1961-06-05

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.

Miss Margaret  Ailken@York-Humber: that the twelfth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, June 1, 1961, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-102, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment, form of sentence).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, briefly it is an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide that the sentence of death where applicable shall be one of death in a lethal gas chamber and not by hanging by the neck.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 136-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Labour or the Department of Labour and any chairman of a board of conciliation appointed to deal with any labour dispute to which Trans-Canada Air Lines was a party since January 1, 1950.
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this motion except for one reservation; that the correspondence and other documents asked for in this motion shall not be tabled until after the negotiations are completed and settled, if that is agreeable to the hon. member.


Mr. Howard:: That is quite agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
90205-6-3694

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government, the Ontario provincial government, the municipal government of Stoney Creek, and any organization or person, since January 1, 1958, regarding the purchase of a parcel of land from Mr. Harry Smith for the preservation of Battlefield park at Stoney Creek, Ontario.
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to accept this motion subject to the approval of the province of Ontario and the reservation concerning privileged documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 141-Mr. Racine:
For a copy of the lease signed by the government for an area to be used as a post office in the town of Beauceville Est, county of Beauce.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask whether the minister has seen the article in the Financial Post of June 3 entitled "Here's Why New Bill May Perish" dealing with Bill No. C-70, the disclosure bill, now on the order paper, and wherein it is stated that United States pressure is the reason for stalling what is described in the article as the "tell facts" plan. Has the minister any comment to make on this article?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article, but if the hon. member has correctly summarized it I can only say the article is without foundation.

Inquiries of the Ministry
LABOUR CONDITIONS	Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transpori):
Mr. Speaker, the person to whom we are really winter WORKS program-request for	thinking of offering the position of director
extension AND increased federal	Qf the c.N.R. is the hon. member for Bonacontribution	vista-Twillingate.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. P. Deschateleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to answer my question of June 1 dealing with the winter works program and the request of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, which question was taken as notice by the minister's parliamentary secretary.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet received any resolution from the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. I have read about what happened at their annual convention, as did the hon. member. We are very gratified indeed to have an acknowledgement on the part of that large and important organization that the municipal winter works incentive program has been such a huge success that they want it extended for a longer period. However, this is a matter of government policy, and when a decision is arrived at by the government an announcement will be made.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
inquiry as to appointments to board of directors
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. During the recent by-election campaign in Kings, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate advocated that the defeated candidate be appointed to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. Has the minister given any consideration to appointing Mr. Kickham, the defeated Liberal candidate, to the board of directors of the C.N.R.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question whether the hon. member is warranted in taking up the time of the house at this time in directing to the minister an inquiry of that nature concerning an individual.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether the minister is giving consideration to appointing Mr. Donald Gordon to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways?



REPORTED DIVISION OF POSITIONS OF BOARD CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE HEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether the president of the national Progressive Conservative Association was announcing government policy when he forecast a division between the positions of chairman of the board of the Canadian National Railways and the executive head of the railway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is customary to ask whether a minister speaking outside the house is announcing government policy, but not any other person, particularly one not associated with the ministry.


Lionel Chevrier: May I draw to your attention, sir, the fact that this matter was discussed in the house on two occasions, first on the estimates of the Minister of Transport and again on a bill to increase the number of directors of the Canadian National Railways from 7 to 12. At the time the statement was not made; otherwise it could have been introduced and the ministry asked questions on it. Since then the statement has been made, and it seemed to me this was a proper question to ask on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to differ from the hon. member on this, but if such a question were accepted it would open the door to a great many questions which should not be asked, certainly in that form.
(Translation):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the French television station at Sudbury. Could the minister reply to the question I asked him about two weeks ago, when I inquired whether his department had given approval for an early start to be made on the installation of French television facilities in the Sudbury area?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my department is prepared to take appropriate steps to enable the applicants to start the work without the slightest delay.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Does the minister mean by that statement that his department's approval has been granted, in view of the fact that it is required before the work can start?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check, because as the hon. member knows, such an application must be approved by order in council. I am not sure whether the order in council has yet been promulgated, but as soon as it has been, my department will do its utmost to have the work started without delay.
(Text):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government has yet reached a decision in respect to a recommendation which he said he made to provide compensation for those who have suffered from fusarium rot among the potato growers in Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can only refer the hon. gentleman to that answer given by my parliamentary secretary in my absence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that some of those people are dependent on these payments which he promised in order to put in this year's crop?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, the minister has been aware of the development of fusarium rot since it was first discovered last October.



WHEAT BOARD PRICES FOR FUTURE DELIVERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, on May 30 the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska posed a question concerning the so-called refusal of the Canadian wheat board to sell July oats futures. I should like to give the answer to that question at this time.
The Canadian wheat board has not withdrawn offers to sell July oats futures. The board continues to offer, and sales are being made daily but in smaller volume due to limited availability. All stocks of oats in store at lakehead terminals have been
Inquiries of the Ministry contracted for, and the wheat board has ordered additional quantities forward from country elevators to meet commitments already entered into and to provide for additional sales contemplated under the July option. Stocks of oats in country elevators in western Canada are 9.4 million bushels.
In an effort to encourage increased producers' deliveries of this grain, a week ago the board authorized a supplementary quota on oats to 5 bushels per seeded acre with a minimum delivery privilege of 250 bushels per permit holder. Producers' deliveries to date this year have amounted to 27.7 million bushels compared with 15.3 million bushels to the same date a year ago.
The July oats futures opened on February 2, 1961 and the board has offered continuously in the market since that time and has sold a substantial volume for this delivery period. The initial sales were made at 77J cents per bushel, and there has been a small but steady increase in the futures market price since February 2, reflecting improved demand for available supplies.



DECREASE IN EXPORTS THROUGH PORT OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give an answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Levis concerning exportation of wheat from the port of Quebec.
The facilities at this port are used for both domestic and export movement of grain. During the last few years the volume of domestic business handled by this port has increased year by year, making up a large percentage of the port's business. In the fall the elevator contains large quantities of domestic grain and, consequently, smaller quantities of export grain. In the spring, when navigation opens, the facilities are busy replenishing stocks for domestic requirements.
Export clearances during the past few years have remained at about the same level of 9 per cent to 10 per cent in relation to total shipments from all St. Lawrence ports. This year this has been somewhat reduced owing largely to the domestic movement. However, as the year progresses and more grain is shipped from the lakehead to Quebec, I expect export clearances from this port to continue to increase and at the end of the crop season to reach close to the normal level of past experience.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



FURTHER STATEMENT ON CLOSING OF U.S. RADAR STATIONS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the two questions asked me by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I wish to give the following answer. In the answer I gave concerning the effect of the closing of three radar stations and six gap fillers on the east coast I mentioned that the discontinuance of those radar installations would have no effect on the work load of any other radars which will remain in the system. This answers the question which the hon. member asked with reference to the Sydney installation.
In connection with his question concerning what will happen to the Point Edward naval station, I wish to inform the hon. member as follows. The Royal Canadian Navy has no plans to make increased operational use of the Sydney naval base in peacetime. It is envisaged that the level of activity will remain more or less the same as it has in the past year or so, depending on the number of operational exercises that are planned to take place in that area from time to time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question perhaps to clarify the question I asked the minister. The question was whether there was any increased activity in construction contemplated at the Sydney base.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better just say a word on that. A number of proposals have been put forward by the Sydney board of trade and other people in Sydney in connection with construction projects at the Point Edward naval base. These are now under consideration but a decision as to which ones, if any, to go ahead with immediately has not yet been reached.
(Translation):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he published an ad in La Presse of Montreal, whereby his department is putting up for sale a piece of
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
land at Cascade Point, at the eastern end of the Soulanges canal, in opposition to public opinion in this riding?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the ad in question has been published in the papers. I shall check on this. I know, however, that such action was being contemplated.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister read an item published in La Presse of Montreal on June 1, 1961, to the effect that the department was mysteriously offering a property for sale at Cascade? Is the minister aware also that eight chambers of commerce have unanimously approved the setting up of a fishbreeding station and of a natural science museum, and does he not feel that he should follow up those representations, instead of those made by a certain individual known to the minister?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker I do not agree with the chambers of commerce in question. It would be a wonderful project to have a fishbreeding station and a natural science museum on the properties belonging to the Department of Transport. However, I believe the department has been generous and cooperative in offering 13 miles of this canal and reserving, for a relatively short period, certain parts of these properties for industrialists who might be interested in buying them and setting up plants in order to provide work in the area. If, after a certain time, no industry shows interest in such a project, we shall revise our policy concerning that particular section which has been reserved.


Lionel Chevrier: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not agree with the chambers of commerce in this area that the ideal site for an industrial development would be at the west end of the canal, namely at Coteau, where railroad facilities are available?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with my hon. friend and with the chambers of commerce in that connection.
In my opinion, a fish-breeding centre or station could be built just as well in another section of the canal. Indeed, I would like to draw my hon. friend's attention to an article which appeared in the Gazette under the signature of a great fish-breeding expert who felt that the requests submitted by the hunting and fishing association and the Quebec department of fish and game were exaggerated under the circumstances.

I feel that our offer is both generous and logical and that people will agree with the citizens of that district that our attitude is reasonable.


Lionel Chevrier: Everybody would seem to feel different from the minister on that point.
(Text):



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for York-Sunbury directed a question to the Prime Minister concerning the current flood disaster in New Brunswick. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could make a further statement on this disaster in my province.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said, a question was asked last Wednesday by the member for York-Sunbury regarding the disaster that has taken place in New Brunswick. I informed him that there had been no request for assistance by the government of New Brunswick up to that time. I have since received a communication from the premier of New Brunswick, the effect of which is that those in charge of the assistance fund being raised are asking for a contribution of $250,000 from the federal government.
As I stated on the earlier occasion, there have been certain customs followed throughout the years in determining whether or not there should be federal assistance for provincial disasters. Those rules are being considered in the light of the nature of the disaster in that province, but so far there has been no authentic or complete assessment of the potential damage. When all things that ordinarily enter into the consideration of such matters have been determined, the government will then be in a position to advise the house as to the attitude to be taken, that attitude, of course, to be determined on the basis of those regularly accepted principles that have heretofore been followed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Fleming (Eglinion) moved:: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $633,958,817, being the aggregate of
(a)	one sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal
Interim Supply
year ending March 31, 1962, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $614,823,482.50;
(b)	one third of the total of the amounts of items 140, 226, 318 and 370 of the said estimates, $946,866.67;
(c)	one quarter of the total of the amounts of items 90, 281, 282 and 400 of the said estimates, $7,184,844.50;
(d)	one sixth of the total of the amounts of items 16, 65, 218 and 493 of the said estimates, $3,709,604;
(e)	one twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 222, 223, 227, 228, 337, 399 and 462 of the said estimates, $7,294,019.33, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962.
He said: Two months ago parliament voted interim supply for the first two months of the current fiscal year, namely April and May. A further sum is now required to meet current expenses. The present resolution asks for a sum estimated to meet the needs in this respect for the next two months. It would provide one sixth of the amount of all items in the estimates, and in the case of 24 items it would vote additional amounts. These 24 consist of items such as grants and provision for programs that do not move at an even pace throughout the year, so that additional sums are required to carry on programs that are often seasonal in their nature.
In no case will this resolution, if approved, carry with it a vote of the entire amount of any item in the estimates. I am pleased to give the usual undertaking that the approval of this resolution and the passing of the bill to be based upon it will not prejudice the rights and privileges of hon. members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has given a very short and brief explanation of the items of which it is proposed to obtain approval in this measure now under discussion. It concerns the amount of, roughly speaking, $634 million broken up as you, Mr. Chairman, indicated to us a moment ago.
Before I enter upon the remarks which I intend to make I should just like to pose this question to the minister. Why has it been found necessary to ask for a two month's vote for interim supply? I ask the question anticipating that the reply of the minister will be that it is the usual and normal course to follow. However, the question which I am prepared to ask is this. Is it the usual course to follow when the estimates are under discussion as they have been under discussion during the course of the last several weeks

Interim, Supply
and, particularly, during the course of the period since morning sittings were initiated? As the minister knows, we have entered upon a discussion of the estimates of the various departments beginning on Wednesday, as a rule, and going right through, with but few exceptions, for the remaining days of the week. It therefore occurs to me that we should be given some explanation of this matter. Perhaps the minister, if he does not mind, will do so later.
Then there is another matter that comes to our minds at this time, namely that the minister has given little or no indication of his policy for the future, as I indicated on Saturday when I posed a question to the minister on the orders of the day inquiring when it was his intention to bring down the budget.
At that time I indicated to him that we were quite willing to co-operate in the passage of this measure for interim supply. However, I think it should be noted that cooperation is a two way street. Co-operation means co-operation not only from this side of the chamber but also from the government side as well. We are now into early June. The budget has not been presented, and this is a rather unusual situation. The new fiscal year started on April 1. Two months after entering upon the new fiscal year we do not know what the program of the government is; and by "program" I mean the outline of expenditures which the government has in mind. We know nothing of the money that will be required. We are in complete ignorance of the amount of the deficit which is envisaged by the government or the amount of money which will have to be borrowed by the government. We have no idea of the federal taxes which the Canadian people will be called upon to pay.
I think those various items which I have enumerated are matters about which the House of Commons and the Canadian people should know when we are discussing a measure of this importance. On Saturday the minister indicated that there was no direct relationship between the measure which would be discussed on Monday, namely this vote for interim supply, and the budget which he intends to bring down. I disagree with the minister. I think such is not the case. In my opinion there is not only an indirect but a direct relationship between the two matters. Normally the budget is brought down at the end of March or early in April. Last year it was brought down on March 31. I think it would be useful if the committee were to know the dates on which the budget has been introduced in this house in the last 17 or 18 years.

In 1946 the budget was presented on June 27. That was a late date, but having regard to the fact that the session was begun on March 14 it can easily be understood why the budget was not introduced much earlier. But that was an exceptional year. In 1947 it was introduced on April 29; in 1948, on May 18; in 1949, on March 22 and again on October 20; in 1950, on March 28; in 1951, on April 10; in 1952, on April 8; in 1953, on February 19; in 1954, on April 6; in 1955, on April 5; in 1956, on March 20; in 1957, on March 14; in 1958, on June 17; in 1959, on April 9; in 1960, on March 31 and December 20.
This gives some indication to the committee as to when the budget was introduced in the past. Here we are in early June and we have had no indication, contrary to what I believe are the rights of parliament, as to when the budget will be brought down.
The voting of supply is the traditional occasion for demanding the redress of grievances. It is the duty of the opposition to bring forward any grievances before voting supply. Here is a grievance now, a grievance of which we are complaining; that we on this side of the chamber, as well as the Canadian people, are entitled to know when the general presentation of the finances of the country is likely to be given to the house.
We are being asked to vote money before we know how these estimates are going to be spent. We are being asked to vote interim supply, but we do not know what the taxes are likely to be and what the whole expenditure program of the government is likely to be in connection with those very matters which we will be discussing.
It seems to me that the committee is entitled to a clear-cut statement by the Minister of Finance. We must know precisely when the budget will be brought down and whether there will be an appropriate and immediate opportunity for full debate. We do not want to be placed in the position we were put in last Christmas, when we had no opportunity to discuss the supplementary or baby budget, as it has been called. We were faced with an adjournment, and were not in a position to discuss it until several weeks later. I do not think we should be put in this position.
If the minister expects to obtain co-operation from this side of the chamber in connection with interim supply, he will get it; but as I indicated earlier, and I repeat it now, he will get it on certain conditions. He will get it on a condition which the opposition thinks it is entitled to obtain, and that is a clear statement by the minister of the matters about which I have asked, so that the opposition and all hon. members of the

house will be able to discuss the matters which normally come up in the budget, at the appropriate time.
If that were forthcoming I am sure the Minister of Finance and, for that matter, the government would certainly have no fault to find with the co-operation from this side of the chamber. That being so, I hope the minister will find it possible to respond to these questions which I have put to him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier first asks why the house is asked to vote two months' interim supply. The answer, which he himself has indicated is in his mind, is that this is the normal period for which interim supply is asked. This is a well established practice. In some years when the house was clearly on the eve of prorogation or the end of the session was in sight or two or three weeks away at the most it has sometimes not been necessary in the last interim supply motion to ask for more than one month. However, no one in this house I think would be bold enough to say he is absolutely positive that this session will end by June 30. So, Mr. Chairman, it is in keeping with the practice of the house and it is necessary under all the circumstances that the vote should be sought in the amount indicated.
As to the second point, Mr. Chairman, all I can say to the hon. gentleman is that the date for presentation of the budget has not yet been set. I am not in a position at the moment to announce the date. As soon as I am in a position to make the announcement I propose to do so. That has been the practice I have always followed in the past while I have held this portfolio, and the committee may be assured that the date will be communicated to the house in ample time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister what is the reason for this unusual delay in announcing the date of the budget?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can agree with the hon. member that the delay is unusual. It must be remembered, in the first place, that this session has been unusual in that there has already been a budget. That budget was introduced in December; it was debated through January; a considerable number of measures arose out of it; the last of those measures only cleared this house several weeks ago, and one of them has not cleared the other place yet. So account must be taken of that fact in considering the date of this budget and comparing it with the dates of the budgets in other sessions.
90205-6-370
Interim Supply
The hon. member for Laurier, in reviewing dates of budgets in earlier sessions, did take note of the fact that in 1946 the budget was presented later than the present date. I recall that in 1958 the budget was presented later than the present date. There were circumstances in both cases which accounted for the budget coming in in June, just as there are circumstances this year which account for the budget-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only one of them was in June.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -coming in in June.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Only one of them was in June; the other was in May.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I correctly noted the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier the 1946 budget was in June, and certainly the budget which I introduced in 1958 was brought in-I am speaking from memory-on June 9.


John Whitney Pickersgill: June 17.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, June 17, 1958. So while the hon. member has said there were exceptional circumstances in those years, I must say to him that there are exceptional circumstances in the present session, namely the fact that there has already been one budget and it is not very long ago that the last of the measures arising out of that budget was cleared by this house.
I cannot go beyond that. The date has not yet been set. I assure the committee that when I am in a position to announce the date I shall be pleased to do so, and to give the house about the normal length of notice in that regard.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one or two other questions. The minister seemed to take exception to the phrase I used, "unusual delay". I still think it is unusual delay; none the less, if the minister does not like that phrase surely he must admit that there has been a rather long delay. If one looks at the order paper he will see that this is the 124th day of the session. Will the minister not agree that it has been the practice in the past to announce the date of the budget much earlier in the session than the 124th day? That is why I now ask whether we have gone this long before, and why it is that the minister waits this length of time before announcing the budget. The other question which I would direct to the minister is this. Will the minister give the house an assurance or an indication that a budget will be brought down before the end of this month?

Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I hope to be in a position to bring down the budget before the end of this month.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: There is nothing in the suggestion we have heard that there will not be a budget in 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Chairman, I should not wish to be held responsible for everything the hon. member for Essex East concludes from suggestions he has heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, will the minister give us a categorical assurance that there will be a budget in 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I have just said in reply to a question asked by the Acting Leader of the Opposition that I am hoping to bring down the budget before the end of this month.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not the question I asked. I asked the minister a simple question and I repeat it now. Will the minister give us a categorical assurance that there will be a budget in the calendar year 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would be my hope and expectation, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister one more question. Does the minister expect that the budget will be brought down in sufficient time to permit the budget debate to take place in the month of June?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would depend on the date of the budget and on the arrangements that are made by the leader of the house and the whips of the parties, or those who have charge of these matters for the parties, as to the dates chosen for the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that it is rumoured that the government intends that we shall adjourn at the end of June and come back either in August or in the fall, will the minister give us an assurance that if he does introduce his budget in the month of June-and from what he has now said it is not clear-there will be provided an opportunity of debating this most amazing budget in accordance with the practice laid down under our procedures allowing for six days of debate? While the minister is on his feet will he say whether his decision to postpone the introduction of the budget has something to do with the alarming state of the unemployment insurance fund and the suggestion that the deficit is likely to be not $700 million but closer to $1 billion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will not be surprised when I tell him that I must reject categorically the

rumours and assertions that he heaped into the second part of his question.
In reply to the first part of the hon. member's question, let me say there has been no delay in the presentation of the budget, having regard to the fact that there was an earlier budget this year which ran its full course in this house and occupied, actually, rather longer than usual in being processed through all stages.
As to the dates of debate, that is again a matter for arrangement in accordance with the ordinary practice that prevails in the house. I should not think that the idea of a divided period would be acceptable to the house. I should think that when the house begins the budget debate it would probably wish to continue the debate until it has been concluded, but that must be a matter for discussion and arrangement among all parties in the usual course.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter on which I seek clarification, having to do with the statement the minister made earlier concerning the supplementary budget. I feel I should remind the minister that the supplementary budget of last December was supplementary to the budget of last year. It had nothing to do with this year's financial accounts. The other point which I think is of importance is one which I have raised indirectly earlier and which has now been raised more directly by the hon. member for Essex East. I refer to the opportunity to debate the budget when it is brought down.
We were placed in a most unusual position when the supplementary budget was brought down last December, in that we were not given an opportunity to discuss it until some weeks later. In other words, the budget was brought down in this house and the house adjourned-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. member not overlooking the opportunity provided for debate?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not overlooked the opportunity provided to the financial critic of the opposition to make his remarks, but after all there are others in this house who are entitled to speak, and indeed the house generally is entitled to the opportunity to discuss the budget continuously without interruption so there can be an appropriate and full discussion of the financial accounts of the country.
The minister gave no affirmative answer this morning when we inquired whether an

opportunity for continuous uninterrupted debate would be provided. The minister said he hoped it would be possible for him to bring down the budget before the month of June is out. He went on to say he had every expectation that this would be the case. Let us suppose that the budget were introduced one day next week. This would mean that debate on the budget would not be entered upon until the following week. This would give an opportunity for six days of debate, as provided under our new rules, in the month of June. But suppose that were not the case and the introduction of the budget were delayed for another week. It would be impossible to discuss the budget continuously without interruption during the month of June.
While I realize we are not entitled to confidential information, on the other hand the opposition are entitled to know in connection with the matter now before us, interim supply, what is going to be the position of the government with respect to the discussion of the financial accounts of the country. The minister has gone some distance. He has said there will be no budget brought in this week. He went still further by saying that he hoped to introduce the budget this month. I believe we are entitled to know whether, in bringing down the budget this month, there will be an opportunity for continuous discussion of the budget before the month is out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I have said. The days set aside for debate on the budget will have to be arranged in the usual course. It is the house leader who makes those arrangements, not the minister introducing the budget. I think the views of hon. members opposite are known in this regard. I am sure that in whatever arrangements are made, effort will be exerted to make such arrangements as will accommodate the wishes of the house. I do not know what more I can say.
The request for interim supply that is made this morning makes provision for only the months of June and July, so that if the business of the house were not finished before July and if there were to be some adjournment proposed at that point, there would have to be a request made for a further vote of interim supply. The rights of the house are fully protected in that regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is one aspect of this problem I think we should emphasize. We have been discussing, and I believe justifiably, the rights and convenience of hon. members of this house with regard to an opportunity to discuss the budget which the minister now assures us is going to be 90205-6-370J
Interim Supply
brought in some time in the course of the present calendar year. We hope this will be done before the end of June.
We must also consider, however, the question of public convenience. The minister says the delay in the introduction of the budget does not present an unusual picture in the sense that a delay of this kind has occurred before, although he has not satisfied me that there has been a parallel situation since confederation. The fact that there was a baby budget in December does not in any material way affect the fact that the budget normally presented before this time has been unduly delayed. The effect of this delay, as my hon. friend knows better than anyone else, is being felt throughout the country at a time when there should be definite knowledge on the part of business, industry, agriculture and the work community as to the intentions of the government, so all these groups can make the preparations they have to make in regard to their operations, including the kind of adjustments which inevitably flow from the presentation of a budget.
We are entitled to know from the minister at this stage, not what his budgetary proposals are, but the explanations for this delay. We are not receiving them from the Minister of Finance. We have been directing questions to the minister since Easter as to when the budget was going to be brought down, yet none of his replies at any time suggested that we should not expect the budget until some time well into the month of June at the earliest. Because of the fact that the minister at one time gave the impression that he was ready to present the budget-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I never gave that impression.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well then, because of the fact that, in my judgment, he left that impression, and his words are there to be seen-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has certainly given the impression that he was ready. That has now been changed, and I cannot-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman to point out my words to which he has reference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid I cannot at this time, but in all fairness to the hon. gentleman I will ascertain those words which gave me this impression. Perhaps some of my colleagues will find them in the meantime.


Mr. Macdonnell:: You will never find them.

Interim Supply


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event that was my impression. That hon. gentleman who always comes to the assistance of the Minister of Finance has said that I will never find them. Perhaps he can offer some explanation in this regard.
All I am seeking to say now is that the Minister of Finance cannot take the position that he is going to hold the country in suspense beyond a reasonable period, and he should give us some definite reasons for this change. I have asked him two questions which he has treated lightly. I asked him first whether the delay in presenting the budget is because the deficit is going to be even more glaring than that suggested by the tax foundation and certainly much in excess of what the minister himself forecast last year. I then asked the minister if the delay was caused because of his wish to avoid the embarrassment which will come because of the state of the unemployment insurance fund. If those are the reasons they are legitimate, particularly the latter. The minister could tell us whether he intends to ,bring in legislation to replenish that fund, there now being no authority to make loans to the fund under the Unemployment Insurance Act because there are no securities which can be pledged in sufficient amounts. This again reflects the serious state-


An hon. Member:: There are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are not enough securities in the fund now to warrant the Minister of Finance making loans which would put the fund into a condition of security and give the necessary confidence to those who have contractual rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The minister may nod his head, but if that is the situation-that there has been a sudden burst in unemployment insurance revenues, I should like to remind him that seeding is now under way, businesses are even now getting ready for their autumn work, and there is a serious stagnation confronting the automobile industry.
I asked the Minister of Finance the other day whether, in view of the decline of over 10.45 per cent in production of commercial and other motor vehicles, he could say that he was prepared to give some relief. Mr. Speaker said at that time that under our rules I had no right to anticipate questions of that kind involved in the budget. Surely in the face of this kind of situation it is not unfair to ask the minister when he is going to bring down his budget so that industry, among others, will know what the situation is. Those are not unfair questions, I suggest.
The report of the royal commission under the direction of Professor Bladen was given

the Prime Minister five or six weeks ago. The government has had an opportunity of examining that report. If it has not taken that opportunity then it is certainly remiss in the performance of its obligations. I recognize how busy the ministers are, particularly the Minister of Finance, but I have no doubt that he has had that report carefully examined, and if it has no relation whatsoever to the budget it ought to be tabled so we can ascertain the situation from the point of view of the commissioner in order that we may determine what course to take during the budget debate. If the minister informs us that he cannot reveal the contents of that report because it is to play a very important part in his budget and, as a result, he has not been able to do the necessary homework, even though his statement might not be approved it would be understood. However, those are considerations which the Minister of Finance ought to explain to this house. I do not know under what prerogative the Minister of Finance takes the position that he does not have to give a more definitive accounting to the house with regard to the presentation of the budget. No minister of finance is a law unto himself, no matter how much of a law unto himself he may be in the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance laughs and I laugh back at him, because no matter how much of a law he may be in the cabinet, that is not his position in this parliament, nor is it his position in the country; and the Canadian people have a right to know why this postponing and procrastinating government has delayed so long in presenting its financial accounts to the nation. I suggest to the minister that this is a bit of finessing; that in the absence of a positive reason the minister is hoping to be able to divert public attention from the financial situation which has evolved under this government. If it is a fact that we are going to have a deficit of over $700 million, let alone a deficit of $1 billion, it is understandable that the minister is seeking to coincide our initial discussion on the budget with an adjournment so that the dreadful news may, on that account, be received with less objection on the part of the Canadian people.
If those are not the reasons for this delay the Minister of Finance should stop this humourous appreciation of a serious argument and tell us exactly why the budget is not being presented. The Minister of Finance may laugh, but I should like to tell him-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cannot help it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that the people in the country who are out of work, and the businessmen of this country facing these conditions of stagnation as a result of the financial policies of this government are not going to laugh. They will be greatly amused today by the reactions which the Minister of Finance has displayed toward suggestions that have come from us in the Liberal party when we have asked reasonable questions of the minister.
Why does the minister not now tell us that the reason he has not brought down the budget is that he is not ready and that certain considerations have yet to be given? If that is the situation I suggest we are entitled to know what those considerations are, unless they go to the very root of the secrecy of the budget itself.
I suddenly recall, and would remind the minister, what happened in the British house with regard to the repeal of certain laws having to do with maize, when a situation arose not unlike the present situation. When the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Ritchie, was asked to state when he intended to bring down his budget he refused and sat mute in his seat, like the Minister of Finance, and possibly arrogant, like the Minister of Finance. It was that arrogance which caused the government of which Mr. Ritchie was a member to lose its life and its head when the next election took place. That, of course, is what is going to happen to this government.


An hon. Member:: What about the byelections?


Paul Joseph James Martin: And one of the
main contributors toward the fall of the head of the government will be the serene, unimpassioned, unexcited Minister of Finance who sits in his seat so quietly and serenely on Monday, June 5, 1961.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, as we move into committee of supply today we must realize, of course, that there are many problems facing this government, and I am sure they would be the last ones to deny it. In addition I believe also many problems are facing the people of this country which they are given to believe the government is not aware of. We have signs of squalor, and unemployment. There are problems connected with defence, transport, external affairs, and so forth. We must also realize that some of the estimates of departments we shall deal with today have already passed through this house. They have been subject to detailed discussion. We hope that the other departments will soon be before the house and again their estimates will be subjected to detailed
Interim Supply
discussion. In fact, notwithstanding the fencing and political footwork that we have witnessed here this morning, we may even hope that, since the by-elections have been held, we shall have a budget before us one of these days.
Therefore it is not my intention to cover the waterfront in this debate. I should like to discuss one problem only, namely the position in which the old age pensioners find themselves today. The problem of the old age pensioners is unique. If we look at the other problems we find that the sick can possibly look forward to getting well and the unemployed can look forward to the possibility of a job in the future if things take an upturn. If they do not, they can hope at least to hang on until the next election, when they will be able to take some positive action. International tensions can improve, and we all hope they will. But if all these problems were solved it would still leave the old age pensioners in the same position they are in at the present time.
What is ahead for our old age pensioners? Only one of two things can happen to them in which they find themselves at the present time. The first is to lower the cost of living. The second is to raise the old age pension. Either solution can help the old age pensioners today. Unfortunately this government has raised rather than lowered the cost of living since it took office. We see no signs of any change in this regard at the present time This government has not raised the old age pension, although its promise to do so is now four years old.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We did raise it in 1957.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, but that was tour years ago. At the time it was raised there was a clear promise that it was only a temporary measure and the amount would be raised in the future.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


Murdo William Martin: This idea was sold to the Canadian public and the old age pensioners of the country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That just is not true.


Murdo William Martin: This government has raised the veterans disability pension during this session. That was a commendable move which received the full support of the house. In more recent days the government have also raised the war veterans allowance. I believe they raised it even higher than the amount asked for by the legion. This again is very commendable and received the full support of the house, but the position of


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I want to put on the record something to which I alluded when I spoke last. I said the minister did give me the impression during the course of this session that he had just about finished the necessary preliminaries which would enable him to bring in his budget. I now want to put on the record my support for that position. On March 29, as will be found at page 3461 of Hansard, the hon. member for Wellington South put this question to the Minister of Finance. I think it is significant that the question was put by a member on the government side. While I have the highest regard for the hon. member for Wellington South, I am sure he will not misunderstand me if I say he has not taken part too often in questions on the orders of the day, and one may reasonably conclude that this was a planted question, in other words a question which he asked at the insistence of the Minister of Finance. This is the question the hon. member asked:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister indicate to the house whether he has yet established a deadline date by which time he hopes to complete hearing delegations making representations in respect of the main budget?
The Minister of Finance replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I hope to complete the hearing of the delegations by the end of next week, April 8.
Now, everyone knows that once a minister of finance has completed hearing delegations he is then in a position to put the finishing touches on his budget-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and get the
necessary consent of his cabinet colleagues. My hon. friend says "No". I am speaking

from some experience over a long time in government, and I am sure this government's experience is no richer than that of other governments. In any event, on March 29 the Minister of Finance said he hoped that the hearing of delegations would be over by April 8. This is the reason I clearly had the impression that the minister would then be ready to present his budget shortly afterward. Something has intervened in the meantime and we are entitled to know, I repeat, why the Minister of Finance is now, on the 5th day of June, unable to give the hon. member for Laurier, who put this question on behalf of the opposition, the kind of reply which would normally be given by any other minister of finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am indebted to the hon. member for Essex East for exposing to the committee the manner in which he misled himself into the state of mind which he indicated earlier in his remarks. What I said on March 29, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Wellington South, was that I hoped to complete the hearing of the delegations making representations in regard to the budget "by the end of the next week, April 8". The hon. member has been out of office for four years, Mr. Chairman, and he must have forgotten that normally after the completion of the hearing of delegations there is a great deal of work to be done on the budget. In my experience the hearing of the delegations for a budget brought in in April was completed about the end of January, and it is quite customary for about two to two and half months, in that range of time, to pass after the hearing of the delegations is completed before the budget is introduced in the house.
In the four years that he has been out of office the hon. member has forgotten that a tremendous amount of work has to be done after the completion of the hearing of the delegations. That is one of the earlier stages in the work of preparing the budget. So if he will add two and a half months to the date referred to for completion of the hearings he will find that we are running about on schedule. I might also remind him that the earlier period this year, when in a normal year the hearing of the delegations would have been done, was devoted as far as the Minister of Finance was concerned to sitting in the house following the debate on the budget and on the measures arising out of the budget.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has given an explanation of his procedure in preparing the budget. I suppose that precisely how he conducts himself in preparing the budget is not the concern of

the house, but I would not want the impression to go across the country that over the years successive finance ministers have stopped hearing delegations two and a half months before the presentation of the budget. They have heard delegations right up to the last week before the presentation of the budget.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true.


George James McIlraith: The minister says that is not correct. I do not want to use language that you would rule out of order, Mr. Chairman, but may I say that many delegations have presented their representations on major financial matters as little as a week or ten days before the actual delivery of the budget. I have every reason to believe that the representations of those delegations were treated with respect and decisions were taken on them after they had been considered thoroughly by the finance minister of the day.
I can only draw the conclusion that the Minister of Finance has somehow revealed a situation that is a cause for concern in the country, in that the machinery for considering representations and taking decisions thereon on the part of the government is not adequate to the task. The reason for that will remain something peculiarly within the knowledge of the government and a few people working closely with it, but there is some alarming breakdown in the machinery, and what it is we have a right to know.
When the Minister of Finance brushes aside requests for information as to the date of the delivery of the budget and the other representations of my colleagues on this matter of such great concern to the Canadian public, he forgets that in part the great concern over the failure to deliver the budget stems from a certain action on his part for which he must remain answerable. I remind him that he is the Minister of Finance who in the previous parliament, between the 1957 and 1958 elections, refused to deliver a budget as such. He was the new Minister of Finance of a new government taking office after 22 years in opposition who refused to make known the state of the public accounts to the people of this country during the whole life of that parliament. He is the one who refused to state what changes in fiscal policy the new government proposed.
I said at the time in the house and I repeat now that that failure caused a great deal of doubt and hesitation in the business community of this country. It has done more than that. It has been a contributing factor in the slowing down of business activity in the last few years. However much the minister may defend his action' on that occasion, I remind
Interim Supply
him now that it does leave him in the position of being suspect when we recall that the house has been meeting since last November and, having in mind the length of the session, it could reasonably have been expected that the budget would be delivered in April. With that background on his part, whether he was right or wrong in doing so, the delay and the unsatisfactory explanations for such delay have created a situation in the country that is most damaging to the economy.
I would hope that he would see fit to answer fully as best he can, so that the businessmen of the country who are concerned with the budget and the public generally will know when they may reasonably expect the budget to be delivered, the precise reasons for the delay, and will also be given the related information of a nature that can properly be given and does not entrench upon any of the matters with relation to the contents of the budget itself which must by their nature be kept secret. It is a matter of some importance to the public, and I would ask the minister to treat it in that way.


Mr. McMillan:: I should like to ask the minister a question. He referred to the fact that we have already had a budget this year and he was referring, of course, to the baby budget. This morning is the first time I have ever heard him call it a budget. It was not a statement of the government accounts. The only figures he brought before the house had to do with a surplus or a deficit. In the previous budget he had forecast a surplus of $12 million and in December he came along and said there would be a deficit of $286 million. These are the only figures he brought forward. They had nothing to do with the government accounts. I should like to ask the minister whether he considers that is a proper accounting to parliament and the people with respect to the government accounts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member says he did not hear me refer to the December budget as a budget. It will be realized, of course, that by reason of illness the hon. member was not here in the early part of the session, and that is the reason he did not hear it. It has always been referred to by me as the supplementary budget. The expression "baby budget" was a colloquialism applied to it. I have always referred to it, and have done so not infrequently in the house, as the supplementary budget.


William Hector McMillan: Would you say it was a
proper accounting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is so referred to in the budget speech itself.

Interim Supply


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes to express my personal concern that thus far we not only have no budget but we have no indication when it is going to be presented. My particular concern is as to any announcements that may be made by the Minister of Finance with relation to our Canadian financial structure from the point of view of trade. I know that we have already dealt with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but there have been developments since that time which I am certain must be of concern to the government and particularly to the Minister of Finance; therefore there may be something in the budget that will deal with this most important phase of our economy.
I also cannot help wondering whether the delay in bringing down the budget, which of course is a policy statement, may be having a detrimental effect on our export trade in that some of our industries and manufacturers may be refraining from pursuing an aggressive policy trying to sell Canadian goods abroad. Only last week I noted in a Vancouver newspaper the statement by an official of the timber industry that our export sales in the previous month were down 2 per cent. That is a very important matter to the province of British Columbia at this time of the year.
I also could not help but note and feel disturbed, as I hope the government is, about a statement which appeared in one of the eastern newspapers just a matter of two or three weeks ago. Mr. Victor G. Bailey, Jamaican publisher of the Caribbean Spotlight magazine, stated that Canada is rapidly losing its position as a traditional supplier in the West Indies market. He stated that the main reason is Canada's lack of a go-getting sales approach. On the occasion of this speech or interview he gave some most startling facts. Not only did he point out that we were rapidly losing out on our traditional West Indies market, but that we were losing out on the importation by the West Indies of those goods for which Canada is, I would say, an absolute natural. He says that West Germany, Japan and Italy are flooding the West Indies market with precisely the kind of products made by Canadian factories. For example, West Germany sold 11,526 radio sets in Jamaica and Japan sold 2,627, while Canada sold only 35. That is one illustration. But may I come to a product which is an absolute natural. Here is what we find in a statement made by Mr. Victor G. Bailey:
Even in items which the West Indies thought synonymous with Canada, he said, newcomers to the market are pushing out Canadians.
Holland, said Mr, Bailey, sold 343,125 pounds of paper bags in the West Indies while Canada sold

21,654 pounds; and West Germany supplied 216,870 hundredweight of counter flour, compared with only 10,983 hundredweight from Canada.
The situation is getting fairly serious when in an attractive West Indies market, in matters of wheat, counter flour, and products made from our timber resources such as paper bags, we are being completely wiped out by other countries, according to this information. It is something new.
In view of this report of what is happening and in view of the information I gave a few moments ago with regard to declining exports of our forest products from British Columbia at this time of the year, I say this is something that cannot be ignored by this House of Commons or by the Minister of Finance. I would expect the budget to contain something of a policy nature. I say it is bad for Canada and for parliamentary procedure that we should not have had a budget by this time. To my mind it is almost tantamount to a dereliction of duty, a lack of concern for the well-being and welfare of Canada.
As emphatically as possible I want to say that although we cannot do anything about the past, I sincerely hope that just as speedily as possible or almost immediately the budget may be brought down, and that it may have in it some policy analysis and statement and some forward looking views and recommendations to deal with the many problems which are of concern to our people, and the many factors which we see developing and which can be a hindrance to the economy of Canada.
A grave responsibility rests upon the Minister of Finance. Although we can hardly find words with which to condemn his lack of action or his lack of speed in the past, we sincerely hope he will now give us some indication that the government is concerned about what is taking place and that there will be almost immediately an explanation to this House of Commons and to the Canadian people of the fiscal and economic policies of this government. I would say this is a necessity for, let alone a demand by the people of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: I have another question I should like to direct to the minister. Before doing so, however, I think I should commend the attitude taken by the hon. member for Vancouver East, which was entirely opposed to that of the hon. member for Timmins. The hon. member for Timmins seemed to think that we were simply shadow-boxing with the minister from this side of the house on a matter of perhaps little or no consequence. However, the hon. member for Vancouver East has in effect, I believe, rebuked the hon. member for Timmins, who did not seem to

think that the rights of parliament were affected in any way in this matter. We on this side of the house say they are affected. We repeat what has already been said, namely, that there is a direct relationship, to say nothing of an indirect one, between what is being asked at the moment, namely supply to the extent of $634 million, and the bringing down of the budget itself.
However, what I rose to deal with was a matter which the minister has already put on record in connection with the question which was put to him by the hon. member for Wellington South on March 29. In explaining away that question the minister used these words: "A great deal of work must be done after the representations in respect of the main budget have been made". I presume no one will find fault with this statement by the minister. However, the true story is that a great deal of work is done prior to that time. A great deal of work is done by the experts in the Department of Finance in preparation for the budget. The minister said on March 29, as found at page 3461 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I hope to complete the hearing of the delegations by the end of next week, April 8.
When he said that surely he had not in mind that this important work would not be completed until after June 10th. On Saturday he indicated that the budget would not be brought down this week. The only conclusion to which I can come is that between the time this statement was made and the time the budget will be brought down something has happened to estop the minister; to make him change his opinion or to make him consider other amendments than those which he intended to bring down.
I am not complaining about the fact that it is necessary to do all these things. What I am complaining about, and what I think everyone in this house has a right to complain about, is the fact that it has taken more than two months for those representations of which the minister has spoken to be implemented in the form of an actual presentation. There is no doubt in my mind that this was a planted question. I do not mean to be disrecpectful to the hon. member or to anyone else. Here the answer was clear:
Mr. Speaker, I hope to complete the hearing of the delegations by the end of next week, April 8.
Here we are at June 5, approximately two months later, and thus far we have had no indication of when the budget will be brought down. We have from the minister a statement of hope and expectation. There is hope and expectation on the part of the minister that the budget will be brought down before the end of the month. I do not think that is sufficient. I think the minister should make a
Interim Supply
definite statement, yes or no; and I think he can do that without divulging any information that should not be given to the house. I think he should tell us categorically whether or not we are going to get the budget before the month is out. In view of what was stated here in the month of March I think the committee is entitled to know what the position is with reference to the financial accounts of the country at this late date.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Hector McMillan: Is the minister not going to answer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Answer what?


William Hector McMillan: Is the minister not going to answer the questions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I answered the same questions earlier this morning, and there is nothing I can add. I said earlier that I cannot give the committee the date of the budget because the date of the budget has not yet been set. I did say that I would give the house the information as soon as I was able to do so. What more can I do than that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister has given us the explanation now. He says "There is nothing I can add". That is no doubt the explanation of why we have not had the budget; he has got nothing to add. The treasury is empty; he does not know what his deficit is going to be.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, this is the second time this session the Minister of Finance has come before the committee for interim supply. I do not think it is out of order for him to ask for interim supply for two months, one sixth of the estimates. I think that is O.K. Ever since I have been in the house, when asking for interim supply the government has always asked for one sixth of the estimates.
In voting interim supply hon. members of this committee have an opportunity and a right to raise grievances. On this side of the chamber we believe that the matters we wish to put before the committee could more properly be raised in a budget debate. As has been suggested this morning, if the minister will give us some assurance that the budget will be brought down soon and that we will have the proper time to debate it after it is brought down, we will forgo any discussion at this time. In fact we will cut down our discussion on interim supply to the minimum and do all we can to process it through the different stages of the house.

Interim Supply
The minister referred this morning to the baby budget. That certainly was not in any way, shape or form an accounting to this country. The only accounting the minister gave was that he would have a big deficit instead of a small surplus. There was no accounting for any one government account.
I do not think our request is unreasonable. It is almost two months since the completion of the last fiscal year, and we are voting money day after day in the estimates. We are voting millions of dollars, and we have not a clue whether or not we are going to have the money. We have no idea how much money will have to be borrowed. I think the minister could probably give us that information now, but he refuses to do so.
Never before in the history of parliament has the session lasted for so long without an accounting to parliament by the Minister of Finance. This session started in November and is now over seven months old. It is true that in two or three election years-and I have gone away back in looking at this matter-and in one war year the budget was presented as late as the latter part of June, but in those particular years the session started either in March or April.
When the minister presented his last June budget I have forgotten the date parliament was called back after the election in 1958, but it was very late, and he presented his budget rather early in the session. If the minister would give us the assurance now that he will bring down the budget some time this month and give us an opportunity to debate it, we on this side of the chamber will not pursue the matter further.
However, I feel that if the minister will not give this assurance I should raise those matters which I should like to put before the committee at this time. I will say this; if the minister is not able to give this assurance to the committee we can only conclude, and the country can only conclude, that he has not the intestinal fortitude to put the financial position of this country before the people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


William Hector McMillan: As I have said before, a year ago the minister predicted a surplus of $12 million and at the end of the year, in December, he predicted a deficit of $286 million. I predicted then that he would never have a surplus. I predicted three years ago that the Minister of Finance would never have a surplus. I hope his figure of $286 million is right. I predicted it would be more and I hope, for the sake of the taxpayers of Canada, that my prediction is wrong.


An hon. Member:: They all are.


William Hector McMillan: I have read different references in the press. I saw one in a Montreal newspaper the other day to the effect that our deficit for the last fiscal year would be between $700 million and $1 billion. I say that when the government refuses to give an accounting to parliament the Prime Minister and the government are holding parliament in contempt; they are taking away some of the rights of parliament from its members. How can we carry on and discharge our duties in a proper way unless we have the fundamental information with which to carry on parliament? After all, the author of the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Prime Minister, is taking rights away from the members of this house.
I read in the current press that the Minister of Finance created a pitiful and sad spectacle when trying to get the chartered banks to reduce the interest rate at the same time as the governor of the Bank of Canada was doing nothing in that regard. Surely this is a matter for discussion. It is time the minister laid his cards on the table. The minister has refused to bring the governor of the Bank of Canada before a committee of this house. We should have an opportunity to question the governor.
The report of the Bank of Canada says nothing about salaries, and I think we should have an opportunity to question the governor about salaries. I am not particularly interested in the salary that any one particular person receives, but I do think we should know what the total salaries are. We should also know something about the building of premises. I have heard-I do not know whether it is true -that the Bank of Canada builds and rents premises. From my reading of the Bank of Canada Act I think the bank has no right to build and rent premises.
I have said before that there is no room in Canada for two sovereignties. The government should take responsibility for fiscal policy, but so far they have taken no responsibility in this respect. The Minister of Finance has said that the governor of the Bank of Canada is responsible only to parliament. Then why does he not call the governor before a committee of this house so we may question him? The governor of the Bank of Canada has said on two occasions that he has a cure for Canada's ills. He has said he knows how to cure unemployment. Evidently the government is not following the recommendations of the governor, or hon. gentlemen opposite would have introduced a solution to the unemployment problem. The governor should appear before a committee of this house in order that we may question him on these points.
An announcement was made of a $1 item relating to shipping. This house voted $1

Interim Supply
to assist shipping in Canada this year. I op- help the party in power. We have had several posed that move at the time and said the budgets designed to boost the stock of the government should give an estimate of the party in power. Surely the time has come cost, which I predicted might run even to when we should have a budget designed for $100 million. We voted that $1 item not the good of the Canadian people and not for knowing what expenditure might be involved, the good of the party in power.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member must be mistaken. No item has been voted yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was an intention announced. There was no item but there was an announced intention, as the minister well knows.


William Hector McMillan: I wish to refer to a recent advertisement which appeared in the Victoria daily Colonist sponsored by the Progressive Conservative association. Twelve points are listed under a photograph of the Prime Minister. The tenth point indicates that the government will spend $500 million for aid to the Canadian shipbuilding industry this year. We have heard nothing about an expenditure of $500 million; we have heard only about a $1 item.
I was laughed at in this chamber when I suggested that the expenditure might run as high as $100 million. An hon. member opposite interjected during the course of my remarks on that occasion and said I did not know what I was talking about. I mentioned that the government might pay as much as $100 million under a $1 vote, but the statement appeared under a photograph of the Prime Minister that $500 million would be spent in aid of the Canadian shipbuilding industry this year. The Minister of Finance or someone on the government side of the house should give us a clear indication of what the amount might be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government is following the same course it followed with respect to A.R.D.A., so called.


William Hector McMillan: What is to be done in connection with the unemployment insurance fund? Is the government going to place a sum of money in that fund after parliament adjourns? Will it be done under a $1 item? If the minister does bring in a budget will he include a $1 item for the unemployment insurance fund as he is doing for shipping, but in practice spend several hundred million dollars? How will he proceed to replenish the unemployment insurance fund? In connection with the railways I should like to know from the minister whether the money voted in connection with the equalization of rates will be brought into the budget.
The Canadian economy is sick. This is not the time to introduce a budget designed to


Paul Joseph James Martin: Even though the party in power needs help.


William Hector McMillan: The minister made reference to the baby budget. The only thing of much moment in that budget was the half hearted, wishy washy measure to assist depressed areas. Not long ago there was only one so-called depressed area, and today we elicited information to the effect that two or three other communities have qualified for assistance under this plan. I doubt whether one man has been put to work under this program since the measure was introduced. The government had every right to proceed under this program after it was announced in the baby budget last December.
If we had the right kind of leadership our economy could be reinvigorated and we could get going again. If proper action were taken the unemployment insurance fund would look after itself because there would be more employment. The United States economy is building up, but if one reads the Financial Post one learns that after a slight pick-up the Canadian economy is again faltering. We need assistance from this government to stimulate our economy and assist the business community.
Last year business failures in Canada were at the highest level since the Tory thirties. There is no doubt about that. Immigration has gone down to a trickle, and according to recent press reports more people are leaving Canada today than are entering the country. It is true that our population is increasing because of the increased birth rate, but at the present time more people are leaving Canada than are taking up residence here. Taxes are higher now than ever before at all levels of government. People are going hungry in our cities, including the minister's home city of Toronto. Unemployment is higher in Canada than in any other country in the western free world. A recent article in the New York Times indicated that our unemployment level is approximate two and one half percentage points higher than that of Italy, the next worst country in that respect in the western free world. Our federal bonds have sold at prices lower than the bonds of cities elsewhere including the cities of Hamburg, Buenos Aires and Oslo.
I have been right in a good many of my predictions. I venture to predict now that if we have another four years of federal fiscal

Interim Supply
policy such as we have had, we will jeopardize the pensions and other social welfare payments to which we are already committed. Our country needs leadership-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but before he launches into the next portion of his address I should like to call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I said that this government needed leadership. I should like to emphasize that statement at this time by saying that this country needs leadership now. Before we adjourned at one o'clock I intended to deal more with the program of action as described in the Victoria Colonist, in an advertisement paid for by the Progressive Conservative party. There appears in this advertisement, among other things, the following statement:
When this government entered office in 1957 immediate action was required and was taken- a serious recession was under way-these measures were taken-
Following1 that statement there appears a list of 12 measures, and I should like to refer to No. 10, which is as follows:
10. $500 million aid to Canadian shipbuilding industry.
In this house we voted a $1 item in the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


William Hector McMillan: There was a $1 item included there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was just promised, not voted. It was just another promise.


William Hector McMillan: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister should look at page 4784 he will find there the Minister of Transport's promise.


An hon. Member:: Who has the floor?


William Hector McMillan: I suggest we have been kept in the dark in regard to this $500 million program. I should like the minister to tell us what was intended by the inclusion of that $1 item in the estimates of the Department of Transport, as well as this program involving $500 million as indicated in the advertisement of the Progressive Conservative party.
I suggest that information was made public in that way as election bait, and that the elected members of this house were given

indication only of the $1 item. I wonder whether the minister can tell us why we are being asked to vote that $1 item in view of the announced plan regarding the $500 million in aid to the shipbuilding industry. At the same time I would ask the Prime Minister what has happened to the bill of rights in this regard.
It is no wonder that in this country we are in such a financial mess, and no wonder that the government has had to ask the taxpayers of Canada to foot the bill for $800 million in extra interest over a four year period. The trouble resulted from this government's policy, commenced at the time of the baby budget in December of 1957, followed by the losses suffered by the conversion loans, in turn followed by the high interest on borrowings which this country has had to make.
I should like at this time to briefly refer to the 1960 income tax rate. Many individuals have been fooled this year in regard to their 1960 income tax return because this government has raised the rate paid by individual taxpayers. In 1959 individual taxpayers paid the increase for that year from July 1 on, but in 1960 they had to pay the increased rate for the whole year. Many individuals have asked me why that is so. I suggest the reason is that the government has raised the income tax while at the same time it has lead people to believe that it has lowered it. I suggest this situation has become fully known to the individual taxpayers following their filing of returns for 1960.
The minister referred to the fact that he presented the baby budget to this house at a period when I was absent because of illness.
I should like to inform him that at the particular time it was presented I was overseas in the company of other hon. members of this house attending a NATO parliamentary conference. I was at the officers' mess of one of the fighter wings in France when the news of the baby budget arrived from Paris.
I felt it was bad news at the time, and was asked to comment in respect to it. I said at the time I felt it would not in any way help our economy and that it bore out my prediction that the $12 million surplus, which the minister had forecast, would in fact turn out to be a huge deficit.
I am sure all hon. members have read press reports regarding the financial difficulties suffered by Britain at different times, particularly following the wars. The government of that country, as well as the chancellor of the exchequer, has always been able to step into the breach by adopting measures to improve the situation. I wish that we had a

government in Canada that would step into the breach in order to cure our ills at this time.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be very brief in my remarks this afternoon. At the outset I must say that our group has been restrained because of our impression that the members of this committee were going to all restrain themselves at this time in order to facilitate the business at hand. I suggest that we have kept our word in that regard.
Before proceeding with the matter in respect of which I rise at this time, I should like briefly to support the representations made by the hon. member for Timmins. I refer to his plea to the government for consideration of the plight of many of the persons in receipt of old age security and old age assistance payments. As we see it we have a responsibility to our senior citizens to make sure that they are able to enjoy their declining years with at least a measure of comfort and some security.
In order to save the time of the committee I will not go further in that direction. I rose particularly to proceed with a question that I raised on the estimates of the Secretary of State last Saturday. I was ruled out of order because the person I wished to deal with is a public servant and not a civil servant as I was informed. Therefore I trust that this afternoon I am completely in order.
First of all I wish to refer briefly to two or three news reports which have caused us, and I think a number of people in Canada, some concern. The first is a report in the Gazette of Saturday, June 3, which reads:
Chaput says he'll reply In few days
Dr. Marcel Chaput, vice president of a Quebec secessionist movement, yesterday said he will reply within a few days to an invitation that he quit his defence research job.
He said he will issue a statement replying to Dr. J. E. Keyston, vice president of the board. Dr. Keyston said Thursday Dr. Chaput's "political activities" are incompatible with his work as a federal government civil servant.
First of all, I must say we think it is highly improper for the vice-chairman of the defence research board to make a public statement to the press with respect to Dr. Chaput. I am quite sure he has started something that is bound to end up in Dr. Chaput getting justice from all quarters. I understand that Dr. Chaput addressed an independence meeting recently and said that "Quebec will secede from confederation before 1967 if the secessionist movement continues to expand at the present rate". Of course there is a big "if" there. A number of people have asked me the meaning of the word "secede". I understand it is to go apart, to leave, or to
Interim Supply
assume a different unit or grouping, and so on. Then in the Gazette of Monday, June 5, I read:
Chaput still backs secessionist group refuses to quit Ottawa job.
Speaking in French, he said:
"In the dispute between myself and my employer, there is, as far as I'm concerned, only one possible reply: I have no intention of resigning from the defence research board Or from the vice presidency of the R.I.N."
This was his reply to an invitation from the board that he resign.
Dr. J. E. Keyston, vice chairman of the board, said last week he considers it "morally and ethically inconsistent that anyone should publicly urge the disruption of the federal government while continuing to be employed by the government."
First of all, I think comment on the action of an employee of this status is the responsibility of the minister and not that of the vicechairman of the board. I think the vice-chairman of the board should know better than to make such press statements. Because of this unfortunate publicity a certain amount of understandable resentment and concern has been aroused in certain quarters. In this morning's Gazette I read:
Dr. Chaput supported in Ottawa.
This reaction is the result of precipitate and unfortunate publicity on the part of the vice-chairman of the defence research board. The article goes on:
Five French language Canadians have formed a "civil rights committee", a group to back up financially any French language Canadians restrained in the exercise of their civil rights.
The five men are Gaetan Legault, an Ottawa lawyer; Claude Trottier, a Quebec city industrialist; Pierre Laporte, a Montreal newspaperman; Paul-Emile Robert, a Montreal life insurance underwriter, and Jacques J. Paris, a Hull translator.
Formation of the group was decided during the week end following the suggestion that Dr. Marcel Chaput resign his defence research board job because of "political activities".
Later on in the report we find:
"We are not separatists," said the five men in a statement. "But we believe that any French Canadian patriot threatened, because of his opinion, in the exercise of his civil rights deserves the moral support and the financial backing of all his compatriots."
We agree with this statement. We are concerned about this unfortunate situation and publicity on two grounds. First, we are concerned with freedom of speech, the right of free association and the right to political opinions being enjoyed by public servants. We believe in the system they have in Great Britain where those civil servants who have access to certain confidential documents on a political level, deputies and senior civil servants, are not permitted to take part in political activities; but the great mass of

Interim Supply
civil servants, including technical and professional personnel, have the right to take part in political activities and many of them do so.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, we want to emphasize our interest in and recognition of the causes of this discontent which finds expression, I understand, in three or four so-called separatist movements in Quebec. While no established political party has adopted the idea of separation of Quebec from Canada, its revival no doubt has certain deep rooted causes which we should understand and recognize.
As I understand it, a number of our French Canadian patriots, Canadians of French descent, consider that their place in confederation has been that of a junior partner. Personally we think they are incorrect in that assumption, but they have that opinion and this lack of understanding is the cause of some discontent. We must appreciate the circumstances which promote these ideas and also, shall I say, to some extent these fears, and we must do all we can to strengthen unity and fraternity on the basis of understanding and a recognition of the principle of equality in all aspects of government and administration.
I am one who believes that we should not get upset about these activities. I must remind the committee that Scotland and Wales have had separatist movements for centuries. In Great Britain they actually provide the places for them to expound their views and talk to their audiences, and they get listened to attentively. They are respected as citizens of Great Britain; not that great numbers agree with them, but they have their rights and they are recognized. Actually, I think just prior to the last coronation some of them stole the coronation stone.
Well, no one in any separatist movement in Canada has suggested stealing anything of a similar kind in Canada, but here is another interesting thing. In Great Britain we find civil and public servants participating in these separatist movements which are the expression of long-standing minor grievances as a result of the union of England with Scotland or England with Wales, and it suggests there is no necessity for people to get concerned and become intolerant because some persons express these views. In Great Britain this is a long-standing tradition.
What about Dr. Chaput about whom there has been this unfortunate publicity? He has not violated his oath of allegiance or of secrecy; he has not violated his oath of office. As a matter of fact, shall I say, on strictly legal grounds the movement is to date nonpartisan because there is no political party in Canada that represents it. Dr. Chaput has

not transgressed any of his constitutional and legal rights as a Canadian citizen or as a public servant.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I did want to bring to the attention of the committee that this group regrets the public statements of the vice-chairman of the defence research board with respect to Dr. Chaput's political activities or whatever you may wish to call them, and the consequent unfortunate publicity. We uphold and defend his right to practice all his privileges as a Canadian citizen and as a public servant, and we urge that the Minister of National Defence announce his support for the practice of the principles of the bill of human freedoms and fundamental rights with respect to all the civil and public servants who come within the jurisdiction of his department.
I am being as brief as possible because we do not wish to lengthen the debate on interim supply. Finally I wish to say with emphasis: Let not the frosts of intolerance wither the blossom of democracy in this country by unfortunate statements or unfortunate publicity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding what the hon. member who has just spoken has had to say I hope he will regard my intervention at this time as wholly within the procedures that we have laid down and within the rights of a member of parliament in accordance with what he thinks are the merits of the situation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Absolutely.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has been speaking on behalf of the freedom of the individual, and that, of course, is a very important matter to engage anyone's consideration. Without in any way commenting on what the hon. member has said I want to say that we in the Liberal party have been discussing this morning a matter that involves not only the freedom of the subject but the freedom of parliament, the rights of parliament and the rights of the people to have from the Minister of Finance an accounting of the financial affairs of the nation.
We offer no apology whatsoever to anyone in the house for persisting in our denunciation of the refusal of the Minister of Finance to give us satisfactory responses. We join heartily once again in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who in a succinct and able presentation this morning indicated that apparently he appreciates the seriousness of the reluctance of the Minister of Finance to give any indication of when we may expect

the next budget, when we may expect him to give an accounting of the state of the finances of this country.
Though I was not able to put my hands on the specific remarks this morning, I said I had gathered an impression which led me to believe that the Minister of Finance had clearly indicated that he was ready many weeks ago to present his budget. When I pointed that out this morning the hon. member for Greenwood took issue with me and said he did not agree that I could have justifiably formed that impression. He was out of the house when I later produced a question that had been asked by the hon. member for Wellington South and replied to by the Minister of Finance having to do with eliciting from the minister the probable date of the presentation of the budget.
The Minister of Finance replied that he expected to finish hearing delegations by April 8, 1961. We pointed out that in the experience of other governments, certainly no less efficient than this government, once that chore had been completed it had not taken a very great length of time for the minister to come forward and present his budget to the nation. There can be no doubt that if the Minister of Finance had finished hearing delegations by April 8 he was not very far away from the date when he could reasonably be expected to present a budget in this house. I find that later in the session the Minister of Finance gave a further indication that he had reached the point where he was about to present his budget. I find on page 6140 of Hansard for May 1 a question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: What page?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Page 4140.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: You were just 2,000 out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member will recognize that some of us are capable of making mistakes. We do not have that infallible attitude of this arrogant government. We can make a mistake, particularly when it comes to a page of Hansard. The contribution of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance to this debate thus far has consisted of grunts.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is more than the hon. member's contribution so far.


Murdo William Martin: He is very close to the Minister of Finance, and if his minister cannot give satisfactory answers I suggest that possibly he might like to take part in the debate and give some indication along the lines which we feel we are entitled to receive and which, as responsibly as we can, we are going to elicit from the government. As found
Interim Supply
on page 4140 of Hansard, no less estimable a member than the hon. member for Winnipeg South put this question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the probable date of presentation of the budget:
Mr. Speaker, today being May 1, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has as yet fixed the day for the presentation of his budget?
The Minister of Finance said:
No. Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it will be possible to present the budget during the first half of this month.
That question, as was the former question, was put by a member sitting behind those on the ministerial benches. I am not suggesting in this case that it was a planted question because the hon. member for Winnipeg South is quite resourceful and is capable of thinking of questions without even the promptings of the Minister of Finance. The fact is that the former is a member supporting the government. The minister said that he would not be ready during the first half of the month, which leaves open only one conclusion, of course; that he would be ready during the last half of the month of May. This is the 5th of June, and still we have not had from the minister any definite statement when we may expect the budget.
We on this side contend, and we do so with force, that this is an affront to parliament, that this is an affront to the nation as a whole, that business conditions are such as to warrant some assurance from the Minister of Finance that the budget will not be delayed much longer. There is certainly no violation of our traditions in pressing the Minister of Finance to give us some indication when the budget may be presented. We have the right to ask whether there is going to be a budget at all. We have the right to ask within what dates it may be expected, just as did the hon. member for Winnipeg South. The Minister of Finance, in refusing to give us any answer, has left only one real conjecture, the possibility that there will be no budget at all.
If that is the situation, let the government courageously say that in its judgment there is no occasion for a presentation of the financial situation to the nation this year. Let the Minister of Finance say that he is content with the budget brought in on May 18, 1960. There would, of course, be controversy over that position, but at any rate the government would at least have taken some definite position. The Minister of Finance this morning spoke loosely of the relation of the so-called baby budget to the budget which he said may be brought in some time in the course of the next few months.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that at all.

Interim Supply


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance says he did not say that at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The record will speak for itself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My memory of the inaccurate words of the minister is as good as his. My memory is that the minister said this morning that the budget of last December could not be regarded as not related to the budget which may or may not be presented in 1961. Here is what the minister actually said about the relationship of this so-called baby budget. He did not relate it to a future budget at all. It had no relation, he said, to the future. As found at page 1006 of Hansard of December 20, 1960 the minister said this:
As I said earlier in my speech, this is not a full scale budget. It is a series of specific proposals supplementary to the regular budget I brought down last March. It is an integral part of the broad economic policy set forth in the speech from the throne.
That is not what the hon. gentleman said when he interrupted the hon. member for Welland and said that the baby budget was related to a budget that may or may not be brought down some time in 1961. The minister cannot have it both ways. If the statement made by the minister on December 20 and to which I have just referred is the one that is to be accepted, then the minister is bound to bring down a budget this year because, on his own words, the baby budget of 1960 was related to the previous budget of March, 1960. Hence, unless we can get from the minister some definite assurance we run the chance now that we may not only not have a budget before the end of June, or before adjournment, or before the prorogation of parliament, but that in fact we may not have a budget at all during this year 1961. We are entitled to know what the position of the government is in that regard so the business community can be forewarned and so that parliament can take its decisions and formulate its judgment with regard to the policies of the government in that regard.
The situation must be faced. The minister has left us in an unsatisfactory state as a result of the indefinite replies he gave this morning to the hon. member for Laurier and to other hon. members with regard to the date of the budget. I cannot understand why the minister cannot say positively that there will be a budget before the end of June, or before the adjournment of parliament, or before the prorogation of parliament or before this session comes to an end. Why the minister does not rise in his place and give that definite assurance is something I do not understand. If he does not want to tell us that there will be a budget some time

after June 10, why can he not at least rise in his place and say that there will be a budget along about the dates and times that I have specified? I therefore ask the minister the following questions, and I say that his refusal to answer these questions will be regarded by parliament, and properly so, as an affront to parliament.


Mr. Aiken:: You are speaking only for yourself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: His refusal to answer these questions will be regarded as an affront to the nation. His refusal to answer these questions will be a discouragement to the business community and to those in avocations concerned with the economic wellbeing of this nation. The questions are as follows. Will a budget be brought down before the end of June, 1961, or before the adjournment of parliament in 1961? The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance is taking these questions down and I will go slowly so that he may have a record.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: It is quite unnecessary for the hon. gentleman to go slowly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In that event I will repeat the question. Of course I could consider that remark as a definite indication of the arrogance of this government, but I will leave that remark stand. The minister did not make it and I do not suppose I have the right to attribute to the minister the indiscretions of his parliamentary secretary. Nevertheless I will leave that remark stand, but I will repeat my questions.
(1)	Will a budget be brought down before the end of June, 1961, or before the adjournment of parliament in 1961?
(2)	In that event, will there be an opportunity for a full debate in accordance with our rules before adjournment or prorogation in 1961?
(3)	Will a budget be brought down in 1961 before adjournment or prorogation of parliament?
(4)	In that event, will there be an opportunity for a full debate in accordance with our rules?
The failure of the minister to reply to these questions will raise in the public mind conjectures which are now being made and which have a very unsettling effect on the economic welfare of this nation. I hope the minister is now carefully considering the kind of reply to these questions which will give satisfaction to us in the Liberal opposition and more particularly to the people of Canada. The government cannot sit by and hope to extricate itself from the dilemma in which the minister's words have put it. These are questions of the greatest moment. We

have the right to know whether or not the financial situation of this country is as it was portrayed by the tax foundation. We have the right to know whether the government is going take certain relief measures in order to assist certain sections of Canadian industry.
Does the Minister of Finance think I am unfair when I take this line, particularly in the face of the situation that confronts the automobile industry? Does the minister feel that one is unreasonable in asking for some indication, not of whether there is going to be tax relief but whether the government is going to announce its policy, from which it will be possible to determine whether or not there is going to be tax relief to assist that industry or to assist the Canadian economy generally?
I repeat that the Minister of Finance does not satisfy the traditions of this parliament by refusing to answer these questions. He may refuse to answer them. He may carry us right on until the time of adjournment tonight without giving any indication other than that with which he has now left the house. He may take that attitude because he has behind him a strong following that can resist, through voting power, any attempts of the opposition to elicit information in the public interest. But if that position is taken by him I can assure him that it will not add to the appraisal that is being made in this country in the most responsible quarters with regard to the inadequacies of the financial policies of the government of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know how many hon. members have reflected on the fact that we are being asked at the present time to vote $640 million, which is more than the total pre-war budget of this country and more than the total amount that was spent in the year 1939 by the government of Canada for all purposes. We are being asked to vote this on the 124th day of the session. While I do not pretend to have perused all the records since confederation, I would be immensely surprised if it has ever happened before, since confederation, that a session of parliament reached the 124th day without any indication being given of when there would be a budget or whether there would be a budget. And that is what the minister has said to us today. He said he hoped to have a budget in the calendar year 1961. That was the best he could say in reply to a categorical question which I asked him twice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true, and you know it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is true, and the minister's words are on the record.
Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: Tell the whole story.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The whole story is that I asked the minister to say categorically whether there would be a budget, and the minister did not say there would be. If the minister wants to get up and say categorically there will be a budget in 1961, I will sit down and let him do so; but unless he does, there is no assurance that there will be, even on the 124th day of the session.
We are being asked to vote a second $600 million or more, the second instalment of this year's estimates-not last year's but this year's estimates-without knowing what the deficit was last year and without knowing what the minister's current estimate is of the deficit for this year, which he will no doubt have to correct in the house next December or January. One sometimes wonders when one reflects that in this house, in another parliament, the hon. gentleman's leader made a great deal of a so-called secret economic forecast, whether the minister is determined to wait until this fiscal year is over so he can announce his deficit by hindsight rather than by foresight. I say this because here we are well into the third month of the fiscal year and nobody except the tax foundation, a private organization, can give the country any idea of the state of the nation's finances. That is a most serious thing.
The minister finds the rights of parliament and the right of voting the taxpayers' money in $600 million gobs a laughing matter, but it is no laughing matter to the public, sir; it is no laughing matter at all to the public. Nobody knows today where this money is coming from. Here we are being asked to vote hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars; in fact the amount is over $1 billion already. The government has asked us to vote this amount this fiscal year without giving us any clue, as my hon. friend from Welland said earlier, as to where the money is coming from. We know there are certain taxes now being imposed, the highest that have ever been imposed in peacetime on the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nearly as high as the wartime peak and the highest ever in peacetime; yet the tax foundation months ago estimated that with the present levels of taxation and other present indications the minister would be $700 million short.
That was before a lot of shocking things were revealed in all their nakedness. That was before it was absolutely clear that the unemployment insurance fund would be bankrupt as it is at the present time. For months,

Interim Supply
since last November, we have been promised amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Many people are beginning to speculate whether there are going to be any such amendments at all; and you cannot blame them, because they get no information whatsoever from the government. They are beginning to speculate as to whether the government has any intention of amending that act, or whether the minister just intends to add to his deficit or make a huge dole to the unemployment insurance fund in a supplementary estimate, which would mean $100 million, $200 million-nobody knows-added to the deficit for this year.
That is only one aspect of the disorder, of the uncertainty, of the confusion that exists in the public mind, and it exists in the public mind, because of the failure of the government to do what the minister said earlier would have been done if this had been a normal year. 1 do not know what the minister considers abnormal about this year, except that he made a terrible boob in his budget last year and predicted a surplus, and then had to come in with a deathbed repentance in December and predict a deficit. If that is what he means by abnormal, that was last year. But what is abnormal about this year? The session started early; there has been lots of opportunity for the minister to bring down this budget long ago.
As my hon. friend from Essex East demonstrated so very clearly, the minister was obviously twice on the verge of doing so; because we know enough about the way hon. gentlemen opposite behave to know very well that those questions would never have been asked without some prior arrangement or consultation between the questioner and the minister. I quite agree that hon. gentlemen opposite can think up their own questions, but they are not going to embarrass the front benches-that is most of them are not-by asking questions until they know those questions will be acceptable. When the hon. member for Winnipeg South asked his question on May 1 there was no doubt from the tone of the question that he was a little shocked that it was already May 1 and there was no sign of a budget.
The minister shoved it off then for two weeks. Why did he say two weeks? Why did he say "not the first half of the month"? It is hard to understand unless he was seeking to create an impression in the public mind that in the third week of May there would be a budget. Therefore everybody had every right to expect that there would be a budget then. However, when the third week of May came there was no sign of a budget, and finally the minister blurted out the fact that
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
he was not going to present a budget in May. Apparently he is now being more cautious; he does not know when, if ever, he is going to present a budget.
We do know that the railway labour dispute was settled. We know this because there was no denial and one is reasonably entitled to surmise that since there was no denial some undertaking was given that the railways would be provided with the money to pay those increased wages, or part of them. This is a reasonable assumption, particularly when you put two things together, the failure to settle the railway dispute last November or December, and the settlement coming in May after the government received the recommendations of the MacPherson report.
This is going to be another huge addition to the deficit. How is it going to be done? Are we going to have legislation brought down in the proper way, as the Prime Minister promised, or is this just another of those promises? Are we going to have another supplementary estimate, another dole and another addition to the minister's budgetary deficit? Is that why thing are being held up? Nobody knows what is going to happen about this.
Then we had this shipping business. The minister said that his colleague the Minister of Transport did not know what he was talking about.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is untrue. That is a contemptible, false statement, and you know it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the minister has suggested that a statement I made was a contemptible, false statement. The minister knows perfectly well that when my hon. friend from Welland referred to this $1 item, he said there was no such thing. I am going to read from the Minister of Transport-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let us have the facts straight. What the hon. member for Welland said was that an item had been passed, and I said there was no item. There is not any item. No item has been placed before the house on this matter as yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unless the minister changes the record he will find that he went a good deal further than that. When I interposed and said that the Minister of Transport had said there would be an item, the minister disclaimed that. Here is what the Minister of Transport said as reported at page 4782 of Hansard for May 13 this year. That was the day after he came into the house and made his statement on motions. These words ought

to go on Hansard again. The Minister of Transport was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East:
Can the minister give us an idea of the amount of the supplementary estimate?
That was for shipbuilding assistance. The Minister of Transport replied:
My understanding is that it will be a one dollar item.
Then a little later, no page 4782, the Minister of Transport when replying to my hon. friend from Laurier had this to say. The hon. member for Laurier had asked:
As to this important program, consisting of two divisions, to assist the ship operators and the shipbuilders and the fishing industry-will all of it be put into effect by the insertion of a $1 item in the estimates?
To this question the Minister of Transport replied:
Yes. It will be inserted as a $1 item because there is no limitation to this subsidy.
Whether there is any money in the treasury or not, there is to be no limitation. The sky is the limit. He continued:
We do not want to restrict shipbuilding in Canada. I think our regulations will be drafted in such a manner that we can look at after all reasonable requests from shipbuilders and ship owners. No ship operator. I am quite sure, will risk 60 per cent of the cost of a ship if there is no market for the services of that ship. However, on the other hand, if a definite amount was set up the result would be to limit this subsidy policy and we do not want to do that.
Apparently they did not want to do it, because when they got away from this house to a place where they could be even more irresponsible than they are here, if that is possible in view of the attitude taken by the minister today, the subject was revealed in an altogether different light. Here we have a program of action, an advertisement containing the pictures of the Prime Minister and the member elect for Esquimalt-Saanich which appeared in the Victoria Colonist, containing also a list of the billions which this government has spent including item No. 10, to which my hon. friend from Welland has already referred: "$500 million aid to Canadian shipbuilding industry".
Remember, the minister said that this amount could not be estimated in Ottawa. But in Victoria, in Esquimalt-Saanich, it became $500 million, nearly as much as the total budget of Canada in the last year before the second great war. There is another way of putting it. The party opposite won that seat by a majority of about 500 votes. That majority is apparently going to cost the taxpayer a million dollars a vote.
This is the kind of finance we get in our by-elections when we do not have a budget, and no doubt that is why we did not have
Interim Supply
a budget. I doubt if the Minister of Finance would have dared to include the $500 million, that sum of more than half a billion dollars, in his deficit. Does the minister say that this advertisement, to quote him, is a contemptible lie? Is that how he would describe it? He used the words a little while ago. Would he describe this advertisement as a contemptible lie, or does he stand behind this advertisement inserted by the Esquimalt-Saanich Progressive Conservative association?
I ask the minister whether this is a truthful statement made on his behalf in order to elect another member to support him in this house, or whether it is, to quote the minister -it is not the kind of language I use-a contemptible lie, this offer of a million dollars a vote to win a by-election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister should answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will not answer, because the minister is far too embarrassed to answer. The minister is noted for his exuberance. He was even more noted for his exuberance when he was sitting on this side of the house. But I imagine that even the minister would not have been as exuberant as this if he had gone out to the Pacific coast. He did not go, and I think I know why. He did not go out there because he did not want to pledge another $500 million to the premier of British Columbia to pull the government out of the mess the government got into because he refused to pay heed to the premier's warning on the 13th of whatever month it was-February, I am told. Whenever it was, it was far too soon.
We remember how forgetful the minister was on this subject when he read that letter in the house. When asked to table it he said he would have to get the premier's permission first, although he had already read it in the house. That is a fair sample of the way in which this whole question concerning the province of British Columbia has been treated. It seems to me that no federal government has ever been more humiliated by a provincial government than this one has been over the Columbia development by the government of British Columbia, and all because it was so eager to get something else to bolster its popularity, some other vision which, without the consent of British Columbia or a huge expenditure by the federal treasury, could not be translated into anything concrete.
It may be that this is one of the reasons the budget is delayed. It may be that, having signed this treaty, they are still trying to make up their minds whether to build the High Arrow themselves at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. Maybe that is what

Interim Supply
is holding up the budget; nobody can tell. All that exists is a state of hopeless uncertainty.
I need not deal further with the motor car question, because my hon. friend from Essex East has already dealt with it. For five weeks the government have been in possession of the report of the royal commission. They have not published it. Apparently it is another secret document. In any case they have no idea what to do with it. Do they think this problem, which the royal commission was established to deal with is not an urgent one?
What is the reason for the hold-up? Perhaps the government was waiting around for the report on magazines by Grattan O'Leary. Well, they have even got that. Today was the day the secretary said it would be available to the press. Of course the secretary got ticked off by the Prime Minister, who did not appreciate premature intelligence being given, and as a result the press has not received the report and neither have we.
My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition suggests that perhaps the government is waiting for the report of the Glassco commission. Maybe the Minister of National Health and Welfare is sitting up at nights rereading the Clark report. That may be the reason the budget is being held up. Actually this matter of the Glassco report is very serious, because we remember the half billion dollars of waste there was supposed to be in the expenditures of Mr. Harris. We all remember that at a time when the budget of this country was over a billion dollars less than it is now. Perhaps the minister hopes that the Glassco commission can give him that half a billion dollars to reduce his deficit.
It may be that the minister is waiting for that great salesman the Minister of Trade and Commerce-the minister of "boo-boos", as I am reminded by my friend from Ottawa West-to sell enough extra goods to balance the deficit. Maybe that is what they are waiting for. As far as I can see, the only thing the Minister of Trade and Commerce is selling these days is the idea that the senior minister from Toronto is the Minister of Trade and Commerce and not the Minister of Finance. He is, obviously, assiduously doing that while the unfortunate Minister of Finance has to sit around here preparing his budget and rewriting it in the light of the next new half a billion dollar expenditure that one of his colleagues forces upon him for the purpose of attracting votes in a byelection.
[Mr. Pickersgill.1


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not forget the millions of dollars required by the Minister of Agriculture in connection with A.R.D.A.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought that was going to take two years. Well, I do not think anybody takes very seriously the visions of the Minister of Agriculture. We have heard of them before. The Minister of Agriculture was moved from the north further south because his vision in the north turned out to be as impermanent as an aurora borealis. I suggest we should not take any of those expenditures too seriously, except perhaps expenditures on publicity in the ministry of agriculture and the expense account of the minister himself, who today paid one of his rare visits to the house to tell us he still has not kept the promises he made to the potato growers of Prince Edward Island before the by-election. Notwithstanding the intervention of my friend from Essex East, I doubt if the minister is much worried about any expenditures under that bill for quite some time except the continued expenditures on those projects that were started, under the P.F.R.A., by a man who was practical and knew how to get things done.
It may be that the minister is hoping before he brings down his budget to squeeze down on the provinces a little more. It may be that he is putting another squeeze on them before the budget is presented. Seriously, sir,-


Richard Albert Bell: This is your first serious statement.


Mr. Ricard:: He has been talking foolishness all along.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Seriously, Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is no budget and that no one has the faintest idea how much the deficit is going to be, except that it certainly will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, presents a very difficult situation. No one can inform us how much of this deficit is going to be covered by taxes. We have only the one forecast, what I suppose we might term an educated guess, made by the Minister of National Revenue at London some months ago when he said there would probably be higher taxes. That was the impression he attempted to give.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what my colleague said at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will have the opportunity in replying, to set any facts straight which he thinks I have misrepresented.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You know that subject was raised in the house and that what you are saying is misleading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will say what he wants-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why are you not
fair and honest about this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one way to be
fair and one way to be honest, and that is to be fair and honest in telling the people of this country what the taxes are going to be. Surely we should have known by the first of May what the taxes are going to be for this year and how much was to be borne by the taxpayers. Until they know that, the people of this country are not going to be able to carry on their business in an intelligent fashion.
Whether the Minister of National Revenue was just speculating, or whether he had some kind of inside knowledge-perhaps he was just trying to mislead the public-no one will know until we receive the budget, and that is the whole point involved.
These rumours, speculations, uncertainties, and worst of all, stagnations, are all results of the failure of this government, the incapacity of this government, and the unwillingness of this government to make up its mind about these problems. I admit they are tremendous problems, a good many of them the government's own fabrication. I am not surprised that the hon. gentlemen are completely overwhelmed by them.
I do not doubt at all the rumours which are rife throughout Ottawa, and elsewhere in this country, particularly in the financial press, that there are two schools in the cabinet; the school of what we might call the extra-mural minister of trade and commerce who, while the Minister of Finance is presumably wrestling with these problems here in Ottawa, is trying to steal that minister's support in order to become the heir apparent, who would like to have a sunshine budget, and the school of the Minister of Finance which is apparently the school of gloom and doom. I do not know whether that is right or not, but it is in accord with the character of both ministers. No one knows the answer to that question, nor on which side the Prime Minister is, if he is on either side.
The plain fact of the matter is that I do not believe, as I said at the outset

I will amend my remarks if anyone can demonstrate that I am wrong-ever before in the history of this country has a parliament reached the 124th day of a session, at any rate in peacetime, without having been informed as to when the budget would be presented. Certainly never before on the 124th day of a session has parliament been treated with the contempt with which it has been treated by the Minister of Finance today when he refuses
Interim Supply
to say categorically whether there will even be a budget presented in the calendar year 1961. To ask the members of this committee to vote over $600 million more than the whole budget of this country in the last year before the war absolutely blind and without knowing where the money is coming from-who is going to pay it, how it is going to be raised, and what effect the raising of this money would have on the economy of Canada is not only the height of irresponsibility but, coming from a government headed by the man who was going to restore the rights of parliament, is a mockery of parliament and a mockery of the rights of the people of this country.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to say very much during the debate on this motion, but after listening to those members in the Liberal front benches, one after another, I thought at least one calm note should be introduced.
We are used to the sight of seeing them follow each other with more and more enthusiasm, one piling remarks upon those of another, until we get the impression that they are standing on top of a mountain instead of the molehill with which they started.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly is a mountain of debt.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I decided to sit on this side of the house this afternoon to watch the hon. members of the Liberal front benches because I was impressed this morning with the idea that there was an unreal quality about the debate. However, the more I have watched, the more I have been convinced that I have been watching a play being played out which could perhaps be entitled "much ado about nothing". In fact, I felt if we allowed them to go on, the play might well be titled "the twelfth night", before it finished.
The play they have been carrying out was written by the chief propaganda agent of the Liberal party who has relied heavily on Shakespeare, I suspect. I do not think much of the material he has used but the cast has certainly been admirable. He has certainly chosen the right people to play the principal roles in this farce, full of wind and fury, signifying nothing; those individuals with the most experience in the parts. However, the entire Liberal front bench has taken part today, and I thought the hon. member for Essex East played the outstanding role. We have heard from him twice and should be convinced by now that he is really trying for an Oscar, though I am sure he has received criticism for trying to upstage his leader.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not get to the
issue?

Interim Supply


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: When he displays outraged regard for the rights of parliament and the people of Canada, I think he overplays his role and suggests another line from Shakespeare, if I may quote it slightly inaccurately, "Methinks the laddie doth protest too much."
I am reminded by the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as well as those of other hon. members of the Liberal benches, of Shakespeare's MacBeth. I am sure that is where much of the material has come for this play today. I am sure that the poor unfortunate king who placed his safety in the hands of MacBeth was in no different position from that of the hon. members jof this house were they to listen to the Liberal admonition, that they are the protectors of the rights of members of parliament. I believe, should we leave the rights of parliament in the hands of that party, there would be that cry which was heard in MacBeth's castle in the morning, "Murder, murder most foul".
I was very struck by the solicitude of the hon. member for Laurier who gives such concerned advice to the hon. member for Vancouver East. We heard today from the hon. member for Timmins who was apparently not so alarmed about the possibilities of the government delaying the budget. The hon. member for Essex East then presented an impassioned oration following which the hon. member for Vancouver East joined with his remarks in saying that the opposition was not being done right by the government. Whereupon the hon. member for Laurier commended him and warned him to beware of his mate from Timmins. The hon. member for Timmins does not look well suited for the part of Desdemona, but the speeches made by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Laurier would indicate that they are aptly fitted to form the rest of the triangle. I would suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver East that he again read his Othello and remember that the advice of Iago to Othello did not result in that union remaining together very long. I would suggest that here we have many pieces of advice, but when the Liberal front bench starts advising the C.C.F.'ers on how to conduct themselves in this debate I am sure hon. members will realize that my likening it to some of Iago's speeches is not out of keeping.
I would end with a very short comment. Despite all their filibustering I am sure the opposition realizes that the budget will not be too long delayed. I am sure that most of the noise they make about delays covers their apprehension that they will not find in it those things to scream about that they seem to think will be there. I am sure that the [Mr. Martin (Essex East).!
people of this country, along with hon. members when they hear the budget, will conclude by saying, "Despite the premonitions of the opposition, all is well that ends well".


Murdo William Martin: May I ask the
hon. member a question? In view of the assurance he has given that there will be a budget can he say, as a supporter of the government, that he shares the view that there should be a presentation of the budget either before adjournment or before prorogation of parliament and that there should also be afforded an opportunity for a full debate of that budget in accordance with the rules of this house?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: May I just advise my hon. friend that I have every confidence in the government and in the Minister of Finance. I have no doubt that the budget will be presented in due course and that we shall all be satisfied if we just have a little patience.


Mr. McCleave:: Does the hon. member think that the role of the three witches could be played by the four horsemen of the Apocalypse?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am not sure which one of them would be content to be silent.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has described the opposition participation in this debate as "much ado about nothing". It may well be that no one is co-operating with us. To the members on the government side these things may not be worth mentioning but we feel we have certain responsibilities to the electors of this country. If the presentation of a budget and an accounting of the affairs of the country are of no concern to the members on the government side, they are to us in the opposition.
It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to deal briefly with a matter which is of grave concern to the population of my province of New Brunswick. If we had had a definite commitment on the part of the Minister of Finance to the effect that the budget debate would be forthcoming soon I would have waited for that time to make these remarks; but since we have no assurance-


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is just humbug.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -that the budget will be forthcoming soon, may I be allowed to speak briefly on this matter of grave concern to the population of New Brunswick.
Earlier today, on the orders of the day, the hon. member for Westmorland directed a question to the Prime Minister having to do with the possible assistance which could be expected from the federal government by the residents of central New Brunswick who have been so seriously affected by flood damage.

In his reply the Prime Minister took a very sympathetic attitude toward those affected by the flood and said that the government would make a decision when the damage had been assessed. I realize that this could be considered as the proper attitude to take on the part of the Prime Minister, but may I be permitted to say a few words on this matter which, I repeat, if of great concern to the population of the province of New Brunswick and particularly to those residing along the Miramichi, the Nashwaak and Saint John rivers and its tributaries.
Every member of the committee is aware of the heavy damage caused in the central New Brunswick areas over the week end of May 28 when the rivers I have mentioned rose to unprecedented heights and went on their destructive rampage. There is no doubt that the residents of those areas have experienced one of the most floods with the heaviest losses in years if not in the history of the province of New Brunswick. Bridges have been carried away; public roads have been undermined; private homes as well as churches and parish halls have been damaged or destroyed. Telephone and electric services have been disrupted. Railway lines were swept away. At this early date the over-all estimate of the damage is placed in the vicinity of $7 million or $8 million by officials of the New Brunswick disaster fund.
So far a request has been received from the premier of New Brunswick asking the federal government to contribute the sum of $250,000, being 25 per cent of the minimum objective of a $1 million fund to aid the flood victims. The government of New Brunswick has already committed itself to a contribution of $50,000 to the disaster fund. It has been made clear that this fund has been instituted to assist individuals who have suffered extensive personal losses in this unfortunate disaster.
I know that every member of this committee will agree with the premier of New Brunswick that those who have suffered so much adversity with such fortitude and raw courage deserve the friendly and willing assistance for which New Brunswickers are noted in time of trouble. However, the New Brunswick disaster fund will not take care of the heavy losses encountered by the municipal corporations or by the province of New Brunswick itself. In fact, as I said earlier, the total estimated losses of the province and of the municipalities have now reached an astounding figure exceeding $7 million, and the total is likely to climb much higher as the whole story of the damage comes to light.
Interim Supply
Everyone knows that the federal treasury contributed $12.5 million to Manitoba in compensation for the Red river disaster in 1950. This was 46 per cent of the total estimated damage of $27 million. By this yardstick New Brunswick should be entitled to receive $3,225,000 from the federal treasury.
Without insisting further, Mr. Chairman, I urge the federal government to show unlimited interest in assisting the people of New Brunswick in this disaster which is the worst financial blow that has befallen our province in the present century. I certainly know that this national disaster fund will be applied in a most generous way to alleviate the misery and hardship which have fallen on a large segment of our people of New Brunswick.
Before resuming my seat I should like to place on record a statement made in the house at the time of the Red river disaster by the then prime minister of this country, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. He did not make the statement after having been asked questions by members of the house but of his own volition he made a complete statement on motions respecting the Red river flood disaster in Manitoba and the Rimouski fire during the preceding week end. For the information of the house I should like to put on record the last paragraph of Mr. St. Laurent's telegram to the premier of Manitoba on May 8, 1950.
No doubt you will want to know now in general terms upon what basis financial assistance to you will be considered. Until the extent of your misfortune is determined, no one can be specific, but I can say in general terms that in arriving at the amount of our assistance to you, we shall apply the same principles as those upon which our assistance to the British Columbia government in connection with the Fraser river valley floods was determined.
The then prime minister then went on to say in his statement that the same kind of immediate action was taken with regard to the Rimouski fire. Without going further,. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that in connection with the disaster which has affected a large segment of our population in central New Brunswick the government will take the same kind of immediate action that was taken with regard to the flood in Manitoba and the fire at Rimouski.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I spoke for only five minutes this morning and I had not intended to speak again. However, I feel I have to rise again for a few minutes in view of the statement made a moment ago by an hon. member on the government side who said that the fact that we in the opposition had made a request or a demand-I prefer the word "request"-for a statement of policy

Interim Supply
such as can only be had through the presentation of the budget was much ado about nothing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member was referring to the Liberals.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know to whom he was referring but it was one of the most irresponsible statements I have ever heard in this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member was referring to the official opposition.


Harold Edward Winch: As I say, I spoke for only five minutes this morning and I will take only two or three minutes now. I want to emphasize that there is a very serious situation in Canada. There are most serious problems and in spite of all the legislation and policies that have been announced and brought into the house by the government during this session, a great deal of which I and other members of this group have supported, we still face very serious problems which have not been met through the medium of the declarations in the speech from the throne or legislation already introduced or policies already announced.
I can assure the Minister of Finance that in my own province of British Columbia there are serious problems. In the month of June there are thousands upon thousands who are still drawing unemployment insurance payments because they cannot find employment and the weekly payment of $36 for a married person is not enough to maintain a halfdecent standard of living. I can assure the minister that in my own city of Vancouver and in my own constituency of Vancouver East family after family has lost or is losing the amenities of life which are almost taken for granted in Canada but which they are losing because they cannot maintain their payments. Those who have tried to establish home ownership have lost or are losing their homes because they cannot keep up the payments and feed their families at the same time.
I say that right now in the month of June not only is that the position of those who are still drawing unemployment insurance benefits but there are thousands who are no longer eligible for such payments and whose positions are desperate. Something has to be done. The speech from the throne is out of the way. The government must be cognizant of the situation so the only place we can look for further consideration of these matters by the government is to a policy statement and that means the budget of the Minister of Finance. The budget not only deals with the situation I have mentioned and the trade situation to which I referred this morning but 
also with such matters as the Columbia river development which has been mentioned briefly. We should know whether there is going to be an answer to that problem this session. We should know whether or not negotiations will reach the position where the treaty can be ratified at this session of the house. If it is not ratified, this will mean a year's delay in engineering, a year's delay at least in the start of construction.
I am not a prophet of gloom or doom. I disagree with the politics of the government but I hope all of us have only one thing in mind, the happiness and security of the people of our country and the taking of immediate action of some kind to meet problems which have arisen in the past and are still with us. So far as policy is concerned, the only answer we can get is from the Minister of Finance through the medium of the budget. I want to emphasize that our representations at this time are not much ado about nothing. I will go so far as to say that the reason we plead for a policy statement through the medium of the budget is that only through such a statement can we find out whether something is going to be done and whether some new policy is going to be introduced.
Perhaps I am a little emotional, Mr. Chairman, but I have just returned from the province of British Columbia. I have met people there and have seen the suffering that still exists. I say that what we are discussing at this time is not much ado about nothing. It is something that concerns the happiness, security and standard of living of the people of our country whether they are unemployed or whether they are old age pensioners. We ask for only one thing, not a statement such as was made a few minutes ago but the acceptance of responsibility by the government in the way that we hope that all members accept and assume their responsibilities so that we can do our job as the elected representatives of those who sent us here.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Minister of Finance not going to answer the questions which were put to him from this side of the house, particularly since the luncheon adjournment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have answered those questions twice already.


Mr. Pearson:: Oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Leader of the Opposition says "Oh". He was not here to hear me this morning. The hon. member for Essex East simply repeated questions that were asked this morning by the hon. member for Laurier and others. I answered them once this morning and then I was asked the questions again and I repeated the answers. What

more can one do? I have given all the information I can on the subject because the date is not set, and I told the house that the date would be imparted to hon. members as soon as I am in a position to do so. I also said that I hope and expect to bring in the budget this month. 1 cannot say any more than that.
We have seen this afternoon why it is that sometimes no firm statement can be made about a date because look at what has happened. It was understood on Saturday by all parties in the house that there would be cooperation and that the debate today would not be extended. What have we seen? It is now four o'clock. The house has been on this matter since shortly after eleven o'clock this morning. The understanding has simply been thrown to the winds. We have had speech after speech. The hon. member for Essex East I think has spoken three or four times in repetitious speeches.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Twice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had called a very important budget meeting for this afternoon. The fact that this debate, in violation of the understanding that had been reached, has extended until now means that the budget has to be one day later. I cannot be in two places at the same time. This is just a repetition of the sort of thing that has gone on previously. I could say some things that I think are abundantly called for in the course of this discussion today. I will, however, say only that, after all the time that has been spent in vain repetitions, I hope the house will pass this necessary vote of interim supply and give what assistance is required in this respect to get on with the preparation of the budget. The result has been that this important meeting today will either not be held or will be greatly reduced. I cannot be held responsible for delays of this kind when they happen in this way. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I could speak in the kind of attitude that has been exhibited here today by some hon. members opposite. However, I will say only that I hope good sense will prevail and that we can get on with the business of the house.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the resolution carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We over here are not very much impressed by the minister's attitude of outraged virtue and injured innocence. I will therefore ask him questions which have already been asked him and to which he has not replied. If he would reply to these questions perhaps we could then get on with other business. Here are the questions.
90205-6-371
Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say at once that the Leader of the Opposition, for what may be good and sufficient reason about which I do not know, was not here this morning. I answered the questions twice on this subject. I gave to the committee all the information that I could give. There is no use in the Leader of the Opposition coming along now and asking questions that I answered this morning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister will answer these questions or refuse to answer them. Will a budget be brought down before the end of June 1961, or before the adjournment of parliament in 1961 and will we have an opportunity to debate that budget? That is a simple question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a simple answer to it. I will refer the Leader of the Opposition to the answer I gave to that question this morning.


Lionel Chevrier: On that point may I say this. The only reply made by the Minister of Finance to the questions from this side of the house were these. He said no budget would be brought down this week. Next he said that he had the hope and expectation that one would be brought down before the end of the month. Notwithstanding the fact that several other questions have come from this side of the chamber, he has not replied to them. I refer to one that was asked of him by myself, another by the hon. member for Essex East and a third by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The question is this. Will we be given the opportunity, when the budget is brought down, to debate it continuously before the end of this month?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I refer the hon. member to the plain answer I gave to that question this morning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let it be clear in the record that the minister has refused this afternoon to answer the simple question of whether there will be a budget during this session and whether we will have a full opportunity to debate it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Let it be clearly understood that the minister has already answered these questions two or three times now and he stands by the answers that are a matter of record.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall
the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply WAYS AND MEANS
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Chown in the chair.

['Ten thirty.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, the sum of $633,958,817, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-103, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1962.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Chown in the chair.
On clause 1.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, the sum of $633,958,817, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.']
Lionel Chevrier: A moment ago the Minister of Finance was complaining that he was held here until four o'clock this afternoon because of repetitious speeches from this side of the chamber. I can assure the minister that he could have been out of here by 12 o'clock if he had wanted to be out of here then. He could have been out of here by 12 o'clock if he had answered some of the questions that were put to him during the course of this discussion, particularly that question having to do with an orderly and continuous debate on the budget, in respect to which we were at least entitled to have an assurance from the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should be glad to deal with any proper questions in relation to this bill. The bill is in the usual form.
As to the remarks now just made by the hon. member for Laurier, let me tell him that he received answers to his questions this morning and those answers are a matter of record and they will be a complete and sufficient answer to his most unjustified remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: Since when does the minister determine that it will be a complete and satisfactory answer? That is an arrogant way of putting the matter, I may tell the minister. I say that we on this side of the chamber are entitled to receive from the minister better treatment than that. On Saturday, the minister asked what the position was going to be with regard to the opposition and I quite clearly indicated that we would give cooperation in so far as interim supply was
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown).]
concerned. However, I say this to the minister. We have not received from him the cooperation that we on this side of the chamber are entitled to receive. All we have are two statements, one, that the budget will not be brought down this week and the other that he hopes and expects that a budget will be brought down before the month is out. That is not satisfactory, coming from the minister. The least he could have said is that we would be given an opportunity of a continuous and full debate on the matters concerning the finance and the accounts of the country without an interruption such as that which we had at the time of the Christmas recess.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister whether he has personally examined the bill carefully and ascertained that it is in the precise language of the resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the bill was drawn by the parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons, who drew it in the same form and gave me the assurance it is in the same form as usual. 1 have read the bill through. I believe it is in the same form as has become standard now in bills granting interim supply.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-$633,958,817 granted for 1961-62.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, in connection with clause 2 I just want to ask the minister, with regard to one twelfth of the amount in schedule D, whether there was not an amount voted in respect of this item on the last interim supply bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One sixth of all items in the estimates was voted two months ago, and additional fractions of certain items as well. As I explained in opening this morning, the present vote now before the committee contains provisions for one sixth of all items, and then additional fractions of some 24 items.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedules A, B, C and D agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
['Shall clause 2 carry?']
Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 30, 1961, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder)-Mr. Fulton-Mr. Chown in the chair.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. House in committee of the whole on clause 3 of Bill No. C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder). Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have dealt with that clause.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Clauses 1 and 2 were carried, were they not?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 was allowed to stand and clause 2 was carried; that is my recollection. Clause 1 was allowed to stand, with the possibility of amendment on the question of police officers and prison officers.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Could the minister assist me as to whether or not clause 1 has still to stand and we are therefore on clause 3?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that would be the best way of proceeding, I think, if that is agreeable to the committee.
On clause 3

Capital murder to be specifically charged.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, clause 3 reads as follows:
No person shall be convicted of capital murder unless in the indictment charging the offence he is specifically charged with capital murder.
Would the minister tell us just who is going to determine whether to prosecute in cases falling under clause 3. Is it the Attorney General of Canada's office or the attorney general of the province concerned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend will appreciate that the enforcement of the Criminal Code in matters of this kind is the responsibility of the attorney general of the province. The Attorney General of Canada does not authorize prosecutions for murder except that he may have some authority in the territories; but in the provinces it is the attorney general.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the minister say who is going to determine whether the accused should be charged with capital murder or non-capital murder.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is, of course, a very important question. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is right in saying that obviously those who are charged with the administration of justice should have that responsibility. But in discharging that responsibility they are going to have to be able to satisfactorily define the words "planned and deliberate". As there is not going to be any real jurisprudence in this matter for some time, that is, settled jurisprudence, how can we leave it to law officers of the crown in this way?
I am sure all hon. members were impressed the other evening with what the hon. member for Essex West had to say when he expressed his concern about the apposite character of the words "planned and deliberate". Is the problem not going to arise in the minds of many law officers of the crown, in the right of the province?
The minister had no difficulty in answering the question of the hon. member for Essex West. I have looked back on what the hon. member for Essex West had to say and I bear in mind that he has had very considerable experience as a lawyer. If he was concerned, and if there was this difference of opinion which is going to prevail right at the outset, does the minister feel that this matter can be left in this state in the face of this misunderstanding?
I do not know what effect a renewal of the plea made by us for consideration in a committee of this house will have on the minister after the interval of four days of cessation of debate, but I can say to him that since we have debated this matter I have reviewed it with some persons in this country who have had very considerable experience in the prosecution of criminals. Their concern is as great as that of the hon. member for Essex West with regard to the meaning of the words relating to what is a capital murder and what is non-capital murder.
To leave this in the hands of law officers of the crown at this stage, when there is no jurisprudence and when there is no precise definition of the words is, I say, leaving a matter of this sort in the greatest state of uncertainty. This is altogether different than the kind of action that revolves around the cabinet in the exercise of the royal prerogative. There the obligation, while no less important than that contained in deciding the form of prosecution indictment, is entirely different. There is not the same precision required in the mind of a cabinet member as there is determining what is "planned and

Criminal Code
deliberate" in the mind of a person who is to authorize the laying of a charge from which will flow, if found guilty, a punishment involving death or life imprisonment.
I believe that one at least is justified in expressing one's concern again, particularly in view of the fact that we have had some opportunity since this matter was last discussed of reviewing the matter with other interested persons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the effective answer is that the law officers of the crown in the provinces now have the responsibility, and it is very heavy and serious responsibility, of deciding whether or not a charge of murder or manslaughter will be laid. The same duty, no different in principle will, admittedly, face those responsible, that is, the duty of deciding whether the evidence in the possession of the prosecution will support a charge of capital murder on the one hand or non-capital murder on the other. It may be it will not support a charge of murder at all, or that a charge of manslaughter will be laid. So there is no difference in principle and I doubt whether there is very much difference in degree, because at the present time a decision has to be reached whether to lay a charge of murder or manslaughter, one carrying the penalty of death and the other not. We are now simply subdividing murder into two categories one punishable by death and the other not, so the duty which falls on officers of the crown is in my view no different from that which they have now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree there is no difference in principle, inasmuch as the crown now has the responsibility of deciding whether to prefer a charge of manslaughter or a charge of murder, but in making that decision the crown now has the assistance of a considerable body of jurisprudence as to what constitutes manslaughter and what constitutes murder. That is clear. What the crown has now to do, which is new and which provokes this question, is to decide in the absence of practice or with the benefit of very meager practice, except, perhaps for the persuasive influence of precedents in the United States, what constitutes planned and deliberate murder. We have had already in our debates a clear expression of differences of opinion with regard to what "planned and deliberate" really means. I took the opinion of one hon. member of this house who, to my knowledge, has had considerable experience in the interpretation of statutes-the hon. member for Essex West-* and in this connection I would remind the minister of a discussion which took place the

other night on this particular matter, a discussion which revealed differences of interpretation. Such differences are going to prevail, I say, in the offices of attorneys general, in the offices of crown prosecutors, when they come to determine what constitutes "planned and deliberate" in the course of deciding, in certain cases of homicide, whether the charge should be in respect of capital or non-capital murder.
The minister may say: I have expressed my views and made myself very clear as to what I mean. It is true that the crown if it wishes to ascertain what is meant by capital murder and non-capital murder may look at the debates of this house for the purpose of elucidating the meaning. They may rely- I am not saying improperly-upon the words of the Minister of Justice. But I would remind the minister that the courts cannot look on our debates here and on the words of the minister in order to determine what "planned and deliberate" means. The courts are themselves going to define the words "planned and deliberate" just as over the years they have given clarification and meaning to the phrase mens rea. To place this initial responsibility in the hands of the law officers at this stage gives reason for concern about the interpretations which will be placed on them in one jurisdiction as opposed to another-I am not saying this will necessarily happen.
I had a very important criminal lawyer in the province of Ontario tell me the other day that in a discussion of these words with a number of lawyers including an official connected with the office of a law enforcement agency there were three different opinions expressed as to what was meant by the words "planned and deliberate". The minister is not resolving this problem simply by saying he is leaving it to the officials charged with the administration of justice. That has not settled the matter. It can only be settled humanly by making sure that we have resorted to phraseology which is capable of the strictest meaning in accordance with the capacity of the human mind to formulate words which represent as accurately as possible the purpose that one has in mind.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just answer the observations of the hon. gentleman before the hon. member for Vancouver South speaks? I am not saying that this is the final answer to the problem but we have, of course, endeavoured, and, I believe, with success to use words which are in themselves a precise definition of the kind of murder which will be capital murder from now on. It is true that jurisprudence will be built up with regard to this new category of murder as, of course, jurisprudence is built up as a result of any substantial amendment to the criminal

law. This does not mean that we should not go ahead and make this new subdivision of murders into categories, making clear at the same time what it is that constitutes the difference between the two categories as we have done here. I would point out, for instance, that in the United States when murder was first divided into degrees this was a new concept. In the commonwealth of Pennsylvania whose provision in this respect has been the basic one upon which all the others, generally speaking, have been founded, it was laid down that-
-all murder, which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kinds of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate-
Then follow a number of offences.
-shall be deemed murder of the first degree.
In my submission, the words "wilful, deliberate and premeditated" were no easier to interpret than are the words "planned or deliberate". But the legislature in Pennsylvania did not shrink from saying them and making a departure from the previous law when they thought it was appropriate to do so, having taken the precaution of indicating, as definitely as their legislature then could, precisely what it had in mind and what must be proven in order to constitute the subdivision of murder.
I said a moment ago that the crown officers will have a duty no different from that which now falls upon them. The duty they have now is to decide whether to lay a charge of murder or one of manslaughter. In future they will have to decide whether the charge shall be capital murder, noncapital murder or manslaughter. Cases may arise in the future, just as they do now, where there will be difficulty in reaching a decision. In that case the authorities can lay a charge of capital murder on the basis of which the jury may convict of capital murder, or non-capital murder if they feel that the graver charge is not proven, just as now a charge of murder may be laid and the jury may convict of manslaughter if they feel the charge of murder has not been proven. I do not deny that there may be cases where this will be the only proper course for the crown to follow. In general, however, it is our view that the accused should be charged with the offence for which he is to be tried. That is why we have provided that if a man is to be convicted of capital murder he must be charged with capital murder.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice has, at least in part, covered what I have to say. I find myself in a position similar to that of the hon. member for Essex East,
Criminal Code
in that I am slightly worried about the actual wording of clause 3, which reads as follows:
No person shall be convicted of capital murder unless in the indictment charging the offence he is specifically charged with capital murder.
That gives me a little concern. I am not a member of the legal profession and naturally have taken the opportunity, since this bill was introduced, of consulting with members of the legal profession who are experienced in the law, and particularly in cases involving homicide. I find myself having to accept the advice they have given me, and should say at the outset that I think it is sensible.
Those individuals have pointed out to me that the person responsible for drafting an indictment, even as the law now exists, must have a decision whether the charge should involve a conviction and sentence for capital murder, or manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Those advisers also pointed out to me another matter which I think is of concern. I hope the hon. member for Essex East will follow this situation. It has been suggested that with the adoption of this new law there will be no backlog of jurisprudence and, therefore, it should not be adopted. I suggest if that were the case, we could never make any advance in legislation. This represents a new law and will have to be interpreted. I therefore suggest the argument falls completely to the ground.
One other point, which was brought to my attention by those members of the legal profession with whom I spoke, has been partially covered by the Minister of Justice this afternoon. When an officer of the crown decides to draft an indictment which involves capital punishment and the evidence shows that it was incorrectly drafted, I am advised that it is then within the power of the judge to give direction to the jury, making certain recommendations and, under the proposed act, the jury will have the authority to bring in the finding that murder, in a capital sense, is not involved but rather homicide in the other sense, or manslaughter. In fairness I think I should state that, having consulted several members of the legal profession, I have been advised by them unanimously that the situation I have just outlined is the fact, and I, therefore, have to accept the wording as contained in this bill.
On clause 4-Pleas permitted.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, in respect of clause 4 I should like to say that I have some concern. Not being a member of the legal fraternity-thank	God, perhaps-I
should like the minister to explain the portion of this clause which reads as follows:

Criminal Code
An accused who is charged with an offence punishable by death and is called upon to plea may plead not guilty, or the special pleas authorized by this part and no others.
It was my understanding that when a charge was laid against an individual in court there were only two pleas which could be taken, guilty or not guilty. I should like to ask the minister to explain the use of the words "may plead not guilty or the special pleas".


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the pleas are autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, or pardon.


Harold Edward Winch: Could you put that in English?


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is to say, that the accused has already been tried for the same offence and acquitted-that is autrefois acquit; that he has already been tried for the same offence and convicted, that is autrefois convict; or that he has been pardoned for the offence. Those are the three special pleas. If either one of them is established, the case is disposed of and there is no trial.


Harold Edward Winch: Thank you very much.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the wording of (2a) which reads as follows:
An accused who Is charged with an offence punishable by death and is called upon to plea may plead not guilty,-
The word "may" seems to be in contradiction of other sections of the act because it is a right that an accused can plead not guilty. Why is the word "may" or, in French, "pent" used there?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, the same
thought occurred to me because that portion is tied in with clause 5 which also states that the accused may plead not guilty, although in that case it is when he is charged with an offence other than one which is punishable by death.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, an accused must plead something. The law provides that he may plead-the word "only" is not in the code but I use it here-he may plead only not guilty or the special pleas authorized by this act, and that is all he can do. Those are the only pleas he can give which will be accepted.


Harold Edward Winch: Why do you not use the word "shall" then?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This clause has been written to conform with the present wording of the section which we are actually amending. The effect of it is that on a charge of capital murder an accused cannot plead guilty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not raise this argument now, but it will be said by some that a jury will know that an accused could not plead guilty and will be influenced, therefore, to some extent in its decision. I do not raise that argument as my own, but possibly to elicit some comment from the minister which will assure other hon. members of this committee. The point is that because an accused cannot plead guilty a jury might be influenced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am not able to follow that argument or appreciate it because the statute provides that certain pleas only can be entered, and I do not see how the jury could be prejudiced or influenced by that fact. An accused can only make those pleas which are authorized by the statute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: An accused person may not plead at all. He may refuse to say "not guilty", and cannot plead guilty. In that event, of course, the court automatically enters a plea of not guilty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If a jury was not aware of the law with regard to a plea of guilty, it could draw conclusions detrimental to the accused. I raise this point on behalf of individuals concerned with this point.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I become confused with the complexities of legal terminology but should suggest that we might get along a little better if laws were made much simpler so that they could be understood by laymen who actually are the individuals who form juries. It is difficult to understand that portion of this clause which reads:
An accused who is charged with an offence punishable by death and is called upon to plead may plead not guilty or the special pleas-[DOT]
Under clause 5, if the offence is punishable by death, it has to be a plea of not guilty because the court cannot accept anything else. Let us go back to paragraph (2b) of clause 4, which I think is even more confusing in legal terminology than clause 5. It reads:
Where an accused who is charged with an offence punishable by death does not plead not guilty-
He cannot plead anything else but not guilty. I continue:
-or one of the special pleas authorized by this part-
The minister was kind enough to explain this to me a little while ago. I cannot understand why the wording in (2a) and (2b) refers to "not guilty" when in clause 5 it is

made mandatory, it there is a charge punishable by death, that the plea must be "not guilty". Why this confusion in terminology; why is it necessary?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. member must bear in mind that in a statute of this kind it is hardly desirable that the statute itself should direct the accused in so many words as to what plea he shall enter. The statute should provide only what the pleas are that may be entered, and in this instance it does provide what they may be. This is quite different, and it is an important difference or distinction, from saying by statute that the accused shall enter a plea of so and so. That distinction to our minds is important. Therefore, we have said that in the case of an accused charged with capital murder he may enter one of three special pleas, or a plea of not guilty.


Harold Edward Winch: Or guilty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, we say that a plea of guilty may not be accepted, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: Clause 4.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend will permit me to complete the sentence. He will find, if he reads clause 4, that a plea of guilty may not be accepted; that is, a plea of guilty to a charge of capital murder. If he does not plead not guilty, or one of the special pleas authorized by this part or does not answer directly, the court shall order the clerk of the court to enter a plea of not guilty. I do not think anything could be much clearer than that.
First of all he is given his option to enter any one of four pleas, not guilty, or one of the three special pleas. If he does not enter one of those pleas, or if he stays silent, then the court orders that the plea to be entered shall be not guilty. That is perfectly clear and to my mind a readily understandable method of providing in the proper legal phraseology that there cannot be a plea of guilty to a charge of capital murder accepted by the court.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Pleading over.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I think there is no objection to this clause except I feel that some part of it is unnecessary because a judge would refuse to accept a plea of guilty on a capital charge, or most of the judges would in any event.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is some uncertainty here, Mr. Chairman. My officials tell me, and have told me for some time, that they have always been told themselves when making research into this matter that there was one
Criminal Code
occasion where a plea of guilty was accepted and the accused was executed. It is quite true, I am advised, that we have not been able to run it down and produce the case, but neither can we disprove it positively, and rather than take a chance it seemed to us that the proper thing to do was to exercise an abundance of caution and make it perfectly clear that a plea of guilty cannot be accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Effect of previous charge of capital murder or non-capital murder.
Paul Joseph James Martin: This is merely an extension of the old common law principle of autrefois acquit or, as the minister said a while ago, autrefois convict but as I read the clause now this amendment really carries the idea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict a step further. It goes much further than the existing codification.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If my hon. friend will look at section 519 as it stands at the present time, particularly subsection (2) thereof, he will see that the new subsection simply parallels the other one. That subsection refers to conviction or acquittal on an indictment for murder. We parallel that by providing in subclause (2a) the law that will apply with respect to conviction or acquittal on an indictment for capital murder.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Where capital murder charged and, part only proved.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to make some remarks with respect to this clause and ask the minister some questions. The effect of this clause, of course, is to make non-capital murder an included offence in a capital murder charge. May I suggest to the minister that the necessary practical effect of this is going to be that every crown counsel throughout the country will not decide beforehand whether he is going to get a conviction for capital murder or otherwise. What he will do in every instance is to charge capital murder because this will probably prevent the escape of any accused person. It has been my experience both in my reading and in my practice that the crown counsel never charges manslaughter under present circumstances. He always charges murder and uses this as a basis of a possible reduced plea. Since the effect of all these sections together is that it is not possible to accept a plea of guilty in capital murder, the pressure will be on the defence counsel and on the accused, if, as will happen in every case, the crown counsel lays a charge of capital murder, to remove any

Criminal Code
possibility of a death sentence, and therefore there will be a guilty plea on a reduced charge of non-capital murder.
I would suggest to the minister that this might well be considered before the discussion on the bill is concluded, and that if noncapital murder were not an included offence, but if the option was taken away so that there could only be a conviction, if there had been separate counts charged in the indictment. In other words, that non-capital murder be not an included offence, but that there must be a specific charge in the indictment, one for capital murder and one for non-capital murder. This will prevent the possibility of dickers being made to get a guilty plea on the lesser charge.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take issue with the statement made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls. It has been my experience in at least three cases that I can lay my mind to that in the cases which were charged with murder, the original preliminary inquiries were held where all the facts were ventilated. When it appeared on the examination of those facts that the graver charge was not justified the attorney general's department reduced the charges so far as the indictment was concerned, and when the accused appeared before the jury he appeared on a charge of manslaughter and was tried on that charge.
It has been my experience that most agents of attorneys general, or crown counsel are responsible people who are determined to see that the charge which is laid is one which meets the facts. However, I should like to ask the minister this question. Am I correct in assuming that clause 7 as amending section 569 will leave five alternatives? If a charge is laid in respect of capital murder, will there be these five various alternatives open, capital murder, non-capital murder, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity and not guilty? Would all of these five alternatives then be available if a charge is laid for capital murder pursuant to this amending clause?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I just follow up where the hon. gentleman left off. I recognize that in doing so we are not giving the minister the opportunity to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Niagara Falls, with which I hope he will deal. As I understand clause 7, it would appear from the proposed amendment that on a charge of capital murder there are seven findings open to a jury: guilty of capital murder, guilty of attempted capital murder, guilty of non-capital murder, guilty of attempted non-capital murder, guilty of manslaughter, guilty of infanticide or not guilty. I have had some

difficulty with this clause. Is this as far as that clause goes? If this is the correct interpretation, has the minister given consideration that the jury might make a finding of manslaughter if the facts warranted it?


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask how a person can be guilty of attempted capital murder? I do not quite understand that. If you have committed murder, how can you be guilty of attempted capital murder?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The conviction, as I see it, would be related to an attempt to commit capital murder. That is a perfectly well understood principle.


Harold Edward Winch: And if you are found guilty the penalty is death?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are only liable to the death penalty if you have killed someone and it is found to be capital murder, but the code does provide that a person may also be charged with an attempt to commit that offence and may be found guilty of an attempt to commit that offence. That is the situation in respect of a verdict of guilty of an attempt to commit the crime.
On the question of whether or not there should be two counts included in the same indictment, which was the point raised by the hon. member for Niagara Falls, it seems to me there would be certain objections. In the first place, the two charges are mutually exclusive. The person was either guilty of capital murder or of non-capital murder. He could not be guilty of both. Therefore it seems to me we would have to charge them in their alternatives and you would have one trial. We think that is undesirable, however, particularly in a case of this seriousness where it seems to me to be only appropriate that the crown should itself determine what is the charge for which the accused is going to be placed on trial. If he is going to be on trial for his life, the crown should so charge it. Alternatively, if he is only going to be placed on trial for an offence that involves life imprisonment he should know that and he should actually be placed on trial as the result of a charge accordingly. He should not have to meet them both either concurrently, which I think would be impossible, or alternatively. We think the crown should make up its mind and lay the charge accordingly.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I say that I quite agree with the last words of the minister. If I were satisfied that in all provinces the practice was followed which one of my colleagues informs me is the practice in Alberta I would agree that this is the best sort of thing. The best way would be if crown counsel in the very first instance would make up their minds whether they are going to prosecute for

Criminal Code
capital murder or non-capital. Failing that, perhaps it would be possible to follow the practice that apparently is followed in Alberta whereby a preliminary hearing is held and, on the basis of the evidence adduced at that hearing, crown counsel would decide to reduce the charge if the evidence would only support non-capital murder. This would at least mean that the trial before the jury would be only on the basis of that which the crown was able to prove. While I do not have any statistics with me to this effect, I think it will be found that at least in the province of Ontario the practice is that murder is always charged and is only reduced either as a result of the grand jury procedure or as a result of a plea taken or of directions and the jury's decision.
The hon. member for Vancouver East mentioned another point about an attempt. I am not able to find in the code at the moment exactly what the penalty is for an attempt. Although my recollection is not very clear, I believe that the maximum penalty for an attempt in the case of an indictable offence is half the maximum penalty if the offence has been completed. Perhaps the minister will recall that point. You cannot half kill some one, of course.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must apologize to the hon. member. I was not able to follow what the hon. lady was saying.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Does the minister remember what the general penalty is for an attempt at an offence?


Gerald William Baldwin: Section 210 covers that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Section 210, to which I have been referred, reads as follows:
Every one who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
I notice no amendment in the bill before us today to provide a difference between capital and non-capital murder in this regard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We do not think it is necessary. Obviously you would not impose the death penalty for an attempt to commit capital murder because there would be no life taken. Therefore the maximum penalty would be life imprisonment. This section provides that an accused convicted of an attempt to commit murder is liable to life imprisonment. The hon. member for Niagara Falls will remember that the definition of murder is not changed by this bill. What is new in the bill is that murder, if proven, is in turn divided into capital and non-capital. So all you would have to prove in the future, as has been the case in the past, is an attempt to commit murder and then, whatever kind of murder the accused may have intended, he is still liable to life 90205-6-372
imprisonment. We did not think any amendment was necessary under the situation as it exists.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I wished to draw the minister's attention to the matter because the apparent raison d'etre behind the whole amendment now before the committee is that there seems to be a gradation of guilt between those crimes which are premeditated and those which are not. Thus there should also be a gradation between those attempts at intentional crimes and the other types.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think so because the gradation here is where a life has been taken. Where a life has been taken and it is found to be murder, murder is then divided into capital and non-capital and the death penalty or life imprisonment follows respectively. But that is dealing with the case where life has been taken, that is, murder has been accomplished. The offence to which the hon. member is now directing her mind is the offence of attempting to commit murder and there the law already provides a penalty of life imprisonment. It seems to me that is the maximum penalty that it would be desirable to provide at any time for a crime which does not succeed or result in the taking of life. For that reason we did not think there was any necessity to amend that section, bearing in mind that whether it is capital murder or non-capital murder it still must be murder. Therefore it is not necessary in the charge of attempt to commit murder to say whether the accused intended capital or non-capital murder. All he has to attempt is murder and then he is liable to a penalty up to life imprisonment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I assume that the six categories of guilt I have stated as being comprehended in this section are correct, but I suggest to the minister that it might well be stated in the section that the jury may make a finding of manslaughter if the facts so warrant. That is not authorized in clause 7. Assuming the incapacity to prove any one of these six categories of guilt, why should the jury not be specifically authorized to make a finding of manslaughter if the facts warrant it?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East has begged the question on the point I first brought up. I think subsection 2 of section 569 meets the hon. member's point but I do not know whether it meets mine. That subsection reads as follows:
Subject to subsection 3, where a count charges murder and the evidence proves manslaughter or infanticide but does not prove murder, the jury may find the accused not guilty of murder-

Criminal Code
I am assuming then that we have written into the word "murder" as it appears in subsection 2 "capital" or "non-capital" murder and that it would then read in effect as follows:
2. Subject to subsection (3), where a count charges capital or non-capital murder and the evidence proves manslaughter or infanticide but does not prove murder, the jury may find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter-
What I am trying to get at to the minister is this. Am I correct in assuming that in the case of non-capital murder, there can still be a reduction to a conviction of manslaughter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. In that case-of a charge of non-capital murder

there may be a reduction of the verdict to manslaughter. As I understand it, the hon. member for Essex East correctly listed the possible verdicts which a jury can bring in on a charge of capital murder.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am satisfied about that matter. It is covered in subsection 2.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Right of appeal of person sentenced to death.
Robert Jardine McCleave: recognize the hon. member for Roberval.


Mr. Roberge:: I will sit down if I am so designated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: meant the hon. member for Megantic.


Gabriel Roberge: I am a little bit puzzled about clause 8 and the exact meaning of it. I am now referring to subclause 2 which reads as follows:
A person who has been sentenced to death shall-
If I understand the matter correctly, the only persons who may be sentenced to death according to the Criminal Code or according to the bill before us are those guilty of culpable killing for instance, while committing piracy or capital murder. In cases of that kind sentence is imposed by law. The other instance would be in the case of treason. The clause reads as follows:
(2) A person who has been sentenced to death shall, notwithstanding he has not given notice pursuant to section 586, be deemed to have given such notice and to have appealed against his conviction and against his sentence unless that sentence is one fixed by law.
Will the minister tell us exactly what the meaning of that subclause is? Is or is not a man who is found guilty of capital murder able to appeal against the sentence or should he appeal only against the conviction? What about the other instance in which a man is found guilty of treason?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer is that in the case of a conviction for capital murder he would not be able to appeal against his sentence. He would only be able to appeal against the verdict. That is, of course the case of most concern. The situation is similar wherever the sentence is one fixed by law, where it is a mandatory sentence. However, in the case of treason, as provided in section 47 of the code, my hon. friend will note that there the sentence is optional. The section provides:
47. (1) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an Indictable offence and Is liable-
I would direct my hon. friend's attention to subparagraph (b).
- (b) to be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph (d),	(f) or (g) of subsection (1) of
section 46;
Obviously as to a person who was convicted of treason and sentenced to death, it is only appropriate that such person would have the right to appeal against the sentence as well as the finding.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Suspension of execution of sentence of death.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Will the minister indicate how this is going to work under clause 9? Suppose we have the case of a man who has been sentenced to death but whose execution has been fixed for a certain date. Where is the line of demarcation? He has a right of appeal. Can the minister indicate how this is going to work? Can he give us an example?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The explanatory note makes clear that the purpose is to ensure that where-ever a sentence of death has been imposed, the execution of the sentence will be suspended until after the termination of the appeal which is now provided as of right and indeed automatically to the court of appeal of the province. I would think that such a provision as that which we have in clause 9 is necessary, because the date of execution still must be fixed, and even although the judge imposing the sentence may have allowed what he regards as, and what under ordinary circumstances would be, ample time for the conclusion of the appeal, there may arise circumstances that would have the result that the appeal is not disposed of by the date fixed for the execution. The clause now before us makes it perfectly clear that if that situation should transpire then the date of execution is automatically postponed and a new date set on application to a judge who might have presided at the trial at which the accused was sentenced.
Another clause also makes it clear, and I think provides for the first time in specific

terms, that the application for extension or postponement of the date of execution does not have to be heard by the judge who actually presided at the trial. There was in Ontario one case which was a very difficult one indeed, where the judge who presided at the trial I think was away on holidays or ill and a very real question arose as to whether another judge of the trial division had the right to postpone the date of execution. We do not wish that sort of difficulty or uncertainty to arise again. Hence, in addition to providing an automatic right of extension, another clause makes it clear that any judge of the trial division who could have presided at the trial may extend the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that is a necessary and good provision. However, I am wondering whether the language is not a little bit dangerous. The clause states:
-it may be fixed by the judge who imposed the sentence or any judge who might have held or sat in the same court.
That language could be open to any interpretation. A judge might find himself sitting in weekly court when obviously it is not intended that he should be the judge who should have the right of providing for a stay of execution or of fixing another date. Obviously, what is meant is a judge of the same jurisdiction or a judge of co-ordinate jurisdiction such as judges of the trial division of the supreme court, but not "any judge who might have held or sat in the same court". The judge may be a retired judge or it might be a judge in admiralty sitting in a court of general sessions or something of that sort. This is an ambiguous phrase. I think what we really mean is that the judge who shall have the power to fix another date must be a judge of the same order as the judge who imposed the sentence in the first instance. If that is the case, I think that is what we ought to say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend will note that these words appear to have been taken from another provision in the code. We are looking it up now.
I think his fear that it might authorize, for instance, a retired judge to fix the date of execution is not well founded, because such a retired judge would not be a judge, and the words we have used are:
-any judge who might have held or sat in the same court.
If my hon. friend will refer to section 643 (2) of the Criminal Code he will see the same words used:
Where a judge who sentences a person to death considers-
90205-6-372J
Criminal Code
Then there are certain things referred to, and the section goes on:
-the judge or any judge who might have held or sat in the same court may, at any time, reprieve the person for any period that is necessary for the purpose.
So these words in the clause before us which deal with an order for the stay of execution are taken from the section dealing with reprieve in the Criminal Code. We felt it best to use the words that appear to have had an established usage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now that we have the opportunity of using more precise language, why do we not do so?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We think this language is perfectly clear and precise.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10

Transcript of evidence.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, of course the whole purpose of this legislation, inter alia, is to avoid sentencing anyone to death for a crime he did not commit. That being the case-it is a minor point, but it is a point that is consistent-why not make sure that not only the court of appeal but the accused also shall be supplied with the necessary documentation? Why not make sure it is supplied to the accused as automatically as it is to the court?
Why do we give to the judge the power of dispensing with documentation? I do not understand why the judge is given authority to decide what documentation, the evidence, the judgment, the charge and all that sort of thing, should go to the court of appeal. I think that if there is an appeal all this material should go to the court of appeal, and at the same time, to make this clause consistent with the general purpose of the bill, the evidence ought to be supplied to the accused as well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid my hon. friend stopped at subclause 1 of this clause, because if he had read subclause 2 he would have seen this expressly provided:
A party to the appeal is entitled to receive
(a) without charge, if the appeal is against a conviction in respect of which a sentence of death has been imposed or against such sentence, a copy of transcript of any material that is prepared under subsections (2) and (3).
That is, prepared for the purpose of the appeal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If he is sentenced to death?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But not if he is
charged with-

Criminal Code


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only case in which we have provided an appeal as of right or, if the accused does not take it himself or through his counsel, an automatic review, is where the sentence is death. This is the only case where this automatic appeal lies. We have expressly provided that in such case the accused is entitled, without charge, to a copy or transcript of any material used in the court below, for the purpose of the appeal.


Gabriel Roberge: Perhaps the minister will tell me whether or not I am correct about this. I think I am. The accused will be furnished with all the material that has been transcribed, but he will not be furnished with the material which the judge orders not to be transcribed; is that right?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The only purpose of the provision that a judge of the court of appeal may dispense with the reproduction of part of the record below is that there may well be parts that all parties agree are not essential to be reproduced for the purpose of consideration in the court of appeal.
If there were any point to it, or if the accused wanted it, then I am quite certain the judge would order it to be included in the material provided for the court of appeal and would order that material to be provided to the accused.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That may be, but
the clause does not say that. All judges will not be as reasonable as the Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend would find that in capital cases the judges of the courts would not order the omission of something which it was urged was essential to the preparation of or assisted in the preparation of the case for the accused. We do not want to provide automatically that everything, including material that may not be of any relevance or pertinence, must be reproduced.


Gabriel Roberge: The clause provides:
-the addresses of the prosecutor and the accused or counsel for the accused by way of summing up, if
(i) a ground for the appeal is based upon either of the addresses,
shall be furnished to the court of appeal, except in so far as it is dispensed with by order of a judge of that court.
Why is there that restriction in the clause under consideration?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The clause also says:
-or if the appeal is pursuant to section 583A.


Gabriel Roberge: That is in that case; but if the accused gives notice of appeal he is not furnished with a copy of the address of the prosecutor or of his counsel if in the grounds of appeal there is no point arising out of those addresses.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why should he? If he really wants them, all he has to do is put them in as one of his grounds of appeal. He has only to put in his grounds of appeal an objection to the address of the prosecutor, and then he gets it. However, if there is no objection to the address of the prosecutor, why should it automatically be reproduced? We think it is a sensible provision to provide that it should not be reproduced unless it is relevant to the appeal; in other words, unless it forms one of the grounds of appeal.


Gabriel Roberge: It might not be absolutely necessary, but it might be useful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, as my hon.
friend knows, many lawyers anyway, out of an abundance of caution, include grounds of appeal upon which, in the final analysis, they may not be going to rely in their argument. If he thinks it is necessary or desirable, all he has to do is put it in his grounds of appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
On clause 13-Recommendation by jury.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some comments on clause 13. Perhaps it may seem rather strange that I, a person totally opposed to capital punishment, should be discussing the legalities which arise in this bill which will have the effect of putting a man to death, but I suppose that is one of the paradoxes of being a member of parliament.
I must admit that clause 13 made me do quite a bit of soul searching because there is a very important principle involved here. May I say in the first instance that on balance I think I agree with the principle and support of clause 13, but I would appreciate hearing from the minister and other hon. members their views about this.
Under this section we have this provision: Where a jury finds an accused guilty of an offence punishable by death, the judge who presides at the trial shall, before discharging the jury, put to them the following question:
You have found the accused guilty and the law requires that I now pronounce sentence of death against him-*
Then the judge adds:	,
Do you wish to make any recommendation as to whether or not he should be granted clemency.
As I see it, we are placing a dual responsibility on the jury. First of all the jury has to decide whether or not the person before the bar is guilty of homicide of a nature which carries the death penalty. That is a mighty grave responsibility to place upon a jury, and only the jury can decide that matter. They know they are actually, within the strict terms of the law, deciding

whether a man or woman shall live or die. I, personally, should hate to be placed in that position, but society demands that this course be followed and I think it is correct that it should. Having found a person guilty, the question is put to them whether they make, or do not make, any recommendation for clemency. On first reading this clause it was my impression that if a recommendation for clemency was forthcoming from the jury the governor general in council would have recourse to the royal prerogative and commute the sentence to one of life imprisonment.
I regret I was not able to be here when the previous discussion took place on second reading, but I understand through reading the newspapers that this point of view was confirmed by a statement of the Prime Min-nister-that in future all recommendations of clemency made by juries would be accepted by the governor general in council and that the sentence of death would automatically be commuted. We are, therefore, in this situation: under the terms of this clause not only is the jury responsible for deciding whether a person is guilty or innocent but, in addition, it must decide, in effect, whether, having found a person guilty, the penalty is to be carried out. If they say nothing they are, in effect, saying "death", unless, of course, clemency is exercised by the governor general in council in exceptional circumstances. If the jury recommends clemency they are saying that the sentence shall be one of life imprisonment. Perhaps this is as it should be. On balance I have had to come to the decision that this is the correct principle to follow, but I want to add that a great deal of soul searching was necessary before I could bring myself to agree that this double responsibility should be placed on juries as distinct from the responsibility placed upon them in the past when they had only to decide whether a person was guilty or innocent, it being then the responsibility of the governor general in council, reviewing all the evidence and all the circumstances, to decide whether or not clemency should be invoked.
From the wording of the clause as it stands it appears that the government is accepting what I understand to be the principle in Californian law where the same procedure must be followed. I am afraid I am getting repetitious, but I have been distinctly worried about this clause and I should like to hear the minister explain the basic reasoning which led him to draft this clause in its present form. As I say, I think it should be supported. On the other hand I should like to hear a little more about the reasoning behing the placing of this double responsibility on juries.
Criminal Code


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am convinced that the meaning of this clause is not clear and that its interpretation would give the courts a great deal of difficulty. It has always been our law that a jury when acquitting or convicting a person charged with a crime must reach a unanimous decision. If they do not, a disagreement is recorded. In the past, juries have on occasion brought in recommendations of mercy on their own initiative. Our juries, I believe, attempt to agree to a much greater extent than do juries in the United States, and perhaps this is a good thing. In any event, most lawyers who have had a great deal of experience in the practice of criminal law-I cannot profess to be in that category-tell me that often recommendations for mercy in this country represent a compromise. It may be that a few jurymen hold out for a conviction while a few are in favour of acquittal; agreement is then reached that a finding of guilty shall be returned with a recommendation of mercy.
The clause as now drawn is a complete departure, as I understand it, from the present conception of the roles of the judge and the jury. It was for the jury alone to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused; they have had no part in the sentencing of the accused, and the judge, being presumed to be one of great experience, was the person to whom had been delegated the responsibility of determining the sentence. Now we are changing that. Under clause 13, a question is to be put to the jury regarding any recommendation for clemency. I ask the minister -and a reply to this question is, it seems to me, important-is a unanimous vote required, as in a determination of guilt or innocence? Suppose one juror is against clemency being granted while 11 are in favour? Would there be an announcement of a disagreement of this kind. The wording is not clear. I think consideration should be given to asking the jury to record a majority vote on this question. The jury should therefore be asked whether a majority of their number is in favour of making a recommendation for clemency. Otherwise, I am told, there will be a great deal of confusion on this point, certainly with good reason, because there is no authority here for a judge to take the initiative himself in determining whether a majority or unanimity is required.
It seems to me that the clause can be clarified by an amendment, if it is thought desirable to leave it in its present form. I shall be prepared to speak to it later but I put it forward now for the purpose of discussion, at least.

Criminal Code
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that clause 13 be amended as follows:
That all the words after the figures 642 (a) be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
The judge who presides at the trial of an accused charged with an offence punishable by death shall at the time of charging the jury inform the jury that if they find the accused guilty, although they are not bound to make a recommendation for clemency, they are entitled to do so, and that any recommendation will be included in the report that he is required to make of the case to the Minister of Justice and will be given due consideration.
The amendment does not take into account he question which I myself raised concerning unanimity or a majority of opinion on the part of the jury in favour of clemency. Possibly I should have waited until I obtained the minister's reaction to my suggestion that the jury should be instructed to indicate whether they expressed a majority decision or a unanimous decision, and then the consequence could have been incorporated in the amendment. However, the amendment stands for what it seeks to do, and it may be of value in obtaining some reaction from the minister as to both the ideas I have expressed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, one of the provisions of this proposed act which is alarming to me is contained in clause 13 of the bill before us. The minister is undoubtedly aware of the procedure which takes place in a court room, but I hope he will forgive me if I outline a part of it for the benefit of those members of this committee who are not familiar with that procedure.
For instance, hon, members may not be aware that a murder jury, whether the case involves capital murder or non-capital murder, is locked up, whether it be for hours or overnight, until it has reached a verdict and presented it to the court. When it has reached a verdict the jury is brought back into the open court room in the presence of the accused's counsel, members of the public and press, at which time, having presented its verdict, the provisions of this clause would be read. Whether the verdict presented represents a majority decision or a unanimous one, defence counsel has the opportunity of polling the members of the jury as to its verdict. The judge will then ask the members of the jury whether or not they wish to recommend clemency. I suggest that is a departure from the principles of justice because there should not be any suggestion made to a jury that they recommend against clemency.

I suggest most juries in Canada are sufficiently sophisticated to know that there exist instances when clemency can be recommended.
In many cases, although during the charge from the justice to the jury nothing was said regarding their right to make recommendations, the jury has come back into the court room, following deliberation and before announcing their verdict, asking if they had a right to do so. Juries are then informed that they of course can do so. They then are returned to the jury room where they decide this question.
Under the situation which will exist by the adoption of clause 13 of this bill before us, the question as to whether a jury recommends clemency or not, will be asked by the justice following delivery of their verdict. In other words the jurymen would be sitting in open court when the question was asked. I ask hon. members of this committee to consider what might then well happen. No deliberation in those circumstances could have been made in regard to such a recommendation nor would there be the opportunity afforded members of the jury to discuss this matter among themselves. The question having been asked of the jury, the foreman might well be startled, turn to the jurymen behind him, and then give an answer to the question which may or may not represent the opinion of the rest of the members of the jury. He may recommend clemency, or may recommend against it. In any event, whichever he does, it may not be the unanimous feeling of those gentlemen sitting behind him. That being the case, another member of that jury could stand up and inform the court that it was not representative of his opinion. It must be remembered that this would take place in open court without the jury having been afforded an opportunity to deliberate on this most crucial point.
I suggest the situation which I have alluded to is important particularly in view of the Prime Minister's statement a day or two ago that a recommendation for clemency would be tantamount to an escape from the gallows. I should hope that what the Prime Minister said could not be interpreted as being indicative that a recommendation against clemency would be tantamount to closing the door ensuring that the individual would hang.
Nevertheless, and because of the great importance being attached, not only by the Minister of Justice, but by the Prime Minister as expressed in his speech, to this particular feature of the new legislation, I suggest that a law, which could be taken as standing between an accused and the gallows, should not be interpreted by a judge so that such a question could be put to a jury in a casual

way, in an open court room, the jury not having the opportunity to deliberate and discuss the matter.
Hr. Chairman, in the consideration of a subject as vital as this, disregarding the question as to whether or not the cabinet is shirking its responsibility by placing this decision upon the shoulders of individuals in local communities who make up juries, the phraseology used in this clause should be designed in such a way as to require the judge to inform the jury, without undue emphasis one way or the other, that it has the right Jo recommend or not recommend clemency, during that portion of the trial when the judge is charging the jury as to the law. If such were the case, when a jury had deliberated and decided whether the facts established a capital charge, it could then deliberate and discuss the question of recommending clemency, which would then be reported to the court, following the announcement of the jury's verdict.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, section 13 is an innovation in our legislation. In fact, it was partly on the basis of that section that I said during the debate on second reading of the bill, that because of section 13, the whole of the bill resulted, for all practical purposes, in the abolition of capital punishment.
A while ago, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) moved an amendment and I supported it with pleasure because I feel that it will greatly improve section 13 as it was submitted to us.
It is obvious that if the judge includes that question in his charge to the jury, the latter will be in a position to recommend or not to recommend mercy when they bring in their verdict. I feel that that is a great improvement and I sincerely hope that the minister and the government will take action in that respect.
(Text):


The Chairman:: Do I understand the hon. member for Essex East to have moved the amendment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Jacques Flynn: I had thought the hon. member had indicated his intention to move such an amendment later.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Chairman, I moved the amendment, or intended to.


Jacques Flynn: In that event, I shall put the amendment to the committee.
The hon. member for Essex East, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont moves that clause 13 be amended as follows:
Criminal Code
That all the words after the figures 642 (a) be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
The judge who presides at the trial of an accused charged with an offence punishable by death shall at the time of charging the jury inform the jury that if they find the accused guilty, although they are not bound to make a recommendation for clemency, they are entitled to do so, and that any recommendation will be included in the report that he is required to make of the case to the Minister of Justice and will be given due consideration.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, when I said a few words on clause 1 of this bill, I stated that if I had not been unavoidably absent when the vote was taken on second reading, I would have supported the bill. I also indicated that I had certain reservations with regard to the provisions of the bill, and what I had in mind was section 13 which is now before us.
I followed with close attention what my colleague from Essex East (Mr. Martin) had to say in introducing his amendment, just as I followed the very clear statement made by our colleague from Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh). I do think that if the presiding judge must ask the jury this question after the verdict has been given, this places the jury in an extremely difficult position. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the Minister of Justice and the government, in putting forward this section 13, are transferring to the jurors -in fact, to the general public-the responsibility of the royal prerogative.
I have here, Mr. Chairman, an article which appeared on May 30 last in the Toronto Star, which reads in part as follows:
(Text):
Prime Minister Diefenbaker made it clear yesterday he believes juries should decide whether a murderer will hang-and his cabinet will abide by their verdicts.
(Translation):
This certainly implies that if there should be a recommendation for mercy, the governor in council will accept it and that in all cases, even if the jury who made the recommendation was in the wrong, the governor in council will commute the death penalty into life imprisonment or another penalty.
That is a heavy responsibility to be thrown upon the shoulders of jurors who already have to decide whether there has been capital or non-capital murder.
It would be much better for the jury if the judge would explain the law when he makes his comments on evidence or law matters. Under this new section, if the jury And the accused guilty of capital murder. They will not know exactly what they should do. First, as was pointed out by the hon. member

Criminal Code
for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh), it happens very often at present that the jury ask the judge when they come back into the court, whether they have the right to recommend clemency.
As the act stands now, there is no such provision but the judge will say nevertheless that they may so recommend.
Now, in all cases where this clause would apply, the jury would deliberate twice, and I believe such a procedure should be followed, as I just said.
(Text) :


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this amendment because I feel it should not be supported and I will vote against it. The basic trouble with the proposed amendment is that it will confuse the jury. Under the jury system, the first duty of the jury, or of the judge when he is sitting alone, is to find whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. The question of sentence or of punishment should not come into it whatsoever while the jury, or the judge when sitting alone, is deciding the innocence or guilt of the party charged. As the act stands now, this is exactly what happens. The jury first decide the guilt or innocence of the accused and report their finding to the judge. At that point they are not confused in any way with the question of punishment or with the result of their finding.
It is very easy for a judge-or it should be easy for him-to keep the two problems before him separate in his mind, but it is not easy for a jury. They have a great many problems to consider when they are trying to determine whether or not an accused is guilty. I think it is fairly simple after they have brought in their finding of guilty of capital murder. They have carried out this part of their duty and the only part that they have normally to decide by law. However, after having sat on a jury trial for perhaps several days, or a week, they have heard all the evidence that has been given and they have come to a conclusion as to guilt. They are also qualified at that particular moment to come to some decision on the question of clemency. But the time at which they must direct their minds to it is after they have made their decision on the guilt of the accused. Therefore, having delivered their finding, they are asked a second question.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls pointed up the difficulty that might arise but I cannot agree with her that it is likely to arise. There is no reason on earth why the jury, having been asked the second question, if they wish to make a recommendation of clemency, ought not then to retire again to

the jurors' room and consider this second question. I can understand that they should not decide right away while they are sitting in their seats the way they do when they are selecting a foreman, which I think is what the hon. member had in mind. We often find that a jury will look around and see some person there whom they all know, and somebody says "We appoint a certain person foreman", which is really not a matter about which they even need to leave the courtroom. But when it comes to the matter of clemency, I could not possibly see how a jury would right offhand make a finding of clemency. They should then again retire.
However, if there is any feeling that the clause is not clear or that some confusion might arise, perhaps it could be clarified to the point where the jury should be asked to retire again to the jury room. Frankly, I do not see that it should be necessary. I think a judge would deal with them in the same way as he does when they come in and ask for further directions. He would merely be giving them further instructions as to their duty. They would again retire to the jury room and take as long as they felt necessary to come to a conclusion.
I think the bill as drafted is perfectly satis-actory. The amendment would do no more than confuse the jurors as between the two duties that they are being asked to perform.


Harold Edward Winch: As I said a few moments ago, I found this section very complex. Now that the amendment is before us I find it very ticklish and difficult to come to a decision. Basically, I like the idea of the amendment in that the decision as to guilt and recommendation for clemency would be arrived at at one and the same time; but I can also see a certain complication which I am not certain that I like. For this reason I personally would like to get a greater exposition of the reasons why the amendment should be accepted. I make this request for two reasons. If the amendment carries we shall have the clause as amended. Although this may seem a little far fetched, I still think that by reason of the judge making this statement in his charge to the jury, there will be, whether we like it or not, a little pre-supposition of guilt. I say that because we find the word "if" is included. He is not yet found guilty or innocent but if he is found guilty, then two courses are open. As I said, it may be a little far-fetched but there is an implication there of the supposition of guilt. I wish there were a psychologist here. I say there is psychologically enough here to make an impression on a juror's mind. This is the first faint doubt which comes to my mind with respect to the amendment.
There is a second doubt which to me is a little more important. If the clause is amended

as suggested we will have the jury sitting in camera and at one and the same time considering the guilt or innocence and punishment of the accused. I have done a great deal of reading on matters which pertain to homicide and juries. If my understanding of what I have read is correct, it is quite conceivable that a lot of bargaining will go on during the deliberations of the jury. They will sit there hour after hour trying to reach a decision and one juror will say, "Very well, I will vote for guilty if you will vote for clemency and mercy". I think it is almost certain that will happen so therefore the function of the jury in determining only the guilt or innocence of the accused is being undermined. There will be bargaining or compromise with respect to guilt or innocence, and I do not think that is what is intended by our law. In the light of what I said a few moments ago when we first discussed this question, these two perplexing questions come to my mind. I hope I have laid sufficient groundwork so that those who favour this procedure will rise and expound further on why it should be accepted and whether there are arguments against the two points I have raised and tried to make clear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the reasons why we made the change in the law in the form of the amendment as we now have it, have been admirably summarized by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and it is for those reasons that I would be unable to agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Essex East in moving his amendment. I also bring to the argument that I want to advance the views expressed by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
First, we felt that it was appropriate that the jury should be asked whether they had a recommendation to make. That is the first thing, and I will come back to the reasons why we feel that is appropriate in a moment. I want to deal now with the stage at which the jury should be asked that question. After most careful reflection we feel very strongly that they should not be asked to consider that question while at the same time they are considering the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused. These are two entirely separate things and the first thing that juries should be asked to decide is, is this man guilty of the charge or is he not guilty?
I do not think I can do much better than the two hon. members to whom I have referred have done in attempting to indicate why we feel it is inappropriate that the two questions should be mixed, but perhaps this additional argument is relevant. Surely if the crown prosecutor referred in any way to the
Criminal Code
possibility of commutation or the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy it would be grounds for a new trial. It would be quite improper for him to try to suggest to the jury, come on, you might as well bring in a verdict of guilty because there is always a review by the cabinet and the possibility of commutation. This, of course, would be objected to and I am quite sure that even though it was ordered to be stricken from the record it would still be grounds for a new trial. It would be a most improper thought to intrude into the minds of the jury at a time when they were asked to consider whether or not the man was guilty as charged or innocent. I will not use the word "improper" in connection with the amendment and I am not suggesting for a moment that it is offered improperly in any sense but I think it would be unwise to adopt it because if carried into effect it would import an improper element to be considered by the jury, that is, improper for their consideration at the time when they are deliberating their verdict because it certainly could not fail to open to their minds the possibility that the matter is not so very serious after all if they find him guilty in that they can make a recommendation of clemency I think this is very dangerous and it would be a bad thing to import into the minds of the jury at that stage.
But I see nothing improper at all or unfair to juries, having brought in their verdict as a result of a process of deliberation in which their minds have been exclusively directed to the question of guilt or innocence, that it should subsequently be said to them, "You have brought in your verdict and have satisfied yourselves and reported accordingly that the accused is guilty; do you or do you not have a recommendation to make with regard to the exercise of clemency"?
It is true that this does then place another duty upon the jury, that of considering whether or not clemency should be shown but, as I have indicated before, this is not a duty which it is improper, unwise or unfair to ask the jury to discharge. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said, they have perhaps sat for days and have heard all the evidence. They are the twelve peers who have been asked to decide whether their fellow human being is guilty or innocent of the offence charged. Surely, therefore, they are proper persons to be asked subsequently while the evidence is still fresh in their minds, including the evidence brought forward by the defence, "You have found the accused guilty of the crime of capital murder; notwithstanding that, do you nevertheless feel that there is something in what you have heard that in your judgment would warrant

Criminal Code
a recommendation that the royal prerogative of mercy be exercised and clemency shown"?
With respect to the question of whether or not they should deliberate that problem in open court, I agree with the hon. member for Niagara Falls that it would be very inappropriate for them either to attempt to reach a snap verdict or to find themselves in controversy in open court, but I agree fully with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka that it would be quite natural for the judge to suggest to them or invite them to retire to deliberate their decision on this matter just as they deliberated on their verdict. I do not think that poses any problem.
Perhaps the remaining problem is the question of whether or not the jury should be asked to do this and there I direct hon. member's attention to the findings of the Gowers royal commission. I agree that its findings are not the final word with respect to what should be done in Canada especially but nevertheless a group of very experienced judges and jurists came to the conclusion that indeed it was not only not wrong to ask the jury whether or not they thought clemency should be exercised but they also felt it was not wrong to ask the jury to determine what the sentence should be. They suggested that if the jury brought in a verdict of guilty they should then be asked whether the sentence should be death or life imprisonment. We certainly do not go that far. We think that would be wrong in that the law itself should provide the penalty automatically, but we feel it is perfectly proper for the jury to be asked whether they have an opinion or recommendation as to clemency.
I have one further word before six o'clock. Some suggestion has been made that the Prime Minister said that a recommendation for mercy would automatically be followed by commutation. I cannot find that anywhere in his statement made in the house on May 29. I do not know whether it is based on these words which I find at the bottom of page 5527:
Having heard the evidence and having come to the conclusion on the basis of the law as explained to them by the judge that a verdict of guilty is the only one they can bring in, a jury ought none the less to have the right to add a recommendation to mercy, and having done that, to hope that the royal prerogative will be reasonably carried out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He speaks somewhere else of the jury in relation to its opportunities as a member of the community. I have not got the reference here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will look through it again. I do recall the Prime Minister referring to the regard that ought to be had and the weight that would properly attach to a recommendation of a jury of the accused's peers
(Mr. Fulton.]
but I find nothing in the Prime Minister's statement to say that the recommendation is other than a recommendation and to say that it is or should be automatic as far as the cabinet is concerned.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
William Hector McMillan: In connection with clause 13 there are one or two points that are not clear to me. A jury must be unanimous in its decision to find a person guilty of an offence punishable by death. In case a jury returns a verdict of capital murder, before passing sentence the judge will be obliged to ask whether the jury has a recommendation for clemency. My question to the minister is this. Must the jury be unanimous in the decision to ask for clemency? Suppose they are divided about half and half. What happens then? Would the jury be polled in open court in connection with the recommendation for clemency? Suppose all but one had made a recommendation for clemency. Could he prevent it and vice versa? This seems to be a very important matter and it is very indefinite in this clause.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is, as I understand it, no provision for polling a jury anywhere in our statute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says there is no provision for polling?


Edmund Davie Fulton: So we made no provision for polling a jury with respect to a recommendation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely that is not the question. The question raised by the hon. member for Welland was this, and it was the same question that I had raised myself previously. What was the recommendation to consist of? Was it to be a unanimous decision or a majority decision? The minister's reply to that question is that there is no provision for polling the jury on this point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. My reply was to the hon. member for Welland as to whether there was a provision for polling the jury with respect to the recommendation. My answer was confined to that matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister mind repeating that answer?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said that my reply was to the hon. member for Welland as to whether there was any provision for polling the jury with respect to the recommendation. My reply was that there is no provision for that.


Murdo William Martin: The minister then replies and says there is no provision. I urge that there should be a provision and I inquire of the minister what was the intention of the minister since no reference was made to the possibility of a divided judgment. Suppose the jury had divided, as the hon. member for Welland has indicated, one for and eleven against. In that event will the section become operative? Will effect be given to the decision of the majority? In the case of the determination as to guilt the rule of unanimity applies and, in my opinion, wisely so. But in a matter of secondary importance- secondary in the sense that it is not as important as is the question of guilt-it is reasonable to argue that there will be some misunderstanding.
I can understand the minister being concerned about making a provision for it. The minister may possibly want to leave that matter to chance and to allow a practice to develop. However, I doubt whether that practice can eventuate because unless the jury know positively that a majority will be sufficient, they will not act; and unless the judge knows that a majority will be sufficient, he will not permit it to eventuate. Thus the purpose might be seriously defeated. In other words now is the time for us to meet this ambiguity and the ambiguity is there. Does the rule of unanimity apply? There is in this clause nothing that enables us to give a satisfactory answer to this question.
The point I sought to raise was that we should deal with the matter forthrightly and should indicate whether or not the majority or unanimity rule was required. Personally, in the case of clemency, I would think that where a majority of the jury recommended for clemency, it ought to operate. The minister may not have that view but he can state his position. However, we should not leave this section in the ambiguous state in which it is at the present time. In the first case confronting this amendment a judge may well conclude that he will accept a majority decision. Another judge in another jurisdiction may decide that he will not do so. There is no law which determines which judge would be right. Now, when we are passing an amendment to this particular section, is the time to remove any doubt and this is the place in which to do it. We in the legislature should not leave any doubt existent when we have an opportunity of removing it. I think the remarks made by the hon. member for Welland are appropriate and that they bear out and confirm what I myself sought to indicate earlier.


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I indicate that, to my mind, this point, if it is to be pursued
Criminal Code
further, should not be dealt with at this time because the amendment does not deal with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is correct.


Jacques Flynn: If there are other views to be expressed on the amendment I think that it would be more appropriate that they be expressed before we pass on to this new problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are right, Mr. Chairman.


Gerald William Baldwin: It seems to me that this clause as originally drafted was quite plain and quite clear until the hon. member for Essex East offered his amendment. I think he has muddied the waters sufficiently to have created a great deal of difficulty. I suggest that the hon. member for Essex East in offering this amendment has completely misconceived the function of the jury. From time immemorial the function of the jury has been, in the words of the charge they receive, to try and make true deliverance between our sovereign lady, the queen and the prisoner at the bar. Their duty is to ascertain from the evidence presented whether the accused is innocent or guilty. The effect of the amendment offered by my hon. friend will be to send the jury on a detour where they may, and in many cases probably will, lose sight of what is their main function. The amendment introduced by the hon. member is in fact an invitation to juries to compromise on their verdicts. It is a suggestion to a jury and I am sure they will accept it as a direction by a judge such as is contained in the charge by a judge when directing the jury as to what the law is and what the functions of a judge and jury are.
This amendment would have the effect of the jury being told: "If you are in difficulties; if you find that one or two of the jurymen are not prepared to go along with a verdict of guilty or are not prepared to go along with a verdict of not guilty, you can bring in a verdict of guilty and couple that with a recommendation for mercy at the appropriate time".
I say that should not be done at that time The jury should come to its verdict as tc guilt or innocence on the evidence, and then it is functus officio; their duty is completed. They may then be asked, after they have brought in their verdict on the issue of guilt or innocence, whether or not they wish to make any recommendation so far as clemency is concerned.
May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that I think my hon. friend, in dealing with this matter, laid the foundation of his argument mainly on the ground that there might be

Criminal Code
a divided jury. However, there are many instances which occur to me where other reasons would justify a jury making a recommendation for clemency after their verdict had been rendered.
Consider a case of insanity for example. I mentioned this when I spoke on second reading. The evidence offered to prove insanity may not be sufficient to bring it squarely within the M'Naghten rules. However, there may be sufficient evidence to indicate such a degree of mental defectiveness as will not justify a verdict of not guilty because of insanity, but which may put a jury in the position that, having brought in the verdict of guilty as they are required to do by law, when the opportunity is later offered to them they will say, "We think that on the strength of the evidence submitted we are perfectly justified and it is perfectly proper for us to bring in this recommendation for clemency".
I can think of a case of provocation. Under certain circumstances provocation justifies a verdict of manslaughter. I can think of many cases where there might be provocation and the provocation may be grave. Then, having suffered the provocation, the accused might go and secure a weapon and come back and commit the crime of murder. Then there would be those elements of preparation and planning which are essential to prove a charge of capital murder as defined in this bill.
The jury might decide that while the preparation and planning, which were incidental to the offence, did not permit them to find the accused not guilty of capital murder, after having brought in the verdict of guilty and when asked this question by the judge they might say "We feel we should make a recommendation for clemency".
I can think of a case of two young boys, one of whom is a few weeks under the age at which sentence of death can be pronounced upon him and the other just a few weeks over that age. Surely a jury, in those circumstances, having fulfilled their duty and having brought in a verdict of guilty of capital murder might, when invited by the judge under the terms of this clause, feel there should be a recommendation for mercy because they feel it is wrong that one man should have his life spared and the other should suffer the penalty of death.
Those are some circumstances which could justify recommendation for clemency, but they should not be brought in at the same time as the main verdict; they should be considered as matters completely extraneous to the main issue, which is that of guilt or innocence. Once that has been decided, then and then only should the jury consider this question of clemency. For this reason, Mr. 
Chairman, I must say that I cannot in any way support the amendment introduced by the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, this is the third time I have risen to speak to clause 13. I do not apologize for rising again.
I do not think we can differentiate between the principle of clause 13 and the amendment. I raised a number of points both on the section as originally drafted and on the amendment and I am not going to cover that ground again. However, during the dinner recess I had the opportunity of looking into this clause and the amendment in more detail and I should like to ask, before a vote is taken on the amendment or on the clause as originally drafted, if we could hear the Minister of Justice's views on what I think is a rather important point.
Under the clause as contained in this bill we have the situation where after a jury find a person guilty the judge puts a certain question to them and asks whether they have any recommendation to make with regard to clemency. Under the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Essex East we have the recommendation for a change which means the two questions shall be put at the same time in the charge of the judge to the jury.
This leads me to a major matter of principle and a question which I hope the Minister of Justice will see fit to answer. My point is this. I still feel that basically, in principle, both clause 13 as contained in the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice and the amendment moved by my hon. friend are the same. However, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. This is based on the law of California and a number of other states in which the jury has a definite say as to the penalty. Under the law of California and many other states the decision of the jury has a definite bearing upon the penalty.
Three times this afternoon the Minister of Justice stated that the penalty should be set forth in the statute. I hope I am not misinterpreting the statement of the minister, and I agree with what he said. The Minister of Justice nods his head, so apparently he thinks I have put the correct interpretation on his words.
The principle of clause 13 and the amendment give the jury, either before or after reaching their verdict, depending upon whether you take the clause in the bill or in the amendment, certain authority. Since six o'clock I have had an opportunity of looking at the speech made by the Prime Minister. I must say that I feel if one reads the comment of the Prime Minister as found on page 5528 of Hansard there can only be

one inference taken from that statement. The minister will find the statement at the bottom of that page. The inference is that a recommendation for mercy by a jury is one which must receive the most serious and moral consideration of the governor general in council. I can therefore understand from reading that one sentence why the press interpreted it as meaning that a recommendation for mercy from the jury would mean commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment.
I should like to ask the minister if he can tell this committee what is the end result of clause 13, bearing in mind his contention that the penalty should be provided by law and the fact that this clause, even with the amendment, is based in principle on the statutory law of California. Why should the Minister of Justice reject the idea of prescribing in law that when there is no recommendation from the jury it means the death sentence unless the royal prerogative of clemency is exercised, and that recommendations of clemency would automatically mean the commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment?
The minister knows that this is the law in many states and, in principle, clause 13 even as amended means the same. I think this is an important matter and I hope the minister will see fit to explain why, since he has followed certain statutes in the south so closely, he has not carried this idea to its completion by making the penalty depend on the decision of the jury.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In approaching this problem we reached the conclusion that the jury should have one primary task, that is, to determine whether or not an accused person is guilty as charged. The verdict may be varied, of course; a man may be found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter and so on. But we feel the jury should be in a position where they can approach this awesome task without their minds being burdened by consideration of whether or not they themselves are to be in the position of determining what penalty the accused should pay. We think the jury should not have to determine that question.


Harold Edward Winch: You are doing it under clause 13.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. If the hon. member will bear with me, I will endeavour to explain to him why not. We think the jury should pass on the question of fact, whether or not the accused is guilty of the charge for which he stands trial. That is all, up to this point, that they are required to determine and they are entitled to be placed in a position where they
Criminal Code
may make that determination without having at the same time to take into account the consequence of their verdict. Therefore we have endeavoured in the legislation to isolate this task as far as it can be isolated.
I am not suggesting for a moment that jurymen are not human beings and that they have no knowledge of the law but in so far as the law imposes on them the duty of ascertaining whether or not a person is guilty or innocent they are entitled so far as it can be provided to bring in that decision without being distracted by extraneous consideration.
Having done that, they are then asked, in accordance with clause 13 now under consideration, to say whether or not they think the accused, whom they have found guilty, should be shown clemency-whether they think any recommendations should be made in this respect. We have deliberately separated the two processes, the two tasks, if you like, which we are imposing on the jury.
For reasons I gave before six o'clock we think it would be improper to invite anyone to place before the jury at the time they retire to consider their verdict the question of whether or not their considerations in reaching a verdict should be clouded by the question of mercy. To do so would certainly be placing upon jurymen a perplexing task. Some members of the jury might be inclined to acquittal. Those who were inclined to a verdict of guilty could say to them, if the amendment of the hon. member for Essex East were adopted: never mind about holding out; let us get together and agree because even if we do convict the judge has told us we can bring in a recommendation for mercy; so let us convict and bring in a recommendation for mercy; if you will agree to convict we shall agree to support a recommendation. Thus the simple question of guilt or innocence would be clouded with these other considerations.
That is why we have thought it esential to keep these two questions apart and for the jury to consider them entirely separately. It is only after a jury has found an accused person guilty of capital murder that they are invited or instructed by the judge that they may, if they wish, bring in a recommendation. The jury will then retire and reach a decision on that point. This being the system we have devised and incorporated into this bill I must beg to differ with the hon. member for Vancouver East when he says it is based on Californian statutes. It is not. Under that system, if I read it correctly, the jury which tries the issue of facts is also charged with the ultimate decision as to what should be the penalty, that is, whether

Criminal Code
the penalty should be death or life imprisonment. If the hon. member has followed me thus far he will appreciate we have not adopted that practice.


Harold Edward Winch: That is my question. Why have you not adopted it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am coming to that. We have imposed on the jury the responsibility of determining guilt or innocence and then we have made clear in our law that they have the right to bring in a recommendation. I am sure my hon. friends will appreciate that the recommendation is only a recommendation and is not binding. We have done this deliberately because we felt that the law itself should provide the penalty in respect of an issue as supremely important as life or death, and it is not right to impose upon the same 12 men, who have had the responsibility of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused, the responsibility of saying whether that accused shall pay the death penalty or shall be subject to a lesser penalty. We feel the law should provide that, and that legislators should say that. I do not know whether or not my hon. friends will agree with that.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the minister a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand the law of California is such that a jury, having found a person guilty, is then charged by the judge as to the penalty and must decide upon the penalty. I understand a jury in California must do that according to the statute.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member? Could the minister inform this committee whether there is any obligation upon the jury in respect to a recommendation for clemency? I understand that a jury is charged with finding a man guilty or innocent, and I should like to know whether there is anything further for which a jury is responsible, particularly with regard to the recommending of clemency.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. member refer to the law in California?


Edwin William Brunsden: No, I refer to the law in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it the hon. member means at the present time?


Edwin William Brunsden: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. The simple issue before a jury involves the question of guilt or innocence. That is the only issue which we feel

can appropriately be placed before the jury as a matter for their final and ultimate determination.
With respect to the law of California, if I read it correctly, it provides that the trier of fact shall fix the penalty. Therefore, the jury, being the body to try the fact, as to guilt or innocence, under the provisions of California law must fix the penalty in accordance with its verdict.
I am not sure that my hon. friends will agree with me, but I can only say again that we have considered this very carefully and have rejected that approach. We felt that it is not proper, fair, nor indeed appropriate to the jury system to have the same twelve men who are asked to decide this awful question -awful in the proper sense of the word-this awesome question as to whether a man is guilty or not of a charge of capital murder, then to go on and decide whether the man shall be hanged. I do not think that is a proper question to put to a jury. I think that is a responsibility of the legislators; that is, to say whether or not a person found guilty of capital murder shall hang, and that is what we are inviting this committee to provide.
The issue before the jury is then simple. It is simple but is awesome, and it is the only proper responsibility to impose upon the jury -deciding whether a man is guilty of capital murder or not. The jury having decided that question, it is our feeling that the law should provide the penalty. Then, as outlined in clause 13 of this bill, the jury is asked subsequently-not as part of a mixed bag to be considered at the same time-whether or not it wishes to make a recommendation for or against mercy, and it makes that recommendation without regard to the guilt or innocence of the accused because that issue has been settled.
My friend, the hon. member for Peace River, has posed the sort of consideration that we think proper to put to the jury. A jury may have found a man guilty of capital murder because it found that the technical defence of provocation, which would have absolved the accused from guilt, was not fully established. Perhaps a mounting series of provocations and irritations occurred and he finally succumbed to that provocation but instead of committing the murder immediately the individual went out and bought a gun and 24 hours later, or in some cases, with a few hours' intervention, committed the offence. In that event the law is such that the defence of provocation is not available to the accused, yet members of the jury might feel, as I have said to the committee earlier, there but for the grace of God go I; I should have done the same thing had I been subject to the same considerations,

provocations and irritations; I should not have been strong enough to stand up against them. That jury cannot avoid finding the man guilty of a planned and deliberate murder but, when and if it is asked whether it recommends clemency, certainly the members of that jury will recommend mercy. I do not feel that these issues will arise often, but they will arise, and when they arise they will be most extraordinarily difficult issues to resolve.
I should now like to come to what my hon. friend said about the Prime Minister's speech. I have read his speech again very carefully and believe what he really said was that when the jury that has tried the issue has come to its decision, and when that jury of the accused's peers states that under the circumstances it recommends the exercise of clemency, the cabinet is bound to be profoundly influenced by that recommendation. However, it is still only a recommendation. It is on that basis we have placed it in the provisions which are now before the committee.
The issue now before us in a sense is an issue which is comparatively simple: on the one hand, should the question regarding the jury's recommendation be put before the jury for its consideration at the same time they are considering the question of guilt or innocence? That is the suggestion of my friend the hon. member for Essex East. On the other hand, should the question be put to the jury only after it has considered the question of guilt or innocence and after the jury has decided it was bound to bring in a verdict of guilty? That is our suggestion, as incorporated into this bill.
For the reasons I have given, while respecting fully the views and arguments that have been advanced, I cannot accept them. I think the adoption of that practice would place juries in an intolerable position, requiring them to consider two issues at once. Therefore, I am unable to accept the amendment.
I think perhaps I should suggest, without getting into that area which you, Mr. Chairman, have said should be discussed separately, with which statement I thoroughly agree, regarding the question of whether the recommendation should be unanimous, that my hon. friends ought to look at the question which is to be put to the jury:
Do you wish to make any recommendation as to whether or not he should be granted clemency?
Having asked that question, the judge will then state the following:
You are not required to make any recommendation but if you do make a recommendation either in favour of clemency or against it, your recommendation will be included in the report that I am
Criminal Code
required to make of this case to the Minister of Justice and will be given due consideration.
In effect the jury will have three alternatives. The jury will be able to say that it has a recommendation to make for clemency; that it has a recommendation to make against clemency; or that it does not wish to make or is unable to agree in respect of a recommendation. It seems to me, those being the three clear alternatives that we place before the jury by the form of the question, that all the issues and all the variations of the issue which are in the minds of the hon. members are properly reflected in that question which the jury will be asked.
In conclusion, I would say it seems to me that the proposal as we have placed it before the committee in the form of clause 13 of this bill is a desirable one because it removes from the realm of uncertainty and places in the realm of absolute certainty the question of whether or not the jury is entitled to make a recommendation, but it places that question before the jury at the proper time, namely after they have reached their verdict on the question of guilty or not guilty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as a layman I have listened very carefully to the arguments of the Minister of Justice. I realize that this is a technical, legal and intangible problem which is being discussed by persons on both sides of the house who are trying to face it quite honestly. I listened to the argument of the hon. member for Essex East. On this type of question I pay a great deal of attention to what he has to say because of his knowledge of the law and his humanitarian approach to those problems which face us from time to time.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I am influenced in this way. I think in problems such as these we would be very well advised to pay great attention to what the hon. lady has to say. Women approach these questions somewhat differently from what we do, not from quite such a legalistic point of view, although the hon. lady has a great deal of legal experience and knowledge and is quite able to hold her own with the legal luminaries in the house. But the point that bothered me when the Minister of Justice was speaking if I heard him correctly, was that he said that juries must not be clouded by considerations of mercy. That struck me rather hard because I am of the opinion that juries should always be terrified by considerations of mercy. I could not quite go along with him in that respect.
In dealing with a problem in which there is such, shall I say, hairline differences between the proponents of one point of view and of

Criminal Code
the other I always come down on the side of mercy. I think it is quite true to say in this instance that the hon. member for Essex East, the hon. member for Niagara Falls and the member for Kootenay West are three minds that think alike. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if there is a sort of technical difference of opinion the committee would be wise to pass legislation about which the opinion of any juror would be clouded with considerations of mercy. I think that is a very sound principle, and if there should be a mistake made in which mercy is granted where possibly it would not be justified it would be well warranted rather than deny mercy where it would be justified. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I am going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex East, since it represents my attitude in this situation.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: A few minutes ago the minister gave his own interpretation of the remarks made by the Prime Minister on May 29. In order to put the record straight I think it advisable to read what in my view is the most important sentence in this speech in relation to the recommendation of clemency by the jury. I read from page 5528 of Hansard:
That recommendation, excepting in extraordinary circumstances ought to be accepted.
The Minister of Justice did not read this sentence before the dinner recess. Surely this sentence indicates that the recommendation for clemency by the jury will bind the cabinet. I thought it necessary to put this sentence on the record before a vote is taken. After we have disposed of this amendment it is my intention to say a few more words on clause 13.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to make one comment on the statement made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. He was entirely incorrect in the interpretation he placed on the word "recommendation" as used by the Prime Minister in the speech he made in the house on May 29. The recommendation referred to in the sentence which the hon. member read has reference to the recommendation made by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General and not to the recommendation brought in by the jury. This is made quite plain when one reads the particular extract.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the last comments by the Minister of Justice. In the first place, it was suggested by the minister that it might be possible in a trial for capital murder for

the jury to escape any consideration of the penalty. I suggest to the minister that this is absolutely not possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the hon. lady will realize I did say that the jurymen are human beings and therefore it will not be possible for them completely to divorce their minds from it. We felt that in so far as the law could do it, it should endeavour to make it possible.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I accept this explanation, and it is what the minister said previously. But it cannot be possible for them to escape the fact that they are asked to decide two things. The first is whether the man is guilty of capital murder. No Canadian will be able to escape the necessary knowledge that when a man is guilty of this crime it will mean that in all probability he will be hanged. Therefore this very consideration is one which necessarily bears in upon their minds and consciences, namely the fact that in all likelihood when they find that the answer to this question is yes the man will meet his Maker as a result of the due process of law.
Second, the minister has suggested that it is difficult for a jury to dissociate the two things in their minds, one, guilt or innocence, and, two, the penalty. I am sure the minister knows-and I can speak only for the province of Ontario-that in any civil action where there is a jury there are two issues to be tried. One is the equivalent of guilt or innocence, namely fault or not of the defendant; and, two, if there is fault, what is the measure of damages? Now, in my experience of the law in the province of Ontario all jurors have been sufficienly able to differentiate between these two individual problems as to decide them independently one of the other. I suggest to the minister that juries are no less capable of doing this where the two problems which they must resolve are, one, guilt or innocence on the count of capital murder; and, two, the punishment which is to be meted out; and that this may be decided in one deliberation but in two stages. Certainly I would suggest that if a jury is expected to be as sophisticated as the amendment now before this committee will require it to be-and I think the hon. member for Essex East has already pointed this out- there are six different judgments, six different verdicts, which may be given on a charge of capital murder. If they can navigate among the intricacies of these six possible results, then I say to the minister they can separate in their minds the two things.
If there is one thing that has impressed me in my short experience in the law, it is the tremendous consideration which ordinary Canadians from every walk of life give to

a capital crime. Their attention never wanders either from the directions of the judge or the representations made by counsel or the evidence of the witnesses. They never miss a word. They direct themselves with the most astonishing clarity of mind to the decision they are asked to make. In my opinion they are a shining example of the best things in any community because they address themselves to the issue and solely to the issue.
If this is so, and it has been proven to be so, I suggest in all humility to the minister that the jurors are able to decide these two issues at the one time and that they should decide them at the one time rather than at separate times. They should not be called upon to make a second crucial decision when a period of time has intervened from the making of their first decision and knowing that when they brought in their first verdict finding the accused guilty of capital murder he died a little then and his family and, indeed, his counsel, also died a little. They should not be asked to retire again to make up their minds knowing that while they are out there will be great anguish on the part of the accused and everyone else in the courtroom and also knowing that if they come back and recommend against clemency, something that has never happened in our criminal law, they will be on the spot again and the accused, his family and friends and, indeed, members of the public, will die a little more. I would ask the minister and other hon. members to address themselves most seriously to this matter before voting on the amendment because it is of crucial importance. Those of us who practice in the defence of those who are accused but not proven to be guilty of a capital crime ask that fair treatment be accorded by having the jury charged as to this matter before they deliberate at all and not, as proposed in the legislation, after they have found the accused guilty of the offence.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, I find it necessary to rise tonight to speak in support of the Minister of Justice and against the amendment on two or three grounds. May I say that I speak as one who has served as a juror. I have sat on panels which have had to administer justice and I know the heart-throbs that men and women who go through this experience have.
With all due deference to the hon. member for Niagara Falls, I say that in my opinion jurors have one main task, to determine first of all the guilt or innocence of the accused. Once the jurors have done that they are free, as provided in clause 13, to offer some suggestions with respect to clemency. I am quite sure that jurors in a murder trial will have a much closer view of the
Criminal Code
actual case than anyone else, and I would be quite prepared to listen to any argument by a jury with respect to clemency after the verdict has been rendered. After all, those who are summoned to serve on these panels are first of all asked one question. Is the accused innocent or guilty? If he is guilty, and if clause 13 carries I will be very happy because those persons who have listened to all the evidence will have many more facts before them than anyone else, and I believe they would make a very commendable recommendation. My stand on capital punishment is very well known in this house. I somehow feel we are straying too far into the path of mercy. We are becoming too benevolent. Nevertheless, I support the application of clause 13 after the accused has been found guilty.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be most unfair for the judge to instruct the jury to consider the matter of a recommendation of mercy because it would almost mean that the judge expected a verdict of guilty. If a verdict of not guilty is reached by the jury, they do not need to consider the matter of clemency at all. The hon. member for Vancouver East has expressed doubt whether it is a good thing to have the jury consider this matter. I think the judge might convey a mental presumption of guilt to the jury if he asked the jury to deal with the matter of mercy. It might not be necessary for the jury to consider this question at all because they might bring in a verdict of not guilty.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two with reference to what the hon. member for Kootenay West said. He referred to the words used by the Minister of Justice who had talked about the undesirability of the verdict of the jury being clouded with considerations of mercy. The hon. member for Kootenay West criticized that statement. He said that considerations of mercy should always be taken into account while the jury is functioning.
It seems to me that the advantage of the two stages suggested by the minister is that we can be sure that considerations of mercy will be dealt with but at the proper time. On the other hand, it seems to me that when the jury is determining the technical question of murder they should not have their minds distracted by the thought of the dreadful consequences which may flow from their verdict, and in my view that distraction is avoided by what I understand to be the minister's proposal.
Amendment (Mr. Martin, Essex East) negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 58.

Criminal Code


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I raised another question with regard to this clause and the comments that I made were supported by the hon. member for Welland. It had to do with whether or not a majority would be sufficient or whether the rule of unanimity would apply. What would happen in the event of one juryman, let us say, being against a recommendation for clemency and the other eleven being in favour. The point was made that unless this ambiguity was resolved this question would arise, that is that there would be different attitudes taken by different judges, and the law would not become settled. There is ambiguity in the very language of the section and so it is our responsibility now to remove it.
If the minister takes the position that he believes the jury must, as in the case of a determination of guilt, be unanimous, then let him say so. If that is the position, let him put it in the statute. However, we take the position that the question is now doubtful, that it is not at all settled and that it is one that should be settled. I should be grateful for the minister's reply.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I recognize the fact that this is a difficult question. However, I must start from the premise that we are asking here a question on a recommendation of the jury. The judge is going to ask the jury whether they have any recommendation to make. I therefore suggest that it would be a mistake to import into the law any provision which suggests that the jury can be less than unanimous. It must be borne in mind that the provision for unanimity is, generally speaking, one that works in favour of the accused. I therefore think it is proper that we should expect the same principle to be carried forward with respect to their recommendation which is now under consideration. The judge is not addressing this question to the jurors individually. He is addressing it to the jury collectively and he is asking them as a jury whether they wish to make any recommendation first, whether the accused should be granted clemency; and second, whether the accused should not be granted clemency. Then, as I said a moment ago, that actually and necessarily imports three alternatives. The jury may say, "Yes, we recommend that he should be granted clemency" or "We recommend that he should not be granted clemency" or "We are unable or do not wish to make any recommendation". I think that is all the jury should be invited to do.
I would point out that the judge, if he wishes to do so, may examine the jury as to the state of their minds. The judge is obligated by the provisions of the statute, section 643, to make a report of the case to the

Minister of Justice for the information of the governor in council. I have thought of this matter a great deal both before I introduced the bill and since then, and also since this discussion started, but on reflection I would not be prepared to introduce into the law anything which would suggest to the jury that they may be less than unanimous. On the other hand, however, I would not be prepared to introduce into the law anything which would suggest that the judge may not report to the Minister of Justice unless the jury says "Our verdict is unanimous".
I have tried earnestly to devise an amendment that would meet these problems but I may say quite frankly that I have not been able to devise one which would not directly suggest to the jury that they may make a compromise decision, and I think this would be an unfortunate thing to suggest to the jury. I recognize the fact that juries may not be able to agree upon a recommendation. Indeed, juries on occasion have been unable to agree on a verdict. However, this is a very undesirable thing. It is a thing to be avoided and to be done only as a last resort. I therefore think it would be a mistake to write into the law anything that would suggest to the jury that they may be less than unanimous.


Murdo William Martin: The minister has stated his position quite clearly, I think, in so far as his objective is concerned of having the jury treated as a unit. However, that does not really resolve the question. Suppose that, after the judge reads out this particular provision, the jury repairs to the jury room, to bring in a verdict of guilty and then come back and the foreman of the jury says to the judge, "We understand the rule of unanimity as far as guilt is concerned and we the jury have found this individual guilty of murder. However we cannot agree on whether or not there should be a recommendation of clemency. Two of us take the position that there should not be such a recommendation and ten of us take the position that there should be one. May we now bring in such a recommendation?" What is the judge going to say?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the judge would then be in the same position that he is in with respect to the verdict of the jury. As far as I can ascertain

and I have asked my officers to consider this matter-there is in the law no clear and specific provision which says in so many words that the jury's verdict must be unanimous. We are looking further.


Murdo William Martin: Section 560.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. Section 560 states that where the judge is satisfied that no further

purpose would be served by keeping a jury in an attempt to have it arrive at a unanimous verdict, he may discharge the jury. It is true that by implication the verdict must be unanimous but it is not specifically stated. However, the practice has grown up that where the jury shows quite clearly that it is not able to arrive at a unanimous verdict, the judge dismisses the jury and that trial is nugatory. The inability of the jury to agree on a recommendation would not make the trial nugatory. What would happen then, as I see it, is quite clear. The judge would simply report that after so much deliberation as was necessary it became quite apparent that the jury were unable to agree on a recommendation. He might indeed have elicited from the jury the extent of their disagreement; and I am satisfied that in the discharge of his statutory duty he would report to the Minister of Justice the extent of the disagreement. Then the facts of the situation would be clearly outlined to the governor in council for his guidance. After all, the purpose of this recommendation is for the guidance of the governor in council. If therefore the jury reach a unanimous decision that they should recommend mercy, that fact is reported by the judge. If they should reach a unanimous decision that they should not recommend mercy, it is also reported. If after such deliberation and return to the judge for further instructions as may be necessary, it becomes perfectly clear that they cannot reach a decision one way or another, that fact is also reported. I do not think that we can do more or that we should do more. To do more would involve the suggestion that a decision of the jury should be less than unanimous. If we cannot get a decision, then the effect of the section is that that fact will be reported to the Minister of Justice and it will then be obvious to the governor in council that some favoured mercy and some did not favour mercy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not wish to repeat the argument for something less than unanimity except to say this. I believe the minister has treated this point as one of primary substance when it is not one of primary concern. The primary question is the question of whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Whether or not there should be a recommendation for clemency is not of the same order or category as the main decision; but the minister speaks of the jury, without speaking in terms of majority or minority, both in terms of unanimity with regard to guilt and unanimity with regard to recommendation.
I suggest to the minister the following. The purpose of this clause, I take it, is not to create a new procedure, a new tradition, or
Criminal Code
in fact really to create new law. The purpose of this clause is to bring home to juries an assumed power which they have had, I suppose, ever since our jury system in capital cases was established. I say this because now, although the law is not at all explicit, juries bring in recommendations for clemency, not in every instance but in so many cases where there is not even any suggestion by the court that they should do so.
That being the case I suggest to the minister that his reluctance to meet the point the hon. member for Welland and others have put will mean that juries will do the very thing I have suggested. Juries will not be able to agree in some instances, and the foreman of the jury will say, "Some of us believe there should be a recommendation for mercy; three of us think there should not, but the rest think there should".
The Minister of Justice, notwithstanding his objective of maintaining the jury as a unanimous body, will be faced I think by a practice which will not be denied under the law as it is to be amended or under the practice which is now followed.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier that I was in many ways very much opposed to the amendment contained in clause 13, but at this time I should like to limit my remarks to the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Welland, which I believe has a great deal of merit, especially when one reads the clause as phrased.
This clause will create many doubts about things which possibly it was the intention of the officer who drafted the clause to clarify. I should like to comment on some of the remarks made by the Minister of Justice a moment ago intending to indicate to the committee that the intention behind this clause was to ascertain that the finding of guilt and the recommendation for mercy would not become two instruments of battle among jurymen.
Certainly if the Minister of Justice meant this seriously he should realize that the clause as phrased does exactly the opposite of what he had in mind. I say this because if it was the intention to enact a clause which would give absolute freedom to jurymen with regard to clemency and it was not to be coupled with the discussion as to guilt, the minister should have said so. But in this clause the minister makes it necessary for jurymen to discuss their recommendation with regard to clemency at the same time as they discuss their finding of guilty or not guilty.
All the jurymen must find in favour of clemency to make such a recommendation, or they must unanimously decide against making any such recommendation. Therefore this clause takes away the right of some

Criminal Code
jurymen to vote against clemency and means they will possibly be urged by the other jurymen to go into the question of the accused being not guilty because they cannot obtain a bargaining point and this matter has to be decided unanimously.
Therefore although I am not in favour of this clause dealing with a recommendation for clemency becoming part of our statutes, if it is included in the statute it should be left to the discretion of each and every member of the jury to indicate his wish. It could be indicated to the judge that four jurymen were in favour of recommending clemency and so many others were against it and so on. I feel there is much merit in that suggestion.
If the Minister of Justice will read the clause itself, the first paragraph seems to indicate that the question should be asked of each and every juryman and not of the jury as a whole. The first paragraph of the clause says:
Where a jury finds an accused guilty of an offence punishable by death, the judge who presides at the trial shall, before discharging the jury, put to them the following question:
If that were meant to mean the jury as a body, the words would be "put to it". If you are going to put the question to "them" you must foresee that you will get an answer from each and every one, and not from the jury as a body.
Later on in the clause the question of whether or not there is a recommendation for clemency is dealt with. How can the jury vote on this matter? They either want clemency or they do not, and they have to vote "yes" or "no". In these circumstances how could they report to the judge that they absolutely do not wish to recommend clemency? It sems to me that this phraseology means it is the intention to obtain from each and every juryman his opinion or disposition with regard to this matter, "Are you in favour of clemency or not?". If this is the intention, why not make the words very clear? It is not a vote; it is not a determination; it is a recommendation in favour of or against clemency.
Surely if it is a matter of a vote of all the jurymen, the vote should be that they favour a recommendation for clemency or they do not. How can you recommend that no clemency be given? You can be against recommending clemency, but certainly you cannot in the same vote decide that no recommendation for clemency shall be made.
I see a slight distinction there. However, I am quite sure that if the minister reads that first paragraph again it will indicate to him that the intention of this clause is to have the question put to each and every juryman. Although I am against the question being

included in our statute, I agree that if it is included there is a great deal of merit in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Welland. If it is a matter of recommendation the complete opinion of the men who sat on the jury should be given to the judge. If so many are in favour of recommending clemency and so many are against it, those figures should at least be given. It should be so written in the act, so that the judge will have a clear and definite picture of the jury's intention in deciding the course he is to follow.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I can, I regret, only say again that the jury is here being invited to make a recommendation; it is not being invited to reach a verdict. It is to my mind quite clear that if they are unable to agree, that fact will be reported to the judge and will be included by him in his report to the Minister of Justice.
The experience is that judges make very full reports on these cases and I have no doubt that the opinion or the state of mind of the jury will be ascertained by the judge and reported to the minister. Then it will be reported by the minister to the cabinet. But if what the jury is asked to do is make a recommendation, if they can make a recommendation they will make one as a jury. If they are unable to arrive at a recommendation they will report as much to the judge. Since they are only asked for a recommendation, it seems to me that it is a perfectly satisfactory state of affairs.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not think this clause should be carried before I have a chance to outline the ridiculous position in which our judges would be placed in a number of instances should this provision be enacted. If a jury finds a man guilty of murder and decides to make a recommendation for clemency the judge is placed in the ridiculous position of having to go to his room, return with his black gloves and tricorne and everything else before sentencing the accused to death, knowing full well that in most cases the sentence will be commuted because of the jury's recommendation.
I am sure most judges would be reluctant to take part in what I would term to be a comedy. It is not good for justice that a man should be sentenced to death when we know full well-and the words of the Prime Minister leave no room for any other interpretation-that in most of these cases where clemency has been asked by the jury the sentence will not be carried out. I can imagine that in such cases the lawyer will say to his client, "Do not worry; we have a recommendation for clemency. This is only for fun; the sentence will never be carried out". This is something we should bear in mind before this clause is carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member's concern for the situation of the judges would carry a good deal more weight if I did not know for a fact that many judges place themselves in the position which the hon. member has described, because at the present time it is far from rare that a judge who, following a verdict of guilty from a jury has solemnly donned the black cap and sentenced the accused to death, yet recommends in his report to the Minister of Justice that mercy should be shown. So I do not think the hon. member need have any fear about judges being placed in a ridiculous position. The judges themselves are, frequently, not reluctant to express their views for such guidance to the governor in council as may be attached to them with respect to whether or not mercy may be shown, notwithstanding that the jury had brought in a verdict of guilty and that they themselves had pronounced the death sentence.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not want to pursue this point at length, but I think the minister himself must be aware of the criticism made by many judges in this country when death sentences which they have imposed have been commuted. I think that when we are trying to introduce a new concept of law dealing with the death penalty we should endeavour at the same time to find a system which would avoid such circumstances as I have described.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If there be anything wrong with this situation I can only say that in some cases it is created by the judges themselves inasmuch as they make recommendations of their own notwithstanding the verdict of the jury. What we are doing here is clearing up an uncertainty in the law, namely, whether or not the jury has the right to make recommendations. That is the main purpose of this clause. The legislation provides means of establishing in the minds of juries that they have this right if they wish to exercise it and that their recommendations will be reported to the Minister of Justice. This is no great departure, seen in its proper prospective. It merely makes clear that the jury has the right to make such a recommendation. At the moment there is some doubt about it.


Osias.-J. Godin: As I indicated a moment ago when I made some observations about what had been said by the hon. member for Welland, I have something more to say about this particular clause, clause 13. I trust I shall have the support of many members of this committee in my efforts to ascertain that this clause is not passed and shall not be placed on our statute books.
Criminal Code
The Minister of Justice indicated that judges will not be embarrassed if there is a recommendation to mercy-that they will don the black cap and pronounce sentence notwithstanding. But what cap will the cabinet wear when it considers one of these recommendations to mercy; what gown will it put on and under what terms will it make a choice between death and life imprisonment? I am sure members of this committee are entitled to ask the Minister of Justice these questions. We know that throughout history statutes have been made pertaining to royal prerogatives. They have always been used to limit them, not to enlarge them. This statute, however, will be a procedure to enlarge the royal prerogative of mercy. I realize it is fitting that such a recourse should be in existence. I consider it to be a great and extraordinary thing, and in my opinion it should remain thus. It should not be placed in the hands of politicians as the product of a statute. This clause means placing into the hands of politicians final responsibility in the matter of capital punishment in this country and to that I am absolutely opposed.
No one who knows something about the confusion which this clause can bring about has failed to support my views on this matter. We know that recommendations, if they have any value, will be made by juries in certain areas. The government is the government of all Canada. We know that possibly it will become known that in certain areas juries will commonly bring in recommendations for mercy-recommendations which are invariably followed by the politicians. How can citizens be assured that justice will be done if politicians have the final decision on a matter of this grave importance?


Mr. Browne (SI. John's West):: I wonder if I may ask the hon. member a question? Does he not think that the setting up of different categories of murder will lead to fewer cases coming before the cabinet for consideration, and does this not mean that the use of the royal prerogative will be reduced rather than extended?


Osias.-J. Godin: I am speaking on behalf of those individuals who should like to see justice done by our courts. That is why I voted in favour of the principle of this bill. That principle involves an attempt to indicate to our courts, judges and juries, what constitutes the offence of murder to be punished by death, and what constitutes the other types of murder, punishable by life imprisonment only. It is only in respect of the determination of the gravity of the crime which should be contained in this bill. It should be set forth clearly for the guidance of the judges and jury in determining what constitutes a

Criminal Code
crime which is punishable by death, and a non-capital crime, although murder, punishable by life imprisonment. That decision should rest with the judges and juries in this country and not be placed into the hands of the politicians and crown employees.
I am speaking in regard to clause 1 because I feel that clause 13 is coupled with the other clauses of the bill. I find it very odd that we should concern ourselves with the fine distinctions which we have attempted to make between capital and non-capital murder.
As the bill is now proposed, I suggest the police officers, the crown prosecutors, and other employees in the field of justice will make the decisions as to whether an offence is capital murder or non-capital murder. I say that is absolutely wrong. I suggest that our courts, judges and juries should decide what crime an accused individual is guilty of, and that the penalty should be provided by legislation.
I should like to suggest that in certain cases there will be doubt as to why an individual was charged with a non-capital murder which carries only a sentence of life imprisonment. There might very well be talk of the fact that a man has contributed $10,000 in order to protect his son, following which a charge of non-capital murder was laid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I understood the issue of the principle of the bill was decided some days ago during second reading.


Jacques Flynn: It seems clear to me that the hon. member is not discussing clause 13 at this moment.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I am discussing clause 13 and all its implications, because I say we are making distinctions at the tail end of our legislation in regard to the decision to lay a charge of capital murder or non-capital murder, and leaving it to the cabinet, composed of politicians, to decide upon clemency.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, my hon. friend is not only out of order but is wrong. The present provisions of the Criminal Code provide that the cabinet shall review capital cases. This bill does not provide that at all, so my hon. friend could not be talking about this bill.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, by this proposed bill we are asking that recommendations be made to the cabinet in every case where an individual is sentenced to death, or could be sentenced to death. If the minister suggests that there is no reason whatever for this clause being included, because

it is included in the Criminal Code, why does the Minister of Justice not agree to strike the clause out?
I do not suggest I have proof or evidence of something wrong in the administration of justice in this country but I have heard lawyers for the defence indicate surprise in finding that a charge of manslaughter had been laid against the accused rather than murder.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member is again out of order. I must point out that this clause deals only with the recommendations a jury may make after it has reached a verdict, and that the choice of the charge to be laid is a matter that has been disposed of.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, we all appreciate that a verdict rendered by a jury must be rendered in accordance with the charge laid. Perhaps I should agree that the realm of discussion in respect of clause 13 should be limited and that you, Mr. Chairman, are quite right in finding that the discussion regarding the choice of charge to be laid is out of order in the discussion on clause 13. I have been discussing that subject because it is very difficult to distinguish between the subjects included in different clauses.
Regarding clause 13, I am sure all hon. members will realize that there must be uniformity of justice throughout this country, as provided by the British North America Act, and that recommendations to be made by the provisions of this clause will be made to the cabinet. I would suggest that because juries in a particular area are found to be inclined to make recommendations for clemency, that murderers will take their victims on joy rides into those areas in order to be liable only to a sentence of life imprisonment.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Edwin William Brunsden: Is the hon. member suggesting that there is a difference in the administration of justice in various parts of Canada?


Osias.-J. Godin: I have suggested that there could not be such a difference if the law were defined clearly, but I suggest that a different interpretation is possible under the provisions of this bill because it tends to divide murder into two classes, one considered culpable, which is called capital murder, and the other less culpable, called non-capital murder. I suggest the law today, as proposed by this bill, particularly clause 13, should be clear in its definition of the two classes of murder.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I asked the hon. member a question and he has not answered it.


An hon. Member:: He does not have to answer it.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not a point of order.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to lecture the hon. member but I have just stated that according to our law today the same distinction of the crime of murder applies throughout Canada, if that is what his question has reference to.
I object to this proposed clause 13 because of the flimsy recommendations which our judges will now ask our juries to make in regard to capital and non-capital murder, which involves an element of distinction which is not properly defined, and which could result in different applications of the law in different parts of the country. I trust the hon. member understood that.
I suggest the law is clear today and that we should retain that clarity in respect of the distinctions which are proposed by this bill. This is a distinction provided by this bill to permit our judges and juries to make findings appropriate to specific circumstances. I am not in favour of introducing a procedure which will bring about the uncertainty of the application of this measure. My great fear is not so much what recommendations we may have from different localities. That difficulty may be overcome. What I am concerned with is what is the cabinet to do with the recommendations? Is the Minister of Justice prepared to say that when there is a recommendation from a jury which comes from the area where the crime was committed that the cabinet is entitled to disregard it and not commute the sentence? What will the cabinet do in other instances? Why make the cabinet the court of appeal, as this clause does? Why not give the authority to the judge and jury, those people who have been called in to decide the case on behalf of the citizens or the locality? Why place the cabinet in the position of being the court of appeal? I am sure that this cabinet, or any other cabinet, will regret it for a long time if clause 13, which we are now discussing, passes and is placed in the Criminal Code.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question. Do we gather from what he has said that he is unalterably opposed to any final authority in so far as the prerogative of mercy is concerned?


Osias.-J. Godin: I thought I made that clear. I am not opposed to the royal prerogative. At the present time I am not discussing the royal prerogative. If there is the head of a country, then it is fitting that we give to
Criminal Code
that authority the right to pardon. This is a part of our society, something which we consider in the development of our social structure and of our democratic way of life as being most fitting. But should we add to this prerogative? By many statutes we have limited the prerogatives of the crown in Canada. We have done this and it was fitting that we should do it. But why increase that prerogative and make it a matter of statute law as we are doing here by way of a recommendation for royal mercy? I say it is the wrong thing to do. It is a backward step for any government to take. I hope I have answered my hon. friend.
Royal mercy should remain an extraordinary thing that a citizen can resort to in special circumstances and possibly obtain it or try to obtain it. To implement it by way of a statute I say is wrong. I trust I have made it clear to my hon. friend that I am not opposed to the right itself which is a beautiful and a wonderful thing and ought to be used on extraordinary occasions. But I do not want to see it any every day matter, nor do I want to see it used as a court of appeal in murder cases.


Mr. Carter:: There is just one point in connection with this clause that bothers me a little bit, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has raised the question of what purpose is to be served by this final recommendation. He has implied that the only use it could be put to would be to guide the cabinet in exercising the royal prerogative.
The jury is charged with two separate duties. One is to find whether the person is guilty or not of the charge of capital murder. Well, in that case, on the basis of evidence, an objective decision can be arrived at; but when it comes to consideration of making a decision on the second question, namely whether or not a recommendation for clemency should be made, I doubt very much whether a jury is in the same position with regard to making an objective decision because we all know from what we have seen take place in this house on more than one occasion when this question has come up that our views on it are fairly representative of those of the people of Canada and we know that just as we are divided in this house into two groups, one in favour of abolition and the other in favour of retention of capital punishment, so a jury must also have these two positions represented in it. I say this because a jury will have members who have come to the conclusion that capital punishment should be abolished. I feel sure that this will colour their judgment and they will not

Criminal Code
be as objective in bringing in a decision on whether or not there should be clemency as there would be in making a decision as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
If you are not going to have an objective decision-and I do not think you are-I think because of that fact there will be an effort made to try and get on the jury a number of people who are in favour of abolition so that it can be pretty certain that there will always be a recommendation for clemency. There may be ways of getting over this. I never served on a jury. I do not know whether or not jurors are frequently challenged, but certainly there is this problem of whether you are going to get an objective decision. If this clause is meant to serve a useful purpose, then we should try to improve it and do everything possible to make sure that an objective decision will be obtained.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think every committee or commission that has considered the question of the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy has come to the conclusion that it is not possible, if indeed it were desirable, that it should be exercised in accordance with a strict body of law and precedent.
May I just refer my hon. friend to one or two passages from the report of our own joint parliamentary committee, upon which, if I recall rightly, he himself served, when it was dealing with this subject. I will read from paragraph 12 on page 5 of the report:
Since each case is judged on its own merits, the practice governing remission cannot be reduced to a statement of settled principles. The decision in many cases necessitates a review of varying circumstances and, not infrequently, the weighing of conflicting considerations.. It would defeat the purpose of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to attempt to codify the instances in which it might be invoked. The only safe and fair generalization than can be made is that commutation occurs in all cases where extenuating circumstances of a substantial nature exist or the degree of moral culpability is not sufficient to warrant the supreme penalty.
If these are the principles which are agreed on, and I wholeheartedly support that conclusion although I was not a member of the committee when it brought in its report, if it is agreed then that the considerations in the minds of the cabinet when it exercises the prerogative are many and varied and cannot be codified, then it does seem to me to be perfectly appropriate to say to the jury which has actually heard the evidence that you, too, will not be in a position to make any binding recommendation but of expressing an opinion whether or not there are present in this case the sort of facts which might warrant the suggestion that clemency be considered. This is why I feel, with deference to my hon. friend,

it is perfectly appropriate to say to these 12 men who, it is true, may exercise a judgment in making their recommendation based partly on their emotion, nevertheless what do you think about it, bearing in mind that there is first only a recommendation which is not binding.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister very much. He has clarified my problem quite a bit. If there were something in this clause which transferred what the minister quoted from the report which would sort of set down the principles on which that decision would be based, I think it would solve the problem. But there is nothing here. It simply says that they have to come to a decision whether or not they are going to recommend mercy, and on that basis alone I would think they would hardly be able to divorce their assessment of the evidence from their personal feelings as to capital punishment. That is the problem I was seeking to overcome.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, earlier the minister said that there would be no polling of the jury in open court in connection with a recommendation for mercy. Later he said the judge could ascertain what was in the minds of the jury by asking them. I think he said "them" and I understood him to be referring to the individual members of the jury. How can he do this without polling the jury?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was referring, of course, to what I had understood to be a suggestion made earlier that counsel would have the right to poll the jury. So far as I know the judge can ask the jury any question he wants in order to ascertain what may be their state of mind.


Osias.-J. Godin: If I may return to what the minister said a moment ago, he said that the recommendation made as a result of the study in 1955 and 1956 was that the royal prerogative should remain free and there should be nothing to tie it down. I do not disagree with that in any way but in the light of that I fail to see how the minister could bring froward clause 13 if that was the guiding principle. Clause 13 introduces into the Criminal Code the very thing which will tie the hands of the cabinet in that they will be presented with a recommendation for mercy although it is not stated that they have to recommend mercy. But how could the procedure develop otherwise? In what other way could such a recommendation be treated? Is this not in a sense doing away with the liberty and freedom in respect of the use of the royal prerogative which the minister

has just indicated it was the recommendation of the committee that the cabinet should exercise?
I think the Minister of Justice is going contrary to the recommendation which he said is to be found in the report. He is tying the hands of the cabinet so that the royal prerogative will not be exercised in the free way in which it was before. The cabinet will be tied down by a recommendation which by law must be presented to it. That is the objection I have, and surely the Minister of Justice must realize that he is blowing hot and cold when he says that the purpose of implementing this clause is to retain freedom with regard to the use of the royal prerogative. I say it is quite clear that the procedure which will develop will not tend to retain freedom in the use of the royal prerogative but will limit it and make it susceptible to the tendencies of local juries. It will tie down the use of the royal prerogative to the attitude toward capital punishment that the cabinet may have from time to time. That is why I say that the very principle of freedom in the use of the royal prerogative to which the minister has referred is gravely limited by this clause.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 13 carry?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
On clause 15

Approval by governor in council of release after commutation of sentence.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I must admit that this clause puzzles me a great deal. I should like to ask the minister to explain how and why he came to the decision to recommend this clause to the house. According to the explanation, its purpose is to enable the governor in council, in commuting a sentence of death, to direct that the prisoner shall not be released from the imprisonment to which the sentence is commuted without the prior approval of the governor in council.
The reason I say the clause puzzles me is that prior to this session when the Minister of Justice in his wisdom introduced major policy changes in the parole system of Canada and set up the national parole board this group in general and I in particular wholeheartedly supported the advance which the Minister of Justice recommended in our parole system. To the best of my knowledge the new parole board and system of parole have worked exceptionally well. As a matter of fact, I think the Minister of Justice can take a great deal of pride in the changes brought about in the last two years in the parole system.
90205-6-373
Criminal Code
However, under this clause the parole board and its authority are by-passed with respect to one type of criminal only. Although the board has done a terrific job in the last 18 months it is now by-passed because according to this clause the decision as to parole has to have the prior approval of the governor in council. I think the Minister of Justice knows that I have been interested in this question for many years. For the life of me I cannot conceive that the governor in council knows better than the parole board whether a man who was sentenced to death but has had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment is fit to be released into society or whether he should remain in jail for a number of years more or for the rest of his life. That is the function and purpose of the parole board. The whole function and purpose of the board involve undertaking a study of all prisoners. They study their history and the reports of the warden, the supervisor, the psychiatrist, the psychologist and so on. That is not a job that can be done by the governor in council.
With all the responsibilities that the governor in council has I would think the only understanding they could have with regard to a matter of this sort would be on the basis of information from the parole board. From where can such information come except from the parole board? Surely to heaven the members of the cabinet cannot make a detailed study of all the records, psychiatric and psychological reports and other reports. Of course not. That is why we have the parole board and that board has full power in every other offence involving penalties up to life imprisonment, offences such as rape, manslaughter and homicide without the death sentence. Such cases are the responsibility of the parole board but when it comes to just one type of case, that of the criminal sentenced to death who has had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment-


An hon. Member:: He committed a murder.


Harold Edward Winch: All the others who commit non-capital murder and are sentenced to life imprisonment rather than capital punishment have also committed murder but they come under the parole board. As I read the clause, and I think I am right, when a sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment that person cannot be granted parole without the consent of the governor in council.
I want it made very clear that I think extraordinary care must be taken that, whether it is 12 years or 50 years, if a man is not fit to be released in society, he should not be released, whether he is in jail for rape,

Criminal Code
homicide or any other reason such as punishment as a trafficker. What I cannot understand is why in this particular case the parole board, which is the only body that has knowledge of the matter, is by-passed in the final answer. In this situation the case must go before the governor in council.
I think the Minister of Justice understands why I am a little puzzled. I know he must have had some reason for putting in this provision. I think most of us in this chamber, being reasonable people, would be interested in knowing the reason. Men may be sentenced to life imprisonment for rape and other offences. Why is it that in this particular case the governor in council has the last say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister wish to reply?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. This clause is put in here for two reasons, really. First it must be remembered that the only persons whose sentence of death will be commuted to life imprisonment from now on will be, generally speaking, persons who the jury has decided committed a planned and deliberate killing. My hon. friend must bear in mind that this will be the situation from now on whereas it has not been the situation up to the present time. Up to the present time, all murder carried the death penalty and therefore everyone who committed murder and was convicted of murder would have his case come before the cabinet. Therefore all murderers were susceptible of having their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. From now on, however, the death penalty will be imposed only on those who are guilty of capital murder; that is to say on those who, the jury has found, have committed a planned and deliberate killing. Hence commutation, if it should take place, from now on is going to take place with respect to a man who has committed a planned or deliberate murder or, alternatively, who has killed in the course of the commission of a crime which itself imports the element of planning and deliberation.
The first point is that the type of crime which will now be coming forward for commutation will be a much more restricted one than the type of crime which has been subject to commutation in the past. However, there still may be commutation. We have discussed this matter quite fully already and I shall therefore not go into too much detail. However, let me remind my hon. friend of this fact. There may be this commutation although the verdict is guilty of planned and deliberate killing. For instance, in a case in which, although the man was not proved to be insane within the technical meaning of the law, psychiatrists' reports are such as to
[Mr. Winch.)
raise in the minds of the cabinet a doubt or a feeling that he is not a normally sane person, then in accordance with the well understood practice that we do not hang persons who are not mentally responsible, that man may have his sentence commuted although he has committed a particular type of crime and although he may be a type of person about whom no one at this point in time can say that it would ever be safe to release him again into society.
That is a very grave responsibility. It must be remembered that it is the cabinet which orders the sentence to be commuted. Therefore it is the cabinet which takes the responsibility of saying that this man will not be hanged but will be subject to life imprisonment. In view of the factors that I have outlined we have felt that it is not inappropriate that, in this particular and restricted class of case as it will be in the future, we should say, "The cabinet which orders the commutation shall also bear the final responsibility of determining whether that commutation will now result in his release in society".
In this process we, of course, shall have the benefit of the advice of the parole board. It is not as though we were going to set this man off in a corner where the parole board never saw him. They will have access to his file. They will review his case, and they will make recommendations. The situation simply is this. In that small segment of cases where there may be a real question whether it is ever going to be safe to release this man, we felt it to be appropriate that the cabinet which took the responsibility-not the same individuals but the governor in council-for determining that he should have his sentence of death commuted, should also have to bear the responsibility of deciding whether or not he will be released.
Let me impress upon my hon. friend this final point. This will not be the situation with regard to every case of commutation. This situation-I refer to the situation that the governor in council must finally authorize release-will apply only if at the time of making the commutation the governor in council so orders. In other words the governor in council at the time of authorizing the commutation must say that "in this particular case we think the case is so dangerous or so delicate or so border line that we now provide that he shall not be released on parole unless and until the cabinet authorizes it". May I also remind my hon. friend of another parallel. If in the course of a murder trial the jury were to find that the accused is insane, then the law provides that, instead of being sentenced to death, he shall be

ordered to be detained during the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor in council. In other words he is committed to an insane asylum until the lieutenant-governor in council decides that he is cured or is fit to be released. Then if the cabinet of Canada or the governor in council commutes a sentence because they feel this man is not mentally normal, under the law as it is at the present time there is no parallel authority to order that he be detained during the pleasure of the governor in council. Hence all we are doing is importing into the situation where we order a man detained because we have doubts as to his mental capacity, the same situation that prevails if the jury finds he is insane, in which case the sentence is that he be detained at the pleasure of the lieutenant-governor in council.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As we come to
the end of the amendments I believe we are conscious of the fact that this particular subsection deals with the basic philosophy behind this measure in so far as government policy is concerned. The bill throughout, I think, represents an attempt at laudable compromise. I think the bill-and I have said this previously and I do not recall any comment being made about this by the minister-aims now to put into statute law a practice which quite legally and constitutionally has been exercised by the crown since this administration came into office in respect of the royal prerogative. One has the deep feeling that the considerations which have motivated the crown in Canada in the number of commutations that have taken place are to be found in the principles of this bill. There is nothing wrong and there is certainly no unconstitutional act involved in the crown seeking to put into the law of the land for administration and adjudication by the courts situations which have formed its basic policy in the consideration of how it would exercise the royal prerogative.
However, this clause raises a number of other considerations that were mentioned by the Prime Minister, and the contrast between what the Prime Minister said and what this clause provides cannot go unnoticed. It is time that in this particular the Prime Minister was speaking by way of obiter dictum and his remarks did not have the sanctity of any law, but they were the views of the head of the government and on that account must receive more than ordinary attention.
Before commenting on what the Prime Minister said I should remind hon. members of the committee that in this clause the instrument of commutation is provided not by members of the cabinet or by a committee 90205-6-373J
Criminal Code
of the cabinet but by the governor in council. It is the governor in council, and not members of the cabinet, who is charged with the responsibility of dealing at some subsequent time with the question of the extent of the accused's confinement.
The Prime Minister told us that these capital cases took a good deal of the cabinet's time. I am aware of that fact. I am aware, as one who sat in Her Majesty's privy council in Canada, that the cabinet of this country is obliged to give much time, and necessarily so as long as the authority is reposed with it, to the consideration of capital cases.
The Prime Minister went on to complain about, I should not say the length of time but undoubtedly, as head of the government with his preoccupations, he was placing on one side the many responsibilities and the many questions that have to be considered and on the other the time that is consumed by the cabinet as a whole in the consideration of capital cases. I suggest that as great a factor as that may be, the number of capital cases in this country are not so numerous as to cause any cabinet to feel that it could not properly discharge its role in the exercise of the royal prerogative.
The Prime Minister went on to remind us that in the United Kingdom the home secretary exercises the power of clemency or commutation without any reference whatsoever to his cabinet colleagues. Indeed I think the Prime Minister went on to say that he does not even discuss it with the lord chancellor. On that score there seems to be some doubt. In any event it is clear that in the United Kingdom the home secretary does not discuss the matter with his cabinet colleagues, except possibly the lord chancellor who is of course a member of the cabinet.
The Prime Minister went on to say that perhaps we might evolve a practice in Canada where the exercise of clemency could be left to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. I would simply point out that I think that would be a dangerous practice to evolve, in the light of the possible compromises because of this clause. In any event, that suggestion of the Prime Minister is not met in this clause because the role of recommending clemency and the ultimate role of determining the extent of confinement is to be exercised by the governor in council under this clause. I think that would have been the proper course for the Minister of Justice to have proposed.
It would seem to me to leave the decision in the first instance and in the ultimate instance to any body other than the governor in council, particularly at this time when this very important measure is about to be

Criminal Code
enacted, involving as it does a very important departure from our practice, would be a very dangerous procedure.
The hon. member for Vancouver East wondered why the question of confinement should go back to the cabinet in the first instance. I am satisfied with the validity of the reply made by the Minister of Justice. The minister says that the cabinet, having ordered the commutation, is to be the body that will order the accused to continue in confinement. As the minister pointed out, it will not necessarily be the same cabinet. That is not without some disability because, one cabinet having been seized with all the facts and having ordered commutation in the case of a person in respect of whom the sentence of death was commuted to life imprisonment, will not have the same freshness in the second consideration as the cabinet which had the responsibility for the original act.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is desirable and I strongly support the minister in saying that when we are making very important departures from the punishment of death in the case of wilful murder or, as it is called in the bill, capital murder planned or deliberate, we should make sure that in cases where the sentence of death has been commuted to life imprisonment the confinement is one that will protect the interests of society as well as providing for a proper measure of justice in so far as it is humanly possible to do that by human adjudication and by resorting to human standards.
I do not think there would be satisfaction in the country unless it were provided that the cabinet have the responsibility of reviewing recommendations made by the parole board as to the release of an accused person who had been sentenced to death for the crime of murder.
It may be that we will not always want these particular subclauses to stay on the statute books. It may be that the pressure of government business will make it difficult for a measure of this kind to prevail. Certainly when our country expands to a population twice its present size the problems of government will increase in consequence and so will the responsibilities of the cabinet. There may also be practical considerations and other reasons that will cause us to take a second look at this provision.
However, at this time I think the minister would not be meeting the wishes of most people in this country unless safeguards of this kind were provided. This means the cabinet is going to have put on it double the load about which the Prime Minister complained. If the cabinet now spends a considerable amount of time in considering what it should do in regard to capital cases, it is

now going to have to spend perhaps almost double that time in considering them.
I say this because if one bears in mind the record of commutations of this government one realizes the cabinet is going to have to spend a very considerable time in deciding whether or not a parole board's advice should be acted on and whether or not an individual sentenced to death, having had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment, is to be released as having fulfilled the life sentence substituted as a result of the commutation.
One wonders whether there will be the same care exercised by the cabinet with regard to the matter of further confinement or release from prison in the case of one who has been found guilty of murder, who has been sentenced to death but whose sentence has been commuted. Is the government going to take the same care in that direction as is taken with regard to the original act of commutation? I suspect there will be the same care, but I put the question in order to indicate the further burden which will be imposed on the cabinet and, I think, properly so, by this clause. The minister did say a moment ago that this bill does not in any way reduce the royal prerogative. I do not agree. I think this bill does reduce the incidence of the application of the royal prerogative just as the practice of commutation under this administration has resulted in an abridgement of the exercise of the royal prerogative by this particular cabinet executive as compared with its predecessor.
It seems to me that this is a compromise measure. I have expressed the view that although I do not agree with the draftsmanship of the bill it does meet my own point of view in principle. It obviously satisfies the government and it is likely a continuation of the practice which the government has itself pursued in considering how the royal prerogative shall be exercised. But it is a departure. The hon. member for Essex West said he voted for this bill on the assumption that we were retaining capital punishment. I have not read all the speeches made by those who participated in the debate on that subject but I do know that the private view of some members of this house is that through this measure we are taking a very forward step toward removing capital punishment altogether. That being the case, if we are going to be true to the opinions of those who have taken one position or another with regard to this bill it seems to me that this should be a trial measure only. We should resort to no process of finality in this legislation. We should adopt the procedure adopted in the United Kingdom of a five-year trial period-I think it was five years. I should like to see the minister say, without in any

way diluting or abridging the policy which the government has in mind, and without in any way retreating from the position it has taken, that in view of the importance of this matter to the administration of justice in this country the government proposes that this amendment should become law for a period of, let us say, five years or three years at the end of which time the amendment could be reviewed and the government of that day and the parliament of that day would come forward with new recommendations and urdertake a review of the position.
This suggestion does not in any way interfere with the principle of the bill and it would give many people in the country the feeling that in making this important departure we had acted in accordance with humanitarian instincts, in accordance with new concepts of the relation between offenders and the state and in accordance with new standards of morality while being, at the same time, moderate in our action and careful to keep within the rules of prudence. I think that is a consideration to which the minister might well give some attention and I hope he will say something about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before dealing with the last suggestion made by the hon. member for Essex East may I comment on what he said about the remarks made by the Prime Minister in this house on May 29? I think the hon. gentleman has to some extent misinterpreted what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister in indicating his views as to the procedures that might be followed in cabinet was doing nothing more or less, as I apprehend him, than taking this house into his confidence, as is so typical of him, as to the ways in which he feels our procedures, even our cabinet procedures, might be improved. The hon. member for Essex East appeared to take from the Prime Minister's remarks the impression that the right hon. gentleman thought a small committee of cabinet should have the final decision. That is not correct. What the Prime Minister said was that he felt that with respect to cabinet procedures we might approach more closely the procedures in the United Kingdom. As reported at page 5528 of Hansard the words used were:
-whereby the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General would make a determination and recommendation and, on the basis of the opportunity now given to juries to recommend mercy, would be able to bring their recommendation to the cabinet as a whole.
It is clear from those words that the Prime Minister had no intention of suggesting that a small committee of cabinet should make the final decision in these matters and, as I have said, the Prime Minister was not in any
Criminal Code
way attempting to lay down a principle of law. All he did was to take the house into his confidence with respect to his thinking as to how procedures even in cabinet might be improved.
With regard to the proposal that there should be a five year test period-that we should announce as a government that we are not laying down any final rule but would be prepared to review the act at the end of five years-I appreciate the evident intention of the hon. member to prejudge events and I agree with him that undoubtedly this government will have the opportunity to review the measure in five years. We shall be here five years from now.
But it is not necessary for us to write into the statute an intention to review it in five years. After all, the law is a living thing. The law progresses, and if it is found that in spite of the collective judgment of the government, the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada this has not proved to be a wise and desirable amendment, then, of course, we would invite parliament to make further changes. However, I suggest with all respect to the hon. member that when you are dealing with the law affecting people's lives it is not a good thing to say: we intend to do this for five years to see if it works and if it does not we shall change it.
We believe this legislation is sound and progressive. We are convinced that it meets the wishes of the people of Canada and that it does more. Not only does it reflect public opinion but it reflects that standard of morality of conduct by which the public of Canada would wish, in the highest sense, to be governed. In that sense we submit this bill to the judgment of parliament, not in any inflexible sense, not in the sense of saying "We are doing this and we must be right", but in our firm belief that it is a proper course to take. If it should prove not to have been a wise move, we should be prepared to consider amending it, not in five years, but at any time it becomes apparent that changes should be considered. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to put a five year time limit on any legislation as important and, if I may say so, as well conceived as this which, as I anticipate, will receive that indication from the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Transitional.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, clause 17 is the last clause in this bill and I should like the approval of this committee to say a very few words.
I feel my position as an abolitionist is very well known, and should like to say at this

Criminal Code
time I have not changed my view in any way whatever in respect of capital punishment. However, I do wish to say, in respect of the last clause of this bill, that I feel Canada is making a great stride forward in respect of penology, homicide and capital punishment. I find it rather paradoxical, being a strong abolitionist, that I should be discussing legalities and technicalities, but that is what happens when an abolitionist is a member of the House of Commons.
I should like to state that the feeling of this group, and my feeling particularly, is of appreciation and gratefulness for the great strides forward which are being taken, and on behalf of my colleagues I assure the committee that we will lend our unanimous support.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall we now consider clause 1?
On clause 1-Classification of murder.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, at the request of the committee, clause 1 was allowed to stand while we considered the possibility of amendments to take care of three suggestions. The first was that it should be made abundantly clear that a person who kills a police officer, or a member of a police force in the course of discharging the duties of that office, should be presumed to be guilty of capital murder. Second, that a person who kills a prison officer in the course of the discharging of his duties shall also be presumed to be guilty of capital murder. Third, the suggestion was made that the words used in the French version of this bill do not accurately reflect the English words in clause 1 (2)(a). The words involved are "planned and deliberate".
With regard to the first two of those suggestions, as I have indicated, it is our view that by virtue of the present draft, a person who kills a policeman in the execution of his duties, or a prison officer in the execution of his duties, would be guilty of capital murder as presently defined. However, as I indicated earlier, if there is doubt in this regard, in our readiness to be flexible, we are prepared to admit that we should not always have the last word, and are prepared to accept an amendment in order to clear away that doubt. Accordingly, I have had an amendment drafted which I will ask one of my colleagues to move after I have presented and explained its effect.
The first amendment would be made by striking out line 11 on page 1 and substituting therefor the word "person". Second, by striking out line 25 on page 1 and substituting the following:

Subparagraph (iv), or (c) such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of (i) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace acting in the course of his duties, or (ii) a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties, or counselled or procured another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing the death.
The effect of that amendment, Mr. Chairman, will be the adding of another subparagraph to section 202A, (2), which will include beyond any possibility of doubt the killing of a police officer or prison officer in the category of capital murder. I should ask my colleague the Solicitor General to move that amendment.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I believe you have a copy of the proposed amendment before you. I beg to move that clause 1 of the bill be amended as has been suggested by the Minister of Justice.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for St. John's West moves that Bill No. C-92, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder) be amended as follows:
(a)	by striking out line 11 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
person,
(b)	by striking out line 25 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
subparagraph (iv), or
(c)	such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of
(i)	a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties, or
(ii)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, goaler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties, or counselled or procured another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing the death.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, these
amendments will certainly meet with the approval of several hon. members.
With special reference to section 1 (b) (i), I should like to remind the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) that this amendment is due to the remarks made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh) who suggested that subparagraph (i) of that section should include the murder of a penitentiary officer or jail guard-
If I remember well, when the minister stated that he would ask his officials to submit to us an amendment covering that particular case, he added that he would give the merit to the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I am quite sure he will see no objection to doing that.

(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I am delighted to have the opportunity to support my hon. friend from Maisonneuve-Rosemont in his tribute to his colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, with respect to her interest in and sponsorship of this suggestion.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the amendment carry? Amendment agreed to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I have one other amendment to move with respect to the French version.
You will recall that some of our colleagues from the province of Quebec questioned the fact that the words "projete et delibere", which appear in line 7 at page 1 of the French version, accurately reproduce and translate the sense of the English words "planned and deliberate" where they appear in line 10 of the English version. I have consulted with the officials and with my colleagues who are both highly experienced criminal counsel and etymologists from the province of Quebec and I am advised that the sense of the English phrase "planned and deliberate" are not best rendered in French by the words "projete et delibere"; and that the full sense of the phrase "it is planned and deliberate on the part of such person" can best be rendered in French by the phrase "commis de propos delibere par". I would accordingly ask my colleague the Solicitor General to move the appropriate amendment.
(Translation):


William Joseph Browne: I suggest that the French version of paragraph (a), subsection (2) of the new section 202A, which is section 1 of Bill C-92, be amended by substituting the words:
.. . commis de propos delibdre par .. . for the words ... delibere de la part de ...


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Browne (St. John's West) moves that the French version of paragraph (a) subsection (2) of the new section 202A, which is section 1 of Bill C-92, be amended by substituting the words ... commis de propos delibere par ... for the words .. . delibere de la part de . . .
(Text):


Gabriel Roberge: Since the Solicitor General was kind enough to move the amendment in French I will compliment him in English. We think it is a step forward and an improvement in the translation of the French version and we approve of it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Combines Investigation Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gabriel Roberge: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE
Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-97, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I explained at the time when leave to introduce the bill was given, the purpose of the bill is to provide for a further year a moratorium which was first provided in an amendment in 1959, which has the effect that certain activities of the fishing companies and fishing unions in British Columbia which might otherwise be found to be contraventions of the Combines Investigation Act shall be deemed for this period not to be contraventions. This is necessary because the restrictive trade practices commission now has before it a report of the director of investigation in which he alleges that these practices do raise questions under the Combines Investigation Act. However, the matter has not yet been settled, and if we were not to provide this moratorium the fishing industry in British Columbia would be thrown into considerable disorder.
The reason for the delay in settling the issue is that there have arisen certain side issues in the course of the hearings arranged by the restrictive trade practices commission which have been the subject of injunction applications which have unduly protracted those hearings. Therefore I am asking that this moratorium be extended for a further year, until December, 1962.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that no one wants to endlessly affect the fishing industry in British Columbia or in any other part of Canada. I believe the reason which the minister has given tonight is the reason he gave last year. If there is a good reason for excluding the fishermen-I put this as a matter of interrogation-why should it be merely a moratorium? Why should there not be some more extended period during which the fishermen are given this protection? Why should they be given this protection for only a limited period of time? It seems to me the minister owes the house a further explanation.

Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I think the government ought to end this kind of farce here and now. The Combines Investigation Act was designed originally to protect consumers and the ordinary working people of our nation. However, inadvertently, I believe, a misuse is being made of this act. This is a deliberate attempt to smash a legitimate union of the fishermen, and they have been kept out on the limb now for a long time.
I can remember our present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) expressing his opinion of the Combines Investigation Act when he was in the opposition ranks. He called for an act that had some teeth in it and for confinement behind bars of those who were found guilty of violating the intent of the act. I am sure that it never was the intent of the act to prevent the working people of Canada from combining with one another to get a fair deal. Yet, by one means or another, over a period of many years now, under both Liberal and Conservative governments, our fishermen have had a gun pointed at their heads. I believe it is high time that the government came clean and discontinued this particular investigation or demanded that the fishing companies produce their own records.
It is very easy. Mr. Speaker, to ask a fisherman to produce his records. These records are a matter of public knowledge. Yet, under the leadership of a former minister of the crown, the fishing companies are holding a gun at the head of the fishermen in British Columbia. This investigation is resented very deeply by all the working people of British Columbia, and we appeal to the government to end this nonsense once and for all. Either bring the fishing companies to task, make them open their books and expose their nefarious dealings to the public or allow the union of fishermen to negotiate as they have in the past in the interests of all our fishermen.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, last year we were bitterly critical of various sections of the combines bill which was then before us. This year, we still have some fears about the way in which the act is administered. The rather simple amendment now before the house, providing for a one year extension of certain privileges granted to fishermen in British Columbia, prompts me to ask this question: Do the fishermen of the rest of Canada not have the same rights as the fishermen of British Columbia?
I know that in the fishing industry, it is often very hard to sell at prices that will

enable the fishermen to earn a decent living. If the purpose of this bill is to help needy fishermen, I am quite prepared to support it. On the other hand, if this is true for one part of the country, it must also be true for the rest of the country. Those who fish on the Atlantic coast must be in a similar situation and should enjoy equal privileges.
I am therefore wondering, as was mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Regier)-I forget the exact name of his constituency-Burnaby-Coquitlam, I think-


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Alexis Pierre Caron: -well, special case legislation is always rather tricky, and one must always be very careful before accepting or refusing such legislation.
However, I am not prepared to go as far as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I will not say it is like a revolver placed at the back of the head of a certain class of citizens, but I will say that if this is needed -and this must be proven-in one section of the country, it should also be needed in the rest of the country, because the plight of fishermen is serious throughout Canada, and there should be protection both for the Atlantic fishermen and the Pacific fishermen.
I feel they have been exploited by purchasers for many years. If a way, a system can be found that will end such exploitation, I am quite in favour of it and will support the bill. However, I think the minister should show us the need. And if such a need applies only to British Columbia, the minister should tell us why, because I think the Atlantic fisherman has been exploited just as much as the Pacific fisherman.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills which are becoming perennial and each time it is presented the minister is asked to make it applicable across the country, as the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has just suggested, or the minister is asked to make the moratorium effective for a sufficiently long period of time to encompass all of the activities that are going on in the fishing industry of British Columbia because that is what the bill deals with.
The reason that the bill is before us arises from the fact that an inquiry was initiated consequent upon the statement of six citizens five or six years ago, and it is one of the very few inquiries that have been initiated in this way. In general the inquiry dealt

with a price conspiracy in the fishing industry of British Columbia primarily with regard to sales on the export market. Last year there was an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act which provided that it was all right to engage in what we would call illegal conspiracies so far as the export field is concerned, and no sooner was the bill passed than the fisheries association of British Columbia issued a statement that parliament had now agreed that it had been proper for the fishing companies to engage in price conspiracies in past years. This, of course, is quite untrue.
The point is that by a series of legal manoeuvres involving applications for injunctions and so on-I understand the matter is now before the courts so perhaps we should not debate it too much-the inquiry that was started some five or six years ago has not even reached the stage of the restrictive trade practices commission holding hearings and the commission has not even progressed halfway toward making a report on its findings.
Like the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Regier), I think the situation is becoming more farcical all the time. I for one believe that when the Combines Investigation Act was amended by parliament last session the minister should have introduced amendments to those sections of the act which state in essence that it shall not apply to workmen who combine for their own protection, or whatever the phraseology is, to ensure that this sort of legal persecution was discontinued. As I say, this is one of those types of bills that are becoming perennial. We find ourselves in the position of not being able to do anything at the moment other than support it and in effect allow these associations to engage again in illegal activities with the sanction of a statute until the matter is cleared up. But I think it is a disgrace that delaying tactics of this sort can go on year after year and that parliament should find itself in the position of having to provide moratorium after moratorium year after year to allow the situation to continue. I wonder whether I might call it 10.30, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Churchill:: If you would care to finish tonight, we are quite prepared to listen if
Business of the House
the hon. member would like to continue for a few minutes.


An hon. Member:: Ten thirty.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the house leader put on Hansard again the business he indicated for the rest of week so that it will be available to hon. members tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will carry on with legislative items tomorrow and Wednesday. First we will take any third readings that are available. Then we will take Bill No. C-97, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. The third item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice dealing with the Judges Act and the Exchequer Court Act. The fourth item will be Bill No. C-99, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. The fifth item will be Bill No. C-100, an act to provide for the control of narcotic drugs. The sixth item will be Bill No. C-98, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. The seventh item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with the Export Credits Insurance Act. Item No. 8 will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the Farm Credit Act. Item No. 9 will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance with regard to amending the Financial Administration Act. That is for Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday we intend to commence with the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Depending on the progress that we make, we will consider the business for Friday and Saturday. I think it would be unwise to attempt to announce anything in addition to this at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Last week the minister indicated that defence production would follow defence. Is that still the intention?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes. Defence production will follow national defence.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
90205-6-374
[Stage Direction]
Questions