we are now discussing but which actually prejudge the issue, because the bills which are already before the house and which we can discuss here are based on and suppose the retention of capital punishment-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure I follow the hon. member when he talks about a decision of the house. It does not lie within the competence of the hon. member to discuss the power of the house to come to its decision. It seems to me he is criticizing the subject matter of the debate.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It is my understanding of the situation that in discussing this particular bill we would be allowed to bring in the subject matter of the other bills which deal with the changing of the method of execution and so on. My point is that if we are going to discuss the subject matter of these other bills there is an inconsistency in that the bill which is now before us deals with the abolition of capital punishment whereas with regard to the others we would obviously be discussing-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is some hours late in making that point. The house has already made its decision on that point, unanimously.


An hon. Member:: And at their request.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am trying to bring out that this is an inadequate and unsatisfactory way of dealing with this question, and I think that if hon. members would just look over what is happening they would see immediately that it is not even fair to the mover and the seconder of this motion to have them prepare and argue on one particular bill and then let the debate be open for the house to discuss other matters.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not object?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If any hon. member wishes to rise and take a point of order he is at liberty to do so, but not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor. As I follow the hon. member who is speaking- and I do not wish to prevent him making a point which is proper in this debate-it seems to me that his remarks are entirely directed to the action of the house itself, and that is not in order. The house itself set the course of this debate and set the time to be allowed to members in discussing it by its own order, and it is not open to the hon. member now to review that decision.

Capital Punishment


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I did not intend to review the decision of the house. What I am saying is that it seems to me rather strange for hon. members to be able to speak about other bills that are on the order paper-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member persists in that line I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I can understand the difficulty in which the government finds itself on this particular issue because as the result of the government's commutation of 32 out of 40 of the sentences of persons condemned in the past three years it is apparent that the government had at least a strong tendency toward the abolition of capital punishment without waiting for the results of this debate and the discussion in which we are engaged tonight. Nor would it be at all surprising if the majority of the house and, indeed, the majority of Conservative members voted against the abolition of capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: Wait for the vote and get on with your speech.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I say that because the choice given to the house in this bill is neither complete, fair nor realistic at this time. Indeed in my opinion it is no easier to vote on this bill than it would be for a member to vote on the question whether he likes it better in the winter or in the country.
Of course, there are alternatives and it is indeed in the alternatives that I believe the most practicable solution to the problem will be found.
Another question before us is, of course, whether capital punishment is or is not a deterrent to murder, and I must confess that I was not particularly impressed or convinced even by the statistical arguments which have been put forward by those who are in favour of abolition. I cannot help but feel that the immediate abolition of capital punishment at this time might cause those who might otherwise be more careful to be more trigger happy and more careless of the lives of their fellow men, and I for one am unwilling to take that risk. Nor would I like to see the abolition of capital punishment without having made a serious and, indeed, a successful effort to achieve effective control, restriction and banning of lethal weapons in the hands of individual citizens other than those which might be considered as sporting weapons. To me that would be a necessary precaution and, indeed, a condition upon which I might agree to the abolition of capital punishment.
One of the strongest arguments in favour of the retention of capital punishment is, I believe, to be found in the fact that the

government which apparently did all it possibly could to be merciful toward those condemned to be hung found that the nature of the crimes committed by eight of the 40 persons condemned to die did not warrant commutation of the sentence of death.
It is not difficult, I am sure, for hon. members to imagine crimes other than treason and piracy mentioned in the bill in respect to which, in the interest of society as a whole, capital punishment would not only be morally justified but indeed warranted.
I feel that even after full discussion has taken place on this bill it would be premature and unwise to vote for the abolition of the death penalty at this time and in the circumstances and for these reasons I have no alternative but to vote against the bill now before the house and hope that the government will bring in a more realistic measure on this very subject in the near future.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr
Speaker, I rise for a moment this evening to oppose this bill. The cases both for anc against this bill have been brilliantly anc thoroughly put forward by other hon. members who have spoken this afternoon and thi: evening. I do not have the brilliance to present the situation in the capable way thos( hon. gentlemen did nor do I intend to resor to any repetition of the arguments.
It has been stated that capital punishmen and stiff sentences are not a deterrent. : take issue with that statement. If I may b< allowed some latitude in making a persona reference, I should like to speak about : personal recollection of an event that oc curred in the city of Hamilton some few year, ago. The late Magistrate Burbidge was thei in office. During his tenure of office we ha< several bank robberies without violence ii which the robbers were caught. He gave sue) severe sentences that there was not anothe bank robbery in Hamilton during the remain der of his term of office, if my memory serve me correctly.
I promised not to detain the house thi evening and so I shall make brief referenc to a statement I made last Sunday nigh during the course of a radio broadcast over Hamilton station. On that occasion I said:
Capital punishment is a deterrent and I ai against doing away with it. I feel that if capit; punishment were eliminated in this country would become a battleground for all the thug in our neighbouring countries. They could mov in here with their victims and do their slaughtei ing in Canada because what does a life sentenc mean? It means imprisonment for 10 to 12 to 1 years, and in some cases I have known them 1 be out in 8. Another thing which must alwa; be borne in mind is that our police forces woul have practically no protection whatever in goir about their duties, and a policeman is as dear 1

his family as anyone else is dear to theirs. It is all very well to show leniency but what about the victims?
I am against abolition. I would go so far as to substitute the gas chamber for the gallows but that is as far as I would go.
Mr. Speaker, that was the view I expressed the other evening and that is the view I hold tonight.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this bill because I believe the time has come when parliament must give the lead in abolishing our barbarous punishment of hanging. I feel it is a very good thing that parliament is going to have an extended debate on this important and complex question. I must confess I was somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) should object to a private hon. member bringing in such an important bill although perhaps I should not be surprised because I know that in the days when the hon. member sat as a backbencher on the government side he and his colleagues certainly were not permitted to play such an important role in parliament.
It is quite obvious that there are many hon. members in this house who feel hesitant about withdrawing the punishment of a life for a life. There are others who feel that we should go slowly in this matter. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) was adamant when he simply rejected all the arguments in favour of abolition.
I do not feel that disposition of the matter is as simple as that. In the House of Commons there are 265 members representing roughly 17 million people. I am sure that what we are hearing in this debate is a reflection of the varying opinions held by these 17 million people. We are a cross-section of Canada and I believe it is a very good thing that all these opinions are being aired. If after this extended debate the majority decides that we should go slower in this matter and if it decides that we should accept one or other of the other bills relating to this subject I will certainly support that decision because I believe that every step toward the abolition of capital punishment is a forward step.
At this time I should like to commend the Ottawa Citizen for the series of articles it recently published on this subject. I read every one of them with interest. They presented the viewpoints of many people, mostly experts on the subject. They were as varied as the opinions we have heard in this debate. I must say, however, I read all of the articles and still emerged feeling that we in Canada have reached the time when we should abolish capital punishment.
As I mentioned in a previous debate on this subject last year in this house, the deterrent effect of capital punishment has had a
Capital Punishment
great influence in my thinking. I served as a member of the joint parliamentary committee which was established, I believe, in 1954, and which sat for two years studying this whole problem. I listened to the testimony given by law enforcement officers from our police and prisons. Generally speaking they claimed that capital punishment was a deterrent.
On the other hand in volume 1 of the committee proceedings at page 605 there appears testimony presented by representatives of the John Howard society which also is an authoritative voice in this area. The society through its representatives stated that four types of people commit murders; the insane, the emotionally overwrought-this condition induced by alcohol or natural causes-the calculating, self-centred egoist and the professional gunman. Officials of the John Howard society claim that the normal shackles of any restraint are absent in regard to the first two categories, the insane and emotionally overwrought. As for the third and fourth categories, the calculating, selfcentred egoist and the professional gunman, they have no intention of being caught. They consider themselves smarter than the police and therefore entertain no thought of being caught. No thought of any punishment is a deterrent.
I am one of those who believes-and this despite some of the man-made tragedies of the past three decades-that the world is becoming more civilized and I think capital punishment is too barbarous a practice for a civilized nation to continue. I should like to see Canada take a lead in this civilizing force and one way we can do that is by abolishing the outrageous punishment of hanging.
In all my searching for an answer to this question' the deterrent effect has always weighed heavily. I agree with those who say that our law-abiding society must be protected. I believe that those who do commit murders should be confined to prison, that we must take the murderers out of circulation. One eminent law enforcement authority who believes in capital punishment admits that the deterrent effect is a matter of opinion. In an interview Colonel L. H. Nicholson, former Royal Canadian Mounted Police commissioner, had this to say:
The deterrent effect of capital punishment is a matter of opinion. I doubt if statistics can prove or disprove it.
It is his opinion that the threat of death does have a deterrent effect on the professional criminal, the holdup man or the man who robs with violence in any form. But murder is certainly not confined to professional criminals. I do not believe the threat

Capital Punishment
of hanging is any deterrent whatsoever to those people who commit murder because of sick minds, because of uncontrollable passions. Yet hanging in this country is mandatory as a penalty for murder, no matter what the compulsion. No matter how sick the mind, if a man is sentenced as a murderer he must be sentenced to hang. I feel strongly that all murderers, the professional criminal, the abnormally sick, should be removed from society for their natural lifetime.
There are some who ask, why should the taxpayer support such people, when it is much more economical to remove them by hanging them? I thought that Mr. Royden Hughes, Q.C., answered that argument in an interview he gave in the Citizen's series on capital punishment. He said: "You cannot reduce anything as sacred as life to dollars and cents". I agree with those who say that it is morally wrong to take life.
In a previous debate the hon. member for Halifax said that the capital punishment we have now really means that the hangman is ourselves; that capital punishment is a peril to the moral fibre of any Christian democratic society.
Some people say there is always the danger of error, which is true; others argue that most murderers have no money and therefore are penalized because they cannot retain the same calibre of legal talent as the crown has against them. These arguments are all true, but my concern is not for the murderer; it is the terrible weight of responsibility placed on our democratic society and on all those who are asked to take that responsibility in sentencing a man and taking his life and that is why I am voting for this bill.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, on balance I am in favour of this bill. I emphasize the words "on balance" because I do not consider this a satisfactory bill for a discussion of the principle of whether the death penalty should be abolished. It is rather unfortunate that so much publicity has been given to this particular bill when on the order paper there are other bills which, in my opinion, are much more suited for a general discussion of this particular principle. We are now discussing the principle of a bill, and the principle of this bill is not so much that capital punishment should be abolished as whether the principle of abolition should be applied in such a way that the death penalty should be abolished for murder and retained for treason.
I doubt whether any issue has caused so much soul-searching on the part of hon. members as the one which is now under debate. Yet if and when a vote is taken on this
IMiss Aitken.l
question what will it mean? It certainly will not mean that we have come to a decision which we can be sure is morally right; neither will it mean that we have decided whether the state has or has not the moral right to take a human life.
Democracy can function properly only within a moral framework. The state must be bound by the same moral law which binds the individuals which compose it. The only justification for one individual to take the life of another is in self-defence, to preserve his own life or the lives of his family and relatives. Self preservation is the first law of life, and when we are faced with a decision to kill or to be killed there is seldom time to think about the morality of our actions. Our reflexes take over and our actions are spontaneous and involuntary.
Up to the present time the state has never been faced with that sort of situation; but now, with the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles and atomic warheads, it is conceivable that such a situation might be possible in the future. The moral rights, then, of the state as an impersonal and legal entity must in this respect be even less than that of the individual moral being. To argue otherwise would be coming perilously close to arguing that a preventive war would be justified, or that the end justifies the means, and I cannot see how the state could have the moral right to take a life if the same end could be attained by some alternate means.
As a general principle, then, I believe that the state may not take away what it cannot give. When we come to the real meat of this question, as to whether capital punishment should be abolished or retained, we find that we have very few facts and very little concrete evidence as a basis of reasoning or as a foundation for arriving at a reasoned conclusion. If and when a vote is taken all it will measure, in my opinion, is the sum total of the different reactions of some 265 different individuals. These reactions will be the result of our ideas, our opinions, our feelings, our emotions, plus what judgments can be formed from the few concrete facts available. We have no way of testing the reliability of our reactions, or of how much consists of pure reason and how much results from pure assumption and speculation. We now find ourselves in the position of having to sort out a number of intangibles and of assessing them and weighing them one against the other. We have no means of determining the true value of any of these intangibles or of measuring them in terms of each other. Consequently every one of us must place his own value on each of the factors involved and try to weigh them and balance them as best we can. Since we

are all different beings with different approaches and different backgrounds we will certainly all assign different values to the same factors and consequently we will arrive at different totals and different balances when we weigh them one against the other.
Those in favour of retaining the death penalty have based their main argument almost completely on its effectiveness as a deterrent. This points up one of the ways in which I find the bill unsatisfactory because it implies that the death penalty is not a deterrent in cases of murder but is a deterrent with regard to treason. Let us put the deterrent of capital punishment in one scale labelled "for retention of the death penalty". Against it in the other scale we will have to put other deterrents, one of which has already been mentioned, life imprisonment. When we use the term "life imprisonment" I think most of us do not have in mind the definition as it is applied in the practice of our law at the present time. We realize that we can alter that definition to any period that we consider reasonable or necessary.
I am one of those who believe that the death penalty is the most effective deterrent there is and that it is more effective as a deterrent than life imprisonment. But against it in the other scale I must also put another factor and that is the hard fact that there have been cases where an innocent person has been hanged. I think that goes a long way to balancing up what advantage the death sentence may have as an extra deterrent over life imprisonment. But I must put against it still another factor and that is the fact that a rich man who can employ the best counsel and can take full advantage of the legal processes of the law and carry his appeal from one court to another has a much better chance of escaping the death penalty than a poor man under the same circumstances and without the same financial resources. In my mind these three factors in favour of abolition just about balance what extra weight the deterrent may have.
But there are other factors as well which we must take into consideration. These are mostly factors that we know nothing at all about. A child comes into this world. If the child has evil tendencies or weaknesses he has inherited them from his forebears. If he comes into the world without these tendencies, then he must have acquired them to some extent as a result of his environment. Who is responsible for his environment? Is not society as a whole? Are we not our brother's keeper? Can society condemn a man and then wash its hands like Pilate and say, "We have no responsibility
Business of the House
at all for his failure"? When society condemns an individual, does not society in some respects condemn itself also? If that is the case, how then can society exact the full penalty when society itself is not altogether blameless?
I believe that society does have a responsibility. I believe that if all these unknown factors could be understood each and every one of us would be inclined to say with Bunyan, "There but for the grace of God go I". So, Mr. Speaker, these additional factors have sufficient weight in my opinion to tip the scales in favour of abolition of the death penalty and that is why I say I support the bill on balance. I would not attempt to be dogmatic about this conclusion. I realize that I have a 50-50 chance of being wrong and that many other members with a different scale of values may very well use the same factors, total them up in the same way I have and sincerely and honestly arrive at an opposite conclusion.
But I believe it is our duty in a matter of this kind to be honest and put forward our best thinking on the subject, and that is what I have tried to do. I still have an open mind and if others can prove to me that I am wrong in my assessment I am still open to conviction.


Mr. Campbell (Slormoni):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would prefer to begin his address on the resumption of this debate. Pursuant to the order made earlier this day by the house, this debate stands adjourned until Thursday next when it will appear as the first item on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting house leader what the business is for tomorrow and Monday?


Mr. Brooks:: Tomorrow we will continue with the supplementary estimates which we have been considering. If and when we finish the supplementary estimates we will take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works on housing and after that the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the railway grade crossing fund. On Monday and Tuesday we will have a supply motion and on Wednesday we will consider any business that is left over from Friday, that is, supplementary estimates and the resolutions I mentioned before. If these have been completed the other business will be indicated later.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Bourget: 1.	Have tenders been called for the construction of a post office building at St. Maxime de Scott, county of Dorchester, Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) on what date were the tenders opened; (b) what are the names of those who submitted tenders, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer, and on what date?
4.	If the contract has not yet been awarded to the lowest tenderer, what are the reasons for the delay?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) December 15, 1959.
(b) Germain Poulin, Ste. Germaine, P.Q., $15,995.00; Benoit Grenier, St. Elzear, P.Q., $15,996.00; J. Edmond Cloutier, Levis, P.Q., $16,303.44; Marbo Enr., St. Redempteur, P.Q., $18,886.18; Homidas Tardif, St. Romuald Co. P.Q., $19,200.00; Ernest Rheaume, St. Bernard, P.Q., $20,000.00; Herve Lessard & Sige-froid Lebrecque, East Broughton, P.Q., $20,000.00.
3.	No.
4.	Examination of qualifications and tendering methods of two lowest tenderers.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	What amount remained in the unemployment insurance fund on September 30, October 31, November 30, and December 31, 1959?
2.	In relation to the answer provided in paragraph (1), what was (a) the cost of the investments included in the answer; (b) the estimated market value of the investments at each of the four month ends referred to above?
3.	Who were the members of the investment committee for the fund on (a) July 1, 1957; (b) January 1, 1960?
Answer by; Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1.	Balance in the unemployment insurance fund at: September 30, 1959, $455,238,779.41; October 31, 1959, $464,834,421.33; November 30, 1959, $475,178,655.52; December 31, 1959, $471,094,255.96.
2.	(a) Costs of investments including investments pledged to the Minister of Finance to cover loans to the fund: September 30, 1959, $483,783,434.40; October 31, 1959, $483,783,434.40; November 30, 1959, $468,783,434.40; December 31, 1959, $461,294, 007.88.
(b) Not a matter of government record.
3.	(a) Members of the investment committee for the fund on July 1, 1957: J. E. Coyne, governor of the Bank of Canada; K. W. Taylor, deputy minister of finance; M. M. Maclean, assistant deputy minister of labour.
(b)	Members of the investment committee for the fund on January 1, 1960: J. E. Coyne, governor of the Bank of Canada; K. W. Taylor, deputy minister of finance; Gordon G. Cushing, assistant deputy minister of labour.


PARCEL POST RECEPTACLES
Mr. Bourgei: 1.	Were tenders called by the Post Office Department in 1959 for parcel post receptacles 19, 53, 13, and 12?
2.	If so: (a) what are the names of those who submitted tenders? (b) what was the amount of each tender, including federal taxes and incidentals supplied by the Post Office Department? (c) what date were the tenders opened?
3.	What quantities were required?
4.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer, and at what price?
5.	On what date were the contracts or contract awarded?
6.	On what date was the contractor to deliver these receptacles?
7.	On what date was the order completed by the contractor or by the person in receipt of the contract?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) and (b) S. O. Riverin Ltee, St. Malo, P.Q., $11,640; E. Gilbert, Comte de Dorchester, P.Q., $15,096 (incl. S.T.); B. K. Johl, Montreal, P.Q., $17,096; Bumeda Steel Products, Montreal, P.Q., $22,400; W. R. Key, Toronto, Ont., $26,520; Dennisteel Corp., London, Ont., $26,600; Electrical Mfg. Co., Montmagny, P.Q., $34,072; W. R. Elliott Ltd., Kitchener, Ont., $39,580; Scott Metal Inc., City Dorchester, P.Q., $38,000; Hartco Steel Products, Montreal, P.Q., $58,000.
(c)	2.20 p.m. 10th June 1959.
3.	400.
4.	No.
5.	17th August, 1959.
6.	31st January, 1960.
7.	4th December, 1959.


MAIL STORAGE BOX TENDERS
Mr. Bourgei: 1.	Were tenders called by the Post Office Department in 1959 for mail storage boxes?
2.	If so: (a) what are the names of those who submitted tenders? (b) what was the amount of each tender, including federal taxes and incidentals supplied by the Post Office Department? (c) on what date were tenders opened?
3.	What quantities were required?
4.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer, and at what price?

5.	On what dates were the contracts or contract awarded?
6.	On what date was the contractor to deliver such boxes?
7.	On what date did the contractor make the last delivery?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) and (b) B. K. Johl, Inc., Montreal,
P.Q.,	$35,850; Tudhope Specialties Ltd.,
Orillia, Ont., $37,780; Rubenstein Bros. Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.,	$42,180; Frank P.
Lalonde Ltd., Dorval, P.Q., $43,204.75; Denni-steel Corp. Ltd., London, Ont., $52,000; Rosco Metal & Roofing Products, Ottawa, Ont., $59,150; Electrical Mfg. Co. Ltd., Montmagny, P.Q., $73,420; Hartco Steel Products Ltd., Rosemount, Montreal, P.Q., $116,550; Canadian Car Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $119,000.
(c) 2.00 p.m. May 13, 1959.
3.	1,000.
4.	Yes-$35,850.
5.	June 19, 1959.
6.	September 15, 1959.
7.	August 19, 1959.


STREET LETTER BOX TENDERS
Mr. Bourgel: 1.	Were tenders called by the Post Office Department during 1959 for street letter boxes number 1 and number 5, 19-53-13-2?
2.	If so: (a) what are the names of those who submitted tenders? (b) what was the amount of sach tender, including federal taxes and incidentals supplied by the Post Office Department? (c) on <vhat date were tenders opened?
3.	What quantities were required?
4.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest ;enderer, and at what price?
5.	On what date were contracts or contract iwarded?
6.	On what date was the contractor to deliver ;uch boxes?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster
General):
1.	No. 5 boxes, yes; No. 1 boxes, no.
2.	(a) and (b) S. O. Riverin Limitee, St. Walo, P.Q.. $2,562.50; Emile Gilbert, comte de Dorchester, P.Q., $3,500, sales tax extra; Den-listeel Corp. Ltd., London, Ont., $6,650; L,aurentian Metal Products, Hull, P.Q., $8,25; Scott Metal Inc., Dorchester, P.Q., $8,'50; Electrical Mfg. Co. Ltd., Montmagny, \Q., $9,250; W. R. Key Ltd., Toronto 2-B, )nt., $12,300; B. K. Johl Inc., Montreal, P.Q., 115,262.50; Bumeda Steel Products, Montreal,
3.Q., $19,600; Hartco Steel Products Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $20,000.
(c) June 10, 1959.
3.	250.
4.	No.
5.	July 23, 1959.
6.	November 30, 1959.
Questions


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, N.B.
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the federal government on the winter works program in the province of New Brunswick during 1959?
2.	What is the estimated cost of federal participation in the same province for projects approved for the winter of 1960?
Answer by:	Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting
Secretary of Stale):
Department of Labour:
1.	The total amount paid to the province of New Brunswick under the municipal winter works incentive program, 1958-59 was $234,945.58.
2.	The estimated federal contribution in respect of projects approved for the province of New Brunswick under the municipal winter works incentive program, 1959-60 up to February 2, 1960, is $213,150.
Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources:
1.	Campgrounds and picnic areas program, $27,847.27; Forest access roads program, $18,333.21; Winter work program in Fundy national park, $89,627.
2.	The federal government has offered to assist the province under the campgrounds and picnic areas program in 1960 but no estimate of projects planned by the province is available at this time.


ALBERT A. YOUNGBLUT
Mr. Benidiclcson: 1.	Were charges laid by the Department of National Revenue as to certain infractions of the Income Tax Act with regard to one Albert A. Youngblut of St. Catharines, Ontario?
2.	If so, when was the information preferred?
3.	What was the amount claimed for arrears of taxes, interest and penalties?
4.	What hearings of this matter have been held in the courts? When were such proceedings or hearings conducted and what was the result at each stage of proceedings?
5.	Who was counsel representing Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada, and was he present at each hearing or stage of proceedings?
6.	Who was counsel representing Albert A. Youngblut?
7.	What is the result of the proceedings taken to recover the arrears of income tax, interest and penalties?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
1.	Yes.
2.	Informations were laid and served on August 21, 1959 and further informations were laid January 21, 1960, and served on February 11, 1960.
3.	The informations alleged an evasion of tax in the sum of $89,633.97.
4.	With respect to the informations laid on August 21, there were the following adjournments: on August 31 when a motion for particulars was granted; September 16 when

Questions
a motion for further particulars was refused by the court; October 26 and November 9 when the case could not proceed as a magistrate was not available. The case came on for hearing on November 23, at which time, after the informations were read, counsel for the taxpayer raised four objections to the informations before entering any pleas. The case was then adjourned until November 24, at which time the magistrate ruled against the taxpayer on three of the motions but did not adjudicate on the fourth. The magistrate and counsel for the crown were then served with an application for writ of prohibition, which writ was returnable in Toronto on December 4. Upon advice of counsel, the application was not opposed by the crown and a writ of prohibition was granted on December 4. The informations were withdrawn on December 11.
With respect to the informations laid on January 21, 1960, there have been no court proceedings or hearings.
5.	John M. King, Q.C., St. Catharines, Ontario. Yes, he was present at each hearing or stage of the proceedings, but on October 26, although having been in the court room, was temporarily absent from the court room when the adjournment was granted which had been previously consented to by counsel for the crown.
6.	J. Trevor Morgan of St. Catharines.
7.	No proceedings have been taken pending disposition of the criminal proceedings to recover the arrears of income tax, interest and penalties.


HUOT PUBLICITE LTEE, MONTREAL
Mr. Lessard: 1.	Was Huot Publicity Ltee, of Montreal employed by the Department of Finance during 1958 and 1959, in connection with publicity of loan campaigns?
2.	If so, (a) on what dates; (b) what amounts have been paid to the company?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
(a)	(b)
2.	Campaign dates	Amount
July-September 15, 1958 .... $196,321.10 October 1-November 15, 1958.	68,240.53
October 1-November 15, 1959.	105,419.87


INCORPORATED LENDING INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the department of insurance keep a record of any or all incorporated lending institutions in Canada?
2.	If so, which of these institutions are (a) wholly American owned; (b) have majority ownership resting with Americans?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	The department of insurance maintains a list of companies licensed under the Small Loans Act.
2.	(a) The following companies were wholly owned in the United States, as at February 15, 1960: Beneficial Finance Company of Canada, Canadian Acceptance Company, Household Finance Corporation of Canada, Associates Budget Plan Limited, Cafo Limited, Citizens Finance Company Limited, Civic Finance Limited, Commercial Credit Plan Limited, The Crescent Finance Corporation Limited, Custom Finance Limited, Pacific Finance Credit Limited, Seaboard Finance Company of Canada Limited.
(b) There were no companies other than those listed above where majority control rested in the United States.


N.H.A. HOUSES UNSOLD
Mr. Garland: 1.	How many houses financed under the National Housing Act were completed and unsold as of December 31, 1959?
2.	Of these, how many were financed (a) by approved lenders; (b) by direct Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
(1)	2,482.
(2)	(a) 1,514, (b)	968.
Note: The above figures relate to the 36 metropolitan and major urban areas which accounted for 72 per cent of all N.H.A, activity in 1959.


COAL EXPORTS TO JAPAN
Mr. Kindi: 1.	What tonnage of coal was shipped to Japar from Alberta and British Columbia in the calendai years 1958 and 1959, and what was the respective amounts of federal coal subventions on these shipments?
2.	Is there a Canadian coal mission in Japar at present? If so, is there anything to report?
3.	What is the estimated tonnage of Canadiar coking coal likely to be shipped from Alberta anc British Columbia to Japan during the current calendar year?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister o)
Mines and Technical Surveys):
1.	In the 1958 calendar year, 24,730 tons were shipped to Japan from Alberta anc British Columbia at a subvention cost o: $81,943.59. In the 1959 calendar year, 189,60" tons were shipped to Japan from Alberta anc British Columbia at a subvention cost o: $832,899.70.
2.	An official Canadian technical and scientific mission, sponsored by the dominion coa board, is in Japan conducting studies designee

to fit Canadian coal closely to Japanese requirements. This mission is in the midst of its work and will not make its report or reports for some weeks. Additionally, a group of Alberta and British Columbia coal producers is in Japan conducting 1960 contract negotiations.
3.	Until contract negotiations have been concluded, it is impossible to make a realistic estimate.


LEVIS, QUE., PUBLIC BUILDING-PAINTING TENDERS
Mr. Boivin: Questions
How many tenders have been submitted for the painting, by contract, of the public building at Levis, Quebec, and what was the amount of each tender?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
Eight: Lajeuness & Freres Inc., $7,347.72; Juneau & Frere Inc., $7,400.00; Raymond Roy, $8,225.00; P. C. Grenier, $9,120.00; J. Rolland Seguin, $10,890.00; Lionel Langlois, $13,220.50; Edmond Michaud, $13,250.00; Levi Brochu, $13,915.00.


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
The following communique was issued yesterday at Washington:
1.	The fifth meeting of the joint United States of America-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs was held at the Department of State, Washington, D.C., February 16 and 17.
2.	Canada was represented at the meeting by Hon. Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance; Hon. Gordon Churchill, Minister of Trade and Commerce and Hon. Douglas S. Harkness, Minister of Agriculture.
3.	United States of America was represented by Hon. Christian A. Herter, secretary of state; Hon. Douglas Dillon, under secretary of state, Hon. Robert B. Anderson, secretary of the treasury; Hon. Fred C. Seaton, secretary of interior; Hon. Ezra T. Benson, secretary of agriculture; Hon. Frederick H. Mueller, secretary of commerce; and Mr. Don Paarlberg of the White House.
4.	The members of the joint committee were accompanied by Ambassador Heeney of Canada and Ambassador Wigglesworth of United States of America, and senior officials of departments and agencies of the two governments.
5.	The committee reviewed recent economic developments in United States of America and Canada. They noted that the expansion of economic activity was continuing in both countries and that output and employment had reached new high levels. Sustained efforts to avoid inflation had been made in both countries and price increases in 1959 had been slight. The committee agreed on the desirability of policies designed to bring about even greater expanson of trade on a multilateral basis.
6.	The committee noted with satisfaction the substantially improved economic and financial position of most other countries and in this connection welcomed the considerable progress made since the last meeting in the removal of restrictions and the elimination of discrimination against exports from the dollar area. However, the committee emphasized the importance of securing the complete removal of the remaining quota discrimination in world trade.
7.	In reviewing agricultural problems the committee noted the prevalence of special restrictions on agricultural trade throughout the world and emphasized the importance of pursuing policies which would encourage an expansion of trade. The committee agreed

[Stage Direction]
that incentives leading to an accumulation of burdensome surpluses should be avoided. In regard to programs of surplus disposal, the committee emphasized the importance of continuing to safeguard normal commercial markets. In this connection the committee noted with satisfaction the useful work at the quarterly consultations of United States of America and Canadian officials on wheat and flour problems.
8.	There was discussion in the committee concerning certain restrictions on agricultural trade between the two countries. Canadian interest was expressed in the removal of United States of America import restrictions on flaxseed, linseed oil and Cheddar cheese. United States of America representatives expressed interest in the removal of Canadian import controls on turkeys.
9.	The committee discussed recent developments in the fields of petroleum and natural gas. They agreed upon the desirability of close co-operation between the national energy board of Canada and United States of America federal power commission. The committee recognized also that the two governments should keep each other closely informed of developments in either country bearing on trans-border movements of petroleum and natural gas.
10.	Canadian ministers expressed their continuing concern about the quota restrictions imposed in September 1958 by United States of America on imports of lead and zinc, and urged that these temporary restrictions be withdrawn and no-repeat-no other barriers to trade placed in the way of sales of these basic materials to United States of America. It was noted that the recent report of the United Nations lead and zinc study group indicated a good balance between available supply and demand for zinc and some improvement in this respect for lead. United States of America representatives noted the Canadian views and pointed out that while the restrictions could not- repeat-not be withdrawn until there had been substantial improvement in the distressed segments of United States of America lead and zinc mining industries, the question of import treatment of lead and zinc is under continuous review and is now before United States tariff commission as well.
11.	Canadian and United States of America representatives discussed the outlook of the uranium industry in both countries and

agreed on the importance of keeping each other informed of development prospects.
12.	Canadian ministers drew attention to the difficulties which are created for the Canadian cotton textile industry by United States of America equalization payments on cotton products. United States of America representatives explained that no-repeat-no fundamental change in their system, which is designed to equalize the cost of raw cotton to manufacturers in the export trade, appeared practical at this time, but both sides agreed that the matter should receive continued study.
13.	United States of America representatives expressed concern about the introduction of a new charge for the use of air navigation facilities by civil aircraft overflying Canadian territory on north Atlantic routes. The Canadian ministers pointed out the charge covered only part of the large and growing costs of these facilities.
14.	The committee exchanged views on the increasing activity of Soviet bloc countries in world trade and the possible implications of this development for the future.
15.	The committee considered the problems which have arisen from rapid increases of imports into Canada and United States of America in certain lines of low-cost manufactured goods. They were agreed on the importance of finding a general international solution which would provide exporting countries with adequate outlets for their products, would insure that the impact of low-cost competition would be more evenly distributed among the importing countries, and would at the same time safeguard the industries of importing countries from serious injury. It was noted that a study of this important problem had been undertaken
by the contracting parties to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
16.	The committee also discussed economic developments on the international scene with particular reference to the Paris economic meeting of January 12-14. This included a review of the situation arising from the establishment of the European economic community and the European free trade association as well as an evaluation of the role Canada and United States of America may play with regard to these developments. The committee were agreed on the desirability of finding solutions to current trade problems in Europe on a multilateral basis, which would take full account of the interests of other countries.
17.	The committee noted the importance of the level to be established for the common tariff of the European economic community including the tariff rates for basic materials and certain other products which are still under negotiation within the community. The committee considered that arrangements for trade in agricultural products in Europe should be such as to facilitate imports of agricultural goods from other countries on a competitive basis and agreed on the importance of intensified international efforts to deal with this problem.
18.	There was an exchange of views on other matters arising from the Paris economic meetings, including development aid to the less developed countries and proposals for the reconstitution of the organization for European economic co-operation.
19.	The committee reaffirmed the value of their periodic joint meetings, and expressed satisfaction at the high degree of understanding and co-operation between the two governments. It agreed to hold the next meeting in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Spouse of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable Roland Michener
Thursday, January 14, 1960

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued on the eighteenth day of July, 1959, met this day at Ottawa for the dispatch of business.