1961-05-24

Mr. G. W. Montgomery (Vicloria-Carlelon):: I have the honour to present the fourth and fifth reports of the standing committee on veterans affairs. By unanimous consent I move:
That the fourth report of the standing committee on veterans affairs, presented this day, be now concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton unanimous consent to move his motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Churchill:: It is simply to reduce the quorum.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, before the request for unanimous consent is made may I ask whether there is any reason for requesting unanimous consent? Perhaps the mover of the motion would give us some indication on that.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton is asking for unanimous consent perhaps he would state his reason.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am asking for unanimous consent in order to have the fourth report of the committee concurred in today is that it has been the experience of the committee that the members thereof spend 10 or 15 minutes on some occasions waiting until there is a quorum. Several committees are meeting simultaneously, and some members of this committee also serve on other committees. At the last meeting of our committee it was unanimously decided among the members present, representing all parties, that we would ask leave of the house to reduce our quorum from 15 to 10.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Robinson):
That the fourth report of the standing committee on veterans affairs presented this day be now concurred in.
That report would simply have the effect of reducing the quorum from 15 to 10.
90205-6-334


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the explanation offered by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, has he unanimous consent to move his motion?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, there will be no opposition to this, of course, but the request highlights the reason for it, and that is that so many committees are sitting at this stage of our proceedings-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not rising at a time when debate is permitted. The house either gives unanimous consent or not. I take it that the hon. member for Essex East does not wish to dissent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will now put the motion. By unanimous consent Mr. Montgomery, seconded by Mr. Robinson, moves:
That the fourth report of the standing committee on veterans affairs presented this day be now concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I take it that I may say something at this stage. I do not intend to oppose this motion except to state that I believe the reason the hon. gentleman is asking that this motion be put forward at this time is that there is difficulty in getting the attendance of members of committees at the appropriate times because so many committee meetings are being held at this stage in the proceedings of the session. For instance, the house begins its sitting at 11 o'clock, and a committee is going to meet at one o'clock. Committees are meeting this afternoon.
This difficulty arises out of the failure of the government to bring forward its legislation at the appropriate time in the session. Members of the opposition who have a responsibility are finding it difficult to discharge that responsibility because of the simultaneous holding of so many committee meetings at a time when important legislation is being discussed in this house. The other day we had a situation in which an important matter dealing with freight rates was being discussed in a committee of this house while the hon. member for Laurier, a former minister of transport and the Liberal critic in transport matters, as well as the Minister of Transport himself were engaged in discussions in this house on amendments having to do with the Canada Shipping Act.

Veterans Affairs Committee
So while I do not object to the request at this stage, I point out that the government has so mismanaged its affairs in the conduct of our proceedings-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that this kind of request is now being put forward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that hon. gentlemen do not like what I am saying, but that is the fact. Not only is it a fact that opposition members are finding the situation difficult, but it is a fact that members on the government side are also finding it difficult. Some members on the government side are actually boycotting a particular committee because it is being held at a particular time. I hope these remarks will serve to remind the administration that it is largely responsible for this situation.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the hon. member for Essex East, who on this occasion is my partner in protest. I agree with what he has said. I might say that in heart and in mind we agree when it comes to criticism of the present arrangements with regard to the committees. In the veterans affairs committee we unanimously agreed to reduce the quorum to 10. We accepted that suggestion reluctantly because we would attend meetings and would wait 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 25 minutes. We would have a number of officials, whose time is valuable, waiting for the committee to meet in order to give their answers to questions raised by members of the committee. It was because of that circumstance that we agreed to a reduction of the quorum to 10. However, as the hon. member for Essex East has mentioned, there is a committee which is called to meet today at one o'clock. I refer to the committee on external affairs. I cannot attend that committee meeting.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because I will be attending another committee at one o'clock. This sort of thing happens repeatedly. When we consider external affairs and their importance and we find that this committee is being called during the lunch hour so hon. members can discuss international affairs in between snacks. I think it is going a bit too far.
I wish to join with the hon. member for Essex East in an effort to get some better organization of the time of the committees and earlier starting of the committees in the session. If the committees commenced sitting early in the session we would not have this situation, with all this undue haste and in many cases lack of dignity in the work of the committees.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there is no other committee meeting at one o'clock today except the external affairs committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; the external affairs committee.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: As I have said on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, I realize the difficulty of a small opposition in securing the necessary representatives on the various committees set up. That has been now-


An hon. Member:: That is not the reason-


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman who does most of his talking from a seated position will remain silent, I will continue with the argument.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Keep the Minister of Public Works quiet.


George James McIlraith: I will give him exactly the courtesy that he gives me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has an inveterate desire to babble away, and I do not want to interfere with that. As I was saying a moment ago, all through the years this has been a cause of complaint. We felt when we were in opposition that it was difficult for hon. members to sit in the various committees which were sitting during those days. This year we set up committees earlier than has been the case in many years in the past.
I want to point out that hon. gentlemen have been asking for various matters to be submitted to committees; they have not had enough to do. I seem to recall an argument last week on that subject, when the opposition said, "We want a report submitted to a committee". They were not so fearful then that they would not have the necessary members available.
I simply rise for the purpose of saying that what has resulted is not from a lack of organization on the part of the government but rather from a failure on the part of the opposition to bifurcate themselves or trifurcate themselves so they can attend the various committees. I would suggest that the committees might arrange to sit at different times so as to enable hon. members to attend the committee meetings.
I have been listening the last few days, and it is interesting to see that as soon as the hon. member for Essex East receives the responsibility of "acting leader" of the opposition he forever rails away at the lack of organization. I say "Physician, heal thyself".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has suggested that the difficulty is with the opposition. I suggest, sir, that there are enough members, supporters of the government, on this committee in proportion to their numbers in this house. Why it is necessary to reduce the quorum at this time; why it is not possible for those government members to bifurcate themselves-to use the Prime Minister's words-so they can at least maintain the quorum on these committees is very hard to understand.
It is true, of course, that it has been the policy of the government all through this session to maintain what I described the other day as a friendly filibuster on their own legislation by their members in this house. But even at that, only one of them at a time can speak in the house from his place, though some, like the Minister of Public Works speak regularly from their seats. However, there would be no need to reduce the quorum of this committee because of the failure of opposition members to attend if there was a reasonable attendance on the part of hon. members on the government side of the house.
It does seem to me that this motion at this time is really quite unnecessary. It is unnecessary for another reason; it is unnecessary because the work of the veterans affairs committee could have been completed long before this if the war veterans legislation had been brought forward at the same time the pension legislation was brought forward, and proceeded with properly as it should have been. We understand that this legislation is not even ready yet, and the resolution is being filibustered on the other side because the government cannot yet make up its mind what to put in the bill.
It is true that there are so many committees meeting that it is very difficult for many of them to get a quorum. Indeed the other day, in the case referred to by my hon. friend from Essex East, when there was objection taken to the simultaneous meeting of the committee on railways and discussion of the legislation on the Canadian National Railways in the house, I think it is within the knowledge of all hon. members that a tie took place in that committee on a vote because there were so few supporters of the government at the committee meeting. This is a fact; and when the Prime Minister gets up and talks about a failure of the opposition in connection with this matter, facts rather than fiction, if I may use a word dear to the leader of the government, might be applied to the situation.
This situation has risen mainly for another reason, mainly because the hours of sitting of this house were extended in an altogether 90205-6-334J
Veterans Affairs Committee unprecedented way long before the government's most important legislation had been brought down at all, long before most of it was ready, and long before there was a budget. I cannot remember in the past when the hours of sitting were ever lengthened until all the legislation had been announced by the government-except, of course, for something that might be announced in an emergency-and practically all of it was on the order paper. I call attention to the fact that the most important legislation-that dealing with federal-provincial tax-sharing, unemployment insurance and the budget, to name only three items-has not yet been introduced, and one could lengthen the list to include the 20 items which the Prime Minister announced on April 24, most of which have not been brought down. This whole situation has been created by that precipitate effort of the government at that time, and because they were afraid to bring in their legislation before next Monday.


Mr. Palleli:: Before the hon. member completes his diatribe I wonder if he would be in favour of the attendance records of the committees being tabled in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would have no objection whatsoever. I should not mind. If, however, the hon. gentleman selects my attendance at the Indians affairs committee, which has almost always sat at the same time as the committee on broadcasting, I must point out that I am not able to bifurcate myself in that respect.


Mr. Hellyer:: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that the question before us is the reduction or waiving of the quorum required at a specific committee. I trust that hon. members will confine themselves for the rest of the discussion to this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I merely rose to say that from what the Prime Minister told the house a few minutes ago it is clear that he feels the opposition needs reinforcement. I hope the electors in four districts next Monday will see fit to accommodate him.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: The hon. member for Essex East and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate have mentioned the sittings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and I have a protest to make in this regard which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. We were sitting in that committee hearing witnesses from the truckers' association who were here to present their views,

Veterans Affairs Committee and the hon. member for Laurier informed us that he could not remain because he had to be in the house. However, there were five other members of the Liberal party sitting on that committee, and they told us that the hon. member for Laurier was the only one in that party who could speak on transportation.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's point, but I do not see the relevance of what happened in that committee to the subject now under discussion. There has been some latitude allowed, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is talking about a different matter.


John Ferguson Browne: With
all deference, Mr. Speaker, the other two hon. members referred to what happened in that committee and I think it is only proper there should be an understanding of what did occur.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not consider that particular incident relevant to this question of what shall constitute a quorum.


John Ferguson Browne: Surely I have the same right as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to refer to that committee and to the specific case with which I am dealing at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry if the hon. member feels I have discriminated but there must be a line drawn, as I intimated before the hon. member rose. This debate is not a broad one, and I do not think we can discuss all the arrangements of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word on this motion. The meeting of the external affairs committee is scheduled for one o'clock this afternoon. In the years that I have been chairman I have attempted to meet the requests of the opposition not to sit while the house is sitting, and to try as far as possible to avoid meeting while other committees are meeting. At the inaugural meeting of the committee this year this matter was again mentioned. When I asked for consent of the house to sit while the house was in session the matter was not brought to a vote, but nearly so. When we met a discussion of the hours ensued, and one of the members of the committee suggested that we meet at one o'clock. This is an hour when the house is not in session and when no other committees are meeting with the exception of the restaurant committee.
Today the hon. member for Essex East left the impression that members of the government side were in a sense boycotting the committee.
[Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kinsgway).l


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say that at all.


Harry Oliver White: As I say, we tried our very best to arrange hours that did not conflict with other committees and with the house. I am sorry to say the opposition by their absence from the committee at the last two meetings have abdicated their responsibility as far as external affairs are concerned. I want to make it perfectly clear that the members of the government were present-they constituted more than a quorum-and took care of the business very well. If opposition members want to abdicate their responsibilities on a very important committee dealing with the external affairs of this country then that is their responsibility and not mine, and I hope no further reference will be made to the boycotting of the committee. The committee meets at one o'clock this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not rising to take part in the debate. He indicates that he is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Starr:: No; this is just a dodge.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member said those who do not attend the meeting of the external affairs committee at one o'clock will not be discharging their responsibilities as members of this house. This is a reflection on any member of that committee who does not attend, and I happen to be one of those.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has properly said that there is some reflection on members in general who are accused of not attending committee meetings. When he says that, he is simply continuing the debate and not raising a matter of privilege, because I think similar accusations have already been made from the other side of the house. I would not think that the accusation is serious enough on which to found a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, may I say that a question of privilege must be raised forthwith. For an hon. member to say that another hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the hon. member and I have allowed him to raise his alleged question of privilege forthwith, but in my view it does not affect the privilege of the house.


Mr. Caron:: On the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege has been disposed of.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is another question of privilege, then. The hon. member went so far as to say that the Liberal party was trying to boycott the committee.


Mr. Fulton:: No; the hon. member for Essex East said that.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He has no right to say that, because if they want the committee to sit they have sufficient members to constitute a quorum even if the members of the Liberal party are not represented. He has no right to say we are trying to boycott the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is really continuing a debate on the charges and countercharges. Is the house ready for the question?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the motion for concurrence in the committee report made by the chairman of the committee is one that I have no desire at all to oppose. I think the chairman is caught in the position where he is desirous of moving the business of the committee forward, and he finds himself in a predicament. In order to carry on the work he has to come to the house and ask for a reduction in the quorum. With his action in doing that I have no quarrel whatever, because of the circumstances in which he finds himself; but the necessity of taking that action does reveal a bad condition in the management of the business of the house.
When the Prime Minister of this country, who is looked to in this house as the leader of the house, rose to deal with this subject he saw fit to start off his remarks in a way that examination will reveal was most offensive, unfair and inaccurate. When I interjected, as it was contrary to the rules I was taken to task for that interjection. When I was being taken to task for interjecting the Prime Minister seemed to approve the interjections of his Minister of Public Works, as is his wont.
I merely want to point out to the Prime Minister that in handling this debate in this way-this is a subject that is debatable- and in introducing this standard of conduct he is going a long way from the subject matter, which is a difficult one, and he conducts himself in a way that other hon. members in the house are likely to follow as the proper one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wished to raise the subject matter he is referring to, which is the conduct of the Prime Minister, he should have raised it as a point of order at the time. It is not relevant to the debate.
Veterans Affairs Committee


George James McIlraith: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, I do desire to say something about the substance of the argument of the Prime Minister and to answer it because I feel that if the argument was allowable and was permitted to be made it surely is in order to reply to it.
The substance of his argument was his usual line, an indirect attempt to ridicule the small numbers in the opposition. That was the line of argument. Then he went on to say that they should trifurcate themselves in order to make sufficient numbers to attend the committee sittings.
May I remind the Prime Minister that notwithstanding his rather skilful method of handling this, in the way he did, he did not deal with the real point. Yesterday morning at 9.30 the attendance of 42 members of the opposition would have been required in committees, and that is making no allowance for any meetings having to do with legislation in the house that we are going on with at the present time, or in preparing ourselves for legislation. He will recall that on Monday and Tuesday of this week legislation was brought before the house on very short notice. He must not only recall that but he must assume responsibility for it.
I would hope that the Prime Minister would take enough time from trying to make those rather appealing arguments that may or may not be wholly relevant to the point to see whether he could not give some attention to the better organization and presentation of business to the house and to committees in an orderly way that would try to meet this difficulty. I invite the Prime Minister to give some real thought and care to that subject rather than always seeking to use diversionary arguments which, by the way, he does very skilfully.
I am not suggesting it is out of order for him to follow that course if he wishes to do so, but I respectfully suggest that he should devote a little attention to the whole question of the preparation of legislation in proper time so it can be submitted to the house in an orderly way, and also the question of the arrangement of sittings of committees in such a way that we will not have the spectacle we had the other day with respect to legislation concerning the transport department, or the situation we had a few days earlier when the agriculture committee was sitting to deal with quite important matters at the very time an agricultural bill was being debated in the house. I suggest that these matters are worthy of his attention.
In making his remarks today the Prime Minister based his argument on the smallness of the opposition, and I should like to remind him of something he said on that very subject

Starred Questions
on an earlier occasion. He was quoted in the press on August 11, 1953, as having made this statement:
There is nothing much that one can say, excepting that I would have liked to have seen a powerful opposition in the House of Commons. After all, a strong opposition to the government is essential to our democratic way of life. The load that rests on the few that have been elected is almost impossible for the average individual to understand.
I simply suggest to the Prime Minister that in the light of that background we are now free to interpret his remarks today as an appeal to the voters in the four constituencies in which by-elections are being held.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something before the question is put. If I had been at the second last meeting of the veterans affairs committee I would have opposed this change. The committee has a membership of 60, and obviously there should be enough people available to constitute a quorum.
Over the past three years the Prime Minister has suggested that the committees should be made more effective in the discharge of their functions. Obviously the veterans affairs committee cannot be effective if only 10 out of 60 members are present. I suggest that one thing we should possibly do is what the Prime Minister tried to do a year or two ago, when he installed a speaker system in his office in order to follow the debates in the house. I am not suggesting that that be done in our offices, but rather that simultaneous translation and amplification systems be installed in each of the committee rooms so that members will be able to follow the debates in the committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's suggestion is quite ingenious but also quite irrelevant. Is the house ready for the question?


Gage Workman Montgomery: May I say one word?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already spoken.


Gage Workman Montgomery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just stated that the veterans affairs committee is a 60-man committee. I should like to inform him and the house that it is only a 40-man committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


PRINTING BUREAU


Mr. McMillan: 1.	What was the total cost of printing done outside the printing bureau for all departments of government for the last fiscal year?

2.	Were tenders called on any or all of this work?
3.	What firms or persons received the three highest printing awards, and what were the amounts of such awards?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The answer to part 1 of this question is $5,640,658.
The answer to part 2 is yes. Tenders were called on this work in accordance with the Public Printing and Stationery Act and the government contract regulations.
The answer to part 3 is Canadian Bank Note Limited, Ottawa, the award being in the amount of $96,153.75; Ashton-Potter Limited, Toronto, the award being in the amount of $71,653; and R. L. Crain Limited, Ottawa, the award being in the amount of $57,723.70.



SATELLITE STATION, MONT LAURIER  U.S.- CANADA NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Clermont: 1.	Have the negotiations with the United States concerning an international agreement on the establishment of a satellite station at Mont Laurier, province of Quebec, been concluded?
2.	If so: (a) what has resulted from such negotiations? (b) at what date will the works begin, and how long will they last?
3.	If not, what is the reason for the delay in the said negotiations with the United States, in view of the fact that the board of broadcast governors has recommended the granting of a licence on December 8, 1960?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Channel 3 has been assigned to Mont Laurier for the proposed station.
(b)	This transmitter is to be an off-air rebroadcasting station of the proposed station at Mont Tremblant on channel 11, and construction of both stations will be concurrent. Work on the project is expected to start soon. The corporation is awaiting the final resolution of the leasing arrangements for the transmitter site of the master station at Mont Tremblant, which is to be located on property administered by the Quebec provincial government. The corporation expects that these stations will be in operation this autumn.



COST OF BORDEN COMMISSION

Mr. Forgie: What was the total cost of the Borden commission including the printing of the report?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is $443,557.61.



CHRIS DOBSON

Mr. Mitchell: 1.	Is Chris Dobson employed full time in the public service of Canada?
2.	If so, (a) what is his position (b) what are the duties (c) what is the salary?
3.	Is this Chris Dobson the same person who appeared, under the name of Chris Bryant, on the Wally Koster C.B.C.-T.V. show on Sunday, May 7?
4.	If so, did he receive any remuneration for this appearance?
5.	Has he made any other stage and/or television appearances, either in Canada or the United States, while in the public service? If so, on how many occasions, and what absences from his duties were involved?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answers are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Associate private secretary to the Minister of Justice.
(b)	Preparing briefs on subjects requested by the minister; handling minister's correspondence related to various areas of minister's responsibilities, and other duties pertaining to the minister's office as assigned.
(c)	$6,500.
With respect to parts 3, 4 and 5 the detailed information requested here is not in my possession. Mr. Dobson before his appointment as my assistant private secretary apparently undertook as a hobby the developing, together with a friend, of a variety act or skit for the entertainment of their friends. This eventually led to their appearance before larger audiences and from time to time their endeavours earned them a fee. All this was done in Mr. Dobson's spare time. This spare time activity was continued on an occasional basis since he joined my staff.
Being satisfied in every respect with the manner in which Mr. Dobson has carried out his duties, being satisfied that his other activities have not interfered in any way with the performance of those duties, and being satisfied that he is a person of excellent character and conduct and a proper person to be employed in the public service of Canada, I have not concerned myself with the details of his private life.



C.B.C. BROADCASTS    REPRESENTATIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. McMillan: 1.	Have any representations been made by the Secretary of State to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation either by letter, telephone, or conversation, with regard to any television program broadcast or proposed to be broadcast?
2.	If so, when, and how were they made, what was the nature of these representations, and to what program were they referring?
Starred Questions


Léon Balcer: The answer to part 1 of this question is no, and part 2 is answered by the answer to part 1.



C.B.C. BROADCASTS    REPRESENTATIONS BY AGRICULTURE MINISTER

Mr. Clermont: 1.	Have any representations been made by the Minister of Agriculture to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation either by letter, telephone, or conversation, with regard to any television program broadcast or proposed to be broadcast?
2.	If so, when, and how were they made, what was the nature of these representations, and to what program were they referring?


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Agriculture):: 1 am informed that our information division is in day to day touch with private and C.B.C. stations about information and slides that the stations want for programs, but no representations, written or verbal, have ever been made about anything to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For my own part, there have been no representations to the C.B.C. except that on one occasion I did compliment a camera crew on a very fine agricultural program which I pointed out would do a great deal to bring about better understanding between farmers and city people.



POLAR SHELF HELICOPTER SERVICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	In its answer to starred question No. 189, Hansard of March 15, 1961, page 3006, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys listed the following equipment required of the contractor to perform the helicopter service on the continental polar shelf: "4 Sikorsky S-55 helicopters equipped with float landing gear; 1 Sikorsky S-55 helicopter equipped with wheel landing gear; 1 Bell 47 G2A helicopter equipped with skid and float landing gear". When operations on the polar shelf were started in 1961, did the contractor have the above named equipment on the job?
2.	Were the Sikorsky S-55's and the Bell 47 G2A's equipped with skid and float landing gear as required?


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: In answer to the hon. member for Laurier, I must first indicate that my answer on March 15, 1961, Hansard page 3006, listed, at his request, the helicopter and equipment requirements for both the polar continental shelf project and a topographical survey project in 1961. Question No. 346 does not reflect my previous answers accurately. The 1961 requirements for the polar continental shelf project only are as follows: 2 Sikorsky S-55 helicopters equipped with float landing gear, 1 Sikorsky S-55 helicopter equipped with wheel landing gear, 1 Bell 47 G2A helicopter equipped with skid and float landing gear. In the light of

Starred Questions
the above, I now submit the following answers to the two specific questions.
1.	It was not necessary that the contractor have the helicopter equipment on the job when operations on the polar shelf project started in 1961 as such equipment was not required until a later date.
2.	The four helicopters supplied to this project in 1961 were equipped in accordance with the requirements listed in my answer to question No. 189, part 1.



NARCOTIC DRUGS, B.C. PENITENTIARIES

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1957, have any narcotic drugs been found (a) in the possession of an inmate in the British Columbia penitentiary (b) in the possession of a staff member or employee in the British Columbia penitentiary, or (c) on any of the British Columbia penitentiary reserve lands, or in or near any of the penitentiary buildings; and, if so, how many said inmates or said employees were found to be in possession, and in how many instances were narcotic drugs found upon the said lands or in or near any of the said buildings with the date of each such find?
2.	What volume of such drugs, by type, were found in the possession of each said inmate or employee or were found in or near the said buildings?
3.	What penalty, if any, was meted out to each said inmate, or said employee?
4.	Have any of the inmates or employees been suspected of being in possession of such drugs; and, if so, in how many instances?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the information necessary to be obtained to reply to this question is quite detailed, and I have not yet got it complete. Since I imagine it would be desired to have the information before next Wednesday, I suggest that this question be made an order for return. I think I will be able to table the return before the end of the week, or very shortly thereafter. Otherwise it would have to wait until next Wednesday when starred questions come up again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS CONTRACTS WITH CANADIAN MARCONI

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources any contracts with Canadian Marconi Company; and, if so, how many, what is the purpose of each, and what is the location at which the particular work is being carried out?
2.	Has the department had occasion to check
the contracts of employment which the said Canadian Marconi Company enters into with its employees; and, if so, has it been discovered that the following clause is contained within the said contracts of employment:	"Native and Eskimo
villages are considered out of bounds and personnel are prohibited from fraternization or association with the native populations except in special circumstances. Infringement of these orders is cause for discharge."?
[Mr. Comtois.l
3.	Has the department any knowledge of persons who have been so discharged pursuant to the clause mentioned in question number 2; and, if so, how many such persons have been so discharged, and has the department taken any steps to have these persons reinstated in the employ of the Canadian Marconi Company; and, if so, what steps, with what results?
4.	Has the department had occasion to investigate whether or not the clause referred to in question number 2 is in violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights and/or of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act; and, if so, what has been discovered as a result of the said investigation, and have any steps been taken to have Canadian Marconi Company comply with the above-mentioned statutes; and, if so, what steps, with what results?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the four parts of the question are as follows.
1.	The only contract which the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has with Canadian Marconi Company is one under which the company operates a small heating plant at Great Whale River on behalf of the department.
2.	Yes, the clause in question came to the attention of the department when Mr. T. J. Whitfield wrote to me on February 27, 1961.
3.	Yes, the department has been informed in writing of one, and has been informed orally of nine others. The department did take steps to have Mr. Whitfield retained in employment by oral representations to an officer of the company. I also wrote to Mr. Whitfield indicating that the area administrator for the department would assist him in his problem. I might add that since Mr. Whitfield left the employ of the company I have endeavoured, without success, to have him visit me here in Ottawa. No action was taken in the other cases as improper relations with Eskimo women were involved.
4.	No legal decision has been rendered on these two points. The clause, however, is contrary to the spirit of the government order issued in 1959 removing disabilities against the indigenous population which had existed since 1955 under directives from the former administration. I have written to the Canadian Marconi Company urging a change in the clause to bring the contract into harmony with the policies of the present administration, particularly to remove the absolute bar of contact on a racial basis, but at the same time to deal firmly with improper relations.



RESERVE TRADESMEN TRAINING PLAN, R.C.A.F.

Mr. Clermont: 1.	Has the reserve tradesmen training plan of the Royal Canadian Air Force auxiliary squadrons been cancelled, and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What has been the cost of this program to date?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the two parts of this question are as follows.
1.	Yes. It is now planned to enrol candidates directly into the auxiliary and give them similar training in the technical training units. This will eliminate the additional expenditures involved in maintaining the R.T.T.P. as a separate training program.
2.	Since its inception in 1953, $3,741,772.



ORDERS FOR SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS

Mr. Bourgel: As of May 12, 1961, by shipyards and by vessels, how many firm orders for self-propelled vessels now under construction or to be built, which will be eligible for subsidy, were in existence; and, more particularly, in connection with all such firm orders, the following information: (a) name of the purchaser for whom the vessel is being built, (b) yard number or proposed name if allocated, (c) type of vessel, (d) place where and purpose for which the vessel is to be used, (e) estimated gross tonnage, (f) contract price to purchaser (exclusive of escalation costs or extras), (g) estimated percentage of construction completed on May 11, 1961,	(h) the amount, if
any, which the Canadian Maritime Commission has authorized to be withdrawn from any funds held on deposit under the provisions of the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act, or held in escrow from the proceeds of disposition of flag-covenanted vessels, to be applied to the purchase price; (i) what percentage of Canadian content, if any, is required for the approval of such funds?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, an exact answer to this question can be given only when the regulations governing the policy have been approved by the governor in council and when the operators concerned have in fact made application and have had their applications dealt with under the new policy.



MIRACLE DRUGS


Mr. Bourget: 1.	Has the Minister of Health and Welfare received representations from the maritime federation of agriculture asking what control, if any, is exercised by the federal government in regard to the publication of information on so-called miracle drugs?
2.	If so, did the minister reply, and what was the nature of his reply?
Hon. J. V/. Monieiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the answers to the two parts of this question are as follows.
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. I replied in part as follows:
We have no authority with respect to news items, magazine articles, editorials or other forms of communication to the public, regardless of the fact that they may deal with a food or a drug. It would only be where an advertisement was published that my officials would have any right to examine the material and to take any action ...
Starred Questions
In the field of advertising, however, we exercise control in two ways. One is via the Food and Drugs Act and the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and the other is in the field of broadcasting. Under the broadcasting regulations, no commercial can be used unless it has first been approved by my department. We examine something in the nature of thirty thousand commercials annually . ..
You will appreciate it is impossible to ensure that all advertisements for medicinal products will be sufficiently tailored to everyone's taste. We attempt, however, to eliminate areas of deception and of excessive exaggeration and generally to require that the advertisement will be factual but without unduly deglamourizing its presentation. To do so, would be regarded as an unwarranted interference by the government with the right of a manufacturer to describe and to market his product in the way that he feels most suitable in a competitive system. As regards the Food and Drugs Act, we have no right of censorship and can only take action in the case of printed material after its publication. Here we endeavour to do the best possible in a very difficult area. I am sure that the quality of medicinal advertising in Canada is, in comparison with that in other countries, of a very sober and moderate character.



NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


Mr. Badanai: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint a representative of major industrial unions on the national productivity council?
2.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to parts 1 and 2 are as follows.
By P.C. No. 1961-290 of February 28, 1961, the following representatives of organized labour were appointed to the national productivity council:
Claude Jodoin, president, Canadian Labour Congress, Ottawa, Ontario; Marcel Pepin, director, national metal trades federation, Quebec city, Quebec; Arthur R. Gibbons, vice-president and legislative representative in Canada, the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen, Ottawa, Ontario; Michael H. Nicols, Canadian vice president, international association of asbestos workers and president, provincial building and construction trades council of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario; John D. Carroll, international representative and assistant to the Canadian vice president, international brotherhood of boilermakers, iron shipbuilders, blacksmiths, forgers and helpers, Toronto, Ontario.
These appointments and others were announced by the right hon. Prime Minister in this chamber on that day, February 28, 1961, and are recorded in column 2, page 2483 of the House of Commons Hansard.

Starred Questions



C.M.H.C. SEWAGE PROJECT LOANS

Mr. McMillan: In connection with the amending legislation empowering Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make loans for the purpose of aiding the construction and expansion of municipal sewage treatment projects: (a) how many municipalities have applied for such loans? (b) how many loans have been approved, and to what amount? (c) what is the interest charge on the loans? (d) what is the total amount of the capital that will be written off in respect to loans already approved?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the four parts of this question are as follows:
(a)	59.
(b)	45; estimated amount of $27,429,213.
(c)	5-J per cent on the first 33 loans; 5| per cent on the remaining 12 loans, after the corporation's borrowing rate from the consolidated fund was raised one quarter of one per cent.
(d)	An estimated $6,994,450.



MRS. FRANCES MALONEY, VANCOUVER   DEPORTATION ORDER

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has a deportation order been issued against a Mrs. Frances Maloney of Vancouver, and, if so, what is the date of the said order?
2.	Is Mrs. Maloney a Canadian citizen, and, if not, of what country is she a citizen?
3.	How long has Mrs. Maloney been resident in Canada?
4.	Has Mrs. Maloney any children, and, if so, how many, what is the age of each, where was each born, and what is the nationality of each?
5.	Is Mrs. Maloney's husband a Canadian citizen?
6.	Has any appeal been lodged against the deportation order, and, if so, what is the present status of the appeal?
7.	Has a deportation order been issued against Mrs. Maloney's husband or any of the children?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the seven parts of this question are as follows:
1.	A deportation order was issued to Mrs. Frances Maloney on April 14, 1961.
2.	No. She is a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies.
3.	Since November 9, 1949.
4.	Mrs. Maloney has five children, three by her first husband. At the time of their admission to Canada in 1949 the three children by the first marriage were aged six, four and two years and were stated to have been born in the United Kingdom and to be citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. They are presently in the custody of her first husband. The remaining two children are by her second husband. They are aged six and four years, were born in Vancouver and are Canadian citizens.
5.	Mrs. Maloney's present husband is a Canadian citizen.

6.	There is no provision in the Immigration Act for an appeal against a deportation order of the nature issued to Mrs. Maloney. Nevertheless a review, such as would have been made had an appeal been permitted, has been made. The case is still under consideration.
7.	No.



SUBSIDIES FOR STEEL FISHING TRAWLERS

Mr. Granger: 1.	Are the subsidies for steel fishing trawlers announced by the Minister of Transport on May 12 limited to replacements of existing trawlers?
2.	If not, what are the requirements for securing the subsidy in the case of an applicant who requires additional trawlers?
3.	Would other steel fishing vessels, such as long liners, qualify for subsidies, and, if so, on what conditions?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the regulations to be made by the governor in council will set out in a detailed manner the various conditions governing the payment of the subsidy. The regulations are now in course of preparation, and they will be made available as soon as possible.



FEDERAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH DOSCO

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was an assurance given to Dosco that if certain coal mines were kept open during the winter of 1960-61, the federal government would not object to their closure in the summer of 1961?
2.	If not, precisely what arrangements were made with Dosco to maintain production in these mines during the past winter?
3.	Precisely what assistance has been offered to Dosco to keep the mines open?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question is no.
The answer to the second part is that the arrangements which were made with Dosco are stated in a press release issued jointly on January 9, 1961, by the Minister of National Revenue and myself. We made the announcement in this manner because the house was not then in session. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate might like to have a copy of this press release for his files, and I am consequently now handing him one.
The answer to the third part of the question is contained precisely in order in council P.C. 1961-18 of January 9, 1961.



DUTY FREE SHOP LICENCES

Mr. Garland: 1.	What licence or permit is required from the federal government to operate a duty free shop in Canada?
2.	How many such licences or permits have been issued?
3.	What is the location or proposed location of each shop for which a licence or permit has been issued?

4.	Is it proposed to issue additional licences or permits?
5.	Does the government intend to allow the establishment of a chain of duty free shops across Canada this year?


Mr.   M.. J. A. Lambert@Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue: Mr. Speaker, the five parts of this question can be answered by simply explaining that what are popularly known as duty free shops are not licensed or otherwise controlled by the federal government. What are licensed and controlled are the customs bonded warehouses, in conjunction with which so-called duty free shops may operate and from which goods are ex-warehoused for home consumption or for export.
There are over 400 licensed bonded warehouses, only two of which are known to have sales outlets or duty free shops for the display of duty paid samples of the goods in warehouse. It is from these samples that the tourist makes his selection, and his purchases are then ex-warehoused and shipped by common carrier in bond to his address outside of Canada. One of these outlets is located at Lansdowne, Ontario and the other is at Cobourg, Ontario.
Licences for the operation of customs bonded warehouses are issued to applicants who meet the requirements of the Customs Act and the regulations thereunder.



PENRYN SECURITIES LTD.  ANNUAL RETURN

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the companies division a record of Penryn Securities Ltd.?
2.	If so, when did this company last file an annual return?
3.	On such return, who were the officials and the stated shareholders?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could revert to question 353 which I asked the house to allow to stand. I now have the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that we revert to starred question No. 353?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: The answer to part 1 of this question is yes.
The answer to part 2 is as at March 31, 1961.
The answer to part 3, as to the directors, is: Mrs. Alice M. W. Howe, John W. Howe, and James D. Dodge; as to shareholders there is no information available.
Delay in Budget Presentation



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since July 1, 1957, have any reports from the restrictive trade practices commission been received?
2.	If so, and with respect to each such report, what was (a) the nature of its inquiry (b) its date (c) its recommendations (d) the names of the persons or companies to which the recommendations applied (e) the action taken on these recommendations, and the results thereof?
Return tabled.


NARCOTIC DRUGS, B.C. PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1957, have any narcotic drugs been found (a) in the possession of an inmate in the British Columbia penitentiary (b) in the possession of a staff member or employee in the B.C. penitentiary, or (c) on any of the B.C. penitentiary reserve lands, or in or near any of the penitentiary buildings: and, if so, how many said inmates or said employees were found to be in possession, and in how many instances were narcotic drugs found upon the said lands or in or near any of the said buildings with the date of each such find?
2.	What volume of such drugs, by type, were found in the possession of each said inmate or employee or were found in or near the said buildings?
3.	What penalty, if any, was meted out to each said inmate or said employee?
4.	Have any of the inmates or employees been suspected of being in possession of such drugs; and, if so, in how many instances?



THE BUDGET


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, seconded by the hon. member lor Welland, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the failure of the government to divulge the contents of the annual budget to more than 100,000 electors in four federal constituencies who, in the absence of such information, will be denied the facts essential to render a responsible verdict on the policies of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was good enough to give me, as he came into the house, a copy of the proposed request for leave to move the adjournment of the house, and I have had an opportunity to consider it.
I think it is unnecessary to call on anyone for assistance to determine that this is not the type of matter which could be made the subject of a motion under rule 26 which, may I remind hon. members, permits a motion for

Delay in Budget Presentation the adjournment of the house, when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, to supersede all other business of the house. My reasons, which I think I should state briefly, are these.
The substance of the hon. member's definite matter of urgent public importance is the time of the introduction of the budget which, of course, is a matter for the ministers of the crown. It is not a matter that concerns private members. The introduction of the budget is a matter in the discretion of the government. The date when it is introduced is purely a discretionary matter for decision by the government.
Reference is made to four by-elections affecting some parts of Canada. The hon. member does not suggest that the matter is of general importance but that it is of importance to those constituencies which are now electing representatives. In order to bring a matter of this kind within the rule requiring that it be an urgent matter of public importance affecting the people of Canada, one would be obliged to make the assumption that the budget, if and when it is introduced, will affect the electors of these constituencies in a different way from that in which it will affect the electors of Canada generally. With all due respect to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, may I say that I do not think the rule was designed to permit the discussion of a matter of this kind, which could be discussed at any time and which could have been discussed at any time since the by-elections were called, by way of a motion of criticism or censure of the government. In reality what the hon. member wishes to do is not to debate an urgent public matter which debate might resolve, but rather to criticize the government for delaying the introduction of its budget. On those grounds I therefore do not feel that-


William Moore Benidickson: Before you conclude your decision, Mr. Speaker, will you hear me on a point of order?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: It is not a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; I will hear the hon. member if he will direct himself specifically to what I have said and to the point which I have made.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, rule 26 deals with several very pertinent points. First, the matter dealt with must be a definite one. I suggest that my statement submitted to you is definite. It must be urgent, and it must be of public importance. On those points I wish to address myself to you, Mr. Speaker. In so far as importance is concerned, may I say that I cannot think of anything that is of

more importance to the citizens of Canada at the present time than to have an accounting upon the stewardship of this government at a time when we are in economic paralysis.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: I believe that it is urgent. It is unusual not to have an accounting earlier than the present time. There is uncertainty and uneasiness across the country.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, do you propose to have your ruling defied by this partisan diatribe?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has not given a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I do not propose to permit that course. I think I have indicated to the hon. member what my disposition is, and I presented one or two propositions in support of what I said. I trust that the hon. member, if he wishes to say anything before I dispose of the matter finally, will keep his remarks relevant to those points and will not debate the matter which he asked leave to raise, because that would be quite out of order.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, to refer to your own remarks, you had an impression that this was not of, I think I quote, "general importance". I suggested in my statement that over 100,000 electors are involved and the constituencies represent four provinces; those constituencies go from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast. I say that I think we have an unusual element of general importance which gives rise to this motion.
With respect to other opportunity-which is another salient element for validity in making a motion of this kind-the Minister of Finance, as far as I know, is not appearing anywhere across the country in connection with this very important verdict that has to be established by our Canadian electorate-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member address himself to opportunities for debate, but not debate the matter with which he wishes to deal.


William Moore Benidickson: I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is here in the parliament of the nation, in the absence of a budget, that we should have from the Minister of Finance, if he will not go and face the electorate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: -a statement which
would be provided under the motion which I make today-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Moore Benidickson: We should have from him an accounting, temporarily-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can you not see
the Speaker on his feet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member's remarks are directed more to the substance of what he wishes to move than to the point of order. I have no doubt that this is not the sort of matter which can be raised in this way under rule 26; therefore I do not propose to accept the request for leave.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, will you listen to further argument?


Mr. Speaker:: No, I am not in need of further argument, and I think I would only be taking up the time of the house unnecessarily by listening to further argument.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are we not to have notices of motions for production of papers?


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken.


Mr. Ricard:: This is the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the house could I revert to the opportunity that is usually afforded by the Secretary of State when he requests that certain questions be made orders for returns? After discussion with the Minister of Finance, and with leave of the house I would ask that question No. 142 in my name be dropped for rewording.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and question dropped.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 130-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all current contracts between the departments of national defence and of defence production and the Canadian Marconi Company.
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, agreement is given to the production of a copy of these papers, subject to the withholding of any security provisions that may be therein contained.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether before we go too much further we could have an indication of what is meant by "security provisions"? It is a rather broad, all-inclusive phrase.


An hon. Member:: No, it is not.


Mr. O'Hurley:: In defence projects there are classified provisions and security provisions. This refers to security provisions.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 133-Mr. Howard:
For a list of the names of, and positions held by, staff members or employees of the combines investigation branch, who worked on the inquiry regarding the selling and pricing policies of certain pharmaceutical houses in respect of new types of drugs; along with the period of time spent by each, the cost of the inquiry in terms of salary and expenses paid to each, as well as other expenditures by classification.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to accept this motion subject to the understanding that I will be unable to supply an answer to that part of it asking for an allocation of time spent on the investigation and for a breakdown of salaries, because the officers and staff of the combines branch were engaged at the same time in a number of other matters. They do not keep tab of the time spent by each officer on a given investigation. Also, the general salary expenses are not broken down on such a basis.
Subject to these reservations I would be prepared to accept the motion and comply with the other part.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on May 31 the Union of South Africa will become a republic and will cease to be a member of the commonwealth, has the government given any consideration to the necessity for legislative action by Canada

Inquiries of the Ministry along lines announced in the United Kingdom by the introduction at Westminster of the republic of South Africa temporary provisions bill?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, very full consideration has been given to this matter. In the United Kingdom legislation known as standstill legislation was introduced providing for the continuance for a period of one year of the various acts and statutes that are in effect.
We believe there is no necessity for omnibus or comprehensive consideration of the various statutes that are in existence dealing either with South Africa in particular or the commonwealth in general, and that if there is a necessity for any legislative action it should be on an ad hoc basis.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could put a question supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East, to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask the hon. lady whether her department has given any consideration, or is giving consideration, to what the status of South African citizens will be after May 31.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Speaker; the number of applications which have been received have not been of a volume to require any special consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. lady perhaps misunderstood my question. I was not referring to applications for admission to Canada of immigrants; I was referring to South African citizens who were resident in Canada and whose status might very well be affected under the existing citizenship act. I wonder whether the hon. lady or her officers have given any consideration to this question.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand the import of the hon. member's question. If these people are here as landed immigrants, of course they are in the same situation as when they arrived. If they wish to apply in due course for Canadian citizenship, of course nothing is altered with regard to their qualifications therefor. If they are here as visitors, of course this raises another problem which would have to be dealt with in due course, but since I do not know of any specific cases at the moment I am afraid I could not give an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the reply of the

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the reply of the Prime Minister, whether the Department of Justice has examined this situation to find out, for instance, whether the citizenship act, the Canada Shipping Act or any of the existing commercial treaties will in any way be affected by the action of South Africa on May 31.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice, as usual, has anticipated the hon. member in this matter, and the result of our study was incorporated in the reply given by the Prime Minister.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister inform the house whether the government is giving consideration to the establishment of a fund which would be used when necessary to purchase shares in Canadian companies in order to prevent them coming under foreign control?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think this is a question of the type which you have frequently ruled to be improper on orders of the day, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question is based on an article in the Globe and Mail of today's date, and it does cause some concern and interest.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the objection taken I will give consideration to the question and advise the hon. member tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister arising from an article which appeared in Le Devoir of today's date, according to which the mayor of Sorel, Dr. Robert Fiset, is reported to have received a letter from a consulting engineer in New York, Mr. William Lathrop Rich, in which he claims that Canada apparently does not favour a study of the feasibility of the construction of a waterway on the Richelieu and Hudson rivers, and that the department of the secretary of state of the United States is still awaiting an answer from the Canadian government to questions which were alleged to have been sent in November, 1958 dealing

with the New York-Montreal waterway. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on this statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is in effect citing a newspaper report and asking for its verification. If he wishes to direct a question based on the facts involved in that report it would be admissible under the rules, but to ask for the verification of newspaper reports is not permitted unless the hon. member who raises the matter is prepared to take responsibility for the accuracy of the facts about which he is inquiring.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I am not taking responsibility for the accuracy of these statements. I am simply asking the Prime Minister whether he wishes to comment on the alleged facts or the reported statement by Mr. Lathrop Rich.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister is willing to accept the question I suppose it may be allowed.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know anything about the article in question. I would simply say to the hon. gentleman, whose interest in this matter is generally known, that the appropriate departments are continuing their study of this project. The review is of a continuing nature and has been in progress for some time. When the government is in a position to decide as to the proper course to be adopted on the basis of the examination which is taking place, the house will immediately be informed.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: In order to resolve this difficulty arising in connection with correspondence with the United States, does the Prime Minister not thin>
it would be very useful to table all correspondence between the Canadian government and the United States government on this subject?



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: In the
regrettable absence of the Minister of National Revenue I wonder if I could address a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the hon. gentleman tell the house if the sale of goods at these duty free centres now being established in Canada enables the avoidance of Canadian sales and excise taxes as well as duty?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is obviously not a question to be asked on the orders of the day. A
Inquiries of the Ministry starred question was dealt with earlier, and in the course of the reply any jurisdiction in relation to the licensing of such shops was expressly denied on the part of the government. If the hon. member is asking questions now about shops which are presently being operated, then the question should be put on the order paper and not be asked on the orders of the day.


John Richard Garland: I should like to submit a further question based on a report which appeared in yesterday's Citizen with respect to the formal seasonal opening of a Canadian duty free centre near the Thousand islands bridge. The report continues that a second such centre will be opened by the same company at Niagara Falls on June 25. I should like to ask the minister to tell the house why Canadian retailers, paying duty, paying sales tax and paying excise tax should be subjected to competition of this kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That emphasizes the point I made in replying to the hon. member's earlier question. If this is a matter which involves any responsibility in relation to any federal department of government, it is not a question which should be asked on the orders of the day. If the hon. member has a question of this nature to ask, I suggest that he put it on the order paper in accordance with the rules of the house.


John Richard Garland: Why does the minister not answer the question?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising from my reading of yesterday's issue of La Presse.
In view of an article in La Presse of May 23, which describes an R.C.M.P. attempt to infiltrate the Laval section of the combined universities campaign for nuclear disarmament in presumed search of communists, will the minister assure the house that the R.C.M.P. will cease these heavyhanded attempts to interfere in-indeed, to smear-this highly commendable student attempt to bring about a change in our defence policy?


Edmund Davie Fulton: have not seen the article in question, therefore I am unable to say whether even that report gives any foundation for the hon. member's highly inaccurate and sensational allegation which, of course, I refute absolutely.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Inquiries by the R.C.M.P. into all matters, including security, are carried out in privacy, and information regarding them is never given except to persons properly entitled thereto. Any knowledge that such inquiries are being made, or any comments reaching the press, must therefore, on such occasions, come from those involved in or contacted during the course of such inquiries. This, of course, completely refutes any suggestion of smear on the part of the R.C.M.P.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would direct the attention of the minister to yesterday's issue of La Presse, which contains an important report on this matter. I should like to supplement my question by asking whether the minister is aware that the first meeting of the Laval section of the combined universities campaign for nuclear disarmament was addressed by Rev. Abbe O'Neil of Laval University, Dr. Jules Gilbert, director general of the Quebec hospital insurance service and by Major W. H. Pope, M.C.-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman is giving some very interesting information on a point which is not of urgent public importance.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to preface my question by thanking the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys for his courtesy in drawing my attention to the press release which he sent over to me. Perhaps I might be allowed in the circumstances to read the sentence from this release on which I wish to base my question. It is this:
The government of Canada has agreed to pay a subsidy to the corporation (Dosco) to be applied against the losses which the company reports as due to the operation of these mines. The government of the province of Nova Scotia has agreed to assume part of the cost of these additional subsidies.
The question I should like to put to the minister is this. Has the government agreed to pay these losses for any period beyond the dates specified in the press release?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha-baska):: I want to ask the Minister of

National Revenue or, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary, a question.
I am sorry I did not give him advance notice of my question, but I suggest that he might take it as notice because it arises out of a request I received this morning from 45 citizens of Drummondville, asking what are the reasons for the delay in returning to the taxpayers reimbursements coming to them for the year 1960?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will supply some details, I shall investigate and answer him later.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Latour (Argenleuil-Deux-Monlagnes):: I wanted to ask the Secretary of
State a question, but I notice that he is not here. However, he might perhaps answer my question later on. It has to do with the appointment-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suppose the hon. member might address his question to the Acting Secretary of State if he can identify the hon. gentleman, but I remind him that all questions must be directed toward a responsible minister or someone acting for him.
(Translation):


Joseph-Octave Latour: I might do so, Mr. Speaker, but I could also raise a question of personal privilege because this is a case which happened quite recently in my county.
It has to do with the appointment of a successor to the superintendent of the Carillon-Grenville canal, who died last March. The civil service commission has announced a competition on May 3. That competition was closed on May 15 and, on May 17, a successor was appointed.
I would like to know the names of the candidates who sent in applications for that competition. Moreover, I would like to know whether these candidates have been called-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question relates to the administration of the civil service commission in filling appointments to the public service, in which it exercises an independent judgment, subject to parliament. I am not sure to what minister the question could be addressed. It is rather a novel one. In any event, it asks for information that cannot be expected without notice

on the order paper, and I suggest the hon. member might try putting the question on the order paper.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the Prime Minister now received the O'Leary report? If so, how soon does he hope to be in a position to make it available to hon. members?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not received the report yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the Prime Minister answer the second part of the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the second part until the first can be answered affirmatively.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether it is a fact that he was advised by the chairman that the report would be put in his hands this week?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, although I have read in the press that the secretary of the commission gave the press a statement to the effect that it would be delivered to me this week. I have not had that word from the chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister describe the information in the press as speculative?


John George Diefenbaker: I would put the type of questions that I have been asked in that category.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arlhur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since a vote favouring a strike has been taken by the carpenters' local on the Defence Construction Limited project in Moosonee, being carried out by Carter Construction Limited, will the minister indicate what action, if any, his officials have taken or are going to take to prevent this work stoppage?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. member for Fort William when he asked me a similar question regarding this situation.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: The noticeable failure of my colleague from Essex East to persist in seeking information, which is the subject of my question, raises a suspicion in my mind that the information may not be to his liking. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether the figures for last month are available as to the number of men employed in the labour force, and whether he is able to make a comparison with those of the previous month. I should also like to have the number of unemployed last month and a comparison with the number for the previous month.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the question is
proceeded with would the hon. member allow me to eliminate the first part of his statement, which was out of order; otherwise I expect a debate will arise on the issue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before we continue with this may I suggest that the minister be allowed to make a statement on motions, and that would give me an opportunity to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Michael Starr: The dominion bureau of statistics released figures this morning showing a drop of 83,000 in the number of persons unemployed. I am sure all hon. members will agree with me that there is ground for optimism in the latest employment figures. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that 170,000 new jobs were provided in the one month period between March and April this year. I think this is a considerable achievement in the economy. If we compare it with the figures at the same time last year, Mr. Speaker, we find that we have had an employment gain of 111,000 in April. This means that we have succeeded in providing 111,000 more new jobs in April of this year than in April, 1960. Taken into consideration with other reports, this in my submission is an indication that at the present time the measures which the government has proposed and which parliament has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the minister. I am not sure how much of the submission was heard by the reporter-


William Moore Benidickson: He ignored you, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: -but the minister is proceeding to debate the effect of the government's program. I see the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a question, or perhaps, sir, you will permit me to make a comment about the figures, as the minister did.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He was stopped.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought hon. gentlemen would be well disposed to accord that right, in view of the attitude taken by the Minister of Labour. May I continue?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is entitled to observe the rules of the house, as are all hon. members.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question, noting, along with him, with satisfaction the fact that there has been some improvement in the situation. But is it not a fact that, according to the reported figures, there are still over half a million unemployed, more than in any other country in the western world? Is this not a matter of concern even to this government?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are people unemployed as yet, even though the number is not greater than that of any other western country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is greater than any western country.


Michael Starr: There is every indication, as this press release shows, that the measures taken by this government are bringing about the desired result, and the problem will be minimized as the months go by.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yesterday the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres inquired concerning the closing of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's birthplace at St. Lin, Quebec, last Monday. I have looked into the matter and I find the house was closed on that day owing to the indisposition of the caretaker. I can assure the hon. member that it is the policy of the department to keep all national parks and historic sites open seven days a week, particularly on statutory holidays.



COLUMBIA RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO LETTER FROM B.C. PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the Minister of Finance now in a position to make available to the house the letter from the premier of British Columbia, dated January 13, 1961, about which the hon. member for Laurier asked on Monday and which the minister said he would be pleased

to table if there was the consent of both governments? In view of the fact that the premier seems to have made selected portions of this letter public, perhaps I can ask the minister whether he really feels the whole letter should be denied to this parliament?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; I shall be very pleased to table the letter, but I think out of courtesy to the government of British Columbia they should be approached in regard to it, and this is what I propose to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the fact that this is a matter of great public interest, does the minister intend to defer that approach, as everything is being deferred, until after next Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he is out of order in making a statement of that kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, the hon. member has deliberately put a question that he knows is out of order. He has left, and deliberately sought to leave, an imputation on the record. lie has been doing this right along. There is no deferment of any kind going on in this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why did the minister not ask him on Monday?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe I am to see the premier of British Columbia tomorrow. There has been no deferment of anything else, notwithstanding the attempt of the opposition to draw a lot of eyewash over this house and over the public in regard to this matter. The Leader of the Opposition makes irresponsible statements in the House of Commons and on the hustings.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then you must be more incredibly incompetent than we thought.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very easy way to start an argument.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the letter from the premier of British Columbia, to which I alluded in an earlier question, already been tabled in the house during the present session?


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is unnecessary to ask a question the answer to which is readily available to all hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order you have raised, sir, it had been suggested to me that it had been tabled. I have been searching to find out whether it has been tabled, and it seems to me a matter that would be clearly within the recollection of the minister, the

only person who could have tabled it. For the convenience of hon. members I was simply asking whether the minister would say whether this had happened.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I have another question I wish to put to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the hon. lady seen the article in yesterday's edition of her favourite newspaper, the Toronto Star, which is headed "Proxy Bride Barred, He Quits Canada"? It refers to a Polish immigrant by the name of Wilk, and the article suggests a rather inhumane attitude on the part of the minister. Has she any comment to make on this case?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer to all phases of the question is no.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of his reluctance to disclose the nature of the nation's financial situation before the by-elections-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -could he tell us whether the budget will be presented in the house before the 5th of June?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when it is timely and proper to make an announcement of that date it will be made, but I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Essex East preceded his question with an observation and I think it is my right to make an observation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The last budget has not yet passed all phases of the parliamentary process, and at the present time the hon. member is trying to make it appear that there has been some delay. There has been no delay, and I think it ill behooves hon. members in the opposition to be making distortions of the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister and the hon. member for Essex East have gone equally far afield, and we might close the debate.
24, 1961	5299
Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE



REVISION OF PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEATH PENALTY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill No. C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder).
(Translation):
Mr. Louis Fortin (Monlmagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, before I resume the remarks I was making last evening, I should like to point out that on this day, May 24, the province of Quebec honours Dollard des Ormeaux. History reports that, with 16 men, Dollard des Ormeaux prevented the Iroquois from attacking Ville-Marie and that his courage was such that it should inspire all Canadian youths. Today, I should like to urge once again the young people of my province to cultivate that hero's virtues and to develop within themselves a greater love for Canada, the better to appreciate the liberty we enjoy in this country.
At the conclusion of last evening's sitting, I was just going to criticize the suggestion made by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) to the effect that any murder should be considered as a capital murder. I was just going to suggest the contrary. However, in the meantime I had a chance to read over the hon. member's speech, and to give some thought to his suggestion and, since it is good to sleep on a problem, I am glad to say today that I fully agree with my colleague and that I, in turn, wish to suggest that any charge of murder should be one of capital murder.
Three reasons lead me to take this stand. First of all, if the charge is invariably one of capital murder and if during the trial, it is shown that the accused is not guilty of capital murder but of non-capital murder, the jury can always bring in a verdict of guilt of a lesser offense.
Second, if a person is accused of noncapital murder and if, during the trial, it becomes obvious that the crime committed is inded a capital murder, the jury would no longer be able to find the accused guilty of capital murder, and the accused would escape the prescribed penalty for capital murder.
Finally, if the attorney general is left to decide whether a person should be charged with capital murder or non-capital murder, he will then have discretionary powers which will cause him a lot of embarrassment since,

Criminal Code
in fact, he will then have to decide all by himself whether or not the suspect has committed a capital murder.
Therefore, I fully endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
In addition, I would like to say that section 642A of the present bill is causing me some anxiety also. Let us say that, after they have deliberated, the jury come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of murder. The judge would then pass judgment and, afterwards, would ask the jury whether they bring in a recommendation of mercy. This would more or less put the jurors under a moral obligation of recommending clemency.
Furthermore, the jury would have to have another opportunity to retire and decide whether or not the accused should be recommended to the clemency of the court.
I would rather suggest that somehow the wording of section 642A be made an integral part of the summary of the proceedings which the chairman of the court is required to deliver to the jury; the chairman would conclude his remarks by a reading of section 642A. The jurors would then be in a position to discuss two points: first, the guilt of the accused, and second, assuming that the accused was found guilty, they could immediately decide whether or not he should be recommended to the clemency of the court.
The hon. member who spoke before me last night pointed out that in the presence of the parents and friends and citizens attending the trial, it would be extremely difficult for a jury not to bring in a recommendation of clemency. It does seem that in every case, even if the accused did not deserve such a recommendation, the jurors would feel bound to make it.
Mr. Chairman, there is one extremely interesting point in this bill; the provision dealing with the costs of appeals. Under the former Criminal Code, a person found guilty of murder had to hang. However, he was told that he could appeal to a higher court, but this was on the condition that he was able to pay the costs.
There has been a tremendous amount of criticism on this score. Everywhere people would say that freedom could be bought, because if a court had made a mistake, the sentence could be appealed, but the convicted person had to pay, and in many cases a fabulous amount.

So I sincerely commend the Minister of Justice for making justice available to all, both the rich and the poor.
I would also draw the attention of the house to another point in relation to section 206-(4), in which reference is made to the penalty of life imprisonment. It is stated in subsection 4 of that section that with regard to part 20, the life imprisonment sentence provided under that section is a minimum penalty. I realize that this in no way affects the exercise of the royal prerogative, which in certain cases allows the governor in council to commute a sentence; however, I think it should be clearly set out that when an individual found guilty of capital murder is sentenced to life imprisonment, the national parole board will under no circumstances have the right to commute the sentence, and that the accused having been convicted of that crime will have to serve a life term, unless the governor in council should decide to exercise the royal prerogative.
Mr. Chairman, there is one last point I should like to deal with. I refer to the jury system which was so highly commended yesterday by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney). I must say I am not in agreement with him. I still feel that too heavy a responsibility is placed on the shoulders of those people. The man in the street-whether he be a farmer, a worker, an accountant or even a professional-is asked to act as a juror without any training whatsoever, and without any kind of court experience; he is asked to come and decide whether or not someone is guilty of murder.
I am not a criminologist, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it was by inclination or through necessity, but I have always kept at a respectful distance from criminal law. Nevertheless, I know that the jury is strongly influenced by the counsel who is arguing before him. He is sensitive first of all to the deportment of the lawyer, his general behaviour and, it must be admitted, most of all to his oratory. He is also sensitive to the prestige of the lawyer and, finally, if a counsel endowed with all the qualities I just mentioned can find among the panel a juryman who exercises a certain ascendancy over his colleagues, he has won his case.
It is easy to spot the juryman who seems to be the cleverest and the most sympathetic, and then the next step which is quite simple is to say to oneself: I must convince that man and, once I have convinced him, he will take upon himself, once they are behind closed doors, to work on the other jurymen.

In short, Mr. Speaker, let us say that the outcome of the case rests solely on the judgment that one member of the jury will form, thanks to the ability of the counsel to convince him of the merits of his argument.
Many an accused is without the financial means necessary to engage a lawyer. In that case, a counsel is appointed by the court. He is usually a young lawyer whose experience of course does not compare with that of the crown attorney. He lacks the prestige and the resources of an experienced lawyer, so that he cannot exercise upon a leader in the jury the influence which the attorney can wield and it is the accused who must suffer the consequences.
Since we are discussing officially appointed counsels, may I, Mr. Speaker, ask the minister to seek a means by which a nominal amount could be made available to an accused person to permit him to be represented by counsel, when that person cannot afford to be thus represented and so that he may be given the fair and just treatment to which he is entitled.
I notice that it is almost one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, but, with the permission of the house, I would like to go on. I would be satisfied with a few minutes more. I may exceed the hour by one or two minutes but I will have finished my speech.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in former years such a debated and debatable question has ever been introduced in the house. It is a matter where politics have nothing to do. It means that members whatever their party must form a personal opinion. Let us do away with a partisanship which unfortunately we have, because our responsibility is great1-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, from the notes 1 had taken, I felt that my speech should last about 12 minutes. However, it was interrupted by two adjournments and this, of course, gave me an opportunity this morning of correcting a previous statement. However,
Criminal Code
I hope my speech as a whole will be fairly homogeneous once it is printed in Hansard.
Before the recess, I was telling the house that it bears a heavy responsibility. I am glad that today we do not have to decide whether capital punishment should be abolished because I, for one, could certainly not support such a step; it would be a little premature, in my opinion.
In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Justice who, by sponsoring this bill, wishes justice to be done in the light of the circumstances under which a murder has been committed. Our laws concerning murder will thus be made more humane and, I would even say, more civilized. As stated last evening by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), this is a step in the right direction.
To those who seek to abolish capital punishment, I will say this: Society must be protected. Moreover, I still feel that the threat of capital punishment constitutes a useful deterrent, but I will add that criminals should be executed only in extreme cases and when all possibilities of doubt have been eliminated.
In addition, to those who vigorously advocate retention of capital punishment according to the former provisions of the Criminal Code, 1 shall say this: the execution of only one innocent person constitutes a heinous crime that falls on all of society.
Therefore, let us congratulate the government who is offering us today a material improvement in the treatment of people charged with murder. However, while hoping that people under a charge of murder will benefit from our sympathy, let us not forget that they owe a debt to society and let us sympathize too above all with those who were left to mourn the death of an innocent victim.
I shall be pleased to vote for this bill, but if I had to express my opinion right now on the possibility of abolishing the death penalty altogether, I would vote against the bill, because I much prefer to be over zealous against crime than to offend the freedom and the inviolable right of any individual to life.
(Text):


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, last year when this debate was before the house I did not have the opportunity to speak but as I listened to the trend of the debate I noticed that those who were in favour of

Criminal Code
the bill abolishing capital punishment had the advantage of the first thrust of debate.
It seemed to me that all the hon. members who spoke in the debate at that time were for the abolition of capital punishment. Then, as hon. members of the house were seized with the seriousness of the matter and their responsibility in this regard, they became more interested as the debate progressed. Each hon. member, as the seriousness of this matter took possession of his conscience, felt it was his duty to talk on that particular bill.
The hon. member for Scarborough introduced the bill and this gave an opportunity to all hon. members to express their views. In my opinion it was very wise to have that debate. It brought out the various aspects of the issue and the various positions which hon. members of the house took with regard to it. It also gave the government the opportunity of being able to get the pulse of hon. members, who were likewise reflecting the pulse of Canada, on whether this bill was appropriate at that particular time.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) who introduced the bill, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) and other interested hon. members marshalled their facts as to the efficacy of the bill with great skill. They are to be highly congratulated in that they did not miss very much in their submissions. The hon. member for Park-dale is to be particularly congratulated for the eloquence of his speech on this matter. Admittedly the hon. member for Parkdale has great forensic ability, but he was also very eloquent in putting forward his argument. He was very moderate in his statements and he put forward a very convincing case. No doubt he was using the same skill that he uses in court, and it was very effective.
As the debate progressed the tension mounted; everyone was beginning to feel he should go on record, and the government wisely discontinued the debate. In so doing they were able to properly assess the sense of hon. members of the house and also, as I mentioned previously, the will of the people of Canada.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough who introduced the bill admitted when speaking last evening that it was patently plain that the motion would be defeated. But it was not a question of having the motion defeated; it was important that the house was given the opportunity of discussing this matter and having a full debate on it, because this question had come up time after time, as to whether we were following the right course in the method by which the government was handling the commutation of death sentences

and rehearing these cases. Now they have had time to study this law and they have brought in Bill No. C-92.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), as has been previously stated, are to be highly congratulated, along with the cabinet, on this bill. The Minister of Justice especially deserves commendation for his masterly presentation of the bill. The government has been very meticulous in setting out what the bill will accomplish, as I have said, having the benefit of the previous debate.
I think my own feelings are known on this matter but I did not have the opportunity of speaking at the time the bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough was introduced. It would now be futile to take up the time of the house in recounting my own feelings on this matter. However, there are some things I should mention now that Bill No. C-92 is before us.
The Minister of Justice, in summing up this bill, has decided to apply, I think, what I would term the method laid down by two who are considered to be among the most outstanding authorities on law. They have been mentioned several times during the debate. I refer to Sir Edward Coke and William Black-stone. Sir Edward Coke was speaking about the execution of the Earl of Essex. I tremble to mention that name because I might make a mistake and say "the hon. member for Essex East". But this was the Earl of Essex who was up for treason at that time because of his episode against the queen.
Sir Edward Coke was talking about treason and he set out the method by which he assessed this matter. That was, that the principle of law, the rule of reason and the benefit and experience of trials should apply. I am quite sure that the Minister of Justice and the cabinet have applied the principle of law which has been set. I am sure they have also used rules of reason. Likewise they have had the benefit of long experience of trials in arriving at their decision.
For all time this bill, notwithstanding what has been said, that it is a step in the right direction, will be a bill which will not be tampered with and no attempt will be made to amend it for some considerable time. This is because it correctly reflects the feeling of the people of Canada. Because of the meticulous care that has been taken by the draftsmen of this bill there will be little need for any alteration to it in the future. To sum up the way I look at it, and the way in which I think the majority of hon. members have interpreted the feeling of our people, crimes of passion do not warrant capital punishment. Those who commit crimes that are premeditated or committed in cold blood, are the

ones who will have to stand trial in court for determination as to whether justice demands the death penalty.
A great deal was said yesterday about the law, about it being punitive and retributive. I think hon. members will find that this bill is in conformity with our love of law and our system of order, which dates from the time of Alfred. At that time the king's word, Alfred's word, was law, but he insisted on the endorsation by the people of his edicts. He knew the popular heart and was close to the common people. He did not over-rate or under-rate the average mind, because in the final analysis he knew that the power was in the hands of the people themselves; it was in their hands to adopt the law and if it was not acceptable, they would not observe it.
We pride ourselves upon the justice of our laws. It has come down through the ages. The degree of civilization of society has always been judged on the basis of its concept of justice. I listened to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton), and after hearing him I thought I had better look up the definition of "law" and see how it was set out. I went, as usual, to a dictionary in order to find out. I found the definition expressed in these words:
All the rules of conduct established and enforced by the authority, legislation, or custom of a given community or other group: as a basic tenet of English law.
The condition existing when obedience to such rules is general; established order.
The hon. member for Mount Royal defined the word "justice" very aptly, but I thought, nevertheless, that I should look it up for myself. The entry states very plainly:
Sound reason; rightfulness; validity. Reward or penalty as deserved; the use of authority and power to uphold what is right, just or lawful.
I have here a reference to Edmund Burke who also has been frequently quoted. He said:
Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any departure from it, under any circumsance, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
I think that the minister, when drafting the bill, had all these concepts in mind and that this measure will result in a continuation, and even a broadening, of the conception of justice we have been following through the years. While the minority will have their rights under this legislation, it is recognized that the majority in this country also have their rights, and the system of law as we know it with its salient features of justice is being preserved.
As I followed the debate which took place last year I was impressed by the submission made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). He set out three incidents drawn
Criminal Code
from his experience during his life time. He told the house about three Indians who through misfortune, met with a sad fate. Apparently some incontinent officers charged with enforcing the law made debauching exactions upon the wives of these Indians, demands which were not within the code of morals and ethics. The Indians were incensed, went after the officers, and threw two of them over a cliff. For this they were apprehended, brought before a court of justice and condemned to death. The manner of their execution was faulty and inefficient, though that in itself was not the crux of this case, but created circumstances which were such as to inevitably arouse public sympathy for the condemned men.
The case which I have just outlined is an example of what is likely to follow any attack upon or molestation of women. If the law does not concern itself swiftly and effectively with such attacks, or if it does not mete out justice, men will resort to the law of the jungle and take the law into their own hands, because under the code of law in any land, civilized or uncivilized, men will protect their women. I think hon. members will find that the law as now proposed will cover such a case as I have just mentioned, the case which was first set out by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
The hon. member related the case of a lad 21 years of age who had been apprehended after a bank hold-up and robbery during which the teller was killed. The lad was the driver of the car that got away after a teller had been shot, but though he had taken no direct part in the killing he was condemned to death and finally hanged. The hon. member did not give us an explanation why he should not have been hanged except, possibly, on account of the lad's youth. In any event, this was a cold blooded murder, and he was an accomplice to the killing. The hon. member then told of a third case where an individual who had been away for some time in another province returned home to find his best friend in the house with his wife. In the heat of passion he killed them both. The man was tried, but the death sentence was afterwards commuted. This example does, in its own way, explain exactly what the present bill seeks to accomplish. In cases of cold blooded or premeditated murder, as well as cases of rape and crimes involving sexual deviation, there would be an application after a proper trial of the full weight of the law.
This brings us to the question whether the death penalty is a deterrent or whether it has no effect at all. The hon. member for York-Scarborough made use of a quotation from a report of a learned judge in the old

Criminal Code
country, and this probably answers the question more effectively than I could answer it. It reads as follows:
It is certainly not a deterrent to murderers who commit suicide and one third of all murderers do. It is not a deterrent to the insane and mentally deranged, or to those who commit murder in a quarrel, or in drunkenness or in a sudden surge of passion. This type of murder amounts to 80 per cent to 90 per cent of all murders that are committed.
It is not a deterrent to the type of person who commits murder because he desires to be hanged, and these cases are not infrequent. It is not a deterrent to the person who firmly believes in his own perfect method-by poison, acid bath, and so on-which, he thinks, will never be found out.
This also, it appears to me, sums up exactly what the bill seeks to accomplish. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of all murders come within this category of persons who are insane or drunk, or who act in the heat of passion; they are eliminated from consideration in terms of the death penalty. We are left with the other 10 per cent who are cold blooded murderers with regard to whom society needs to take severe action. This does not involve being vindictive or punitive; it is only a matter of enforcing justice. In the same way, a person who commits a robbery knows in advance what the penalty will be if he is caught. He knows exactly what the consequences will be. The crime of murder does not, of course, come into the same category as offences against property, and when a murder has been cold blooded, or when there has been rape plus bestial conduct, the penalty is bound to reflect this difference, and people who commit such crimes come within the 10 per cent to which reference has been made, to whom the threat of a death penalty may be a deterrent.
I wish to differ from those who say that in these circumstances the death penalty is no deterrent. It is true that it is no deterrent to those in the wider category of 80 per cent to 90 per cent referred to by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. But there has been no adequate method of measuring the extent to which capital punishment does deter people from committing murder. The very fact that only 10 per cent of the crimes involving murder are committed as a result of premeditation shows that the death penalty may well be a deterrent to a lot of people-but there is no possible way of ascertaining the intention of individuals and whether or not they have been deterred, for obvious reasons. The very fact that perpetrators of murder are caught, tried and condemned to hang for their crime is evidence that the 10 per cent mentioned serve as a most effective deterrent against similar action on their part.
Reference was made to the horror attached to murder trials. Quite often sympathy is not

directed toward the victim of the murder but to the person who perpetrated the crime. The culprit was said to be suffering because of the ordeal he was going through at the trial and before the execution took place. In the early days, immediately the sentence was passed the condemned individual was taken out and executed. But because it was felt that an innocent victim may be hanged, this system was changed and sufficient time was given the convicted man to gather information and enter an appeal to prove innocence. Because of the humaneness of the justices at that time, provision was made for the gathering of evidence to launch an appeal. The result is that something which was granted as a humane action has now come to be regarded as an ordeal inspiring public sympathy because the time between the passing of the sentence and the execution has been prolonged. The result is that the relatives of the victim are considered to go through an ordeal. The relatives of the murdered individual are relegated to the limbo of the forgotten and the sympathy is always given to the person who perpetrated the crime.
Cold blooded murders have been mentioned. I will give the house a few illustrations of what has happened in the city of Toronto. I recall an individual who had been in a hold-up. Later his car was stopped by a policeman and he was asked to show his driver's licence. On the pretext of pulling out his licence he pulled out a gun and shot the policeman. The policeman died. I suppose in those circumstances it could be called a cold blooded murder. But excuses are made. Perhaps he ate something that morning which upset him, and his disposition was such that he did not feel right. He did not mean to shoot the policeman, but he did.
Just recently an officer of the law was hot on the trail of a couple of individuals who had committed some bank robberies. They were traced to a certain street. The officer pulled up his car, got out to question the men, and one of them pulled out his gun and shot the policeman in his tracks. He lived three months. He went through physical and mental torture before he died. All the sympathy was given to the individual who committed the robbery. The man who was murdered left a family deprived of his care and his promising future was prematurely finished. I suppose it could be said that the robber was not feeling right that day and he should not be looked upon as a serious offender. I could mention other cases.
I was raised in a community in close proximity to the jail where all the executions took place. My memory goes back to the turn of the century. Trial reports were

followed very closely in those days, more so than now, because of verbatim coverage. Outstanding lawyers were engaged, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Parkdale. Budding Blackstones and Cokes were given their opportunity to gain experience. We had some outstanding lawyers in those days such as George Lynch-Staunton, George Tate Blackstock, Zebulum Lash and Tom Robinette. In the future I do not suppose any of the young lawyers coming along will be deprived of the opportunity to get experience in court trials because there will always be a demand for genius. I do not think there will be fewer murders.
The point I wish to make was mentioned by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). It is our duty to protect the citizens of Canada against the perpetrators of crime. I think the debate has been of sufficient length. As I have said, I think this bill is going to meet the purpose as I see it. However, I should try to emphasize one thing. Reference has been made to the cost of keeping those individuals in prison. Surely we are not going to measure justice in that way. We do not want to return to the vicious system of justice and law which prevailed in the olden days and to which Sir Winston Churchill has made reference and under which a person was imprisoned for a crime and the length of imprisonment was based on the status of the individual concerned. If an ordinary peasant was killed the punishment was so much; if an earl, it was so much; if it was a prince it was so much, and so on, according to the rank of the individual killed. It was a vicious and sordid system because the penalty increased according to the rank. If it was a prince, then the penalty was extremely severe. I am sure we do not want that kind of a system in this country where the penalty for murder is based on the status of the individual in the country. I do not think this country wants the sort of law under which a convicted man pays his debt to society according to a schedule of tariff tolls, as it were.
This bill sets out what the law is going to be and justice will be based on it. If the principles of this legislation are followed out there is no doubt that they will amply cover any situation. Public opinion in this country has jelled. Those who have advocated abolition of capital punishment have made certain points. No one has ever submitted proof that since confederation anyone who was innocent has been hanged for murder. Abolitionists tell you that there are many of them but they do not point out any particular case. The fact of the matter is that our system of law has been so sound 90205-6-335
Criminal Code
and the people are so satisfied with it that very few changes are required.
Those who are convicted of capital crimes will have the right to have their cases reconsidered on recommendation of the jury. Certain categories will be set out in the law and premeditated and cold blooded murderers will have to submit to what we call punitive justice as we know it, which course reflects the will of the majority of the people of Canada.
It is said that the people of the country are in favour of abolishing capital punishment. I question that because people have communicated with me on the matter both by telephone and by correspondence. Sometimes they are very forceful in their presentations but when they become threatening I cite to them a case that took place in my own particular area. A young girl was taken from the sidewalk on the main artery to a ravine where she was raped and bestially treated. This was done by an individual who had just been released from jail after serving a sentence for the same kind of offence. When the case was being investigated one of the detectives looked at the circumstances and said that it was Mr. so and so.
The man was immediately traced to where he was working. There was no question about who had committed the murder because the evidence was on him. He was apprehended and received the full penalty of law. When I describe such a case to individuals who are so possessed with the idea of abolishing capital punishment they invariably say that there are exceptions to all rules.
That is why this bill is sound in providing that capital punishment should be retained to take care of such cases. As I have said before, the Minister of Justice has drafted the bill on sound principles of law and reasonable rules that will operate effectively. The experience of trials in the past has been a factor in assisting the minister to bring forward what the people of Canada want. I think there will be little necessity in the future for amendment of the bill in any shape or form. The cases that have been mentioned will fit within the ambit and construction of the law and justice and the result will be better for the people of Canada because the bill takes into consideration the views that have been presented on this matter. Every hon. member has been sincere in presenting his opinion and is going to make his decision on the basis of what his conscience tells him to do. As a result of this debate I think we will come up with the best possible legislation to deal with this very serious question.

Criminal Code


Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicilor General):: Mr. Speaker, for the past six months I have been closely associated with the branch in the Department of Justice that has had a good deal to do with capital cases. I know something of the care and attention that have been given in the past to the possibility of the condemned person receiving commutation through the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. I think we can all agree with the observation of the last speaker that the bill should satisfy everybody. It should satisfy those who are opposed to complete abolition and it should satisfy those, and I know it does, who have been working toward that end because there has been a change in the definition of murder as is set forth in the bill itself.
We must always remember that the chief purpose of punishment is protection of the public. Those who are entrusted with the administration of justice have a sacred duty to see that the punishment is effective in carrying out its object. The traditional punishment for murder, as it has been for treason and for piracy, has been death. For murder this is a mandatory punishment that must be imposed as soon as the person is found guilty. Until 1955 a person convicted of rape was liable to a sentence of death. We have made progress by having that eliminated.
We have now, as most countries have, an elaborate system for the detection, prevention, deterrence and punishment of crime. We have federal police, provincial police and municipal police. We have federal courts, provincial courts, municipal courts, county courts and districts courts. We have crown lawyers and defence lawyers. This whole elaborate system has been devised for the furtherance of the administration of justice. Therefore I think it is fair to say that in this country a man accused of a crime has every safeguard to see that he gets a fair and just trial.
We recognize in this country that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty, and it has been generally accepted by the legal profession that a crown prosecutor is not out to gain a conviction but rather to see that justice is done. In the province of Quebec there is an instruction in the code for Quebec lawyers to the effect that their duty when acting as a crown attorney is not to win a conviction but to see that justice is done. In the light of these circumstances existing in the fabric of justice in this country, I think everyone has reason to be proud and no reason to fear that any injustice is going to be done to a person who is accused.
The question of capital punishment exercises more interest than any other type of punishment. It is of universal interest and people are divided on the matter. There are strong opinions such as we heard yesterday

from the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I think the hon. member for Vancouver East went too far, and I also think the hon. member for Hull went too far in his uncompromising attitude toward any change at all. If he looks at the matter fairly, I think he will see that the bill is a very fair one because he must recognize, as I will show later in my remarks, that in each year only a very few people are executed for murder although the number of murders is many times greater than the number of executions. Not only is this so now but it has been so for many years in Canada.
I think the hon. member who preceded me also made a true observation when he said that the debate has been a most interesting one because members have spoken sincerely on this subject about which they feel so strongly. We all know that this subject has been a matter of great interest in Canada for many years and it has also been of great interest in other countries. In 1949 a commission was appointed in the United Kingdom which took four years to develop its report. I would say that the report is a classic which every lawyer and every person interested in the question of capital punishment should try to read in full or at least in part. The commission was set up for this purpose, and I read from the royal warrant:
Whereas we have deemed It expedient that a commission should forthwith issue to consider and report whether liability under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified and, if so, to what extent and by what means, for how long and under what conditions persons who would otherwise have been liable to suffer capital punishment should be detained, and what changes in the existing law and the prison system would be required: and to inquire into and take account of the position in those countries whose experience and practice may throw light on these questions.
The commission spent four years considering this matter. They visited other countries including the United States and various countries on the continent of Europe, and they came up with this report.
In 1955 a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada was appointed to study the question of capital punishment and it reported on June 27, 1956. We have here today several members who served on that committee, including the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), and I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) served part time on it, as well as two or three other members. The work of this committee occupied three sessions and they studied the administration of the Criminal Code in Canada as it related to

this question of capital punishment. I should like to read from the first section of their report, which says:
The committee endeavoured to give consideration to all aspects of the question of capital punishment. In addition to its study of the principal issue of abolition or retention, it considered proposals for limiting or modifying capital punishment by changes in law or procedure and gave special consideration to methods of executing the sentence of capital punishment. The committee, however, expressly excluded from its inquiry any consideration of the defence of insanity and related problems-
It will be seen, therefore, that these two studies constitute the important groundwork for anyone wishing to ascertain what has been done elsewhere as well as what has been done in this country. In addition, I should like to pay tribute to the work of the officials of the Department of Justice who have been studying these reports and keeping abreast of developments in other countries. I am aware of their worth because I have been dealing with them. They are as up to date as any officials could possibly be with regard to the law relating to capital punishment.
The hon. member for Vancouver East doubted the value of capital punishment as a deterrent. We all know that it is not a deterrent in all cases because we can usually visualize circumstances in which a man, in a fit of temper, commits an offence for which he is extremely sorry immediately afterwards. I think we can easily imagine a number of circumstances under which a murder might be committed which we would not regard as a capital murder. The hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Small) has enumerated some murders of the type I have in mind. However, it is only common sense to conclude that capital punishment must be a deterrent for many persons. The very fact that we speak of coldblooded murder, calculated murder, is evidence of this fact. We refer to people doing something by stealth. Why do they do it by stealth? Because they do not want to be found out. How many are there who commit murder mentally, who would like to murder someone but are afraid to do so because of the punishment that might be meted out to them if they were caught?
When the hon. member for Vancouver East told us he opposed capital punishment, he did not agree with the findings of the committee of which he spoke so highly yesterday. This committee, in making its recommendations, said:
While the committee considered that capital punishment should be subjected to periodic review by parliament, it recommends that the death penalty should be retained as the mandatory punishment for the crime of murder.
90205-6-335J
Criminal Code
That is what we are doing. We are reviewing it here and we are introducing some modifications of the law. Under the provisions of this bill, a person who is convicted of capital murder is going to have an automatic right of appeal to the supreme court of his province. Then, if he still has any grounds for appeal, he may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If he cannot afford counsel, he is usually supplied with counsel. He is being supplied with counsel today, and that situation will continue. He will also be supplied with copies of the addresses of counsel and the evidence. This is a great advance.
Some hon. members referred to the provisions of clause 13 which 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:
This is a reference to the question of whether or not the jury wishes to make a recommendation for mercy. The jury is not required to do so. In other words, the jury does not have to bring in a recommendation when the judge addresses them. They may say, no, we do not wish to say anything about that or they can say, yes, we would like to recommend clemency. At the present time a jury may bring in a recommendation of clemency or they may not. In many cases they do not do so and, of course, it is said that they do not do so because they are not aware of the fact they have that privilege. This is a new procedure, and it will be interesting to see how it works out. A similar provision was recommended by the Gowers report in Great Britain. They went farther than we are going here, leaving entirely to the jury the right to make a recommendation as to whether a person should get life imprisonment or whether the death penalty should be carried out. The subject of giving the jury this discretion is dealt with at considerable length.
I should like to make an observation here in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets), who asked why we did not follow more closely the recommendations of the joint committee. It must be remembered that the previous government did not follow these recommendations at all. There are 13 recommendations in this report, and of those 13 we have carried out nine in this bill. The ones that we have not carried out have to do with a change in the definition of murder, the degrees of murder-

Criminal Code


Mr. Deschalelels:: Will the hon. member
permit a question? Does he not agree that if the present government have accepted eight or nine of the recommendations, they have left aside the most important ones?


William Joseph Browne: That is a matter of opinion. We are not carrying out all the recommendations, but we are carrying out nine of them. The hon. member himself recommended that one of them should not be carried out, that is the retention of capital punishment for women. If he can recommend that this one should not be carried out, why should not the government, having considered the matter carefully, select certain recommendations to be carried out? We have not approved of any change in the method of carrying out the death penalty. The commission appointed in the United Kingdom recommended that there should be no change over there, so we are following the recommendation which was made in the United Kingdom.
There is only one other point I wish to bring to the attention of the house before I sit down, and that relates to statistics. The Gowers report deals at length with statistics. As we know, statistics can be brought forward in support of both sides of a question. Unless the statistics are of the same type, unless you are certain what those statistics really mean, they are of no value. Since I became Solicitor General, I have taken some pains to try to get some statistics to indicate what is happening in Canada with regard to capital cases. I must confess it is extremely difficult. I have a table here which I should like permission to put on Hansard. When I do so, I should like to give a warning that these statistics are not complete. There are footnotes which explain the deficiencies, and they will give some idea of the disadvantage in which we are placed in Canada in trying to get statistics.
One must remember that there are federal police, provincial police, county police, district police and municipal police. There is no central office in which these statistics are collected. We do get statistics relating to convictions, of course, but it is difficult to get information on the number of murders that occur and what happens afterwards in those cases.
May I have the permission of the house to have this table printed in Hansard?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree to give the Solicitor General leave to have printed in Hansard at this point in his speech the table to which he has referred?
[Mr. Deschatelets.l


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The table above referred to follows at page 5309.]


William Joseph Browne: Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe this bill is a very valuable one. As I have said, it should satisfy those who wish the retention of capital punishment for the more heinous crimes of murder and at the same time it is a step in the direction which those who favour abolition desire.
I should like to join with all the other hon. members in congratulating the Minister of Justice on the fine presentation he gave us yesterday on this subject.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I am, I must say, neither a criminologist nor an eminent member of the bar association, but I am nevertheless interested in this bill, as are my constituents.
This is a most important piece of legislation since it tends to make a distinction between capital murder and non-capital murder.
A moment ago, I was saying that I am not a lawyer. That means that I will never be a crown attorney nor an attorney for the defence but, some day, I may be called upon to sit on a jury. That is why I was greatly impressed by the remarks which the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) made yesterday during this debate. I should like to quote from page 5227 of Hansard:
X am under the impression that we are imposing quite a responsibility on the jury. I think all those who have some court experience will agree- and experience points in that direction-that juries feel repugnance against the death penalty and are loath to make a decision which could send a man to his death. That is why in many instances in recent years, juries have rendered verdicts inconsistent with the evidence, simply because they felt reluctant to making such a decision-and this is a human reaction for men with no court experience-and did not want to assume responsibility for a decision which would have involved loss of life for one of their fellow men.
That is undoubtedly what happens in courts of justice. The judge always asks the jury to be as impartial as possible but, under the present law, it may happen under certain circumstances, that the accused is condemned to death by the jury. Now, as prescribed by section 13, the judge must say to the jury:
You have found the accused guilty and the law requires that I now pronounce sentence of death against him (or ''the law provides that he may be sentenced to death", as the case may be). Do



STATISTICAL DATA RELATING TO CAPITAL CASES REPORTED BY THE POLICE, COURTS AND SECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT, 1951-1958, CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Number of murders known to police (1) (2) (9)	Number of murders solved by police (1) (2) (3) (4) (9)	Number of charges of murder (5)	Number of convictions	Number of acquittals	Number of charges reduced to manslaughter (6)	Insanity	Other disposition	Commuta- tions (8)	Executions (8)Year	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J1951	100	89	52	15	30	-	7	-	2	61952	105	94	50	18	23	-	-	9	3	121953	120	87	36	10	17	31	8	1	10	111954	116	96	35	15	16	40	4	-	1	41955	111	82	34	16	11	24	4	3	5	81956	123	97	24	10	7	31	6	1	8	41957	110	78	42	8	24	36	9	1	6	41958	148	94	35	19	12	23	3	1	15	21.	From 1951 to 1953 inclusive, figures for Yukon and Northwest Territories are not included.2.	In 1957, figures for murders known and solved by Ontario Provincial Police are not included. The O.P.P. did not report in that year. This also applies for the table for Ontario.3.	In 1957 and 1958 the R.C.M.P. did not report conclusions, but did report prosecutions. The data for prosecutions have been included in column B.4.	In 1958, the Ontario Provincial Police did not report conclusions, but did report prosecutions. The data for prosecutions have been included in column B.5.	Figures include charges which resulted in conviction, acquittal, jury disagreement, no bill and nolle *prosequi-, but do not include charges resulting in convictions for the included offence of manslaughter (See footnote (7) ).6.	Figures prior to 1953 are not available. The murder charges resulting in convictions for the included offence of manslaughter are additional to the number of charges of murder listed under the column "Number of Charges of Murder" (See footnote (5) ).7.	From 1951 to 1953 inclusive, the number of murders known and solved reported by the R.C.M.P. are not broken down by provinces. Provincial totals do not equal the totals for Canada.8.	Figures represent commutations and executions that took place the year mentioned regardless of the year sentences of death were imposed.9.	Figures for the Quebec Provincial Police are not available.
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
you wish to make any recommendation as to whether or not he should be granted clemency. 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 required to make of this case to the Minister of Justice and will be given due consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I can just see myself in the shoes of the jurors who, after several long days of trial, see the accused in front of them, placed between two policemen and looking rather depressed; under such circumstances -it is quite human-he cannot but inspire pity. I am sure that in many cases, the jurors will soften up, and following that statement by the judge, will recommend the accused to the clemency of the Minister of Justice.
However, if we refer to the report of the senate and house joint committee on capital punishment which was published on June 29, 1956, we find that the reasons in favour of capital punishment are quite decisive and can only prompt us to favour the status quo. In fact, it is mentioned that capital punishment has a deterrent effect. I quote:
The committee was deeply impressed by the support given the death penalty by those who are responsible for the administration of the law. It includes all the attorneys general of all the provinces except Saskatchewan.
Second, here is what we find under the heading "Punishment":
It has been argued that capital punishment is the just and appropriate punishment for murder. It has been claimed that more than any other penalty, it shows the horror felt by society towards the person who destroys life, and its repugnance for the crime of crimes.
Here is another quotation:
(3)	Public opinion.
It has been stated that public opinion in Canada remained substantially in favour of capital punishment and that it would be unwise for the parliament of Canada to abolish capital punishment against the will of the majority of Canadian citizens.
Moreover, there is a section which relates to prison administration, where we find this:
It has been alleged that additional administrative problems would arise in the penitentiaries, if all those found guilty of murder were imprisoned.
And, under section (5), there is mention of a trend towards crimes of violence, and I quote again:
In a young country in full development, like Canada, with a population of multiple ethnical origins, the need for a deterrent like capital punishment is greater.
And a little further on, it says:
Moreover, it has been said that hardened criminals were more inclined to resort to violence. Capital punishment would be a better deterrent, for that category of criminals, than mere imprisonment, in

respect of which they are already hardened and which they are inclined to consider as a professional risk.
But yet, Mr. Speaker, recommendations have been made by that committee. As the Solicitor General just said, several of those recommendations have been followed by this government. However, we should not forget that the less important recommendations have been followed, with the possibility that the more important were ignored.
Among those recommendations, you have first of all:
(1)	Retention of the death penalty as mandatory in murder cases.
(2)	Retention of capital punishment for treason and piracy.
(3)	No change to murder definition.
(4)	No "degree" of murder.
Despite this recommendation to avoid providing any degree of murder, we see what has happened and we can realize that this bill rather tends to make a classification, for it includes various degrees of murder.
Under 5 you have:
(5)	No special provision for women.
And as a last recommendation:
(13) Abolition of hanging to be replaced by electrocution or, as an alternative, the lethal chamber.
Confronted with this bill, I suggest we are entitled to wonder why the government and the Minister of Justice in particular have ignored most of those recommendations.
The Minister of Justice might reply that it has nothing to do with the abolition of capital punishment, but I believe that, by passing this bill, we are progressively working towards abolition of capital punishment.
I realize that under such circumstances, it may be wise to think of the criminal. But we should not forget his victim, nor those who are left behind; I refer, for instance, to the victim's widow and orphans.
As for me, I admit that I am not here to protect the criminal-and such is the case of all other members whose sincerity I do not question-but to protect the victim. I was rather impressed yesterday by the remarks of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) who dealt with this matter in a deeply humane way. I was particularly interested in the part of his speech where he mentioned that many of our young people are now lying in cemeteries because they have fought to protect freedom and democracy.
I consider this measure as a step toward the abolition of capital punishment, and this is why I shall vote against it.

I heard earlier the member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin), himself a lawyer, state that if the issue was the abolition of capital punishment, he would vote against it. I shall then vote against the bill and, like many others, I shall vote against abolishing capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, I must remind the house that I am much more concerned with the life of decent people than with the welfare of criminals and realizing what happened in the past in our courts, I feel that the same procedure should be maintained.
Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, the question of capital punishment raises many difficulties for any individual, regardless of his experience and his qualifications.
Over the ages it was a matter which haunted the mind of man. The most brilliant brains have studied that important problem and have always come to varied and opposed conclusions. In all countries, all through the ages, everyone of those people has considered the question with utmost sincerity wondering whether capital punishment should be maintained or abolished. The same phenomenon is now observed in Canada, where we see that public opinion is almost equally divided on the issue.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the first citizen of Canada was right when he stated in the House of Commons in February 1960, that in 20 years of parliamentary experience, he did not think he had seen more interest on the part of the members on any other issue. That means, Mr. Speaker, that each and every member of parliament is fully aware of the tremendous moral responsibility he is assuming when he expresses his views on this delicate subject.
When speaking for or against capital punishment, not only are we playing our part as legislators, but we are also acting as judges.
If we are in favour of maintaining the death penalty, we are literally sending to the gallows thousands of human beings who in the future will commit murders. It is a painful obligation.
On the other hand, if we ask for abolition of capital punishment, we may be inviting some shady character who respects neither law nor religion, with no respect of any kind for human life, to commit crimes against thousands of our fellow men. This, Mr. Speaker, is a frightful risk which a government cannot easily take.
Criminal Code
Of course, we would be in a much better position to judge the situation if we knew to what extent the death penalty is an efficient deterrent against homicide. But it is absolutely impossible to know how many individuals have refrained from committing the horrible crime of murder because they were afraid of being sent to the gallows.
On the other hand, one thing is sure. There is nothing more deep-rooted and stronger in any man, in any living being than the instinct of self-preservation.
There is another, equally certain fact: the prospect of death, the unavoidable, final and irrevocable punishment, haunts and gnaws at the mind of the potential murderer if he has the least opportunity to think it over before committing his crime. This potential murderer, even before doing this horrible thing which is the taking away or one's life, knows perfectly well that in this twentieth century, with the efficient and modern means available to the law, he probably does not have one chance in a hundred to hide his crime forever and to escape the punishment which will be inflicted upon him by the authority. Thus that fear may be for him the mother of wisdom. That is why I feel that the death penalty is an efficient and strong enough preventative to stop a murderer.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that all human beings loathe the death penalty; I personally consider it as an extraordinary evil and do not accept it for all kinds of murders as I shall explain a little later. But even if it is an evil, we must unfortunately consider it as a necessary evil in our modern society, and I should like to see it disappear if such a disappearance did not mean a menace to public good.
I would like to be able to say: Canada has such a respect for life that it does not deliberately accept that a human being be put to death.
Indeed, it is the duty of the authorities to use all possible means to enhance to the fullest extent in the minds of men, spiritual and moral values and the concept of human dignity.
Will the abolition of capital punishment lead to that end, under the circumstances?
We must answer that question by the negative if we agree that capital punishment is an efficient deterrent against homicide and if we remember that the first and immediate duty of the state is to make the general or common



S312 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
interest prevail over personal interest, to protect the whole oi society against the murderers of tomorrow.
The role of a legislator is often a hard task but, as far as this matter is concerned, we are here to protect society against criminals.
That, in my opinion, is the stand which the state must take on that serious problem. Besides, such a stand is in accordance with the Christian principles which have been instilled in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Canadian members of parliament.
Indeed, this is what we read in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica:
Only he who is in charge of the community, has the power of life and death.
Volume X of the Dictionary of Catholic Theology adds the following corollary:
However, there is no homicide and, consequently, no sin against the divine commandment Non occides (Thou shalt not kill), when human justice formally calls for capital punishment.
St. Thomas adds that, in such a case, the human authorities act as the vicar of God in matters which come under them.
To that, I should like to add the following words which are taken from a profession of faith written by Pope Innocent III in the twelfth century:
We declare that lay authorities may, without committing a mortal sin, pass a sentence which entails the shedding of blood, providing such sentence is motivated not by hatred but by judgment and is not decided hastily but in all wisdom.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to notice that the principle of this bill is in accordance with the sound logic on which the state must always base its decisions, and with the fundamental principles of the church to which I belong.
I must congratulate the Minister of Justice most heartily for having prepared with such devotion and understanding this bill which protects society and strictly respects the rights of individuals who are to be judged by their fellow men.
An examination of section 202A reveals that the bill sets a distinction between capital murder and non-capital murder. That is the substance of the bill. The basic principle is premeditation, and that is why I was saying a while ago that I am in favour of capital punishment but that I cannot accept that the professional killer who does not hesitate to commit a murder to come into the possession of material goods, be treated the same way as the murderer whose intellectual faculties were momentarily unbalanced under the heat of madness or passion.

Let us consider the case of a bank robber who prepares his deed coldly, carefully. He is familiar with all the details of the place where he will break in. He carries weapons which can mean death and, in cold blood, he decides to shoot anyone standing in his way, without any consideration for the value his victim might have for his family and the community.
That is capital murder, a murder of a calculated and deliberate nature, a murder which is planned.
But this is not the case for crimes of passion which are committed under violent emotional stress due to various circumstances, when, in a moment of mental aberration or insanity, a citizen who never thought of becoming a murderer or homicide, will deal a fellow man the fatal blow.
The legislation before us precisely sets out the difference between capital murder and non-capital murder. Besides, it strikes us that the bill is but the logical following up, or consecration by law, of a practice established by the various governments over the years.
I looked up the statistics quoted in the house in March 1960 by the Minister of Justice, covering the period from 1930 to 1959 inclusive and dealing with the number of sentences, executions and commutations. I found that during the last 30 years there have been about 608 death sentences, 210 executions and 158 commutations.
Well, this bill is conceived so as to give a better opportunity of appreciating all circumstances in each particular case.
To that end, there is, among others, a provision under clause 8 which lessens the danger of a miscarriage of justice for an indicted person.
Moreover, the bill gives greater latitude to the members of the jury. And I approve without any reservation the remarks made yesterday by an hon. member in this house, to the effect that the jury should have legally a greater latitude with regard to the interpretation of the facts and the strictness of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I now want to answer the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine), who complained earlier of the situation in which a jury could find itself when, under clause 13, the judge asks them whether they wish to make a recommendation for clemency.
It is quite clear that the members of the jury could find themselves in a situation

where their will would lack firmness. However, in any case, I believe there is less chance of error in being generous than in being absolutely just. This is why I maintain that this clause 13 is drafted in quite a humane spirit and will allow the jury to precisely appreciate all particular cases, all the details, all the evidence which will be submitted to them.
Mr. Speaker, I know that other hon. members will speak on this question and I will sum up the principle of this bill by the following words: while it is quite difficult for a state to deliberately apply the death penalty by using its powers, we must remember that capital punishment is applied by the state only against the person who has been found guilty of a crime committed with premeditation and by the use of force or trickery, or both.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that our society is willing to set aside that evil referred to earlier, that is capital punishment. But, while waiting for Christian principles to make our society and individuals more perfect, I believe the legislator has the duty to retain capital punishment while at the same time introducing the necessary and humanitarian mitigations, according to circumstances, and this, for the best interests of society.
Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, never before have I been so tense as I am today in rising to speak in this house.
This question of the death penalty which we are called upon to consider is so important that any member who wants to give a sincere opinion has to think it over very seriously.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to rely unreservedly on the cabinet, and to say that these wise men, who have studied the question with the help of many experts and who have decided to introduce this bill must have drafted a good piece of legislation which deserves our approval and we should not question the wisdom of the decision taken.
Nevertheless, any kind-hearted man is tempted to favour an alleviation of the death penalty, but it should not be forgotten that we are here as the representatives of society and that we must reach a decision based on serious reasons and not only on pretence or feelings.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the principle of Bill C-92 is hard to detect if you 90205-6-336
Criminal Code
look at it as a whole. In fact there are several principles involved in this bill. First of all, the amendment to section 202 of the Criminal Code by the addition of section 202A to classify murder, as defined in article 202, in two classes, that is capital murder and non-capital murder, and to classify the sentence in two categories by amending section 206: death penalty for capital murder and life imprisonment for non-capital murder.
Another principle of this bill is the amendment to section 206 of the Criminal Code which is replaced by a new section 206 exempting from capital punishment children under the age of 18 who might have committed a capital murder but under which they would be automatically sentenced to life imprisonment.
The third principle I note in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the one whereby life imprisonment is considered a minimum penalty.
The fourth principle, it seems to me, is the necessity of having a specific charge of capital murder in order to apply capital punishment.
The fifth principle seems to be, an automatic plea of not guilty in the case of a crime involving capital punishment.
The sixth principle seems to me the impossibility of indicting an accused for noncapital murder where he has already been acquitted on a charge of capital murder.
As for the seventh principle, it involves the enlargement of the means of appeal, that is to say the appeal becomes automatic in the case of a capital murder, both before a superior court and a court of appeal, be it on law or fact, or mixed law and fact.
The eighth principle deals with the gratuitousness of the documents essential to the appeal both to the court of appeal and to the supreme court.
The ninth principle, is the suspension of execution made easier because mercy is always possible in the case of a capital murder.
The tenth principle deals with the jury recommendation. This recommendation by the jury in favour of clemency, that is the provision on that subject, does not seem very clear. It is not specified if unanimity is required, or what majority must be in favour of clemency for the judge to decide to grant clemency to the accused of capital or noncapital murder. In my opinion there is a contradiction with regard to the principle providing for a "minimum" life sentence in the case of capital murder.

Criminal Code
Finally, another principle of this bill is the power retained by the governor in council to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. Here again, it seems to me, that this principle tends to destroy the principle I termed as No. 3 with regard to the minimum penalty.
Mr. Speaker, there is still a great deal to be said about every one of those principles.
I could wait until the end of my remarks to consider the first principle of this bill.
Allow me to deal right now with the principle I indicated as being the second with regard to the amendment to section 206 intended to exempt from capital punishment children under 18 years of age who have committed a capital murder. I feel that capital punishment could have been retained for those young people in cases of capital murder. Be that as it may the age should inevitably be reduced to 14 years for noncapital and capital murder alike. The reason for this is obvious. For, in our days of serious delinquency, one wonders whether it would not become dangerous to exempt young people of less than 18 years from the severity of capital punishment, when we consider the gangs of young hoodlums who would not hesitate to commit a murder and who would not take the trouble of deliberating to decide whether the act they are about to commit is a capital or a non-capital murder.
Regarding the requirement of a specific capital murder charge for capital punishment, in my opinion it makes very much sense to have these provisions in the bill, for, in the main, the bill implies a distinction as between capital and non-capital murder.
I must congratulate the minister for this amendment to the Criminal Code which makes it mandatory to enter a plea of not guilty when the offence is one punishable by death. And also for rendering impossible an indictment for capital murder when an accused has already been acquitted on a charge of non-capital murder. However, Mr. Speaker, there is something inconsistent here.
It is said that the bill will abolish the death penalty in the case of non-capital murders. In doing so, it is depriving society of an essential protection, since it is preventing it from indicting for non-capital murder a person already acquitted on a charge of capital murder. There is some danger in the fact that, once a criminal is acquitted because proof of capital murder was lacking, society will be unable to lay a new charge against him.

I congratulate the government on the decision to enlarge the possibilities of appeal. That change was long overdue. Whether we are for or against the bill should not prevent us from congratulating the government for having so enlarged the possibilities of appeal by making them automatic in the case of capital murder.
I also want to congratulate the government for having laid the principle of gratuitousness with regard to the documents necessary for appeal, whether it is before the court of appeal or the supreme court. This created a great problem, I am told, for the innocent who lacked the means to ensure their defence. A person had to disburse so much money that there was a risk of the innocent being deprived of appeal.
I also congratulate the government for having extended the possibilities of suspending the execution. As far as recommending mercy is concerned, there is a possibility of conflict, in the case of capital murder with principle No. 3 according to which life imprisonment becomes a minimum punishment.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, some will ask: What is your position going to be? Let me say first of all that I still have fresh in my memory the speaking marathon we had in this house on the capital punishment bill introduced last year by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). Some members of the House of Commons were definitely set against abolishing capital punishment. Their reasons were quite acceptable. They referred to public order and I do not have to go over that in extenso. I will merely point out the reasons I have to oppose abolition of the death penalty.
First of all, common weal has precedence over private weal. In my opinion abolition-nists are unable to differentiate the individual unjustly accused from the real culprit, when they cry for abolition of capital punishment. In short, lest an innocent be exposed to the death penalty, we should expose the life of many citizens, because the real criminal would avoid the death penalty. Society will be more adequately protected if capital punishment remains in the Criminal Code.
Allow me now, Mr. Chairman, to quote an essay published in the "Revue internationale de criminologie et de police technique", published in Geneva. I refer to page 68 of special issue No. 52, where I read:
First of all, let us lend our ear to an examining magistrate, namely Mr. Justice Grivel, of Lausanne, who was appointed to investigate the double crime of Maracon, about which the clues lead nowhere and whose author has not yet been punished.

"Should you find the culprit, asked the investigator, would you not feel that he deserves the ultimate penalty". "As far as I am concerned", begins the magistrate, "I think the crime of Maracon appears to be a crime of the gratuitous type. No human motive can be found to excuse it. If it had been committed by a sadistic or otherwise mentally perturbed individual, there would necessarily be extenuating circumstances inasmuch as the culprit would have been irresponsible". As for the death penalty itself he added: "It should be part of the law as a menace. It may cause some criminals to think twice before committing murder".
Mr. Speaker, I have heard some people state that capital punishment should be abolished for humane reasons. I am wondering whether any of them would have been able to reply to a statement such as the one I quoted of Justice Grivel. The safety of society must be the paramount consideration of the legislator when he has to decide upon the position he must take when faced with legislation such as that before us at this time.
The primary task of public authority is to enable an honest citizen to live in freedom, peace and security. In these days of organized banditry and severe juvenile delinquency, we should think twice before abolishing the state's most efficient weapon against murderers. We must protect society against criminals of the bottle and criminals of the automobile. We must also protect society against murder committed in conjunction with rape, violence and theft. We must prevent crime with accompanying violence in view of the danger of murder. We must ensure that future generations will not lose respect for other people's lives, and we must retain the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
I mentioned a moment ago that one of the principles of the bill was to divide murder into two categories, capital murder and noncapital murder. After looking at all the reasons in support of this bill, I have been unable to avoid the conclusion that the bill as drafted will indirectly lead to the total abolition of capital punishment. Despite all the precautions which have been taken, it still leads to the abolition of the death penalty.
Now I am opposed for the time being to the abolition of capital punishment, whether directly or indirectly. I just gave various reasons for which capital punishment must be maintained.
Why am I in favour of a complete retention of capital punishment at this time? Not because I refuse to see that there are some murders which are not premeditated, but because, when weighing the advantages and disadvantages of this legislation with regard to public order, I consider that we are going too fast.
90205-6-336i
Criminal Code
To sum it up, I have not been convinced that Bill C-92 in its present form, contains any principle affecting the retention of capital punishment which my conscience can accept.
I humbly maintain that the terms of the bill would directly lead, in the very near future, to the effective, pure and simple abolition of the death penalty, which I cannot accept for the various reasons given by many fellow members during the discussion of the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough in the 1960 session and which it would be too long to reiterate at this time.
Our civilization has not yet attained the degree of maturity required for abolishing capital punishment.
The United Kingdom and other countries may perhaps abolish capital punishment. The United Kingdom, being an island and therefore sheltered against American gangsterism, the mafia and other criminal organizations where murder is the current practice, may perhaps abolish capital punishment. We have, perhaps, in England, the most disciplined people in the world, but we certainly may not say the same of the American people. It is unfortunate, but we have to admit it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I quote an excerpt from an article by the French author, Frangois Mauriac, which was published on page 77, in the Petit Journal of May 7, 1961. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, not to be able to quote the text from its original source, but I shall just read what I find in that paper clipping. The article was published under the following title:
The views of Frangois Mauriac... Abolish capital punishment?-First, let us be worthy of it.
And the author adds:
Abolish capital punishment? To what end? Capital punishment, if it were eliminated from the texts, would still prevail in our way of life. Even if it were erased from every legislation where it still exists, innocent people would nevertheless be legally slaughtered, human beings would die everywhere in the world from want and exhaustion. Martial law and special powers would, anyhow, restore capital punishment, extending it to innocent people, whenever politicians would think it fit.
The issue of capital punishment is only brought up again to give one an illusion of still belonging to a community worthy of dealing with and settling this issue, and in order to escape the unbearable evidence that every notion of justice has been obscured within us from year to year, and more particularly during the last two decades. I am afraid that discussing capital punishment will dispense our highminded people from dealing with more urgent problems. This is pretending to believe that we belong to a world where the life of a human being, whatever the colour of his skin, remains sacred.

Criminal Code
Abolishing capital punishment should be the ultimate aim of a law which no military or civilian police force would ever have the power to break. We know how things are today. A respect for the life of even those who are guilty of the greatest crimes-what sophistication for the sort of people we have become. How very fastidious. We could only attain that end after a successful effort of regeneration which we did not even start. Before abolishing capital punishment, let us therefore wait until we are worthy of it-
(Text):


Norman Leonard Spencer: As one
of those who did not have the opportunity of participating in the previous debates on the subject matter of this bill, and as one who is not an abolitionist and yet proposes to support this bill, I feel I should clarify my position. I will be brief because I do not want to belabour the arguments which have been previously advanced.
I listened with intense interest to the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) when he introduced the bill. I congratulate him upon the objective and lucid manner in which he dealt with this delicate and highly controversial subject of capital punishment. This legislation has been referred to by previous speakers as a first step or an advance forward. If by those expressions they had in mind the ultimate abolition of capital punishment as the penalty for murder, I feel they are unrealistic and overly optimistic. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country are now, and will remain, opposed to any such result. I hope the enactment of this legislation will not be construed as a weakening of opposition or a manifestation of a changing public opinion.
The salient feature of this bill, in my opinion, is the retention of capital punishment. It is retained as the penalty for deliberate and premeditated murder. The deterrent effect of this prescribed punishment for such crimes remains unfettered. That this punishment is the greatest deterrent, I believe, admits of no denial. Attempts have been made by resort to statistics to establish otherwise. As has been said so properly by the Minister of Justice, statistics have no convincing value. There are no statistics available of murders not committed or deterred by the severity and certainty of the death penalty. To argue that life imprisonment is an equal deterrent presupposes that the penalties of death and life imprisonment are of equal severity. This is an argument I cannot accept. I believe we do not need to do more than ask ourselves-God forbid that we should ever be placed in such a position-which penalty we would prefer.
If, as I believe, the death penalty is the more severe penalty, it must follow that it is the greater deterrent. To argue otherwise goes counter to all our beliefs over the years

and to actual experience. No one, I think, would attempt to argue that the mandatory imprisonment penalty for drunk driving has not been a greater deterrent than the lesser penalty of a fine.
This bill also provides the penalty of life imprisonment in certain circumstances. What are the circumstances? There must be an absence of deliberation or planning. It is a killing that is not deliberate in the sense of being within the contemplation of the accused. It is the type of murder which would not be prevented or deterred by the severity of the penalty. It is perpetrated without regard to the consequences and, really, without any conscious appreciation of culpability. It is the type of murder for which pleas of clemency are made and frequently granted.
This kind of murder, in this bill called "non-capital murder", warrants a lesser penalty. There is no erosion of the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and for that reason and that reason alone, I approve of the substitution of the penalty of life imprisonment for such cases. I am, therefore, in good conscience and without compromising my convictions, able to support this bill.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: My intervention will be brief, Mr. Speaker. As one who has taken part in capital punishment debates on previous occasions and who has stood against the type of bill proposed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), I should like to have a chance to explain my vote.
I believe, sir, that when one approaches a matter of such basic morality as the question of whether or not a human being should be hanged, one really comes to a conclusion from a position of deep-rooted prejudice and then glosses that over with an intellectual process. So I was interested in my own personal reaction in reading the bill of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), to see whether or not I agreed with it right off the bat. I must say that I wholeheartedly support the bill.
By the process of dichotomy that he used to separate into distinct categories the crime where premeditation takes place over a long time-for example, most of the well-known poisoning cases certainly fit into that category -as opposed to the murder which arises in a man's heart and is accomplished on the spur of the moment, I think he has accomplished a most valuable feat of scholarship. I also think he has done much to resolve the conflict that existed in this house last year when we had a two-day debate on this subject and found ourselves to be either retentionists or abolitionists but perhaps most of us were unhappy as to the problems which were raised

and which could not be solved by being in either particular position. I therefore salute the Minister of Justice for his bill and also for his speech which I daresay will be one that will be looked at for a long time and will give this particular parliament a great stamp of authority.
The minister has pointed out that it is almost impossible to prove a negative and to ascertain how many people are deterred from crime. That thought alone should be echoed and re-echoed whenever we try to bring to such a fundamental problem as this one the mere statistical approach.
Finally, may I say this. On another, occasion in justifying my own attitude towards the retention of the death penalty, I said that severe crimes deserve severe punishment. This thought was put much more eloquently by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) speaking in his debate last night. I endorse most of his remarks, although not all of them. It seems to me that the right to live at liberty in society is not one which exists without limits. It seeems to me that we enjoy the right to live under licence from society to ensure that we conduct ourselves properly. For these reasons I am in accord with the bill and endorse it most wholeheartedly.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the house but I want to say this. I was one of those who expressed themselves strongly in the debate a year ago against the abolition of the death penalty, and if I were speaking in the same debate I would still express myself strongly in that regard. I have no difficulty whatever in supporting this bill because it retains the principle in which I believe and for which I argued a year ago. For deliberate and premeditated murder there still is the death sentence.
In some of the speeches that were made in this house yesterday, or one in particular, it was stated that we might be whipped into line and that it would be interesting to note how some members were going to vote if a vote was called. Just for the purpose of the record I wish to state that I have come to my own conclusions and that I am very happy with this bill. In my opinion, the minister in particular in his presentation of this bill and the government in the solution they have brought forward in it are going to make many people happy.
No subject before parliament has brought me more inquiries in the last two years than has the particular subject of capital punishment. I know that no one wants to go around hanging large numbers of people or trying large numbers of people for deliberate murder, if the circumstances indicate otherwise.
Criminal Code
By dividing the crime into categories, as has been done in this bill, the minister is going to make many people feel that a great step has been taken for those who feel that abolition is the right thing and yet it is not taking away anything from those of us who believe that the time has not yet come to do away with capital punishment for the worst crime against humanity.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have leave of the house to ask a question of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Before the minister closes the debate I should like to ask him a question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I make this suggestion, Mr. Speaker? If it is the will of the house that I close the debate now, I will undertake to give the hon. member the floor for the purpose of asking me a question before I conclude my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in making some remarks to conclude this debate I would be less than human if I did not express to all hon. members in the house my deep appreciation and gratitude for the kind remarks they have made. I think they applied not so much with regard to the speech I made, but particularly with regard to the bill which has been produced as a result of a good deal of thought and work on the part of the government. I appreciate those remarks and I can assure my hon. friends that I take them not personally but on behalf of the government. I am gratified indeed that it seems possible to say that we have produced a bill which represents not only what the House of Commons wishes to see as a solution of the problem but, I believe, a measure which the house accepts as being soundly based on legal principle and as carrying into effect the moral standards which this country desires to see in this branch of its criminal law.
The bill appears to have received verj general, perhaps almost unanimous support in principle. It must be recognized, of course, that the reasons for such support are not the same on the part of each member who has spoken. Those members who favour outright abolition of the death penalty apparently welcome the bill not only for the restriction that it actually places on the imposition of the death penalty but also because they regard it as a step toward abolition. The vast majority, however, appear to accept and approve

Criminal Code
the bill for what it was intended to be and what it is. It is not an abolitionist measure or a first step toward abolition but a bill for the purpose of bringing the present position with regard to capital punishment into line with present day ideas of crime and punishment and for the purpose of excluding from the imposition of the death penalty those classes of cases which, generally speaking, are not characterized by deliberations and planning and where it is felt that the imposition or execution of the death penalty ought not to be provided.
I think it must be emphasized for the information of hon. members such as the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville that this bill does not abolish the death penalty. Nothing could be clearer than that. What the bill does is to divide murder into two categories, namely capital murder and non-capital murder, and to provide that for capital murder as defined the death penalty will be retained and if a person is convicted of that type of murder its imposition by the judge will be automatic.
There have been a number of criticisms of the bill on points which I might describe as points of secondary principle. I think I should deal with some of these points now. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) expressed the view, as I understood him, that the bill was juridically sound in the approach that it took, primarily with respect to the division of murder into two types, but was practically unsound.
In reply to that I can only say that a bill which is juridically sound should also, surely, be one which is sound in practice if we repose in the institutions which may carry it out, that is the prosecution agencies and the courts, the degree of confidence to which they are eminently entitled. When I speak of the institutions which must carry it out I refer, of course, to the crown attorneys, defence attorneys, judges and juries in whom, as was so eloquently said by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) last evening, we have reason to repose the greatest confidence.
I know that juries have in the past had very great difficulties, and they may have some difficulties in future with this bill, but it is my firm belief that they will be vastly assisted by this division of murder into capital and non-capital categories. I am certain that it will be by no means impossible for a jury, when confronted with the question which will confront them under the bill, "Is it your view, gentlemen, that this was a planned and deliberate murder?", to say, "Yes, it was a planned and deliberate murder" and to convict accordingly.

I have heard no reason suggested yet as to why it would be impossible for a jury to be able to come to such a decision. But I think it is equally possible and equally appropriate that there will be other cases where when the jury ask themselves, "was this a planned and deliberate murder?", they will come to the conclusion, "No, it was not". In that case they will have no difficulty because the law is perfectly clear: They will have no difficulty in arriving at a verdict of not guilty of capital murder but guilty of non-capital murder.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont also appeared to see a contradiction of principle between the classification of murder into capital and non-capital on the one hand, and the question to be put to the jury as to whether they wished to make a recommendation for or against clemency on the other hand.
As I understood the hon. member, his point was that since cases of capital murder would be cases importing deliberation in one sense or another and were the cases we had singled out as justifying the death penalty, it was inconsistent in such cases to ask the jury whether they wished to make a recommendation for or against clemency.
Another hon. member expressed the same point-I think it was the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith)-in a different way; that was, that in putting such a question to the jury they would in effect be put on the spot. I do not think there is too much validity in either point of view.
As I attempted to indicate in my remarks in introducing the bill, it is a fact that however much you may try when you are writing law which must after all be a code, it is difficult, if not impossible, to take into account in the words of that code all the thousand and one circumstances and differences that make up human motivation.
Since, then, the code must be perfectly clear, as to principle it is perfectly appropriate that it should give some discretion in the place where discretion can properly be given. It is therefore perfectly appropriate to ask the jury to render their verdict on the simple question of whether or not this was a planned and deliberate murder as defined, and having done that and if they say it was, then to ask them in effect, "Gentlemen, is there in your view anything in the character and background of the accused which indicates the degree to which he might be held responsible or able to control and answer for his own acts and which, in your view, would lead you to recommend in favour of mercy?" That is all the jury

are being asked to do; they are only being asked whether they have a recommendation to make.
It seems to me clear that this is not something which imposes too great a burden, or indeed any burden at all, upon the jury because it does not ask them to make the same decision twice. It does not ask them to decide whether or not the individual should suffer the death penalty. They are asked first to render a verdict on the law and the evidence, and they do so. Then they are asked whether they, the jury of the accused's peers, who tried him, who heard the evidence, who heard the defence and who understood all the background of the case, as human beings have any recommendation to make. I think that, quite contrary to being an improper thing to ask a jury, it is a very proper question to ask.
While all these views which have been expressed in criticism or reservation are, of course, entitled to respect, I do not believe they represent a defect in the bill. Indeed I might on this very point remind hon. members that the Gowers commission, which is regarded as the finest piece of research that has been done in this field, itself actually recommended that the jury be asked to pass on the sentence and that after a verdict of guilty it should be the jury that decides whether the accused should be sentenced to death or whether a lesser sentence should be imposed.
That, I personally believe, would be to impose an improper task upon the jury. We have rejected that course and have enacted a law which in my view asks the jury to do something which they would probably be glad to do, and to do something which will be of the greatest assistance in the ultimate decision as to whether or not that particular sentence, in that particular case, under those particular circumstances, should be carried out.
Another suggestion has been made, that it is wrong that the crown should have to decide whether or not to lay a charge of capital murder or non-capital murder, and that in all cases the crown should be required to lay a charge of capital murder and then we should let the jury, if the evidence so warranted, bring in a verdict on the lesser offence of non-capital murder.
I do not believe it would be wise to tie the hands of attorneys general and their prosecuting officers in this way, because there must be a certain onus upon the crown to decide what charge to lay. I do not think it is enough just to say, "Let every case be charged as capital murder and then let the jury decide whether or not capital murder is proven".
Criminal Code
I do think it appropriate to impose upon the attorneys general and their crown prosecutors the obligation to decide whether the elements which the law now says must be there in order to constitute capital murder are in fact there.
Therefore it is a perfectly proper duty to impose upon them to decide whether or not to charge capital murder, and if they feel the elements are not there, then of course they must charge non-capital murder.
There were a number of other points made of an individual nature which I am quite certain will again be brought forward in committee. I should like to deal with just one other point which seemed to be of concern to a number of hon. members who took part in the debate. I refer to the point as to what will be the effect of a sentence of life imprisonment, which will be the sentence in the event of a verdict of guilty of non-capital murder.
In my view there should be no differentiation between the person who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, as will be the case in the future, for non-capital murder and other prisoners who are serving sentences of life imprisonment. We have recently set up in this country with the unanimous approval of parliament a parole system. We have appointed a national parole board to administer that system, and it is within the discretion of that board to decide at any time and on every occasion whether or not a person undergoing sentence in our penitentiaries is a fit person to be granted parole.
It is necessary to bear in mind that an inmate out on parole has not received a remission of his sentence. He is on parole for the balance of his sentence; he is merely serving that balance outside the institution. While on parole he is subject to the supervision and the surveillance of the parole board. It is not as though he were suddenly cast adrift free of all supervision by authority.
Second, it is essential to bear in mind that he would not be granted parole until the parole board had come to the conclusion after a thorough and careful study of all the aspects of the case, whether the person concerned was a fit person to be placed on parole. In reaching such a decision the parole board will have available all details as to the man's background, reports of his behaviour while in the institution and reports of psychiatrists and others as to his general mental attitude. It is only after examining all those background criteria that the board will come to a decision.
Finally, I say that it would in my view be an intolerable and impossible situation if we were to segregate into two groups in our penal institution, on the one hand those with

Criminal Code
a chance of being paroled and going out, and on the other those who would literally be caged up there for the remainder of their natural lives like animals who had been permanently deprived of liberty. I do not think the house would want to see this, and even if the house did want to see it I do not believe such a situation would make it possible to maintain any sort of institution which a Christian and civilized society would regard as desirable.
I assure hon. members that there have been many cases in the past where persons condemned to life imprisonment have been released on parole or on ticket of leave as it used to be called. This is not something new which is going to develop suddenly as a result of the bill now before the house. At the same time there have been few cases, if any, where persons who have been sentenced to life imprisonment and subsequently paroled or released on ticket of leave have proven to be a menace to society. So on that point I can give the most sincere assurance that anyone in my position can give to this house, and, through the house, to the country, that there is nothing dangerous in the fact that those who will be sentenced to life imprisonment in the future come under the authority of the national parole board.
I also remind hon. members of the provision of one of the clauses in the bill, clause 15, which I shall not read at this stage but which no doubt we shall be discussing later in detail when we come to the committee stage. This clause, of course, provides that in any particular case the governor in council when commutation of a sentence of death is ordered may at the same time provide that the particular individual dealt with shall not be paroled at any time without the prior approval of the governor in council. It is possible there may be cases where it may be felt that the mental condition of the individual-perhaps the very condition which justifies the commutation-also brings about a situation where the greatest care must be exercised before allowing him to be at large again. It is this very case which we had in mind when we put that provision in the bill so that the governor in council could, in an appropriate case, ensure that such a person could not be paroled or released unless the governor in council, responsible to parliament and the country, had the opportunity to review the case before any release was authorized.
In conclusion, may I return to what I said at the beginning of these remarks, and express once again my appreciation of the response which the house has shown to this bill. As I have said, I believe the reception given it reflects the fact that the bill accords

with the moral standards which our Canadian society desires to see incorporated into our law in this difficult field of murder and the penalty for murder.
I think, also, that it is only appropriate that the country should know the extent to which this bill has, or has not, the approval of the House of Commons. Some hon. members who have spoken have indicated that they are opposed to the measure. I think in legislation of this kind it would not be sufficient if we were merely to leave it to be carried on a voice vote. I think the country would desire to know, and is entitled to know, the extent to which its elected representatives are in support of this measure and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, because I think, also, it is desirable we should have recorded the degree of unanimity with which the people's elected representatives accept and support this measure, and because it is my belief that there will be virtually complete, if not complete, unanimity, I would ask that you call for the yeas and nays on this question.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I think the minister was agreeable to the suggestion that I might put a question to him at this stage, and I wish to thank him. Many hon. members who have spoken in this debate have stated that their minds were not yet made up with regard to its provisions. My question is this: because of the nature and the importance of this bill does the minister not think it would be advisable to refer it to a special committee of the house after second reading in order to give it a more thorough study? Notwithstanding the discussion which took place this morning concerning committee work I do not hesitate to make the suggestion because of the special nature of the bill before us. The minister will remember the outstanding work done last year-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member knows he has not the opportunity to speak again. He seems to have made his question clear and I suggest he allow it to be answered.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: That is my first request, Mr. Speaker. I have another. Should the minister not agree to refer this bill to a special committee, I would ask him to postpone the study of it in committee of the house until another date in order to permit all hon. members to make up their minds, to read the speeches which have been made and to consider the various suggestions which have been put forward from all corners of the house. I think it would be unwise to rush this bill through right now.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am making a sensible suggestion. I hope the minister will give it the consideration it deserves.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as to the first suggestion that the bill should be referred to a special committee, I am not going to indulge the temptation which I must confess is very real and remind the hon. member in detail of the discussion which took place this morning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A different situation altogether.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will simply say this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: An unworthy remark.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Essex East is always making unworthy remarks; I do not take any notice of this interruption.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a matter as important as this we should not be playing politics.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no doubt that a bill of this importance deserves consideration in the widest possible forum, and the widest possible committee forum we can place it in is the committee of the whole house. I am not inclined to think that with respect to a bill of this kind a detailed study by particular members, as my hon. friend has suggested to me, would be appropriate. I think the committee of the whole house is the appropriate place to have a detailed clause by clause consideration of this bill.
With regard to the second suggestion that we might defer the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole, while I appreciate the remarks the hon. member has made as to the desirability of studying the speeches made here, I do remind him that the bill itself has been in the hands of hon. members for over a week now.


An hon. Member:: Not their speeches.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The subject itself has been under intensive study and consideration by members of this house for over a year, ever since the bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) came up for debate in February of last year.
I know that hon. members are under considerable pressure. Members of parliament are hard-working and conscientious persons; but I doubt very much whether their consideration of these matters would be more thorough if we waited for a day, for 24 hours or for 48 hours than their consideration has been up to the present time. I sense rather, on the other hand, a desire on the part of hon. members in all quarters of the house
Division
to get on with the detailed consideration of the bill as early as possible in order that this excellent measure may become law at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: May I ask a question for clarification just before the motion is put? Could the minister give us some indication of how long a man sentenced to life imprisonment for non-capital murder would be expected to serve before he would be eligible to apply to the parole board for parole?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest the hon. member ask that question in committee. There will be ample opportunity when the relevant clause is under consideration to ask questions on details.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say a very few words because I have spoken at length on this matter on previous occasions. This is one occasion on which I can honestly say that I am completely and unreservedly in favour of a piece of legislation. I believe that this bill, as a compromise, represents not the lowest common denominator but the highest common factor. This is the sort of legislation, frankly, I should like to have thought of myself.
I believe that this bill is as just and reasonable as erring human beings are capable of achieving. I believe that mercy and human-itarianism are taken about as far as possible by this bill without being subversive of law and order, unless human nature is going to change which is highly unlikely. I believe this bill deserves to be, and undoubtedly will be, a model for similar legislation in other countries.
Finally, I believe that 50 years hence, long after most of us have disappeared not only from this house but from this life, this bill will reflect credit on this government and on its Minister of Justice.

(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, a moment ago, I made two suggestions to the Minister of Justice. My second suggestion was to postpone until another date the study we are now making of the bill. My request was based on reasons which seemed to me very important, since several members have pointed out in the course of their remarks that they had not yet formed their opinion on the merits of the bill.
I cannot see why the government wants to rush this bill through. It is a most important measure, and by implication, touches upon fundamental problems in our society.
I have suggested that its consideration in committee be deferred to another sitting. I think my suggestion at the time was welcomed by the majority of the members of this house.
The house is now in committee of the whole, and is dealing with section 1, which is perhaps the most important. I do not know whether the government thinks this measure cannot be improved. There is no doubt that if a few more days were allowed, several members could consider all the suggestions that have been put forward and could come back and make important recommendations.
This bill is being put forward on the initiative of the government, and no doubt the government accepts responsibility for; but if it is passed, it will become the law of the land. We want to help make it as practical as possible, and it is with that purpose in mind that I have suggested that its consideration in committee be deferred to another day. I renew my plea to the minister.
I cannot see why an attempt is being made to hurry this bill through. There is no urgency involved. Many sentences have been commuted over the past three years, and a few days more could not make that much difference. On the contrary, it would enable us to study the bill and also to consult authorities and go over some of the speeches which have been made.
I must say to the minister that I was quite disappointed and surprised at the astonishing attitude he adopted a moment ago, in refusing to give us one day or a few days before the bill is considered by the committee of the whole.
I hope section 1 will not be passed before six o'clock; I know this would give satisfaction to several members on the other side of the house, who would also like to see some improvements made to various aspects of the bill.

I therefore ask the minister to give serious thought to my request and to allow us a few days more to make a thorough study of such an important bill.
In fact, once the bill is passed by the house, perhaps the matter will not come up again for another generation. In any event, we will not be here to deal with it at that time.
Therefore, I would ask the minister to allow us at least that much more time, which I consider necessary if we want to improve this bill. We need more time to consider this important measure, and I hope the minister will grant my request, which follows the one I submitted a moment ago.
(Text):


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, I have not taken part in this debate up until now, although I took part in the debate on the private bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I should like to say to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont that we have had many days' debate on this whole question, but members have searched their consciences and that, having decided how they feel about this measure, they know how they will vote. No one could read the speech, for instance, of the hon. member for Parkdale without seeing the side of those who wanted revision of the law as it is. This was the side of reason, logic and common sense. On the other side of the picture we had strictly emotional appeals which would not stand up under investigation or under the experience which has been gained in other countries which have taken steps such as this one. I had on the order paper at the beginning of this session a resolution calling upon the government to take the lead in bringing in measures to amend the archaic and Mosaic type of legislation we had on the statute books before this measure was introduced.
Although I am one of those who supported the hon. member for York-Scarborough, I am one of those who believes as does the hon. member for Parkdale. I am pleased with this measure. I believe it is a real halfway house. I believe it is a long step in the right direction. In my opinion, this bill is a credit to the minister, to the staff who had the job of developing this legislation and to the government. I am wholeheartedly in support of it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: At this stage I have only a few brief and general remarks to make following those of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and the hon. member for Vancouver South, and they are along somewhat the same lines. As to the major principle contained in the bill, I think each member
Criminal Code
has undoubtedly made up his mind and perhaps did so not at the time this particular bill was under debate but during previous sessions when we discussed or debated bills presented by the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
However, while one may have come to a certain conclusion with respect to the essence of the bill itself, I still think that a sufficiently large number of points of view were expressed during second reading of this bill to require some consideration and some reflection on the part of hon. members with regard to whether or not these different ideas might be contained within detailed parts of the bill itself. I am thinking of such matters as pleadings in court, functions in court, and whether or not we should alter somewhat the definitions of what is capital murder or what is non-capital murder. These are things which perhaps require some degree of cogitation on the part of members. It is for this reason that I would support the expression of view of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont to the extent that we have possibly a day or two in which to consider and to reflect upon all of these various ideas that have been suggested, some of them differing greatly.
I know that each member has approached this problem from the point of view of his conscience and not from the point of view of whether or not the legislation was introduced by a particular cabinet minister and the natural things that follow from supporting government bills. However, I think this conscience of members should be given an opportunity, over an extra day or two, to work a little bit more. Perhaps we may then be able to come up with suggestions in the committee of the whole which the minister said is the place in which we can in the broadest possible manner assess the feeling of the public. In committee of the whole we may be able to come up with suggestions and ideas with regard to particular methods rather than suggesting those amendments on the spur of the moment. I have one amendment particularly that I should like to propose to a subsequent clause. It is something which I would rather not introduce right on the spur of the moment, as it were. I would rather think about it for a while, talk with other members about it and get their ideas on it.
I also think there is a tendency, particularly on matters such as this one, to legislate with long intervals of time elapsing between the various changes that take place in the legislation. I think it will be some time again before parliament, in a formal way, gets down to the question of considering the statute dealing with capital punishment or capital or non-capital murder, as it is referred to in this bill; it might be another ten

Criminal Code
years or another 15 years. It is difficult to say when we will again get to that point of time in social thought when it is considered necessary to make some other amendments. I think we want to be as sure as we possibly can now, while we are at the task, that we are legislating in a manner which each of us really thinks is the best possible way to legislate on this particular subject.
In general I am in support of the bill and the subject matters contained therein. I have expressed these points of view on other occasions, especially when dealing with the bill introduced during the previous session by the hon. member for York-Scarborough.
I support it, not because it represents what some people have called a compromise between abolitionists and retentionists-because I do not think this is a subject matter we can approach from the point of view of compromise, especially if our conscience is involved-but because I think the bill recognizes, and certainly the reflection of the government is recognition of this fact, that capital punishment is no greater deterrent to murder than is some other form of punishment, notably, in this instance, life imprisonment.
I think this bill recognizes that capital punishment in some instances is not any greater deterrent to certain crimes being committed than is the threat of life imprisonment. I maintain that this is substantially the case with respect to those types of murder which are classified as planned and premeditated where a person plans a heinous crime. One such case that comes to mind is where an individual planted a bomb on an airplane in order to kill a member of his family and thereby collect the insurance, and in the process killed everybody else on the airplane. That was a planned, premeditated and foul type of murder.
In this and other instances where murder is planned and premeditated by an individual, I submit that the threat of capital punishment is no more a deterrent to that individual than is the threat of life imprisonment. I think what that individual is thinking about, or what he convinces himself will occur, is that he can plan and carry out a murder and use his wits in such a way that he will escape detection. He has convinced himself that he will be able to do this and will be able to escape detection, arrest and conviction by the police.
I support this bill, because it recognizes the fact that in some instances the threat of capital punishment is no more a deterrent than is the threat of life imprisonment. I submit that this is true in so far as planned and premeditated murders are concerned.

I would say, however, that the retention of capital punishment in so far as concerns certain types of planned and premeditated murders will be acceptable to those who maintain that it is a deterrent; it will be acceptable to those who think in terms of the necessity for revenge; it will be acceptable to greater or lesser degrees to people in different parts of the country, depending upon the circumstances which might exist at any particular time.
Public opinion on this particular question of the necessity for capital punishment in certain cases will rise and fall as circumstances vary in a particular locale. If there is in an area a particularly fiendish individual who commits murder and the inhabitants are incensed about the murder and the manner in which it was carried out, the feeling in that area will rise and insist upon capital punishment being the proper punishment. At some other point of time, if nothing occurs in the same community, the feeling in that regard will diminish.
Mr. Chairman, I know other hon. members wish to rise and speak on this subject because I saw them rise when the first clause of this bill was called. Therefore perhaps I should not say anything more at this particular time, because it is ten or 12 minutes to six o'clock and I know other hon. members wish to participate in this debate and express their views today and keep them connected as closely as possible with the vote that took place. On later, subsequent clauses I think we could perhaps engage in a more extended debate.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, since I first became concerned with this subject a number of years ago as a result of having served on two successive murder juries I have been engaged in continuing study, discussion, argument and debate on this matter and I have come to know the retentionists' argument very well indeed.
I would not care to hazard a guess as to the number of debates outside of this house in which I have been involved, but it is a considerable number. As a person will in any discussion or any continuing argument, I have made it my business to try and probe surface reasons in the minds of those persons who are advocates of the death penalty being retained.
I have also made it my business, in travelling across this country, as I have had the good fortune to do in the last year or so, in particular visiting universities in almost every province of this country, to continue to probe the reasons offered by persons who would retain capital punishment. I think I should offer to the minister and the committee

the benefit of that experience and those discussions, which experience is perhaps unique in this committee.
It seems to me that in general the great majority of retentionists are in favour, as they have indicated in overwhelming numbers in this house today, of a limitation and a reduction in the application of the death penalty. No one, not even the most firebreathing retentionist or any hon. member of this committee, enjoys contemplating participating himself in an actual execution, in spite of the phrase commonly heard following a particular ghastly murder, "I would not mind pulling the rope myself" and other statements which have been made in a burst of emotion following such incidents.
However, it seems to me that the great majority of retentionists agree that the application of the death penalty should be reduced and limited. The statement I have heard over and over again is, "Yes, I go along with your bill, your idea about abolishing capital punishment, except in the case of", and then the person goes on to describe the one unforgive-able crime from his point of view.
I must confess that most frequently the crimes mentioned and presented to me in these extensive discussions have been those committed against children, specifically the crime of rape of a child followed by murder; the crime of kidnapping followed by murder; the crime of murder committed on an old, weak and helpless person. These are the crimes most frequently suggested as being incapable of forgiveness.
I wonder whether in describing what capital murder is and attempting to define what we mean generally-and by "we" I mean the people of Canada-should be the exceptions to the limited application of the death penalty, we should perhaps embody in the language of the law some of the descriptions applied to such crimes. The words which occur, and which have occurred in this debate and in the ones that have preceded it, are, in particular, the words "cold blooded". I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that words have meanings; people use them for that purpose. As I say, the expression "cold blooded" has been used time and time again in this house in this and other discussions. Is it not reasonable that the law should contain what the great majority of people, according to my investigations, and in my opinion, feel to be a description of a crime to which the death penalty would apply.
Another word frequently used to qualify this degree of culpability for which the death penalty would be warranted is the word "foul". Several hon. members-I shall not mention any in particular, have used this
Criminal Code
word to describe what they regard as an unforgivable murder, a murder that must be punished by capital punishment.
There is another ingredient in this question of the degree of culpability which has troubled many people and which has been described as presenting the greatest problem. It is the person who clearly represents a threat and a danger to society. The argument put forward-and it was used in this debate as well as in previous debates-concerns a man sentenced to life imprisonment who kills a guard. The argument is: what has he got to lose if, ultimately, there is no death penalty. What has he got to lose by killing a guard? As I say, I have given an answer to that in previous debates as far as the abolitionist argument is concerned, but we are not discussing that today. We are attempting in this first clause to define in terms as clear and unmistakable as possible what we mean by capital murder, the type of murder which we say must be punishable by death. I am not prepared, as the hon. member for Skeena mentioned a few moments ago, to offer now an amendment containing these particular phrases and words, but it seems to me some consideration should be given to translating into the law, to writing into it, those terms which our people and our society have used and are using to describe such crimes, and I suggest again that perhaps "foul" and perhaps "cold blooded" should be added to the phrase "planned and deliberate" and that some consideration might be given to this question of whether such people clearly represent a threat and a danger to society. As I have said before on this argument concerning a person killing a guard while attempting to escape, surely if we can develop, design and bring forward such tremendously complicated, complex and technical devices as have been developed during this century we are capable of so designing a prison or place of incarceration as to reduce to an absolute minimum the threat or danger to those persons charged with the care of prisoners.
As I mentioned before having regard to the definition of capital murder-again I think the M'Naghten rules-the legal definition of insanity as compared with the medical or clinical definition of insanity, leave much to be desired. As I mentioned when speaking on second reading there is clearly room for improvement here in this notion of diminishing responsibility and I do hope we can qualify the definition of capital murder to exclude specifically those who are suffering from a diminished mental responsibility for their actions. I do not think the intention of the M'Naghten rules or any other consideration of insanity was ever to ensure that persons who are not sane should be hanged.

Criminal Code
These thoughts, which I should like to leave with the committee, are in no sense an attempt to push the minister over the brink. Rather, these suggestions are intended to give the committee the benefit of what a great many persons in this country are thinking. These are the thoughts of people vitally concerned with this subject. I offer these suggestions as being the ingredients which, according to my judgment, the majority of people have in mind for the one category of murder for which capital punishment will be applicable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise, not to reply to those hon. members who have spoken on the substance of the first clause so far but to deal with the question which was raised some time ago by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont, suggesting that discussion of the bill in committee might be deferred. I must say that when I first heard his request it seemed to me that, after all, the bill had been before the house for nine days since it was read the first time and distributed, and that all hon. members had probably made up their minds not only on the principle of the bill but also with regard to the details. I thought, therefore, it would be appropriate to continue at once to consider the bill in committee.
I must say that I was also a little conscious of the fact that there had been some criticism-though I wish to say we do not consider that criticism to be justified-that the government was at fault for not having legislation on the order paper for the house to deal with. Well, this bill has been on the order paper for nine days, and if it were the fact that there is not a great deal of other legislation presently before the house and I considered that members would have had an opportunity to consider this subject carefully and make up their minds.
These arguments could all be advanced; nevertheless, I am sure the hon. member put forward his views with sincerity and for a good purpose. For that reason I have had a discussion with my colleague the leader of the house and I may tell the committee that, having today opened up the discussion of clause 1, if it meets the wishes of hon. members opposite we should be prepared to defer further consideration of the bill in committee until next Monday.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the leader of the house whether we continue this bill or go to estimates tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, by special arrangement, which I hope is appreciated, we will take up the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare tomorrow; and on Friday we shall take the estimates of the Department of Justice. If there is time available on Friday or Saturday, contrary to what I announced earlier, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys would come in ahead of the Secretary of State.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Justice gave us no concession a while ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly I did.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I gave the concession. The arrangement for Thursday is to help out the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; I was not referring to the house leader; I was referring to the Minister of Justice.


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

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

Mr. Argue: Question
1.	Does the Chinese-Canadian long term trade agreement contain any obligation on the part of Canada to purchase goods from China?
2.	If so, what are the terms of any such undertaking?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	No.
2.	See (1) above.

Thursday. May 25, 1961