1961-05-23

STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on standing orders-Miss Aitken.

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: As hon. members are aware, informal meetings were held in London last week among representatives of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States to consider various problems arising from international trade in textiles. Officials from the crown colony of Hong Kong were also present. It will be recalled that these meetings followed an announcement by President Kennedy of the United States that a conference of the principal textile importing and exporting countries would be called for the purpose of seeking an international understanding in this field which would provide a basis for expanding trade without undue disruption of established industries. The London discussions were the first of a series of consultations in preparation for a broader international conference.
I have now received a report from the Canadian representatives at these meetings, and can report to the house that encouraging progress was made. It was recognized that the problems which have arisen in the field of textiles could best be dealt with on the basis of a comprehensive international understanding. The countries represented at the London meetings pledged their co-operation in seeking such an international solution. Further consultations will now go forward in order to obtain the views of other principal textile importers and exporters and also to seek the co-operation of the GATT and the O.E.C.D.
Hon. members will appreciate that in a matter of this importance and complexity there exist many diverse interests and views. Accordingly, it was agreed that, consistent with maximum efforts for an early solution, great care should be taken to prepare the ground before convening a formal international conference. It is expected that after
this round of consultations has been completed arrangements will be made for a ministerial meeting in the latter part of June.
I should like to assure the house that Canada will be represented at any such meetings, and that in line with our traditional position in these matters the Canadian government will give full and energetic support to this initiative. Our object is to reach an international understanding which will be fair to importing and exporting countries alike, and which will permit trade to expand without disruptive effects on our established industries.
A comprehensive international settlement will, of course, take time to accomplish. Meanwhile we shall continue to seek understandings on particular problems and with individual countries as we have in the case of Japan and Hong Kong. Needless to say, these international efforts are without prejudice to our rights under existing trade agreements to take measures where necessary to avoid injury to particular Canadian industries.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the house will have listened with interest to the statement which the Minister of Finance has just made, and I think also the house will have welcomed the statement in connection with the international conference to deal with this difficult, complex and varied question of textiles. It arises out of conditions which are not only national but international in scope and affect the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries all of which have a keen interest in the industry, and this makes the matter one of tremendous importance for Canada. Our country has a large number of textile industries, mostly in the central part of Canada but also in the other provinces, and everything that can be done to assist them will be welcomed on this side of the house.
I must say, however, that press comments on some of the statements that have been made by the Minister of Finance with respect to quotas and other matters have not been too favourable. That is why a conference of this nature is of the utmost importance. We on this side of the house will watch carefully and with keen interest what develops in this field from time to time.
5214	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this group welcomes the interesting announcement made by the Minister of Finance. We are glad to know that Canada is co-operating in an effort to promote comprehensive understanding of this trade problem on an international basis. In our opinion consultation is the proper and logical course to follow. Our trade will benefit and therefore our people as well will benefit on the basis of an agreement reached as the result of international understanding on a most complicated and difficult problem.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Would the minister, in his capacity as chairman of the coal committee, tell the house whether he has arranged a meeting with Mr. Fairley of Dosco to discuss keeping the coal mines open? If so, when will the meeting be held?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I cannot give any details, Mr. Speaker. All I know is that the cabinet is working on the problem and I hope that a statement will be made tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to report to the house on the workings of the committee as he has done to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, according to its issue of Monday, May 22, 1961?


Mr. Comiois:: I have not seen that report, and certainly it is not an official report so far as I am concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the newspaper report which I hold in my hand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member would not be in order to read the report. The answer has been given that the minister has not seen it.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Based on what is contained in this report, to the effect that the minister indicated to the Chronicle-Herald that there was a committee which had two functions in mind and which was working on the problem of such interest to these coal miners, my supplementary question is this. What is the function of the committee, and what is the progress of the work?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question that was asked yesterday regarding the


operation of the so-called cabinet committee. As the hon. gentleman knows, information concerning the operations of committees within the cabinet has not customarily through the years been made available to the house. The hon. member is employing another method of seeking to obtain an answer to a question which one other hon. gentleman opposite yesterday endeavoured to have answered.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not the same question as was posed yesterday. The question which was posed yesterday arose out of a newspaper article of Saturday. This one arose yesterday, and contains a report allegedly made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on the workings of the cabinet committee. If it was proper for the minister to give this information about the functions and work of the committee to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, surely a question dealing with the matter is in order when raised in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me we are
traversing the same ground we covered yesterday. I take it that the Prime Minister has given the answer of the administration on inquiries about cabinet subcommittees, that it is not customary to give such information and it is not proposed to give the information. To my mind that does not raise a point of order. As I said yesterday, the administration are free to answer questions in whatever way appears to them to be appropriate. That does not raise a debate on whether or not an answer is satisfactory.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, Mr. Speaker, I have a straight question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -which I should like to direct to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Did the minister or the government make an approach to Mr. Fairley of Dosco to discuss keeping open the mines?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Speaker.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister aware that the birthplace of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at St. Lin, Quebec, which is an historic monument, was closed yesterday? Does the minister not

think an arrangement should be made to keep historic monuments open on holidays during the tourist season?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time the matter has been brought to my attention. I shall be happy to investigate the situation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Was the minister correctly reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday last-


An hon. Member:: Not likely.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -to the effect that Canada will oppose moves to extend nuclear arms to NATO before the completion of the disarmament negotiations this summer?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take a look at the Winnipeg Free Press-


An hon. Member:: No, don't.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -to see whether or not the report is correct. I may say, however, I made a speech in Winnipeg to the Royal Canadian Air Force Association, and I shall be very pleased to send a copy to the hon. member so that he may see exactly what I said.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: What did the minister say?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister say whether it is the intention of the Canadian government to oppose moves to extend nuclear arms to NATO in advance of the disarmament talks this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a broad question of policy. If the minister wishes to deal with it on orders of the day he is free to do so, but I point out that decisions of that kind are not normally given in answer to oral questions at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple question. The minister saw fit to make a statement in this regard in Winnipeg. I think the minister should give the house the benefit of the same policy decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to express his dissatisfaction at the appropriate time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Defence is prepared to reply to this question I think he should be allowed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not prevented the minister from replying.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the speech I made in Winnipeg speaks for itself. I shall be very glad to let hon. members opposite study it, and I think they would benefit from doing so. I am not prepared to make comments on alleged reports in the Winnipeg Free Press.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether I might put the same question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister say whether it is the policy of the Canadian government to oppose the giving of nuclear arms to NATO until the conclusion of the disarmament talks this summer?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. gentleman was a minister for only two months he must realize now that declarations of government policy are not made on the orders of the day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see how any supplementary question could arise.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: These statements were made in Winnipeg to the Free Press.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister suspended expenditures on the CF-104 aircraft and the Honest John missile pending the outcome of this summer's disarmament negotiations?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary question. From the minister's reply can we take it that the government expects the talks this summer to fail?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that statements along this line carrying insinuations which have no foundation in fact are not proper when posed as supposed questions on the orders of the day.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister made a statement in Winnipeg, but he will not let the house in on the secret.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister's point of order is well taken but the supplementary question, of course, has to be asked before it can be dealt with.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AUTOMOBILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Before doing so, however, may I say to him how pleased we are to see him looking so well on this his 56th birthday. Can the Minister of Finance say whether we may have tabled before the by-elections next Monday, the report of the Bladen commission which was set up for the purpose of examining into the conditions of the automobile industry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind references to the personal significance this day has for me. As to the Bladen report, may I say that the hon. member finds great difficulty in detaching in his thinking any subject from the all absorbing interest he has in what happens next Monday in some constituencies.


Mr. Pickersgill:: So does the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are certain processes of government and other matters that must go on while by-elections are proceeding. I wish I could clarify some foggy issues in his mind, but I do not suppose I shall be able to do so. However, I wish I could try. One of them would be to dismiss from his mind this lurking suspicion he has that everything revolves around what happens next Monday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that on the hon. gentleman's birthday he ought to be allowed to be characteristically and traditionally irrelevant?



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. There are current reports to the effect that seven vessels of the Canadian National Steamships line which were sold to Cuban interests are still idle and rotting away in Halifax. Can the minister give the house a report on the situation and say whether or not these ships were paid for and whether they are still strike bound?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member given notice of his question?


Hubert Badanai: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that has been answered by my predecessor a number of times. The situation is always the same. The ships were sold. The payments have been made. Whatever happens to them is none of our concern.


Lionel Chevrier: It is none of your business, in your opinion. That is quite clear. Your predecessor felt that way also.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport arising from the government's new policy with respect to shipping. Could the minister tell the house whether the east limit regarding the commonwealth shipping agreement will start at Les Escoumains or further east?


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a similar question yesterday during the debate on the bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act. Now, the acting speaker who was in the chair at that time did not allow the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) to answer my question on the grounds that it was not relevant to the discussion. Consequently, I do not see why the minister should be permitted to answer the question put to him this morning by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), since the chairman of the committees stated yesterday that my question to the Minister of Transport was out of order.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were discussing a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, and I feel that the chairman of the committees was perfectly right in stating that the question put by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was out of order; but we are not considering any particular bill at this time, and I fail to see how the question asked by the hon. member for Charlevoix could be out of order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would repeat his question. I am not sure that I understand exactly what the point of order is.
(Translation):


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, here is my question. I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether he could indicate to the house

whether the eastern limit to the restriction regarding the commonwealth shipping agreement will start at Les Escoumains or farther to the east.
May I add that I did not have occasion yesterday to put this question to the minister, and I feel I should have the privilege, on the orders of the day, to ask him this question in the interest of the house.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. In the first place I do not think there is any more urgency to this question today than there was yesterday. Yesterday when there was a discussion of the Canada Shipping Act I was prevented from asking a question which was along the same lines as this one, dealing with the limits of the coastal trade for this country. The ruling was that I was out of order. It seems to me that this is exactly the same kind of question; therefore the minister, particularly when he himself says the policy will not be announced until the regulations are enacted toward the end of the session, should not be in a position to give one hon. member information which has been refused to another hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The question that arises today, of course, is whether the oral question is appropriate to be asked, in accordance with our practice, at this time. The question yesterday, I take it, was whether what was being asked by the hon. member for Laurier was relevant to the bill under discussion.
It seems to me that the inquiry is not one of urgency or of the type that should take the time of the house on the orders of the day and might better be put on the order paper, because it asks a question as to a continuing state of affairs, that is, a defined boundary-if I understand the question correctly-which will have some effect on the coastal shipping trade.
If I am in error about that and there is some immediate significance, perhaps the hon. member for Charlevoix will tell me.
(Translation):


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport had announced to the house that a restriction would be placed at Les Escoumains, and several hon. members have asked the minister whether the limit could be extended farther to the east.
I think it is in order to ask the minister, on the orders of the day, whether this policy could be corrected in the interest not only of the house but of all those who will be building
90205-6-330
Inquiries of the Ministry boats or ships, and whether this will apply when the new formula for aid to shipping is announced by the government.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member answer this question to help me. Is the extension which he is suggesting an extension of the boundary as defined in the Canada Shipping Act which was before the house yesterday?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is not, I think the question might be permitted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has asked a question about something that is purely hypothetical. The minister told us a day or two ago in the house that he was going to engage in discussions with commonwealth countries regarding some change to be made in the existing law with respect to coastal trade. These changes have not been made, and the minister has told us the discussions have not even taken place. Surely, a question about some hypothetical matter, which may arise some time in the future, should be ruled out of order, as has happened over and over again.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I should not like my hon. friend to leave the impression on the record that what was brought to the attention of the house the other day, as far as this new shipping policy was concerned, was strictly hypothetical. That was a firm declaration of policy of the government. The only thing remaining to be done, as I said in my statement, is the completion of the drafting of the regulations according to that policy outlined in my statement. I made it very clear that the government definitely intended to contact the other governments of the commonwealth to declare our definite intention to partially withdraw from the commonwealth shipping agreement along the lines of article 25. At that time I stated that Les Escoumains would be the most eastern limit of this restriction


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat? The minister is discussing a point of order. If he goes beyond that I shall-
5218	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: No, sir, he is not discussing the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understand it, he is indicating what the situation is with respect to the question asked, and indicating that-


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order, sir.


An hon. Member:: Wait until Mr. Speaker sits down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot interpose another point of order on a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is making a reply to a question which Your Honour ruled was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the easiest way of-


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are not running this house.


Lionel Chevrier: Neither are you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister is getting very near to replying to the question, but I think-


Lionel Chevrier: He is replying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already ruled that I felt the question should be proceeded with. I did so as the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate presented another view. It seems to me that this question is not hypothetical, but is very similar to other questions which are asked in an attempt to press for the establishment of policy. I think the simple course to follow is to allow the minister to complete the answer to the question.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Charlevoix, I wish to correct something I said in that statement made on Friday. Instead of Les Escoumains being the eastern-most limit of this restriction it will be a line from cap des Rosiers, to West Point on Anticosti island, from there to the north shore along the 63rd parallel longitude west.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Charlevoix stated that the question he posed had nothing to do with the discussion which took place yesterday. That hon. member was not in the house during that discussion and therefore could not know what the discussion was.


Léon Balcer: That does not matter.


Mr. Churchill:: The hon. member could have read Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I say to you
now that the question which the hon. member posed has everything to do with the bill


which was under discussion yesterday; because the minister, in explanation of the bill, gave a definition first in respect of inland waters, and then in respect of home waters. In so far as the inland waters are concerned, he declared what the easterly limit was. Therefore there should not have been, I submit with respect, any urgency in putting that question. The hon. member for Charlevoix is now obtaining from the minister information which I was prevented from obtaining during the discussion of the bill, and that is why I suggest my point is well taken. It is unfair that one member of this house be refused information which another member can obtain during orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is free to ask a supplementary question if he feels the information is incomplete. I have ruled that it is relevant to ask the question at this particular time. I did so on the basis of the information which I had, and that is all I could go on. The question has now been answered, and should the hon. member feel there is further information which he was refused, he is entitled to ask a supplementary question.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO CHANGES IN TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance on his birthday whether the government has completed its discussions with the provincial governments with respect to the proposed federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements for the period beginning March 31, 1962, and when the government expects to be in a position to introduce legislation in this regard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, following the last stage of the plenary conference there were two meetings of the continuing committee of officials. Those meetings were held at intervals; the second was quite lengthy, lasting the better part of a week here in Ottawa. A number of technical aspects of various problems were thoroughly reviewed, and there may be occasion for further exchanges.
As to the legislation, it has been the declared wish of the government throughout this period to introduce such legislation at the present session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister expect to be in a position to introduce this legislation before presentation of the budget?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the two matters have any relation to each other. The order in which business is introduced in the house must be governed by proper consideration and arrangement of the business to facilitate its transaction by hon. members.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the combines investigation branch has any investigators studying the proceedings before the Salvas judicial inquiry in Quebec with a view to determining whether collusion could have taken place, which would give our own combines investigation branch cause for action?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, so far as I know. This is a political inquiry, and we certainly should not like to take any official cognizance until at least such time as an official report is made. We do not wish to mix in politics in the province of Quebec.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. What assurance can the minister give this house that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation held mortgages will not be unloaded at a discount comparable to the financial featherbedding given to lending institutions in respect of the conversion loans?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member's question should be allowed because of the interposition of an argumentative statement in respect of featherbedding in other circumstances.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a very untrue statement as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question regarding the sale of the mortgages, that will be in order. If the hon. member is seeking information in respect of the subject he is entitled to do so.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to follow the precedent established by the Prime Minister this morning.
90205-6-330J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works regarding the same subject. Can the minister tell us whether there will be any reserve bid in respect to the $15 million worth of mortgages to be offered in the next few days?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined to this house the regulations in this regard, and suggest that they speak for themselves.



CONVEYANCE OF GRAIN IN CANADIAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On May 8, 1961 I directed the following question to the minister, as reported at page 4503 of Hansard for that day:
Arising out of the wheat deal with red China, can the minister indicate to the house whether any of the 276 million bushels of wheat and barley will be carried to China in Canadian ships?
The minister's parliamentary secretary took the question as notice. I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to answer that question.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: The cost of ocean freight is borne by the buyer and thereby the option of securing ships is left to the buyer. We have no information here as to the ships involved and their country of origin.


Hubert Badanai: A supplementary question. Can the minister say whether any of those shipments will be made from the lakeheads?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I mentioned in the house, I believe on May 2, that approximately 300,000 tons will be coming out of the eastern ports. Subject to correction, I believe that the bulk of this will be coming directly from the lakehead.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement O'Leary (Antigonish-Guysbo-rough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the request received from the lobster fishermen of district No. 5 in Nova Scotia for an extension of their fishing season to June 30 to partly compensate for the inconveniences, delays and losses incurred during

Inquiries of the Ministry April, will the minister indicate whether his department is giving consideration to meeting this request?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, my department and I are very much aware of the frustrating conditions that the lobster fishermen in the maritime provinces are operating under at the present time, since they are still being hampered by ice. However, no decision has yet been taken with regard to any possibility of extending the season in district 5, as there are a number of factors to be considered as time goes on; but the whole situation is under very careful scrutiny.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I may also put a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the government under contemplation any legislation for the fisheries comparable with the act for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada?


John Angus MacLean: If the hon. member carefully reads the bill I think he will find that there are sections in it which apply to individuals who are employed part time in the fisheries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question for clarification. There is no legislation under contemplation that would be applied specifically to the fisheries?


John Angus MacLean: Not during this session at least, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the government announce before Monday next how and when it proposes to replenish the unemployment insurance fund?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I do not know why the hon. member wants this announcement before Monday next. Government policy is announced when it is ready.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that in the four areas where byelections are to take place there are many thousands unemployed, does the minister not think-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member does not appear to me to be asking a question. It seems to me he was making a speech about what the government should do before Monday next.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I put my
question?


Michael Starr: Four Liberals will be unemployed after Monday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of those by-elections, does the minister not think that the people in those areas are entitled to know what is the government policy in regard to this fund, which has reached such a parlous state?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is the Liberal party that has reached the perilous state.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister does not wish to answer?



CRIMINAL CODE


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder).
He said: Mr. Speaker, only on rare occasions is this house required to consider and amend or change laws or institutions that form part of the very foundation of our society. Such a task is to be undertaken today in the form of consideration of the advisability of amending the criminal law affecting the most heinous of crimes, murder. The bill now presented to the house represents the most progressive and far-reaching move in this field in Canada since we did away with public hanging. It may be remembered as a matter of interest that the last known case of such a hanging was the execution of the assassin of a former member of this house.
Before presenting an outline of the bill being introduced by the government, it may be helpful if I review briefly some of the history of the developments in the law on capital punishment in England, the United States and Canada, and give a general outline of the position taken by this government in its approach to the current problem in this country.
In the matter of capital punishment the criminal law of England, which of course we

inherited, has come a long way from its onetime harshness. It has been mentioned many times that 72,000 persons were executed for crime during the 38 years of the reign of Henry VIII. Tresham Lever, in his book, "The Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel", says that when Peel became home secretary there were more than 200 offences legally punishable with death.
A pickpocket, apprehended in the act, could, under the criminal law of England, suffer death for his crime; ... to cut down a tree, steal a fish . . . exposed one to the same punishment. Needless to say, the extreme penalty was seldom, if ever, exacted in cases of this sort, and the law was brought into contempt by juries refusing to convict on the plainest evidence of guilt.
The efforts of reformers such as Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir James Mackintosh to mitigate this formal severity were not very successful. Romilly did succeed in bringing about the repeal of two statutes of Elizabeth, one making it a capital offence to pick a person's pocket and the other making it a capital offence for a soldier or sailor to beg without a permit from his commanding officer or a local magistrate.
Professor Reckless in his book "Criminal Behaviour" points out that by 1839 a thousand bankers had softened enough to sign a petition presented to the House of Commons asking that the death penalty be eliminated as the punishment for forgery, but others have suggested that this was prompted less by any feeling of humanity than by the fact that juries were refusing to convict.
In 1866 a royal commission considered the abolition of capital punishment and recommended that there be two degrees of murder. This was not implemented by legislation, but in 1868 public executions were abolished by statute. It had been found that their effect was exactly the opposite of what was intended. Instead of being occasions of awful solemnity, they had become scenes of public debauchery.
Although bills were considered in the British House of Commons on matters relating to capital punishment in 1872, they were not passed. In 1931 a special committee was set up:
To consider the question of capital punishment in cases tried by civil courts in times of peace, and to report whether another penalty and if so of what nature should be substituted for the sentence of death in such cases where the sentence of death is now prescribed by law.
This committee proposed legislation to abolish the death penalty during an experimental period and also that, pending legislative action, there should be commutation in all cases. This committee's report was not acted on. In 1948 a member of the British House of Commons, Mr. Silverman, introduced
Criminal Code
an abolitionist bill. Clause 1 of the bill sought to suspend the death penalty for a period of five years. The bill was passed by the House of Commons but was overwhelmingly defeated by the House of Lords. The House of Commons then proposed a substitute for clause 1 to restrict the death penalty to five enumerated kinds of murder, the sentence in other cases to be imprisonment for life. This also was voted down by the House of Lords.
During the debate on the Silverman bill all sentences of death were commuted. As a result, in the weeks between April 16 and June 10, 1948, according to the royal commission on capital punishment known as the Gowers commission, "14 capital sentences were commuted and it is understood that in some ten of these cases reprieve probably would not have been granted in ordinary circumstances", report, pages 326-7. At the conclusion of the debate, the law on capital punishment remained in the position in which it stood prior to the bill, and the moratorium on hanging was lifted.
In 1949 the royal commission on capital punishment headed by Sir Ernest Gowers was set up having as its terms of reference:
-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.
Its report was presented to parliament in the month of September of 1953, and it constitutes the most complete analysis of the question in modern times. The commission concluded that murder should not be redefined nor divided into degrees. It recommended against the proposal "that the judge should be empowered to substitute a lesser sentence for the sentence of death when a person is convicted of murder". The commissioners came to the conclusion, as reported in paragraph 551 of their report:
. .. that they would entrust to the jury, besides their primary and established functions of deciding whether an accused person charged with murder is guilty or innocent, the additional function of deciding, if he is guilty, whether a lesser punishment should be inflicted in lieu of the penalty of death.
In 1957 after further consideration the parliament of Great Britain passed an act entitled "The Homicide Act, 1957". This act adopted the approach of dividing murder into two classes, those which carry the death penalty and those for which the penalty is life imprisonment. The division, however, is based rather on the method or weapon by

Criminal Code
which the killing is accomplished, or in certain cases upon the person or class of person killed rather than on the nature and circumstances of the crime itself.
This has produced some arbitrary and rather unsatisfactory results. Thus, if a person kills another by shooting he is liable to the death penalty, whereas if he strangles or clubs him to death he may avoid that penalty although the latter crime may be more callous, brutal or premeditated than the former. We have sought to avoid this kind of result in making our division, as to the basis for which I shall have more to say later.
In the United States of America the application of the death penalty is, again according to the summary contained in the Gowers commission report, paragraphs 515 and 517, "limited by two methods, employed either separately or more often in combination. The first is the establishment of two or more degrees of murder; the second is a discretion to mitigate the sentence, usually conferred on the jury but vested in the court when the accused pleads guilty. Degrees of murder have not been established in approximately ten states...the definition of murder in the first degree is always derived from the definition in the Pennsylvania statute of 1794 which includes murders perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing and committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery or burglary. The second degree usually includes all other murders".
In Canada attempts to alter the death penalty for murder began at least as far back as 1914, when Mr. Robert Bickerdike introduced bills to abolish capital punishment in several sessions of the House of Commons beginning in that year. Although they were debated at length, none of them resulted in legislation. In 1924 Mr. William Irvine introduced a similar bill which also failed of passage. In 1937 a bill was introduced by Mr. Blair to provide that the sentence of death be executed in a lethal chamber rather than by hanging. This bill was referred to a special committee which reported unfavourably on the proposal. In 1947 and again in 1950 the Canadian institute of public opinion made two inquiries with almost identical results, 68 per cent in favour of retaining capital punishment against 23 per cent in favour of life imprisonment.
In 1950 and again in 1952 Mr. Ross Thatcher introduced a bill to abolish capital punishment. On the latter occasion he withdrew it on the undertaking from the then minister of justice that at the next session parliament would be asked to set up a committee to go into the matter fully.

The most authoritative recent exposition in Canada has been the report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on capital punishment, corporal punishment and lotteries which was set up pursuant to the undertaking referred to. This committee, which studied these matters for two years, in 1954 and 1955, recommended the retention of capital punishment, and in this respect the bill before the house meets the recommendation of the committee. The committee also recommended that there be no degrees of murder. In this respect the bill does not follow the recommendation of the joint committee.
The deep and continuing concern of hon. members with this subject is shown by the debates that took place both last year and this year on certain private members' bills. Although these debates took place on one bill only, a bill for the abolition of capital punishment for murder, the fact is that last year at least three bills were introduced all differing in their proposals. While these bills approached the subject from different directions, they did have in common an assumption of dissatisfaction with the present position and a desire to bring the law in this connection in closer conformity with present day concepts of crime and punishment.
I believe we owe much to the members who sponsored those bills, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drys-dale) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), quite apart from the question whether or not we agreed with their specific proposals. I believe the ensuing debate on this bill will be all the better for the thinking and formulation of ideas about this subject which those bills stimulated.
Although none of those bills was adopted, an analysis of the debates which took place, as well as discussions with those who did not participate, show quite clearly that the majority of members in the house favour retention of capital punishment. It became equally obvious, however, that even among those opposed to abolition there are serious misgivings as to the present law and practice governing the death penalty. It therefore seems proper and desirable to bring about some modification of that law and practice.
There is another thing which, in my submission, a review of these debates, as well as a study of all that has been said and written elsewhere, makes quite clear. It is that while the authorities are of some assistance and the debates have been of help, nevertheless this is an area where views are held with such depth of feeling that they are never going to be changed by mere weight of argument or

statistics. Indeed, on the question of the deterrent effect especially, statistics cannot give a satisfactory answer; there are no statistics of murders not committed. But as in the case of all such problems, there has to be some finality, responsibility has to be taken and a decision has to be made, and this the government has done.
We have accordingly approached the question on broad grounds. We have first been mindful of the fact that the criminal law must endeavour to translate into an enforceable code the highest concepts of the moral and legal standards by which society desires to be governed, while at the same time, since it must command respect if it is to achieve this purpose, it must broadly reflect the actual state of public opinion.
Second, we have taken account of the fact that the country, as reflected by opinion in this house, favours retention of capital punishment. Third, we have also recognized that even among those who favour retention there is a general feeling that the law should be modified. Finally, we have taken account of the feelings against the rather artificial division of murder into degrees based on the means by which it is committed or the class of person who is killed.
Thus while we have avoided the rather arbitrary and rigid classifications found in the British homicide act, we have put more emphasis on the element of deliberation as the requisite for capital murder than has been the case generally in the United States. We have also provided for an automatic review by the court of appeal, and for an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, we have applied our own thinking to the mass of authority and opinion available, and have produced a bill which represents our views of the kind of law by which Canadians would wish to be and should be governed. On this broad basis we take full responsibility for presenting this bill to the house.
Before coming to an outline of the bill itself I should say one other word about the decision to retain capital punishment. This decision does not rest on any one or narrow ground. With regard to the argument in favour of deterrent effect, the Gowers commission on capital punishment in the United Kingdom, which has been described as "the richest source of information, factual as well as impressionistic" on this subject, expressed the view "that there is some evidence, though no convincing statistical evidence, that the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human beings than any other form of punishment". That statement may be found in paragraph 68 of the report of that commission.
Criminal Code
Whatever strength or validity be ascribed to this view-and there is surely much to be said for it-is available therefore in support of this bill which retains capital punishment for a planned and deliberate murder or a murder committed in the course of a crime which generally speaking involves wilfulness or premeditation taken in the broad sense of those words.
But the general base on which it rests in so far as concerns the retention of capital punishment for deliberate murder, is this: That society requires for its preservation and protection that certain laws be observed. The whole basis of society, in the sense of any ordered form of life, would dissolve and chaos would reign if we did not have laws embodying that code of conduct by which, collectively, we say we desire to live. And because we live in an imperfect world, these laws require sanctions. Now, there are laws or rules of conduct of greater or lesser importance; therefore there are and must be sanctions of greater or lesser degree. But whatever be the sanction it is not a matter of retribution or revenge: It is an integral and essential element necessary to ensure the moral as well as the material vigour of the system of laws of which it is a part. If there is no sanction, the law ceases to have any effect.
Society's concern for its basic rules is expressed in its commands and corresponding sanctions that together constitute our criminal law. The degree of society's concern with respect to individual rules is reflected in the method of expression adopted.
In this sense, therefore, the sanction for the law against murder may properly reflect the importance which society attaches to the maintenance of that law. In our view, Canadians properly attach so high a value to the sanctity of human life that the law which translates this feeling into effective form should provide the maximum sanction for its deliberate breach, and no other penalty would be considered adequate.
This, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps only another way of saying that this bill reflects the view that Canadians are not prepared to accept the abolition, as distinguished from the restriction, of the death penalty. But it also reflects the feeling that it is not appropriate that the death penalty should be applicable automatically to every case of murder.
In carrying out the delicate but important task of bringing the law into line with our convictions in this field, we have concentrated our attention on producing a system which represents a rational and logical application of those principles of law upon which I have touched. We have accordingly started on the

Criminal Code
basis that there are two broad types of killing. The first is where the death does not result from any act of deliberation on the part of the person causing it but can be said to be impulsive or non-deliberate, in the sense of being in no way within the prior contemplation of that person. It is our view that the death penalty ought not to be the consequence in these cases, and accordingly although the crime may be murder, it is classed as non-capital and a sentence of life imprisonment only is provided.
The other type of killing is the case where death is caused deliberately or as the result of a planned act of the person causing it. All these cases are classed as capital murder and for these cases, but for these cases only, the sentence of death will follow automatically on conviction.
This type of case should, in our view, include two categories. The first is the case where the death results as a deliberate and planned end in itself. A killing was intended; the death penalty is automatically invoked. The second is the category in which, although a killing itself may not have been consciously and initially planned, yet the course of action embarked upon or planned had within it such an element of criminality and violence, as well as of deliberation or stealth, that the killing must properly be regarded as deliberate by the person who did it or who counselled or procured the doing of the act which caused it. This type of killing then, is also made to fall within the category of capital murder.
A very important and forward move is embodied in and results from this approach, with respect to the position of the accomplice. One of the very difficult and almost insoluble dilemmas with which juries and indeed the courts themselves have been confronted under the present law is that where two or more persons embark upon a joint criminal venture in the course of which one of them kills, the other or others, even though having had no direct or indirect participation in the precise act which caused the death, yet in law are guilty of murder and if convicted are automatically sentenced to death.
In our view no person, unless he actually causes a death or counsels or procures the act which causes it, should be liable to forfeit his own life. Accordingly this bill is so framed that the accomplice who did not actually cause the death, or counsel or procure the very act which caused the death, may still be found guilty of murder, but only of non-capital murder.
The house will appreciate that these results are accomplished without any disturbance of the existing law or jurisprudence which define homicide and murder and which define

liability in the case of the accomplice or the aider and abettor. The fact that it was homicide, that the homicide was culpable and that it was a culpable homicide constituting murder will all have to be established under the same provisions as are now applicable.
In other words, the killing will have to be shown to constitute murder. Only then, by this bill, the important and essential question is made to arise; is it capital murder or non-capital murder? By this bill the answer to that question is made to depend on the answer to another question; was the killing planned and deliberate or was it done in the course of committing another crime of a nature which the law holds to be such that it imports into the killing the element of deliberation? If the answer to that question is yes, then the murder is capital and the penalty is death; if the answer is no, the murder is non-capital and the penalty is life imprisonment.
It will also be appreciated that these questions are questions for the jury. But before the issue can arise at all the crown will have to decide whether it considers that the elements of capital murder are there; that is, whether the killing was planned and deliberate, and whether the crown can prove this. For the bill provides that if the accused is to be tried for capital murder he must be so charged in the indictment, and only if he is so charged can he be convicted of capital murder. If he is so charged, the jury may still decide that capital murder has not been proven and convict him of non-capital murder. They cannot convict of capital murder on a charge of non-capital murder.
So the onus is first on the crown to decide whether to charge capital or non-capital murder, and to prove the charge. On a charge of capital murder, then, it will be open to the jury to decide that the charge is proven and to convict accordingly, or to decide that it is non-capital murder and convict of that; or to decide, as they can now, that murder itself is not proved and in such case to convict of manslaughter or to acquit.
Juries, and indeed the whole administration of this branch of the criminal law will, I believe, be immeasurably assisted by this new approach. For whereas up to now juries have had to reach their verdict under the awful burden of knowledge that if they found the killing to be murder at all, then no matter what the extenuating circumstances might be the sentence of death was automatic; from now on they will know that the law itself takes formal account of the thousand and one different combinations of circumstances that may lead to or from the background of any such event which brings an accused before them on a charge of murder. It will only be

Criminal Code
if they his peers consider, after hearing all the evidence, that his crime of murder was planned and deliberate that they will convict him accordingly. If they do not so consider, or if they find that he did not commit the murder in the course of committing another crime which makes the killing in effect a planned and deliberate one, they may still convict him of murder if murder is proven, in the sure knowledge that he will not then be liable to the penalty which society itself feels should only be exacted for the most calculated and deliberate defiance of society's basic law.
Everyone who thinks about and discusses these matters is aware that juries have found it difficult almost to the point of impossibility to bring in a verdict of guilty where they know that, having regard to human feelings, human motives and human emotions, the death penalty would be unjust. In the result, the verdict is sometimes manslaughter although the facts are patently at variance with the verdict; or if a verdict of murder is brought in it is followed by such deep remorse or revulsion as to constitute a danger to the very jury system itself.
There are one or two other features of the bill which deserve special mention as matters of principle. The first is the automatic review by the court of appeal in the case where the death penalty has been imposed. This is another recognition of the desire of society to see an accused surrounded with every proper protection and to ensure that never can it be said that anyone met his death at the hands of the law for lack of funds. It is also a recognition of the fact that although to err is human, when a man is on trial for his life whatever precautions can be taken to avoid, or to correct, possible judicial or other error must be taken.
Next, we have provided as a new feature that wherever a verdict of guilty of capital murder has been rendered, the jury shall be asked if it has any recommendation to make. This is in recognition of the faot that there is an infinite variety of circumstances forming the background of motivation for human conduct, and many degrees of personal responsibility for and ability to control and answer for individual acts. It may well be, therefore, that although an accused was guilty of a deliberate killing, and did not come technically within one of the defences of provocation or insanity, the jury will still feel that the background of the case, or the circumstances of the accused's personality or mentality, were such that a recommendation should be made.
The provision will have another important result. At present judges and juries take differing views of the right of a jury to make any recommendation after verdict, the code being silent on the point. There have been some judges who have discouraged juries from making a recommendation, and jurymen have been known to say afterwards that if they had known they might make a recommendation they would certainly have done so. In the light of the seriousness that must inevitably attach to such a recommendation it seems to be essential that there should be a uniform practice regarding it, and we have provided one accordingly.
It is obvious from the form of question we have devised to be put to the jury at this stage, that there will be an important connection between the views of the jury in this regard and the system of executive review of cases where the death penalty has been imposed, upon which the exercise of mercy is based. The bill makes no change in that system, which we intend should be preserved.
I should like to emphasize only two things about that system, which I think have been misunderstood. The first is that it does not constitute any sort of review or reversal of the jury's verdict or the judge's sentence. The trial is over, and jury and judge have rendered their verdict and pronounced sentence as provided by law. But now that same law says to the cabinet, you now have the duty of examining all aspects of the case, including those that may not have been before the court, to see whether for any reason clemency should be shown, or whether the sentence in this case should be carried out.
The other feature is this. Although the making or withholding of a recommendation is and will continue to be of very real import, the discretion of the executive as to the advice it tenders to His Excellency is unfettered. It is not a question of determining again the guilt or innocence of the condemned man according to law; it is a system in which the law imposes upon the cabinet at the ultimate stage the duty of determining whether in this individual case the law should take its course. It is a solemn and an extremely difficult task, but it is a feature of our system which gives assurance of the preservation of an essential feature of any system of justice: that it shall be tempered with mercy.
We submit this bill, then, Mr. Speaker, in the belief that the protection of society demands that one who deliberately commits murder should be liable to the death penalty, and that this reflects the views and demands

Criminal Code
of Canadian society. It reflects also our belief that the law should not provide the death penalty for every murder, but only for those which have about them the element of deliberation; and we believe that this also reflects the proper judgment and demand of our society.
Finally, we present it in the conviction that in its merciful and progressive provision of an age limit below which no one shall be executed, and of an automatic review by an appeal tribunal to remove so far as possible the element of human or judicial error, together with its other progressive features, it represents a proper reconciliation between the necessity for the protection of the lives of decent and law-abiding citizens on the one hand, and the desire of a Christian and civilized society to see justice tempered with mercy and forbearance on the other. On this basis we submit it for the approval of the house.
(Translation):


Mr. J. P. Deschaleleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members listened with great interest to the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton).
Right at the beginning of his remarks, the minister reminded us that only on rare occasions is the house required to consider such a significant bill as it affects the very life of the citizen. It was, indeed, from that point of view that last Saturday I asked, or rather tried to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) whether hon. members opposite would take an entirely personal attitude in the discussion of this bill, discounting all political considerations as party members, as we were invited to do last year, when a similar bill was discussed.
As far as I am concerned, the remarks I shall make are of a strictly personal order and I trust that hon. members opposite will do the same, so that our fellow citizens will know our remarks and the vote we will cast as the expression of our own personal opinion.
Mr. Speaker, since 1957 there have been,
I think, in Canada about ten executions following a death sentence pronounced by our courts, whereas in 39 other cases, where the indicted person had been condemned to death, the royal mercy was exercised to commute the sentence. Such a situation was obviously unusual. And last year, when I expressed my views on a bill which is somehow connected with the subject, I said that we had now in Canada a partial abolition of

capital punishment because of a massive commutation of sentences, for I think that, after initiating such course in numerous cases, the cabinet can hardly refuse the commutation of his sentence to any individual in a case where a crime had been committed under similar circumstances. It is therefore high time for the government to adopt a definite position and assume its responsibilities by submitting a bill to regularize a situation which the government iself created.
Bill C-92 provides in the definition of murder various degrees of guilt and punishment. We shall have an opportunity of fully discussing the bill in committee. It may be that several members will, at that time, suggest significant amendments, because I must admit for my part that the terms of various sections of the bill do not seem quite clear to me, and, to my mind, some improvements might very well be suggested. However, as we are now on second reading, I shall at this time discuss the principle of the bill submitted by the government and the Minister of Justice.
But before doing so, I think it would be interesting to recall some recommendations contained in the report of the joint committee of the Senate and this house on capital punishment, which was submitted on June 27, 1956. And after having read some of those recommendations, we will see that the government took it upon itself to submit to us today various amendments which are the complete opposite of the committee's suggestions.
Section 95 on page 23 of the report deals with the recommendations of the committee.
One of those is the retention of capital punishment as mandatory penalty for murder.
Briefly here is what the committee had to say on that point. I am now quoting section 63 on page 16:
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.
We now come to the second recommendation. The definition of murder remains unchanged. Section 69, on page 17 of the report, reads as follows:
In practice, the committee considered that any redefinition of the crime of murder should conform closely to the present practice in commuting sentences of capital punishment. Having concluded that it is not practicable to achieve a satisfactory redefinition of murder, the committee also decided that differences between murders can only be recognized by granting commutation in suitable circumstances. Since differentiation in the crime of murder depends to a considerable extent upon the assessment of moral culpability of a crime,

the committee is of the opinion that the ends of justice are best served by the continuation of the present practice of mitigating the rigour of the law in appropriate cases by the exercise of executive clemency.
Several witnesses suggested that consideration might be given to the creation of degrees of murder which would take into account the difference in moral culpability between different types of homicides. All witnesses representing law-enforcement authorities opposed the establishment of degrees of murder. The committee shares the conclusions of the United Kingdom royal commission on this question. The committee is of the opinion that the present distinction between murder and manslaughter is quite clear and straightforward. It considers that any attempt to break murder down into degrees may lead to the creation of technical and confusing distinctions without, at the same time, creating any precise delineation between murders of differing degrees of moral culpability.
I should also like to refer to another section of these recommendations; it deals with the abolition of hanging and its replacement by electrocution or, as an alternative, by the gas chamber.
I refer to section 91 of that report, on page 21. Here is what the committee had to say:
The committee considered that one of the principal objections to hanging was that so much depended upon the personal competence of the hangman, leaving a greater margin for error than in the case of execution by electrocution or the gas chamber. It may be that a hanging, conducted efficiently and with proper facilities, may be accomplished more quickly and with less anguish to the condemned person than the other two methods of execution. The committee noted that, for this reason, the United Kingdom royal commission concluded that hanging should be retained. The evidence of medical witnesses and others, however, indicated that hangings in Canada were not conducted with the same degree of precision as in the United Kingdom and that there was no way of knowing, in some cases, how death was caused and whether loss of consciousness had been instantaneous. Examples of bungled hangings were brought to the committee's attention. Moreover, the committee sensed from the evidence given by experienced officials and others, that hanging was regarded generally as being an obsolete, if not a barbaric, method of execution. The committee has concluded, after weighing these considerations, that hanging is not the most satisfactory method of execution which might be employed and, accordingly, recommends its abolition.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly think this committee which sat for two sessions-I think it was in 1955 and 1956-and considered the recommendations and views of various experts on the matter, I even think the executioner was heard, submitted a worth-while report, based on a very thorough study of the technical aspects.
I therefore wonder why the various aspects of this bill run counter to the report of that committee. I wonder why the government has not seen fit to follow much more closely the recommendations in that report.
Criminal Code
However, the government has taken the initiative and responsibility of this bill and now asks us to approve new definitions of the crime of murder. Thus this bill attempts to draw a distinction on the basis of premeditation, which will make the crime capital murder, whereas in cases where premeditation cannot be established, it will be non-capital murder.
After listening a moment ago to the Minister of Justice, 1 believe that we are now putting a heavy burden on the shoulders of the provincial attorneys general by leaving them with the responsibility of determining what a charge they will be called upon to lay against an accused.
As the minister pointed out, an indictment of non-capital murder is laid against an individual, and during the hearing of the case it becomes obvious that a capital murder is involved, it will then be impossible to convict that accused of a capital murder.
The case would be different if a charge of capital murder were laid and the evidence pointed to circumstances indicating that there had been no premeditation. Then if my assumption is right a verdict of non capital murder would be rendered.
I am under the impression that we are imposing quite a responsibility on the jury. I think that 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.
I would have hoped that this bill instead of giving the jury more responsibility would have reduced it. Last year in our debate on that matter, I expressed the opinion that in cases where human life is at stake, we should refer to a bench of three judges instead of a jury.
I definitely think that even though the principle of the bill is justified, the implementation of that piece of legislation by juries across the land will not do justice to it and that as a rule verdicts of non-capital murder will be returned.

Criminal Code
Now, this distinction between a capital and a non-capital murder, based on premeditation, is a legal concept.
We are here in a very restricted field. I believe that the minister would admit, if he were to review the 39 cases in which the government saw fit to exercise the royal mercy, that in most of those cases, it was capital murder, where there was evidence of premeditation.
This bill is based on a distinction which is actually a legal concept. I wonder whether in practice, this bill will answer the purpose that the government had in mind in drafting it. Therefore, I ask the minister whether in his opinion-I shall take his word for it-in most of those 39 cases where royal mercy was exercised, there was an element of premeditation and whether those cases met the definition of capital murder contained in Bill C-92?
I feel the government intended to reserve capital punishment for the most odious and serious murders and to see that a life sentence be given in the other cases. Besides, that was the opinion I expressed last year.
I wonder if the terms of this bill lead us directly to the enactment of the underlying principle of this bill?
Up to now, the differentiation of responsibility in murder cases was quite clear and unequivocal about murder, as defined under section 202, and manslaughter. After reading and re-reading the terms of this bill, I feel that if we adopt this measure in its context, as it is submitted today, the bill might become a picnic for learned and clever lawyers. I think that, should the bill be adopted in its present form and context, it would mean, for all practical purposes, almost complete abolition of capital punishment in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to deal very briefly with a question I asked about two weeks ago to the Minister of Justice, which was indirectly related to this bill.
The legislators' intention is and must be first of all to prevent crime, to make it more difficult to commit. The minister is aware that we asked him last year, and again this year, whether the government intended to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code in order to establish an exceedingly strict control over the possession and use of firearms.
It is that use of firearms which today leads us directly to discussing the definition of

murder, and I recognize that I am very sorry that the government never thought it worth while to submit in the current session, a bill which would make the ownership of firearms extremely difficult.
Today, people who have very bad police records may go about armed in our streets, and the minister knows, while experience proves, that penalties provided in those cases are extremely slight. I would hope that the government will soon submit legislation with regard to the possession of firearms, and I even expected that such a bill would have preceded the legislation we are now discussing, which deals with an amendment to clause 202 of the Criminal Code.
Incidentally, I want to congratulate the authorities of the province of Quebec, who, in nine cases out of ten this year, refused to renew firearms permits. I sincerely hope that the attorneys general of the other provinces will do the same and that, during the next session of parliament, some stricter legislation with regard to owning firearms will be submitted to us by the federal Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I read a recommendation by the joint committee with regard to the method of execution, and I do not quite understand why the government did not today choose to carry out that recommendation which declared hanging an obsolete and barbarous method of execution.
The minister himself reminded us at the beginning of his remarks, that such questions are not submitted to parliament every day. I think it would have been wise to accept that recommendation. I submit that before we pass to the discussion of the articles of the bill in the committee of the whole, I think there is still time for the government to revise its attitude in this respect. Indeed, if I do not deceive myself, I do not think the minister mentioned the mode of execution nor did he tell us why the government is not ready to carry out such a serious recommendation which is the result of intensive study by experts who gave their help to the members of the joint committee.
And now, Mr. Speaker, let me say just a few words with regard to the absence of any provisions in the case of women. I do not know whether it is out of natural weakness-indeed I do not exactly know how to explain that attitude-but I would like to see women exempt from capital punishment and provision in the statutes for life imprisonment in the case of any woman having committed capital murder.

Women have been very rarely executed in Canada. As a matter of fact, for the past ten years or so, there has been no such execution, as far as I know. Indeed, experience has shown that murders committed by women were accompanied by very special circumstances, and even if the committee placed women on equal footing with men, with regard to capital punishment, I wonder whether, in the case of women, an exemption would not be in harmony with the view of society today. At any event, I do not believe that a woman is ever executed, except in quite unforeseen circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like the minister to explain the meaning of life imprisonment. When an individual has been sentenced to life imprisonment, will the rehabilitation board-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the parole board-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -will the parole board be empowered to review these cases? I should be grateful to the minister for saying a few words on this point later.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to make a few comments on clause 13 of this bill, but, before doing so, may I be permitted to read the clause in question:
Where a jury finds an accused guilty of an offence punishable by death, the judge who presides at the trial shall, before discharging the jury, put to them the following question:
You have found the accused guilty and the law requires that I now pronounce sentence of death against him (or "the law provides that he may be sentenced to death", as the case may be). Do 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.
I do not think that such a recommendation is practical. I said a moment ago that juries would naturally feel reluctant to convict a man of an offence punishable by death.
Well, when the jury has taken its responsibility and decided that it is, in its opinion, a capital murder, and when it has returned a verdict to that effect, I wonder why a judge should have to ask the jury whether or not it should recommend mercy towards the accused. I fail to see the use of such a recommendation and I think that it rather contradicts the definition of a capital murder.
One must be realistic in such matters. If the jury is given the clear evidence of a premeditated murder, in circumstances indicated in the bill now before us, why then ask that jury to recommend mercy?
Criminal Code
Why not let another judicial body decide whether mercy could be exercised in such and such a case, depending upon the circumstances of the case?
I do hope that the minister will elaborate a little on this subject because I think that a responsibility is being placed upon the jury which it will not be able to refuse. A jury may return a verdict of guilty compelling the judge to pass death on the accused. This jury will not be ready to say: I am against recommending the accused to the mercy of the court. There is nothing logical nor practical in this situation; at least, I fail to see its practical meaning.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with such a bill, time only will tell whether it meets the intent of the government.
I should say that on the whole, this bill is legally justifiable, but in practice and I say that its enforcement will go far beyond the intent of the government.
The minister did not tell us whether the government had consulted the Canadian bar association before introducing this bill. In view of the importance it will have and the questions it should raise in the mind of every hon. member who will rise in this debate, I wonder whether it would not be wise, when the bill reaches a certain stage of the procedure, possibly after its consideration in committee, to put off its passing until another session in order to give the public time to reach a decision and to provide for bodies such as the Canadian Bar Association an opportunity to make their views known.
May I ask you to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has introduced today a most important bill. All bills, of course, are important, but this one is of particular importance because it concerns statutory provisions relating to the life or death or imprisonment for life of those charged with the most heinous, vicious crime of homicide.
Today, sir, in considering this legislation we are deciding whether the penalty for this crime shall be life imprisonment or death. I

Criminal Code
know we all appreciate very much the introduction to this bill by the minister, and the pains he took to give us an historical background of the penal laws of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada as they related to the crime of homicide and the penalty for it. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the minister for having given us this historical background and for following it up with an explanation of the basis upon which the government arrived at certain conclusions in introducing Bill No. C-92 which is now before us.
I, sir, cannot completely agree with all the conclusions that have been reached by the minister as he expressed them this morning. Nor can I agree to any extent with the opinions expressed by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. I noticed that both the Minister of Justice and the previous speaker made some reference to the findings and recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons which met for some two years. Any reference which I make to this joint committee will be to the record of information contained in the committee report and the transcript of evidence, some 1,665 pages, found in the two volumes I have on my desk at the moment.
May I say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that my own position is very well known. I have been interested in this question of capital punishment for some 25 years, and have reached certain conclusions. My decisions are not based on any emotionalism whatever. My decisions have been arrived at as a result of the fullest possible study I could make of everything on this subject in this country and throughout the world; a reading of the reports of royal commissions, parliamentary committees that have looked into the matter, and so on. Having concluded this study, I stand here this afternoon as I have on previous occasions, believing that the right thing to do is to abolish capital punishment. In saying that, sir, I do want to give credit to the Minister of Justice for having introduced Bill No. C-92, which is without doubt one of the first, and therefore one of the most progressive, approaches made toward this subject for many years.
In his interesting introduction to the bill this morning the minister, in my estimation, glossed over the information available throughout the world and the information available to the Senate and House of Commons joint committee as to whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished. I recognized what the Minister of Justice was

doing, but I should like to carry on and perhaps exercise my right to oppose the conclusion to which he came.
This morning the minister told us we could not accept the position that capital punishment was not a deterrent because we had no way of knowing how many homicides had not been committed because there is capital punishment. This is an extraordinary approach, in my opinion. I believe what we have to go by is the record throughout the world, so far as it can be examined and understood, relating to whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent to homicide.
As a result of 25 years of study, but in particular as a result of the evidence that was submitted to the joint committee which met for a period of over two years, it is my definite opinion that capital punishment is not a deterrent to homicide. I would suggest to the hon. member a study of the evidence placed before that joint committee, which had the advantage of presentations and advice from experts around the world who are interested in this matter and to which was submitted evidence, which I maintain is conclusive, that a study of the states or the countries which have or which have not capital punishment does not give in any way whatsoever an indication, in the ratio of homicides, that the retention of capital punishment is a deterrent to homicide.
It is not my intention to go into detail. However, I would draw to the attention of hon. members of this house that there are some countries which retain capital punishment and which have a very high ratio of homicides per 100,000 of population, and that there are others which retain capital punishment and which have a very low ratio of homicides. From the figures given to us in that committee we find that in El Salvador the ratio of homicides is 44.3 per 100,000 population, while in the United Kingdom in the same year the ratio was 0.5.
We have those countries which abolished the death penalty, some of them almost 100 years ago. We find that some countries which abolished the death penalty have a high ratio of homicides, and we find that others which abolished the death penalty have a very low ratio of homicides. The one with the highest ratio we were given was Colombia with 15.9 homicides per 100,000 of population, as compared with the Netherlands with 0.4 and Norway with 0.5, a figure almost identical with that for the United Kingdom.
I could, of course mention other countries and their ratios. However, the point I want

to make is this, and the evidence is there tor any who wants to read it. Whether a country is abolitionist or non-abolitionist, whether you have the death penalty or do not have it, the record of the world is that this fact does not have a relation to the rate of homicide of any comparative nature so that it can be differentiated as between the two policies.
I think perhaps one of the greatest comparative studies that can be made of this matter as a deterrent to homicide is with respect to those states in the United States which previously had capital punishment and then went to the abolition of capital punishment. Some stayed in that position, but some went back to capital punishment. I submit that from a study of that situation where they had it, got rid of it and went back to it; or had it, abolished it and did not go back to it, the ratio of differentiation between having it and not having it shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent to homicide.
I have often received letters and in previous sessions have often heard members speak in this house to this effect, saying that we must retain capital punishment or the death sentence because it is a protection for the police forces. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, only one factual study in the world has ever been made on this matter. I spoke about it, I believe either at the last session or the one previous. I refer to the study made in the United States by one of the top penologists of the world, using all his upper graduates. They made an investigation of every city of over 10,000 in the United States over a period of years. What was the answer? The answer was-and it was sent to our joint committee-that they could not find any comparable differentiation whether or not capital punishment was the law of the state, or that it made any difference with regard to the number of policemen who were killed. The ratio was almost identical, going up or down.
If any evidence could be produced in any manner whatsoever which would show that capital punishment is a deterrent to homicide or is a protection of our police forces, that would be good and solid ground for the retention by Canada of the death penalty for homicide. However, I submit that the record in all aspects in the United States, in varying states, and throughout the world does not demonstrate the correctness of either of those two arguments.
If therefore my contention and my analysis are correct, then why should we retain in any way whatsoever the death penalty? It can only be from prejudice, revenge, or the Mosaic law which demands an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. Certainly in Canada in this modern age, in a Christian country, any argument based on
Criminal Code
prejudice, revenge or the Mosaic law is not something which we should consider in deciding whether to retain or abolish the death penalty.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in this subject for some 25 years. I venture to say that I have received more letters of commendation and condemnation than perhaps most other members. Those who oppose the abolition of the death penalty have one great argument, namely that because of the suffering of the relatives and friends of the victim, there should be suffering by the relatives and friends of the one who committed that homicide. You would be amazed, Mr. Speaker, if you knew how many letters I have received to that effect over this period of years.
Of course we all recognize the agonizing moments and the suffering of the relatives and friends of the victim of a homicide, and we sympathize with them. They are completely innocent; but they are made the victims because of the aberration, the impulse or the viciousness of somebody who committed murder. However, Mr. Speaker, they are innocent victims. I fail to understand why other innocent people, the relatives and friends of the one who committed the murder, should also suffer. I fail to understand why it is a reasonable answer that they too must suffer. Surely we have a more Christian, more idealistic, more scientific approach than that.
I have read Bill No. C-92, which is now before us, very carefully. I have noticed the emphasis placed by the minister on the differentiation between premeditated murder, which will carry the death penalty, and homicide committed as a result of emotion or impulse, which will be non-capital murder. The reason I mention this is because of the interest of the Prime Minister in this matter, as is shown by his presence here at this moment.
I admit that my interest is strictly academic, upon which I am going to speak only briefly. However, when I listened to the Minister of Justice speak about premeditated murder I could not help thinking, is it not also premeditated murder to sentence a man to death and carry out that sentence? I suppose the differentiation is that one is the murder of an individual and the other is death by order of society.
Of course I understand this differentiation, but basically is it justifiable? Is it justifiable to say that society can murder but an individual cannot? As I have said, it is just a question of academic interest, but I raise this matter also because the Prime Minister is here and has shown his interest in these matters by initiating the bill of rights. In

Criminal Code
the bill of rights there is the principle that no one in Canada shall suffer agonizing torture. I wonder whether hon. members realize the agonizing torture endured by a man who has been sentenced to death and who knows he is going to be executed. I have met and spoken to men in the death cell, and there certainly is agonizing torture on their part. They know their days are coming to an end. However, as I pointed out, these are questions of only academic concern, but I say they are of academic interest. That is all I am going to say about that aspect of the matter.
I do wish to now raise something which was not mentioned by the Minister of Justice or the previous speaker, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. I refer to the fact that death is irrevocable. Why do we in Canada and in this government take the position that we are absolutely infallible, that we cannot make mistakes? I know the record is that we do not know whether or not we have ever made a mistake, but that is because nobody has had an interest in finding out whether a man was innocent after he was dead. I was most interested about two weeks ago in watching the rebroadcast of a half hour television program that was made in the United Kingdom. In that program a former home secretary, the head of the judiciary in that country, and two members of parliament stated they were afraid they had to admit that innocent people may have been hung in the United Kingdom. Death is irrevocable.
We have noted a similar situation in the United States, where it has been proven that a mistake has been made, and it has not just been a suspicion of a mistake. How many hon. members have read the reports of the final court of appeal, the court of last resort, whereby it has been conclusively proven on at least one occasion and I think on two that a man sentenced to death for homicide and whose sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment was not guilty at all, and he was released.
Apart from the court of last resort I was interested in reading only two weeks ago a report emanating from the United States concerning a man who had been found guilty of murder. It was said that he was guilty and there was no question about it. He was sentenced to death. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and he had been in prison for ten years. Then a man admitted that he had committed the murder and the man who was in prison was innocent. An investigation by the authorities conclusively proved that the man who confessed was not a nut. The investigation proved that he had committed the homicide for which another

man had been found guilty and sentenced to death. This man had the death sentence commuted to life imprisonment, and after being in prison for ten years was released. But death is irrevocable. Are we, sir, infallible? I think this is a point which should be very seriously considered.
There is another point which I find of interest. I want to mention it because I must admit that I have not yet been able to make up my mind about it. There is a section in this act which the Minister of Justice very clearly explained, and I understand his explanation. The section deals with a jury which has convicted a person charged with capital murder, and provides that the judge must ask the jury whether they have anything to say; that is, whether they have any recommendation to make as far as mercy is concerned. I want it to be clearly understood that this is one aspect of this bill upon which at the moment I have not been able to make up my mind.
The crown lays the charge in the case of capital murder. The jury has to decide the case. The jury decides it. That is a terrible thing to have to do, but they must do it under our understanding of justice. The jury must decide whether the man or woman charged with capital murder is guilty, and capital murder carries the penalty of death. Then the judge must say to the jury, "Have you anything to say with regard to clemency, mercy or extenuating circumstances?" There we have a request of the jury which has already had to do something which a person does not like doing; that is, they have had to find a person guilty and see him sentenced to death. Then the jury is asked, "Shall the man die or shall he live?", because the judge says to them, "what you have to say will be conveyed to the Minister of Justice and through him to the Solicitor General", and then I presume to the cabinet which will decide whether or not there shall be exercised the Queen's prerogative of mercy.
I presume that because of the changes incorporated in this bill which we are now con-cidering, if for capital murder there were no recommendation for mercy it would be the majority thinking that the person should die. But if there is a recommendation from the jury with regard to that capital homicide, I should think, from experience of these past four years with this government, that there would be the commutation to life imprisonment through the exercise by the cabinet of the prerogative of mercy of the Queen.
Therefore basically I think the jury is actually being asked-they have found a person guilty of capital murder for which the sentence is death-to say what the penalty should be. I say, sir, that I find it rather

difficult to reach a conclusion as to whether that should be done. On balance I think perhaps it should be done, because of what I have just said; that if there is not that statement by the jury then in all probability the death penalty will be carried out. This is something upon which I should very much like to hear comments from the minister and other hon. members of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to deal with a subject which is upsetting to me. I have, of course, always wanted to see the death penalty abolished. However, if it is to be maintained, I should then ask what the method of execution is to be. This subject has been dealt with at some length by previous speakers and I should now like to make some further comments in this regard as well. Apparently the government, in its wisdom, has seen fit to retain the death penalty under certain circumstances. Should this house agree with that retention, surely in the interests of society it should be carried out in the most humane way possible. It is obvious from what has been said by the minister and previous speakers, as well as from the omission of any reference to the subject of the bill itself, that hanging is to be the method followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to interrupt him. I do not see in the bill, nor have I heard anything said during the introduction of this bill, with reference to the method of administering capital punishment. Perhaps the minister could indicate whether there is any reference included in the bill in this regard.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I felt I was entitled to speak on this subject in view of the slight reference made to it by the minister in his introduction, and because 15 minutes was devoted to the subject by the previous speaker, during which time there was no objection made by Your Honour or any other member of this house.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I have been allowed latitude in this regard, and I feel that the hon. member for Vancouver East should be allowed to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may continue in this regard with the permission of the house, but it seems to me that the question of the abolition of capital punishment in certain types of murder is quite a different subject than the method of carrying out such a sentence. I am unable to find any reference in the bill itself to this subject, and I feel that by allowing the hon. member to continue I would be allowing two debates in one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to answer the inquiry which Your Honour has directed to me. I should say there
Criminal Code
is no portion of this bill that mentions the method of execution, nor anything in it which changes the present law in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: While it is true that the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont has been allowed latitude in this regard, that, of course, does not make it in order for another member to discuss a subject which is out of order, unless that hon. member has leave of the house to do so. I feel the debate would be greatly lengthened if it were extended to deal with other principles than those contained in the bill. Perhaps any hon. member who has objection to the hon. member for Vancouver East continuing along this line would so indicate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should express my own view in this regard. I suggest it would be a mistake to permit the discussion to range into a debate on the method of execution because, as Your Honour has pointed out, that is not involved in this bill. I see no objection, if it is feasible so to limit the discussion, to hon. members expressing their regret or otherwise that the bill does not contain a change in the method of execution. I do not know whether the discussion can be limited in that way, but I feel it might be a little unreasonable to attempt to limit hon. members by not allowing them even to mention the fact that there is no change. I suggest, however, that their remarks should be confined to expressions of their own regret or otherwise which, it seems to me, would be in order. I do repeat, however, that I feel it would be a mistake to allow a full debate on the subject of the method of execution itself.


Mr. Speaker:: The course suggested appears to me to be sound. The hon. member for Vancouver East has drawn attention to the omission from the bill regarding the method of execution, but to debate that issue, in my mind, would be proceeding with an unnecessary debate, and it is my duty to see that the hon. members of this house follow the question before them until a decision is made.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as you know I will follow Your Honour's ruling at all times as closely as humanly possible. You will understand, however, in view of the fact that there were many quotations and references to the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons in respect of capital punishment by the minister and by previous speakers, during which time no question was raised nor objection made, that I therefore felt I was entitled to refer to the subject in a similar way.

Criminal Code
I must say I am disappointed that the Minister of Justice, after reading the evidence and recommendations contained in the report of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, did not see fit to change the method of carrying out capital punishment. It has been my impression that hanging and electrocution are not the best methods of carrying out this punishment, because both methods disfigure and desecrate the body and are unnecessarily inhuman. On the other hand it is my understanding, having read the evidence of that committee, that the lethal chamber neither disfigures, desecrates nor is inhuman.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go further with this subject, because I always like to stay within your good graces in the event that I become badly out of order on occasion. I have been very interested in this subject for a quarter of a century, and I am sure my views are known by all hon. members of this house in view of the statements I have made on a number of occasions during the past eight years. I do not intend at this time to reiterate them, but would only say at this stage that it is my hope that what I have said will indicate my continuing opposition to capital punishment.
I feel that capital punishment is unchristian, inhuman and cannot be justified on any basis of statistics or law, and is strictly a method of revenge and retribution. I regret that Bill No. C-92 has not accepted the challenge of the modern trend of penology by abolishing capital punishment.
I should be less than fair if, for that reason, I did not say that I appreciate the extent to which the bill does recognize the problem and represents the government's analysis of the situation in an attempt to encompass the feeling of society in a manner which will be acceptable as a step forward. I suggest this is the first major step forward that has been taken in this country toward a stage of decency when the laws of society will be applied to protect society without the necessity of taking human life.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Criminal Code
trial court to the provincial appellate tribunal and thence to the Supreme Court of Canada. Consequently there will be three opportunities for trained and experienced members of the judiciary to examine into the facts in respect of which the charge is laid, to formulate an opinion and to give to the accused the benefit of their experience and knowledge.
The other point to which I wish to refer is clause 13, which has already been mentioned by the minister and the other two speakers. I also approve of this clause. It gives statutory recognition to what heretofore has only been a custom under which a jury, compelled by the law and by the facts involved to find the accused guilty, has yet felt that the circumstances justified it in making a recommendation for mercy. The very fact that the House of Commons and ultimately parliament, I hope, has recognized this principle will mean that it will be accepted in the minds of members of the cabinet that such a recommendation should be given some consideration.
I had the experience many years ago of defending a young boy who was 19 years old when he was tried. He had lived a sheltered and happy life with his mother. He had never been away from home. He lived on a farm, and whenever there was any of the usual slaughtering of animals to be done he so disliked the thought of blood being shed that he would absent himself from the farm on such occasions. On one occasion when he was 18 he left the farm and in a period of four days committed five grave breaches of the Criminal Code, including murder, under circumstances for which there could be no possible defence. The only defence I attempted to introduce was that of insanity. It was established that he had the mentality of a boy 10 or 11, but he could not be brought within the four corners of the narrow, legal definition of insanity which would have meant that there could have been a finding of not guilty.
He was found guilty, and I recall the sentence well. The case was heard in a frontier town in a theatre filled with people. When it was time for sentence to be passed the boy was sobbing. He was held up by policemen on either side as the judge pronounced the sentence of death. I remember speaking to him as he went away and assuring him that I would petition for commutation. The jury intimated to me afterward that they would have liked to bring in a recommendation for mercy. They felt they could not do other than find him guilty on the strength of the charge made by the

learned trial judge, but they certainly believed that there were circumstances with respect to the boy's background and mental condition which indicated to them that his life should not be taken. But because that was not done the sentence was carried out, and it was one case where I felt that the death penalty never should have been carried out.
It is in circumstances of that kind that clause 13 may well come into effect. I hope what I have said will to some extent resolve the doubts of the hon. member for Vancouver East, and that the important and forward looking clauses of the bill will receive the commendation of the house.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, a year ago last February the hon. member for York-Scarborough introduced Bill No. C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to abolish capital punishment. This bill, unlike most private bills, received a great deal of publicity throughout the country, with the result that the debate was allowed to be resumed on a subsequent date.
Notwithstanding the arguments advanced by several speakers during that debate for the retention of the death penalty, the minister's excellent address today, which merits commendation for its clarity, and what has been said by those who have since taken part in this debate, my view on the question has not changed. This divergence of opinion is the very essence of our democracy. I respect those whose views differ from mine on this matter as well as on other subjects, regardless of party politics.
I was one of those who participated in the debate last year and expressed myself in favour of abolition except in cases of treason in time of war. The widespread interest shown by the people has no doubt influenced the government to bring in the amendments to the Criminal Code now before us. This bill, of course, is not the one we discussed last year but a modification of the present code in recognition of the need for a change to a more realistic concept in dealing with people charged with murder.
Those who still favour the retention of the death penalty for crimes involving murder believe that death is the only effective deterrent against murder. I wish to read an extract from the report of the royal commission on capital punishment which was established in Great Britain in 1949 and, incidentally, was referred to by the minister in his opening remarks. The extract reads as follows:
Capital punishment has obviously failed as a deterrent when a murder is committed. We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes. No one can ever know how many people

have refrained from murder because of the fear of being hanged. For that we have to rely on indirect and inconclusive evidence. We have been told that the first thing a murderer says when he is arrested is often, "Shall I be hanged", or "I did it and I am ready to swing for it", or something of that kind. What is the inference to be drawn from this? Clearly not that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, for he has not been deterred; nor that he consciously considered the risk of the death penalty and accepted it; still less that the death penalty was not so effective a deterrent as some other punishment might have been. The true inference seems to us to be that there is a strong association between murder and the death penalty in the popular imagination.
Mr. Speaker, this illuminating conclusion was arrived at after not days, not months but years of dispassionate study by the foremost criminologists and legal minds of England. I agree with the minister when he said this is an area of sentiment and passion in which people rely not on statistics but rather on reaction when confronted with arguments for or against what shall be just retribution. While I respect the views of those who hold the opinion that the death sentence is a restraining force against murder, the experience of many nations, and of some states to the south, is such that it does not bear out this contention.
For example, Luxembourg has had no death penalty since 1822; Belgium since 1863; Portugal since 1867; The Netherlands since 1870; Italy since 1890. The death penalty was restored in the latter country during the fascist regime, but it was again abolished in 1948. Norway has had no death penalty since 1905; Sweden since 1921; Denmark since 1930; Switzerland since 1942. There are a dozen states south of the border that have no death penalty, and this is not a complete list by any means.
I should like now to quote from the report of a British select committee appointed by the government of that country to study and report on the subject. This study was made in 1930, and I should like to quote from the report:
Our prolonged examination of the situation in foreign countries has increasingly confirmed us in the assurance that capital punishment may be abolished in this country without endangering life or property or impairing the security of society.
The Ottawa Citizen, in an editorial dealing with these proposed amendments, had this to say:
The most that can be said of the federal government's move to restrict use of the death penalty in murder cases is that it is a step in the right direction. Because the government is not prepared to recommend outright abolition of the death penalty the proposed Criminal Code amendments raise the prospect that a strain will be placed on certain links in the system of justice.
The government bill introduced in the House of Commons by justice minister Fulton divides murder cases into "capital" and "non-capital" categories.
Criminal Code
The death penalty would be imposed in cases of calculated murder committed during a crime of violence. The measure provides a mandatory life imprisonment sentence for those convicted of non-capital murders. To be convicted of capital murder the suspect must be specifically charged with that offence.
Britain, sir, provides statistics of the trends of crimes in that country. While larceny, housebreaking and similar crimes have been on the increase, Britain's murder rate has remained almost stationary for the past 50 years, notwithstanding the increase in population. One third of all murder suspects commit suicide before they are brought to trial. The great majority of those convicted of murder are between 15 and 34 years of age. These are among the facts brought out in the past month during an analysis of murder which is being used by both sides in the British controversy over capital punishment.
Other interesting findings were that the overwhelming majority of murder victims are either related to or well known by their murderers, and the largest group of killings takes place within the family with murders of wives by husbands and children by fathers leading all others. Few murders are coldly plotted and premeditated. Of those charged with murder, 36 per cent are sufliciently abnormal mentally to plead either insanity or diminished responsibility. Sexual crimes, played up as one of the 10 most predominant causes of murder, accounted for only two dozen murders out of the 471 committed in Britain during the last three years.
The study to which I have referred concludes with this statement, and I quote:
A woman or child is less likely to be killed by a stranger following a sexual assault or even where there is no sexual offence than at the hands of a blood or other close relative.
This conclusion should clearly indicate that the general ideas held by people on murder need to be brought up to date. Indeed, in all fairness, the government should have appointed a committee of competent criminologists to make a parallel study of murders and crimes in Canada before introducing this legislation. It is true that a parliamentary committee composed of the Senate and commons, did sit through three sessions of parliament. However from all accounts, the report of their findings did not include an analysis similar to the one which was made in Britain.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton)-I give him full credit-is to be complimented for the very comprehensive presentation he made in the introduction of this bill. However, I do not share his conclusions entirely, although he did advance one step toward eventual abolition. I have said that the study of crime and murder in Britain revealed that

Criminal Code
comparatively few murders are coldly plotted. I would assume the same situation would apply to murders committed in Canada. In effect, this legislation with which we are now dealing would indicate that a premeditated murder would automatically mean the imposition of the death sentence on the murderer, assuming that he was sober when he committed the killing. If it could be proven that he was drunk when he committed the murder, then he would not be sentenced to the gallows but to life imprisonment.
The danger as I see it is this: A potential murderer, knowing the consequences of murder committed while sober, would probably decide to get drunk, commit the murder and get off with a prison sentence. This appears to show up a loophole for some murderers to escape the death sentence. One aspect of this legislation which needs clarification is the case of a convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment. Will this really mean imprisonment for life or will he be eligible for parole after a number of years? According to the bill, the fate of this person would be decided by the cabinet. The parole board will lose its job and the Minister of Justice will set himself up as the arbiter in deciding how many years will be chopped off the life sentence.
This is one of the worst features of this legislation. The fact that anyone could be kept in prison, at the pleasure-if you please -of any government, would too greatly resemble the power of a dictatorship. Those of us who believe in abolition would substitute life imprisonment for murder without the benefit of parole at any time. In other words, the real deterrent would constitute confinement behind bars until natural death released the prisoner.
The danger of executing an innocent person is also an important factor which should be evaluated because here we are dealing with a risk of no mean proportions.
Let us consider the case of a man by the name of Evans who was hanged in London for the murder of his wife and child in 1949. Five years later a fellow by the name of Christie living in an apartment in the same house was arrested and convicted of having murdered several women, including Mrs. Evans for whose murder her husband was hanged five years previously. This case was the subject of an analysis by judges and members of the bar who appeared in a C.B.C. television program known as "Background" on Sunday, April 23. It is the case which was referred to by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).
The present bill is clearly compromise legislation which may satisfy some people. It
[Mr. Badanai.l
is quite obvious that the voice of those on the side of abolition has not been loud enough to convince the government to go all the way by bringing about the end of the death penalty in one stroke. However, the time will come when Canada will join those enlightened nations whose penal code no longer contains provision for the killing of the guilty by hanging them by the neck until they are dead. We can easily anticipate that the passing of this bill will not end the discussion on the subject.
The Globe and Mail of May 17, devoted a lengthy editorial to the subject concluding with these words:
The new amendments will reduce the number of cases in which the government is required to exact the extreme penalty or to interfere with the law; but they do not answer the moral question: Should society kill any man, whatever his crime? This is a question which can only be answered with the vote of a house that has been liberated from party discipline to follow the dictates of conscience.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that the debate on capital punishment last year revealed the tremendous interest which the whole country shared on the subject. It was a practical demonstration of the people's feeling on the matter which was divided for the most part and for this reason, if not for others which could be cited as valid, it seems to me that there should be a free vote on this matter. I urge the government-and I am looking straight at the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) at this moment-to allow a free vote of the members on this measure. A sincere expression of opinion in the House of Commons can be produced only by allowing members to vote individually as their consciences may dictate regardless of party affiliations. A free vote of parliament will indicate the degree of public feeling for or against capital punishment as no other sampling of public opinion could possibly achieve.


Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly on this bill. In so doing I wish first of all to congratulate the minister not only on the introduction of the legislation itself but on the very comprehensive and able analysis he presented to the house earlier today. I have one or two observations to make. Having spoken in the debate a year ago may I say at the outset that I am happy to support the bill. I have one or two reservations, and I would hope the minister will make some explanation in summary.
Perhaps I might open my remarks by first of all replying, to the extent one can do that, to the suggestion that this bill in any way represents a compromise, as it has been described. It is perhaps true that there has

been an attempt to reconcile certain views hitherto expressed on various aspects of capital punishment, but certainly there is no compromise in the principle in this legislation before us.
We might recall that a year ago in the debate at no time did any member suggest that we should take a life through capital punishment in return for a life which had been taken by a murder. It is not suggested that this should be done as a matter of revenge or retribution, but only if it represented in any form a deterrent in order to prevent some person at some later date from committing a similar crime. I think that those of us who argued the necessity of the retention of capital punishment did so on the simple ground that it did to some degree represent a deterrent. 1 suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, as did the minister, that any serious study of this factor-whether it be the United States review or the joint committee of the house and Senate-has exhibited very clearly in their conclusions that capital punishment is a deterrent. To what degree, of course, this house and in fact the public of Canada may never know.
It is not my intention to go over all the past events on this or any other bill dealing with capital punishment. I think obviously the principle point that we must establish in our mind is first of all whether a deterrent is exacted by employing the maximum penalty; then how best can we employ it so that, first of all, we do not take a life when there is any question as to the motivation or premeditation in the murder committed. In other words we must judge it in the circumstances surrounding it. We must also be absolutely certain that we provide every safeguard so that we do not take the life of an innocent person.
The bill deals with these two factors very adequately in my opinion. It provides three very excellent safeguards, namely prohibition of the guilty plea, the requirement that a trial judge asks if mercy is recommended and of course, the right of automatic appeal. This provision therefore is adequately taken care of in this bill.
But what about the other facet, namely that of determining whether or not a murder was premeditated or whether or not it was something that developed out of a crime of passion as it is legally described. Here again the minister and his officials have defined the bill in its two categories of capital and non-capital. The application is therefore fairly simple. Hence I suggest that it satisfies to this extent the rather extreme views that have been offered in the house, on the one hand arguing that it is improper and wrong to take the life of someone who conceivably out of anger or perhaps because of insanity
Criminal Code
took the life of a human being, and yet it provides for society protection from a person who, in his full knowledge and in the possession of all his senses goes out and with premeditation takes the life of a fellow human being. So for this reason I say this is a good bill.
But what of the reservations I have suggested? First of all, I would ask the minister in his summary to tell us whether he considers this aspect in his categorizing of murder. Is it to be suggested that perhaps we are encouraging those who might enter upon or become involved in an armed robbery, with the use of weapons and thus encouraging them to carry out the final act of committing a murder? I realize that this is a difficult question and that an accurate assessment of the matter cannot be made. Is this likely to lead, as has been suggested today, to the possibility of people committing murder because of the knowledge that, in the final analysis they will not, of course, lose their lives if convicted of a capital punishment offence?
The second question I put to the minister is this. Having regard to the safeguard that the jury has a right to recommend mercy- in fact, it is now a mandatory provision-is this likely to put us in a position where all juries are going to be obliged for the most part in effect to recommend mercy and that we are therefore limiting the usefulness of capital punishment as a deterrent?
The third question I put to the minister deals with the whole problem of life imprisonment and its relationship to parole. I would ask the minister to state in his summary his own view regarding whether the terms under which life imprisonment can now be exacted adequately deal with those people who are involved in sex slayings. I would also ask the minister whether or not we have created a situation in which the individual, whether he is convicted of a capital or a non-capital offence, is provided every opportunity to go out and again commit a similar crime. I think it is perhaps important that we look at the history of these people and our experience in this regard.
I do not intend to repeat it in any detail, but my one concern is this. It may be argued that in some instances it would be perfectly safe to release a non-capital murderer fairly shortly after conviction, provided he has no chronic mental instability or impairment. On the other hand there will be others whose mental imbalance is insufficient to constitute what has been described as legal insanity, which fact may not be brought out in the trial or in the proceedings on appeal. These people may or may not respond to treatment.

Criminal Code
I would ask the minister whether he considers that in the final analysis the cabinet should make the ultimate decision as to whether these people, if convicted of a capital offence, should be released. I think it is important to make a very careful assessment of the methods by which we impose or enforce life imprisonment so that we do not send out into society those people who are able and in fact are almost encouraged to commit murder for a second time.
Mr. Speaker, I have covered all the points I intended to introduce. As I said at the outset, I support the principle of the bill. I think it satisfies the essential needs. Capital punishment does represent a deterrent and it is still there to remind any individual, who with willful knowledge intends to commit a murder, that if he pulls that trigger or pushes that knife into someone's stomach he may in turn lose his own life. It therefore remains as a deterrent to any person who is likely to commit such a crime in the future.
May I close, Mr. Speaker, by once again congratulating the minister for what I consider to be a very important and very useful piece of legislation.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, last year, when we considered a bill providing for the abolition of capital punishment, I declared myself very categorically in favour of the maintenance and, in some cases, of the increase of the reasons for hangings or executions.
I am not surprised that, from time to time throughout history, bills based on sentimentality are being introduced, in order to reduce the punishment meted out to those who have committed a crime against society.
Who are those who are against capital punishment? First of all, you have good, honest and serious people who want to abolish capital punishment to obey their conscience, their sentimentality or because they believe it is in the interest of society. Those people are as well intentioned as those who were preaching prohibition in 1917, who believed that it was the way to abolish alcoholism in the world; the result was exactly the contrary of what they were seeking.
Today, people who are just as well-meaning as the people in those days want to eliminate capital punishment, on the grounds that it is not humane and that civilization is going forward at such a pace that we must have great compassion for the person who is to be tried, found guilty and probably executed.
On the other hand, there are people in the underworld who are fully in favour of abolishing capital punishment, because they

fear it; they are afraid of the future, and it would be a good thing for them if capital punishment were abolished.
There is also the communist world, that wants capital punishment to be abolished in all its forms, even in cases of treason; because they feel the need to protect themselves in the event of a war between the communist world and the democratic world.
The idea of abolishing capital punishment is nothing new. As far back as the fifteenth and sixteenth century, there were people who favoured it. In France, there was Voltaire and Jean Jacques Rousseau. In Italy, there was Vico and Beccaria, and in Germany, there was Savigny, Karl Marx and Kelsen. In Great Britain, Hume and Benthan called for the suppression of this penalty, while in the United States, Franklin and Paine did the same.
All were great men, great philosophers who had studied the matter and felt compelled to promote a new idea in the world, for a developing society.
The idea was practically abandoned for many years, but in recent times it has been gaining ground in various circles. Some countries have accepted the abolition of capital punishment, while others have opposed it. In Canada, it has not yet been done, and I hope this country will not go so far as to accept this idea.
I realize that the piece of legislation now before us is not a bill for the abolition of capital punishment. However, we know it is one more step which will inevitably lead to a reality if we go on indulging in this false sentimentality.
What are the arguments of the very people who call for the abolition or reduction of capital punishment? For some of them, it is a matter of conscience, along the same lines as faith in God and acceptance of that part of the Bible which says:
Thou Shalt not kill.
They do not want us to feel any resentment against those who may hit us, because Christ said:
But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
All those principles of tolerance are the basis of their beliefs and that is one of the reasons why they absolutely want the abolition or at least the mitigation of the death penalty.
Others, on the contrary, argue that capital punishment is inhuman and must be abolished since it is a survival of ancient times, when the one that had meted death also had to face death.
What about the murderer then? Did he entertain any of those soft feelings toward his victim? Did he have any feeling for the

family bereaved of their protector, when the breadwinner fell under the blow dealt by the murderer?
Some people would argue that the death penalty should be done away with on the ground that it is only a matter of vengeance.
It has nothing to do with revenge; in fact, if it did, I would support its abolition.
In my opinion, it serves as an instrument of retribution necessary in a society in order to remove the numerous causes which may lead to murder.
Some people say that capital punishment is not a deterrent to homicide. May I be permitted to refer to the report tabled on June 27, 1956. It was submitted by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital punishment.
I will quote only a few excerpts. On page 10, one can read the following:
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. The experience of responsible persons who share that opinion showed that it was an effective deterrent to murder.
Now, to page 11.
Moreover, it was contended that professional criminals were more likely to resort to violence. To this class of criminal, capital punishment was a more effective deterrent than mere imprisonment to which they were already hardened and which they tended to regard as an occupational hazard.
Now to page 14.
In considering the arguments for and against abolition, the committee was conscious of the view of the provincial attorney general and other officials responsible for law enforcement from whom it received evidence that capital punishment is an important and necessary deterrent to murder. As indicated in paragraph 50, the committee did not consider that this opinion is displaced by other evidence based upon statistical comparisons, and the committee has concluded that capital punishment does exercise a deterrent effect, which would not result from imprisonment or other forms of punishment.
I now quote paragraph 56, page 15:
The committee while recognizing the substantial support given by many persons to the abolition of capital punishment, considered there is a still wider group who support and accept capital punishment. This support reflects the public's revulsion against murder, the "crime of crimes". Equally, the committee considered that the public abhorrence of murder reflects a traditional attitude built up by the reservation of capital punishment for this particular crime. The abolition of a penalty traditionally accepted as a just and effective deterrent could only be recommended if the evidence clearly established that the ordinary citizen's view of its efficacy was demonstrably wrong.
On the other hand, many consider the maintenance of capital punishment as a de-
90205-6-331
Criminal Code
terrent to murder. This is so true that whenever this question becomes an issue, people want capital punishment to be retained in the case of crimes of treason.
Therefore, if people can thus be deterred from such crimes, why can they not be deterred from any crime?
Page 15 of the report reads partly as follows:
The committee was of the opinion that capital punishment does protect the police to a greater extent than imprisonment alone would do by deterring criminals from using firearms or violence to facilitate the commission of crimes, or escapes from arrest or attempted apprehension.
And, on page 17, one can read the following:
In practice, the committee considered that any redefinition of the crime of murder-
This is closely connected with the present bill.
-should conform closely to the present practice in commuting sentences of capital punishment. Having concluded that it is not practicable to achieve a satisfactory redefinition of murder, the committee also decided that differences between murders can only be recognized by granting commutation in suitable circumstances.
Several witnesses suggested that consideration might be given to the creation of degrees of murder which would take into account the difference in moral culpability between different types of homicides. All witnesses representing law-enforcement authorities opposed the establishment of degrees of murder. The committee shares the conclusions of the United Kingdom royal commission on this question. The committee is of the opinion that the present distinction between murder and manslaughter is quite clear and straightforward.
I will now read a few of the committee's recommendations:
(1)	Retention of capital punishment as mandatory penalty for murder.
(2)	Retention of capital punishment for treason and piracy.
(3)	No change in definition of murder.
(5)	No special provision for women.
(6)	Abolition of capital punishment for offenders under 18-
That is the only case where the committee felt capital punishment should be abolished, that is the case of offenders under 18 who can still reform and who may have been brought up since childhood in a neighbourhood where they were exposed to evil influences.
On the other hand, in the case of a man who has achieved more maturity, it is recognized practically everywhere that a criminal always comes back to the scene of his crime or always commits the same kind of crime over and over again. Consequently, there is only one way of correcting those criminals, namely to find the only solution which will at least check this desire within the criminals

Criminal Code
to kill their fellow human beings. I feel that capital punishment may often cause within young criminals, a reaction which will stop them, because of their families, from committing a murder.
History tells us that in the latter part of the war a great number of men in the army of Napoleon I committed suicide. Then, looking for a means of checking those suicides and knowing that those who committed that crime did so for the sake of family pride, Napoleon ordered that all those committing suicide be hanged. And it is said that from that moment on the number of suicides decreased considerably within Napoleon's army.
Thus we can say that hanging is considered as a dishonour and it is precisely for that reason that hanging must be kept as part of our traditions, as a deterrent for those who might still be prone to kill.
It has been said and it is still claimed that most murders are committed following fits of madness. It is true and whoever has read Alexis Carrel's book "L'homme cet inconnu" will agree with me that most individuals, if not all, have several fits of madness in their lives. In fact, whenever a man gets mad to the extent of losing control over himself, then he may do some foolish thing. But can such an act be an excuse for the crime of killing somebody? I do not believe so.
Besides, it is a known fact that our courts of justice have always been prudent in that field. Whenever a judge and jury are called upon to judge a case, they are absolutely prudent and make sure that there is confirmation of evidence and whenever they are faced with circumstantial evidence, they always make sure that all circumstances are brought forward so that there be no doubt whatsoever concerning the guilt of the accused.
Some people claim that in the past-I do not know personally-there have been cases where persons would have been found guilty when in fact they were innocent. One might say that was an accident. Even if it is possible for one such accident to happen in one hundred years would it be wise to abolish that deterrent which keeps people from making use of brutal force to eliminate an enemy or from acting like today's gangsters who enter a bank with drawn weapons, intending to kill if they do not get the money they are after.
You just have to recall the action of that young criminal who shot down a police officer, in a Montreal caisse populaire because

the latter tried to arrest him. Could we find some way to cure those criminals apart from holding out to them the prospect of hanging?
I do not think so.
However, I believe the main evil we should fight these days is the lack of religious education among our children. In fact too many people still claim that there is no room for religious education in our schools, that it should be eliminated from the curriculum. In our schools, we reach all our children whereas, at Sunday school-or the perseverance lectures as it is called in some places-there are a certain number of pupils taking those courses because their parents are strict enough to keep an eye on them and to send them to the school, but most children do not attend. I am of the opinion that the only way to foster a mental habit is to promote religious education for our children and to teach them principles they will never forget.
Those who want religious education to vanish from our schools do an ill-turn to society because they deprive a child of an opportunity to learn principles which might keep him on the right track during his whole life.


Mr. Marlineau:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Could he tell us who are those persons who want to do away with religious teaching in our schools?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the publication entitled Orange Sentinel, distributed to us every month, he would have seen that there are many people who advocate the discontinuance of any religious teaching in our schools. As a matter of fact, I do know that an Anglican bishop in Toronto and Anglican ministers, who had put themselves on record as being in favour of religious teaching in the schools, received letters of protest and threat for having dared to ask for the retention of religious education in our schools.
Such teaching is most necessary, and too often it is not realized what ideas can be taught the children through it. That is what is sought to be abolished by those who favour the abolition of religious education. It is a matter of giving youth good training at a time when they are being educated. If we see to it soon enough, perhaps this matter of capital punishment will not have to be dealt with. I am convinced that we should be much more stern than we are now for hold-ups.

I could not tell whether it can be blamed on law administration or on the weakness of the bench, but recently in Montreal a criminal who had robbed a considerable amount of money was sentenced to only seven years in prison. Such leniency means that this criminal, on being released, will take possession of the stolen money which he must have hidden, and since society has been so lenient in his case, he will be ready to resume his former life.
Moreover, several people are opposed to capital punishment because their conscience objects to such punishment.
It is said that killing is forbidden in the Bible. In fact, it is stated in the Bible: Thou shalt not kill. This is a general commandment to the effect that an individual has no right to kill. But, on the other hand, this is what we find in chapter 9, verse 6, of Genesis:
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
Now, it is quite obvious that "by man shall his blood be shed". And "by man" means society, he who within society is responsible for maintaining order.
And in Leviticus, chapter 24, verse 17, we find the following:
And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death, and he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
I understand that those words have been referred to earlier as being a commandment of the law of retaliation. But they are based on the fundamental principle that we must not kill, he who kills must be punished by society and the only fitting punishment is death. And we find here:
Voluntary murder.
And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he smite him with a hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death-
But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer.
And this is what we find in the Deuteronomy, chapter XIX, verses 18 and 19:
And the judges shall make diligent inquisition-
This shows that even in the Bible this matter was not to be dealt with without due consideration; evidence was needed, and convincing evidence.
90205-6-331J
Criminal Code
And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testify falsely against his brother, then shall ye do unto him, as he has thought to have done unto his brother: so shall thou put the evil way from among you.
And further on, in the Proverbs, I find the following:
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
The Bible mentions several times that he who kills should be killed by society.
The individual, of course, has no right to take the law into his own hands, but society must protect the victim of a murder. It must protect the eventual victim of a murderer.
For all these reasons and for many others that time does not allow me to give, I shall vote against this bill.


Mr. Paul:: Would you allow me a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


Rémi Paul: If I understood your statement, you mentioned that Napoleon had inflicted capital punishment to put an end to a wave of suicides. Is that true?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have read this fact somewhere but I have not checked its accuracy. I know that words and deeds are often wrongly attributed to great men, but the fact that it was ever mentioned is enough to make one wonder if that was not a way to deter his men from committing a crime.


Rémi Paul: How did they go about hanging a suicide?


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is simply that a sentence to death by hanging was shameful, whereas suicide was considered an honour.
(Text):


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly in support of this bill and also to speak directly on two principles of the bill and not on capital punishment in general. The first principle I should like to discuss is the suggestion that this is a compromise bill between two extreme points of view. I feel that this is not a compromise bill because in effect, as I see it, it carries out the will and the beliefs of the vast majority of people in this country.
I do not believe there is one large body of people who are absolutely for capital punishment, nor a large body who are absolutely against it. I believe this bill expresses the direct belief of the vast majority of people;

Criminal Code
therefore it cannot be described as a compromise but as a bill which carries out the general intent and beliefs of the people of this country.
I believe the majority of people would like to see capital punishment abolished except in certain cold-blooded, planned and deliberate murders. I believe that those who would not like to see complete abolition are of that belief because, first, of the danger of organized crime developing or moving into this country; and, second, because of that residue of restraint, indefinable though it may be, which would cause a person who might be' about to commit a murder to have second thoughts as to the possibility of his losing his own life.
Further, I believe that the adoption of this bill, for all practical purposes and with very few exceptions, would have the effect of abolishing capital punishment. Furthermore, I believe that it will reduce almost to zero the number of cases which may come before cabinet for consideration.
I should like to turn to another aspect of the bill. I wish to show that while there is still an element of capital punishment involved in the bill there are at least seven elements of protection which are given to a person who has been convicted of murder before his actual execution. I should like to list the seven elements of protection now given. First, a person must have committed a murder which is within the new definition contained in the bill, that is, the type of murder which is calculated and deliberate and accompanied by force or stealth. Therefore the first element is that he must have committed the type of murder that we now describe as capital murder.
The second element of protection is that he must have been charged with capital murder. This involves a decision by the law enforcement officers in the first instance in considering the facts and coming to the conclusion that the facts warrant a charge of capital murder being laid against the person involved rather than non-capital murder. Third, the convicted person must have had a full and complete trial. There cannot now be a plea of guilty to capital murder. Fourth, a jury must have decided unanimously that the person charged was guilty of capital murder. In this connection the jurors must have directed their minds to whether or not the person was guilty of non-capital murder because, even where capital murder has been charged, there is the alternative of finding the accused person guilty of non-capital murder. Therefore the jurors, having considered the facts and after applying their minds to the IMr. Aiken.]
matter, must have voluntarily decided that the person is guilty of capital murder.
Fifth, even after having convicted an accused person of capital murder the jury is now asked directly whether they wish to make any recommendation as to mercy. Here again the jury, having directed their minds toward whether the accused person is guilty or not guilty of capital murder, must further direct their minds toward the question of whether or not they wish to recommend mercy. In other words, they must now consider punishment as well as guilt.
The sixth element which is now involved is that there must have been an appeal to a provincial court of appeal. Even if the person charged does not himself voluntarily wish to appeal, under the bill the facts must be reviewed by a provincial court of appeal composed, in most cases of capital crimes, of five or more judges of such court. Under these provisions, therefore, the sentence and the facts must be reviewed by the provincial court of appeal. The final element of protection afforded to an accused person is that the royal prerogative of mercy must have been refused.
With these seven elements I believe that the enforcement of capital punishment involving execution of convicted persons will be reduced to the point where it will result in actual abolition. There is still that residue of people who, having passed through the seven steps of protection, can still be found to have committed a murder for which they should lose their lives. It is for that small element that I believe most of the people of Canada desire to see capital punishment retained. For that reason I feel very strongly that the bill is not a compromise but carries out to the letter what the people of Canada desire at this time in our history so far as the question of capital punishment is concerned.


Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on February 18, 1960, at the time when the bill on capital punishment of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) was being discussed by the house, I set out in some detail, as found on page 1208 of Hansard, the reasons why I was opposed to capital punishment. I do not propose to cover those details again. However, I am still opposed to capital punishment and I base myself on three fundamental reasons or principles.
The first is that capital punishment emphasizes the punitive aspect of justice, and by the word "punitive" I mean punishment, of course. Punishment, as we all know, can be broken down into at least four elements,

punishment to deter an act from being committed, punishment to make a person suffer who has committed an act, a sort of form of vengeance or retribution, punishment in order to reform the criminal, to make him see the proper way to follow, and punishment in order to maintain the laws of the civilized state or, in other words, to protect society.
The second principle I mentioned was that it is human to err in judgment because none of us, of course is infallible. The third general principle I mentioned was that there is an ethical basis to this whole thing. It seems to me that the state cannot take what it cannot give. The state cannot give life and therefore it should not take life.
While the bill does not go as far as I should like to see it go, nevertheless it seems to me that it does bring in certain important changes. For example, during the past two decades there has been a great change with regard to the treatment, care and study of criminals and matters in relation thereto. A great deal of psychiatric research has been made and is under way. In this connection, and since it has not been mentioned so far, I should like to refer to two chief points in relation to psychiatric and medical research.
The first is that up to the present the language used in the Criminal Code is almost impossible of psychiatric definition. Thus the word "insanity" means one thing to the legal mind of the lawyer who is in court and has a completely different connotation to the medical profession or the psychiatric mind. The word "psychopath", for example, and all that word implies is new in relation to the outdated words, if I may call them that, in the Criminal Code as we have it at present. I suggest that the words "mentally deficient", for example, would be a much more scientific general term to use in this connection.
Second, it seems to me that too often the decision whether or not a criminal is guilty hinges on psychiatric evidence given by the so-called experts who are called in. It also seems to me that it is both unfair and unreasonable to put a psychologist or psychiatrist into the witness box and, whether he has prepared the case thoroughly or whether he has not, to expect this psychiatrist to give clear and unbiased replies to the questions which are put when he knows that, depending on the evidence he may give in the witness box, he may personally convict the accused. If he says that the accused is not insane according to the present definition in the Criminal Code, which according to the psychiatrist's definition is outmoded then he personally, in effect, convicts the accused. No respected, responsible professional man wants
Criminal Code
to put himself in that position. I say, therefore it is time we updated the Criminal Code and brought into the Criminal Code new words dealing with this general category of mental deficients.
If on the other hand he says the criminal under review is insane when he knows perfectly well that the accused has committed some act of violence then the accused is likely to go free. The only point I am making is that I approve of the updating of the Criminal Code certainly with regard to the general class or kind, if I may use that term, of mental deficient.
I do not propose to detain the house any longer. I just wish to say that I feel this amendment to the Criminal Code is an attempt to end the confusion in the public mind which has existed for many years. I think it is an attempt to resolve a very difficult problem. I believe the minister is to be heartily commended and congratulated upon the restrained and careful words he used in his opening statement. I want to say that, in my opinion, these amendments indicate an attempt to temper justice with mercy and forbearance and, for that reason, I propose to support these amendments as a step in the right direction.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: believe this bill, Mr. Speaker, No. C-92, an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect to capital punishment, and the debates that led up to it have shown parliament at its best. In his fine speech during the presentation of Bill No. C-92, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) gave due credit to the private members who introduced various bills on the subject of capital punishment. I believe that the debates we had in this house last year were good for parliament and good for the country as a whole.
I know that hon. members received, as I did, many letters from the constituents and from people outside our constituencies indicating that the debates crystallized their own thinking as they did our thinking. I received one letter from a lawyer in Prince George, British Columbia. He had this to say, and I thought it was pertinent:
As a practising lawyer, I believe most sincerely that capital punishment degrades and tarnishes the whole administration of justice. It places on judges, jurors and counsel alike, an unbearable strain. It engenders sympathy for the very last man for whom sympathy should be felt-the accused man himself. .
I am an abolitionist, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to capital punishment. I do not believe the taking of life by the courts is a deterrent to murder. I do not believe it is morally right that a man or a group of men should be given the power to take life. I believe hanging is a

Criminal Code
barbarous facet of our civilized society. I believe that capital punishment should be abolished. I do, however, give wholehearted support to this Bill No. C-92. I support it, first of all, because I think it is a forward step.
In last year's debate, I suggested that every step toward abolition of capital punishment is a forward step. I certainly believe that this bill is a step toward abolition. Last year the Anglican Church of Canada declared itself in favour of the abolition of capital punishment and decided to ask the government- I quote the words that were sent to the government-"to initiate proceedings leading to abolition of capital punishment in Canada." I think this bill, Mr. Speaker, is doing just that, initiating proceedings that will lead to the abolition of capital punishment.
I am not going to repeat the arguments that we who would like to see capital punishment abolished put forward in this house during these debates. I do believe that a murderer, whether capital or non-capital, should be taken out of circulation, out of society. I look forward to hearing from the minister an explanation of precisely what the life sentence penalty will now mean. There are some people who say, why should the taxpayers support murderers for many long years. It has been said, and truly said, that you cannot reduce anything as sacred as life to dollars and cents.
Another reason, Mr. Speaker, why I am supporting this bill is that I do not believe at this time if a vote were taken in the House of Commons or in the country as a whole, the result would be favourable to abolition. I believe this measure is a good compromise and a step toward the abolition of capital punishment.


Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill gives me an opportunity to say a few words with regard to my feelings about this matter. I know that some of my colleagues will not agree with my thinking on this matter, particularly the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Mac-naughton), who has spoken, and also the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).
Many arguments pro and con have been forwarded to me by interested persons concerning abolition or retention of the death penalty in Canada. I have not changed my position on this subject since I spoke on the previous bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). I feel that the death penalty should be retained and that we should not have two kinds of murder defined in the Criminal Code with the death penalty applicable to one.
The bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough was debated but never

given third reading. I am sure the reason for this procedure was that it would have been defeated. It was a private bill, so there would have been a free vote; therefore, there is no doubt why it was never put to a vote.
Since I am not a member of the legal profession, Mr. Speaker, I am taking a layman's view of this particular bill. My findings are the result of many representations I have received in letters or personal interviews with persons who have sought me out or whom I have sought out. Since this bill is a government measure the possibility of a free vote so far as government supporters are concerned has been removed. This assures the passage of the measure. I think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) should allow government members to make up their own minds and allow them to vote as their consciences dictate. There are bound to be many on the government side who have their own views on this matter, but they are bound to vote with their party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member because of any difference with his approach to capital punishment which, of course, he is quite entitled to have. However, I bring to his attention and to yours, sir, the propriety of suggesting that in votes in this house members are bound other than by their consciences.


Mr. Speaker:: That is so. Earlier in the day I noticed that one of the hon. members was suggesting something to the contrary. However, I think it would be a reflection on the house to suggest that any hon. member was not free to vote exactly as he saw fit and that it would not be a proper suggestion to make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In answer to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) has said, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that what the hon. member was clearly seeking to do was to establish-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is side stepping as usual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry that I have a disability that forces this action in the circumstances. I can only say that what the hon. gentleman was seeking to do was quite obvious, namely to urge upon the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to address himself to the point I should be interested to have his view on the subject. It is an important matter. From time to time hon. members suggest that other hon. members are under some compulsion and are not free to vote as they see fit.

That is the question. Whatever may be the reason for which it is raised is irrelevant. If I am wrong in the view I take, I should like the hon. member for Essex East to indicate what he considers to be the proper view.


Mr.. Marlin (Essex East):: In order to understand what the hon. gentleman was seeking to do, I think one must realize that he not only used the particular phrase complained of but that he asked that the government release members from the obligation .of accepting the direction of the party whip. That is not an unusual request to make and that is what he is seeking to do. He was not seeking to suggest that hon. members do not vote according to conscience. He was, however, asking the government to release their members from any obligation to follow the direction of the party whip. That is not an unusual request to be made by one member under circumstances such as these. I do not think that the language used by the hon. member generally is open to any other interpretation.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, to add to the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), may I point out that when we discussed a similar bill last year, the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated that members on the government side were completely free to vote according to their conscience on the bill under discussion at that time, and that there was to be no question of toeing the party line.
Now, I raised this point last Saturday and you, Mr. Speaker, prevented me from getting a reply. At that time, I did not insist, but I want to say that when I mentioned a free vote, I did not mean to suggest that we do not vote freely; however, there is a distinction to be drawn between a party vote and an ordinary vote. We are always free to vote as we please, but in the case of a bill of this nature, I think the hon. member is quite justified in his remark, because the Prime Minister himself established a precedent last year when he said that government supporters would have an opportunity to vote in complete freedom on a similar bill.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I shall give some further consideration to this extremely important matter. From time to time I have heard hon. members refer to what are perhaps the facts, if not the theory, of parliamentary decisions. However, as far as I am aware, except where the government chooses to indicate that it
Criminal Code
does not regard the motion as one of confidence, it has not been in accordance with the practice of parliament for any member to suggest that any other member is under any restraint or compulsion with respect to his voting. There is nothing in the rules about parties or whips and there is nothing properly said in the House of Commons about parties or whips. However, perhaps theory and practice have diverged.
I have expressed my view. I should like to think about the matter in case the point arises again. However, as at present advised, I think it is improper for any member to ask that another member be freed from compulsion. I think it is improper to assume that any member is not free to vote as he sees fit.


David Rodger Mitchell: Very well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I could put the matter in another way and say that it might be interesting to observe what members may absent themselves when the vote is taken if they vote as I have suggested.
This bill also suggests the possibility of relieving the cabinet of the very embarrassing and ticklish situations with which it finds itself confronted when dealing with applications for commutation of death penalties. Many sentences of death have been altered to life imprisonment in the last few years by the cabinet with the usual criticism from both sides of the argument. This bill to a certain extent relieves this situation and will therefore relieve the cabinet of many embarrassing decisions in such cases.
However, the death penalty is a definite deterrent and should be retained and not altered. We have fines for speeding and parking, et cetera. These fines are deterrents and always will be deterrents. Therefore, why not have a deterrent as far as murder is concerned?
On my week-end visits to Sudbury I have made it a point to contact various groups and to get their reaction to this bill. I have listened to well informed arguments on both sides and have weighed the submissions in my fact finding discussions. One thing bothers me. Suppose the death penalty were abolished and life imprisonment were substituted and suppose a condemned man is sentenced to penitentiary for murder. Suppose that during his incarceration he murders a guard at this institution. I presume he is no worse off inasmuch as he has already been committed for life and one or two more murders would not increase his sentence. Having now committed this second murder, should he be retried and sentenced to death because he was a good boy when he committed the first murder?

Criminal Code
In this bill I would suggest some amendments could be made and that, of course, further study could be given to it. I suggest this bill could be deferred for some time in order to have the jurists and bar associations give this matter very serious study and come back to the minister with their reactions and suggestions for amendments. One amendment I would suggest would be to change the method of execution. Not many of us have had the experience of attending a hanging; but from reactions we have heard, it is inhuman in many cases. My suggestion would be a study of gas or electrocution as a form of execution rather than the present form of hanging.
I have come to the conclusion-not without having made a study of this subject, and having regard to the suffering caused to innocent people by criminals who commit murder-that the death penalty is a definite deterrent and should be retained without any alteration or alternate penalty of sentence, of course, taking into consideration the age of the convicted, whether he be a minor or not.
One of my constituents sums up the matter in this way. He had an old uncle who always said this: "Hanging may not discourage murderers, but it sure stops the one that gets hung". I am inclined to believe him.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the legislation at present before the house is in my opinion a logical, common sense approach to the whole question of capital punishment. It is so on several grounds, of which I should like to list a few.
First of all there is the question of deterrence. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that capital punishment provides a greater deterrent to the crime of murder than any other form of punishment which can be imposed in a civilized society.
Second, the bill provides a series of safeguards which constitute new law as far as the Criminal Code is concerned, which reduce to the absolute minimum, compatible with human fallibility, the risk or chance of a judicial error or a miscarriage of justice.
Third, this bill preserves a very important principle, that of individual responsibility, establishing as it does the essential distinction which exists between a murder that is planned, deliberate and committed with the spirit of gain or vengeance and a murder that just, as it were, happens on the spur of the moment.
Fourth, this bill recognizes that even in our twentieth century murder still exists and is an awesome crime, and that foul, deliberate

murder must be punished by the most vigorous means at the disposal of society.
I should like now to go into some of the details of the points I have just advanced. First of all there is the question of deterrence. If I understood the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) correctly, he stated that capital punishment could only be justified if in effect it constituted a strong deterrent to the commission of the crime of murder. But the hon. member said that in fact it did not constitute such a deterrent, and second, if it did, it could not be proven and in such a case-although he did not say so in so many words, I think this is what he concluded-the murderer should be given the benefit of the doubt and should not face capital punishment or execution.
I believe it is true to a certain degree that statistics are not conclusive on the point as to whether or not more or fewer murders are committed when capital punishment is maintained in a country. However, comparisons are very risky in matters of this kind.
The hon. member for Vancouver East compared the rate of murder in countries where capital punishment is imposed with those countries where it has been abolished. The hon. member concluded that there was no difference and no conclusion could be drawn. However, certain statistics were placed before the royal commission on capital punishment which sat in the United Kingdom during the course of the 1952-53 session of parliament.
I believe it is worth while placing some of these figures on the record. The figures presented to the royal commission showed that in Sweden and Norway, for instance, many more murders per one million population were committed during the years when capital punishment in those countries was either in abeyance or had been abolished by legislative enactment.
The following are some of these figures. The mean rate of murders per one million population for the years 1900 to 1909 are 2.54, 2.73 and 2.60 for England and Wales. The figures are 5.4, 4.9 and 5.0 for Norway; and 7.1, 5.1 and 5.0 for Sweden. If infant murders are included, the comparable figures become, for England 4.1, 3.1 and 3.3; and for Sweden, 12.8, 9.0 and 8.2. If England and Wales had shown the same murder rates as Norway there would have been 2,800 more murders in those 30 years. If they had shown the same rates as Sweden there would have been 3,500 more murders.
In the opinion of the royal commission on capital punishment there is, therefore, some evidence showing that the death penalty is likely to have a stronger deterrent effect on normal human beings than imprisonment.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister would allow me to interrupt, as it is my duty to do, it being five o'clock, so that the house may proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-12, respecting Co-operative Life Insurance Company-Mr. Pascoe (for Mr. Ormiston).


Rémi Paul: the second reading of Bill No. S-15, respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois Rivieres.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to obtain authority to build a bridge over the St. Lawrence river between two points; one on the north shore above Trois Rivieres, Quebec, and the other on the south shore below Nicolet, Quebec. As the bill concerns a district which is 100 per cent French in origin, I intend to give my explanation in French which, before this house, has an equal standing with the English language, the learning of which I am enjoying very much.
(Translation):
This piece of legislation in its present phraseology was passed in 1956. In that year, the Corporation du Pont de Trois Rivieres appeared before the house to solicit the right it is again requesting today, and under statute 4-5 Elizabeth II, chapter 71, La Corporation du Pont de Trois Rivieres was granted the privileges and rights it is now seeking from this house. What is the purpose of this bill?
The fact is that under section 11 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the governor in council cannot authorize the construction of a bridge on the St. Lawrence river, and I quote:
No approval shall be given under this part of the site or plans of any bridge over the river St. Lawrence.
That is the only privilege, the only authorization sought by the Corporation du Pont de Trois-Rivieres.
As to the purposes and legal status of the corporation, they come under provincial civil law; in 1956, the Quebec legislature passed
90205-6-332
Private Bills
an act granting legal existence to La Corporation du Pont de Trois Rivieres and defining the objects of this public body as well as its rights and privileges. This provincial act passed by the Quebec legislature appears as a schedule to Bill S-15.
The bridge, which will link Three Rivers to the south shore, is an important economic need in the area. We all know that Three Rivers is Canada's second oldest town. It was founded by Laviolette in 1634, and we all know it was famous as a fur trading centre in the early days of the colony, and that two of its sons who had travelled extensively in Canada's northern territories even went to London, after the English conquest to obtain British capital that was needed to set up the Hudson's Bay Company, which later developed the wealth of Canada's northern areas.
Three Rivers started the iron and steel industry in the province of Quebec. Anyone familiar with the chronicle of the province will know that Three Rivers was the cradle of that industry. Indeed everyone has heard about the old iron or steel mills, which, when they were built in the early days of the colony, were to be the starting of a now very prosperous industry in our province and throughout the country.
Then Three Rivers became an important railway centre and it is widely known that today the city is mentioned as a world centre for the paper industry.
Three Rivers is the very core of an industrial area surrounded by larger cities like Shawinigan, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Grand' Mere, La Tuque and Louiseville.
On the other shore, we have a farming community, Nicolet. The building of a bridge between Three Rivers and Nicolet will also promote an interesting market for all larger communities on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, like Drummondville, Victoriaville, Sorel, Richmond and Granby.
That is why the Three Rivers bridge corporation has no doubt that hon. members will grant the authorization requested in this bill.
This bill is the result of a publicity campaign launched in the common interest for the industrial, economical and agricultural development of central Quebec. I would be remiss if I did not mention the active publicity campaign launched to that effect by the Three Rivers Le Nouvelliste, the various radio stations, the chambers of commerce of Three Rivers and Cap-de-la-Madeleine, and the whole area, as well as the support given

Private Bills
the Three Rivers bridge corporation by all townships and municipalities, which surround that important economic centre.
Therefore I have no doubt that the corporation will be authorized to build that bridge across the St. Lawrence river. It will be 5,000 feet long and will cost approximately $30 million.
The present system linking both shores of the St. Lawrence river consists of a ferry service which, in 1960, carried over
1,300,000	passengers and more than 560,000 motor vehicles of all kinds. These figures emphasize the absolute necessity of that bridge.
The only privilege we are asking this house today is the authority to span the river; indeed, before the construction is authorized, the corporation will be required to lay its plans before the governor in council and permission will surely not be granted if the plans and specifications of that bridge are not in accordance with the regulations and the various federal acts which might govern such matters.
For those reasons, I hope the House of Commons will give this bill its whole hearted support so that the center of the province of Quebec will keep moving forward on the road to progress and prosperity.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should have been very pleased to second the bill introduced by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul). However, on behalf of the opposition and on my own behalf, I wish to say that I approve this bill. This is not the first time that we have heard of the construction of a bridge in Three Rivers. Back in 1950, there was a discussion about whether a bridge or a tunnel should be built. In 1953, a group of able and earnest businessmen set up an organization to investigate the possibility of carrying out that project.
Many people have come out in support of the project for the construction of a bridge at Three Rivers. Among others, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) mentioned that project on several occasions when he was in the opposition. So did Mr. Maurice Boisvert, the former member of parliament who, in 1956, introduced a bill similar to the one we are now considering today. I, myself, spoke in favour of the project in 1959.
Indeed, in 1956, a bill called "An act respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Three Rivers" was passed here. A similar bill was passed by the provincial legislature on February 2, 1956. Both, the federal and the provincial governments have therefore given

their approval to the project since that year. The only thing that remained to be done was to go ahead with the plan.
Various organizations were set up, including the Three Rivers bridge committee which had spearheaded the movement, for three years. The chamber of commerce of Three Rivers, the chambers of commerce of neighbouring municipalities and other organizations supported the movement. The radio stations, the newspaper Le Nouvelliste, all those who were interested, brought pressure to bear with the government of the province of Quebec, then headed by hon. Maurice Du-plessis, to bring about its approval of the project. We know the unfortunate conclusion of those steps; Mr. Duplessis never gave his personal authorization, even though he had always declared himself in favour of the project.
Later, under the administration of Mr. Sauve, there was also a sympathetic approach to this project. Before the fall of the Union Nationale regime, under the Barrette administration, the proposal was favourably considered. As a matter of fact, Mr. Barrette said: "This is a project which should be implemented as soon as possible." Unfortunately the times and circumstances were unfavourable and the project was not carried out.
Fortunately we have today a provincial government placed under the leadership of a highly qualified man, Mr. Jean Lesage, who indicated he is in favour of the construction of the Three Rivers bridge. If we judge from the promises Mr. Lesage has already kept, we can say that this project will be carried out without delay.
As a matter of fact soundings are being made in the St. Lawrence at present to determine the best location for the foundation of the structure. Furthermore, a bill is before the provincial legislature and will be shortly considered by the members.
Mr. Speaker, it is no longer a matter of demonstrating the necessity of building a bridge between the shores of the St. Lawrence river at Three Rivers; it has been done already. Since we all agreed on the principle, it is now merely a matter of passing to the second stage, or to start work on the project in the nearest possible future. When this work is completed, it will be the conclusion of a campaign initiated many years ago. Needless to say, credit for this achievement should go to the whole population which has already given its moral and financial support, because people are anxious to be able to cross the river both ways without having to wait two and three hours or even all night when the ferry service is suspended. The present Minister of Transport personally

Private Bills
realized the necessity of a bridge there, for he once spent a whole night on the wharf of Ste. Angele before he could get back home after an evening of politicking on this side of the river.
So far, the Three Rivers bridge corporation, which remains the organization responsible for this undertaking, has appropriated up to $46,400 for plans and specifications, $28,900 of which represent the personal contribution of the people concerned.
This is a highly commendable gesture on the part of the two communities on both sides of the river, and one worth mentioning.
Other organizations which have also contributed to this achievement are the chambers of commerce, the radio stations which for many months now have often broadcast the slogan: "We need the bridge and we shall have it".
Indeed we shall, thanks to the authorizations given by the federal and provincial governments, but thanks also to the goodwill and sincerity of men who see in the building of this bridge a means of giving fresh impetus to industry and tourism in the area concerned and a means of checking unemployment.
So the Liberal party heartily supports this bill and hopes its provisions will soon be carried out.
(Text):


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I am appreciative of the remarks made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat in regard to the support that this bridge is receiving from the people in the area of Three Rivers itself. As hon. members know, this bill was first introduced in the Senate in June, 1956, by Senator Dessureault and received the support of the government of Canada at that time. The responsibility put on the people in that area was that the bridge had to be built within a period of three years. It is gratifying to know that that responsibility has been accepted and, because of the spirit of co-operation among the citizens of that area, there is some hope that the bridge will be built in the very near future. The bridge will be a large project. It is expected it will be 6,500 feet long if the original plans of Dr. Pratley are proceeded with. Including the approaches, it will have a total length of
9,000	feet.
Some question has been raised both in the area itself and in the Senate since the original bill was first passed with respect to whether sufficient consideration has been given to increasing the width of the bridge because of the increase in the number of motor cars that will be using it. According to present plans, the bridge will be 26 feet wide which means 90205-6-3321
there will be only two traffic lanes 13 feet in width. The suggestion has been made that a larger project should be considered involving a four-lane rather than a two-lane highway.
It is my hope and that of my colleagues that the bridge will be proceeded with as soon as possible. According to the last estimate, it is going to cost approximately $12J million, with a maximum anticipated cost of $15 million. Over a period of years this bridge has been promised by politicians in provincial and federal elections in every constituency that will be served by the bridge. I accept the word of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) that the radio stations and civic-minded people in the area are interested in the bridge and that they have probably forgotten some of the election promises that have been made and are going to go ahead and build a bridge themselves. There are some questions with respect to this project that I think should be answered. The first one I should like to raise is why it should be necessary for the bridge to be authorized by the federal government. I am aware of some of the reasons but they do not seem to apply-


Mr. Woolliams:: Do you know all of them?


William Arnold Peters: I am not from the province of Alberta and I am not a Social Crediter. I do not talk about anything and everything like the hon. member does. There are some things I know and some things about which I should like to be informed. I will at least stand up in my place and ask my questions in a parliamentary manner. Certain questions were raised in the Senate in relation to this matter and Senator Methot quoted certain parts of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. As quoted by him on page 478 of the Senate debates, section 10, subsection 1, of that act reads as follows:
The governor in council may make such orders or regulations as he deems expedient for navigation purposes respecting any work to which this part applies or of which the plan and site are approved under any act of the parliament of Canada.
Section 11 reads as follows:
No approval shall be given under this part of the site or plans of any bridge over the river St. Lawrence.
Section 3 reads as follows:
Except so much of this part as relates to rebuilding or repairing any lawful work, nothing hereinafter in this part contained applies to any work constructed under the authority of any act of the parliament of Canada.
The problem is this. If the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has anything to say, Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy if he would rise in his seat and say it. I do not

Private Bills
think he adds anything to parliamentary decorum by speaking from his seat. There is an indication in section 11 that the St. Lawrence river may not be an international body of water at all points, but I presume that because of the hazards that might have been created in days gone by the St. Lawrence river was placed in a class different from other navigable waters with respect to the building of bridges over it. Section 11 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act makes it necessary for the people of Three Rivers and the surrounding area to come to parliament to ask for permission to build this bridge whereas such permission would not have to be sought in most other parts of Canada.
I believe this has worked a hardship on the people of that area and has made it possible for politicians in the federal and provincial field to use the bridge as a political football or political offering at election time because of the fact that the federal government has within its jurisdiction the power to grant or not to grant the right to construct a bridge in this area. Furthermore, there is the fact that the federal government through the Department of Transport and particularly through the board of transport commissioners is in a position to grant the necessary approval of plans that have been submitted and will be submitted in the future with respect to the construction and maintenance of this bridge.
It seems to me that the rules and regulations with respect to navigable waters in other provinces and the requirements as to a certain type of bridge over a body of water of a certain size should be sufficient to provide for the building of this bridge under normal circumstances rather than an application having to be made to parliament for the construction of the bridge. I know that the people of this area want the bridge and need it. I am pleased to support the bill. It is a stipulation of the law that the bridge must be proceeded with within three years.
I know that a bill was introduced by Senator Dessureault in 1956 and although the bill was passed the bridge was not proceeded with within the required three years. Therefore it was necessary to ask parliament again to pass a bill. It is my hope that the bridge will be constructed within the period of three years and that the people of the area will be able to construct it either with provincial assistance which they have been promised or through subscriptions which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska suggested might be forthcoming from the people of that area.
I hope they will have the opportunity to build the bridge within the next three years and that it will be of service to the people

on the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence in that area. I hope they will not be faced with the problem of having to go to the provincial government for financing in relation to the deficit that may occur before completion of the bridge. Having these things in mind, I support the bill and I ask the government to give some consideration to changing section 11 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act which makes it necessary for the people in the vicinity of Three Rivers to come to parliament to ask that they be granted the right to build this bridge.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Lahaye (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it is in my capacity as member of a riding adjoining the city and the county of Three Rivers that I feel entitled to say a few words in support of this bill, the purpose of which is not to construct this bridge but, if I clearly understand the situation, to authorize La Corporation du Pont de Trois Rivieres and the provincial government responsible for this construction, to build this long needed bridge between the city of Trois Rivieres and the south shore. I do not believe that anyone questions the necessity of a bridge there, because there are about 160 miles between the most easterly bridge from Montreal and the present bridge over the St. Lawrence in Quebec city.
The Three Rivers area and the city proper have a population of approximately 60,000. In addition the few industrial cities on the north shore, including Cap de la Madeleine, that I have the honour of representing in this house, as well as Shawinigan, Grand' Mere and La Tuque, and those on the south shore which are almost as populous, make up an industrial and farm population of about
200,000	near the site chosen for this bridge.
I am one of those who have had occasion to realize the need for a bridge there, because in the course of some work I had been doing previous to my coming to this house, very often I had to wait one or even two hours before I could get across the St. Lawrence river. These long waits are most unpleasant and, of course, hinder the industrial development of an area.
A bridge over the St. Lawrence would also prove a valuable asset to the development of the tourist industry. Nobody underestimates the touristic value of the St. Maurice area, especially the upper St. Maurice region. Thus a direct throughway from the United States would run through this promising area.
Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill pleases me very much:
An act respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois Rivieres.

However, when I look a little further down, in section 1, I see that this bridge will have to be built about a mile upstream from the limits of the city of Three Rivers. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, without opposing this project in any way, for if I rise at this time it is to give it my fullest support, I regret that the bill does not provide for the alternative of building the bridge either east or west of Three Rivers. I refer particularly to the possibility of building it east of the city of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, for reasons that, in my view, are important. In fact, while I do not lay claim to special engineering experience, I have noticed that the north shore of the St. Lawrence river is about 30 feet higher east of Three Rivers than where it is proposed to build this bridge.
In order to span the St. Lawrence and not hamper ship traffic on the seaway, I wonder whether it would not be economical to have a higher base of operations of about 30 feet, at least on one side of the river.
There is also another reason. I wonder whether account should not have been taken of the fact that the best highway to the upper St. Maurice area runs east of Three Rivers. I understand that a slight straightening of that highway has been planned, from a proposed crossing point on the St. Lawrence, at Ste-Marthe-du-Cap, which could link up with the road commonly called the Shawini-gan road, east of that point, which runs up into the St. Maurice area.
That magnificent highway would allow American tourists to enter directly into Cap-de-la-Madeleine, on the way to Shawinigan, Grand' Mere, La Tuque and, after a road has been built between La Tuque and Roberval -a project now in the planning stage-to make a magnificent tour through the national park, and come back by way of Quebec city.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to voice any objection to the building of a bridge over the St. Lawrence, because with all the citizens of the area I have fully supported the campaigns in favour of that bridge. I am referring now to the newspapers, chambers of commerce, all municipalities and radio stations which, for ten years, have had a slogan to promote this project. However, I should like to single out a remark made a moment ago by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), when he indicated that this request had been made to the Quebec government, when the Union Nationale party was in power and that, at
Private Bills
the time, the approval of the great premier who preceded the present premier seemed only apparent. Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt allow me to point out to the house that this is quite illogical and that I have never known a statesman who has done more for his province, and particularly for his city of Three Rivers, than the former premier of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot conclude my remarks without expressing my most sincere wishes that representations already made by the people of the area about the construction of this bridge be continued. And I do hope that the formal promise the present premier of the province of Quebec made to Three Rivers not so long ago will be fulfilled as soon as possible in the interest of the population of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole, and more particularly of those who live in that region in the heart of the province of Quebec and who are especially interested in the construction of this bridge.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to add much to the explanations the sponsor of this bill gave us because, since I live in Levis and have to cross over to Quebec every day, I know the many difficulties that are caused by the lack of a bridge or a tunnel between those two cities.


Martial Asselin: If Mr. Lesage could build it.


Maurice Bourget: Since my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) says that Mr. Lesage will build it-


Martial Asselin: He promised it.


Maurice Bourget: -he is absolutely right, and I can understand him very well.
Mr. Speaker, I would not have raised this matter if there had not been that interjection of the hon. member for Charlevoix-


Mr. Tremblay:: Will he do it without levying taxes?


Maurice Bourget: -but on the other hand, when we consider the situation-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Is he going to do it without levying a tax?


Maurice Bourget: Obviously, you have not yet learned to shut up. After four years, you have not learned to be polite and to maintain a certain decorum in the house. Why don't you shut up?

Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call the hon. member for Roberval to order?


Mr. Speaker:: I will certainly do so, but
I would also ask the hon. member for Levis to address himself to the Chair and not to pursue private conversations with the said member.
The hon. member for Levis has the floor.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I did not address myself to you was that I knew you understood. Unfortunately, this is not the case of the hon. member for Roberval, who does not understand a thing.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to see that the hon. member for Levis thinks you understand what he is saying. Personally, I will have to wait for the official record before I can make it out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That remark was out of order, and so are the interjections from both sides. I would ask all hon. members to allow the member for Levis to go on with his speech.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say, in reply to the hon. member for Charlevoix, that the former premier of Quebec was the member for Three Rivers, and that for all practical purposes he never had anything to do with the building of this bridge. It is probably the Liberal government of the province of Quebec that will provide the city of Three Rivers, the city of Nicolet or another city in the area with the bridge that the people have been demanding for at least five years, because it is a fact that the bill now before us will be expiring soon and that it was passed in this house about five years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my intervention is to state that, according to my information, both technical and economic studies were made; as a matter of fact, I am not sure they have been completed. Once those studies have been completed, perhaps it will be decided to build a tunnel rather than a bridge. Under the circumstances, I wonder whether the sponsor of the bill could inform us on this point and whether, in fact, it would not be wise to include the word "tunnel" in addition to the word "bridge". Thus if it were decided, for the reasons I have just mentioned, to build a tunnel, the petitioners would not have to come back to the house to have the bill amended.
IMr. Bourget.]


Rémi Paul: In reply to the question of the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) that if he speaks now, he will close the debate. I cannot let him have the floor if there are other hon. members who wish to speak in support of or against the bill.
I see that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) wishes to speak.


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monimagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly not delay the passing of the bill, but I shall point out to the hon. member for Levis that, if the bill were amended so as to provide also for the building of a tunnel, the Three Rivers bridge corporation would also have to amend its charter, and from then on, call itself the Three Rivers bridge or tunnel corporation.
Anyway, this is not what I proposed to say when I took the floor. I simply want to point out to the hon. member for Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) and the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Lahaye) that, even if we represent ridings which are at some distance from their own, and if the construction of a bridge at Three Rivers may only be more or less interesting for us, we want to assure them that we entirely approve their plan. We approve it the more that, if the Three Rivers bridge is ever built, we hope this construction will give the present provincial government the sound idea of building another bridge connecting Quebec and Levis. Indeed, as the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), pointed out a few moments ago, the present government of Quebec should build a bridge between Quebec and Levis. The hon. member for Levis said earlier that he crossed every day from Levis over to Quebec. I wonder whether he travels that way only since there has been a change of government in Quebec, or whether he did it as frequently before.
Anyway, and even if we do not live in the said area, we know the difficulties which face the people on the south shore who want to go to Three Rivers. I do not think that anybody could reasonably oppose such a bill, and I want to assure hon. members from the Three Rivers area, as well as my hon. friend, the representative of Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), that we wholeheartedly agree with them. If the project is carried out within two years, it will, as I say, invite the provincial government of Quebec to build another bridge between Quebec and Levis.
Moreover, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska who said

a few moments ago that the former provincial government unfortunately lost the election before being able to carry out its project. He did say "unfortunately". Let me tell him that, if that bridge is not built within two years, the former government, which most probably will be carried back to power, will see that it is built.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, if I said "unfortunately" it was meant for Union Nationale members.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there has been any misinterpretation of the words used by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, in answer to questions-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 must inform the house- (Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) speaks now, he will close the debate. I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) and of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). From what they have had to say, particularly the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, it is quite obvious that there is a matter of importance and urgency in connection with the construction of this bridge and therefore in connection with the passage of Bill No. S-15.
I may be some 3,000 miles away from this spot in question but I have a keen interest in it. Anything which is of importance to Canada or to any section of Canada and which is correct will have my support. However, irrespective of the statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and the hon. member for Timiskaming I must say that I cannot quite fathom what is behind this bill in view of what is of importance and urgency. Why do I say that?
I must, of course, refer to clauses of the bill but I do so only as to principle. I think that the sponsor of this bill owes an explanation to this House of Commons because one of the principles of the bill contained in clause 3 is this. It states:
3. The construction of the said bridge shall be commenced within three years after the plans therefor have been approved by the governor in council-
I direct attention to the words "three years after the plans therefor have been approved". As a matter of principle in this bill it is stated not only that shall there be
Private Bills
three years after the governor in council has approved the plans but that there shall be then a period of four years before the bridge must be completed.
So after what we heard this afternoon, that this is a matter of urgency, we are now asked to support in principle a bill which provides that construction of this bridge shall not commence until three years after the approval of the governor in council, and it does not have to be finished until four years thereafter. In other words, despite all the urgency we have heard, the bill before us provides that this bridge does not have to be completed for a matter of seven years. I would also point out that these seven years do not refer to the period after the passage of the bill, but after commencement of construction.
May I also draw something else to the attention of hon. members because I think this is a matter of absolute principle. Canada is a developing country and the St. Lawrence and Three Rivers, of course, are sharing in that development. Yet right in Bill No. S-15, in the schedule on page 3, we find in paragraph 22 something upon which I wish to comment. I am now referring to strictly a matter of principle. This is something which I cannot remember ever being passed or agreed to by parliament.
What is the principle here, sir? According to the principle of this bill a period of approximately eight years may elapse before the bridge is completed. Yet we now have before us in Bill No. S-15-I hope I have your permission, sir, to speak to this principle-these words:
During a period of eight years as from the sanction of this act and afterwards during the whole period of the utilization of the proposed bridge, no other person shall construct or operate a bridge, tunnel or ferry service over or under the St. Lawrence river between the north shore and the south shore and this, within a radius of 25 miles above and 25 miles below the site of the said bridge, subject however, to the rights of the corporation of the city of Trois-Rivieres in the ferry service operated by it.
I think hon. members will understand the reason why I am speaking on this matter. Under this bill as we now have it, with all due respect to the urgency of the matter about which we have been told, it is laid down that they do not even have to start construction until three years after the governor in council approves the plans, and they then have four years in which to build it. In addition to this, it is said that as long as it is held open, be it five, ten or 100 years, no matter what is the development on the St. Lawrence in the area, 25 miles above and 25 miles below the site of this bridge nobody can build a bridge, tunnel, ferry or anything.

Criminal Code
That is how this bill reads. I say that we need a factual explanation of this. Is it not something that may hold back the development of the area?
(Translation) :


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, since it is nearly six o'clock, I cannot deal with the few points raised by hon. members in this house, but I shall simply and briefly express my appreciation to hon. members who supported the bill.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder).
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was citing certain figures which had been placed before the royal commission on capital punishment in the United Kingdom, which tended to establish certain things, such as the deterrent value of capital punishment to the crime of murder. I hasten to acknowledge that these figures were taken from an article published by the Rev. E. L. H. Taylor, M.A., Canterbury, who was chaplain to the Canadian Legion, formerly of the parish of Temiscamingue, which is in my riding. He presented a very learned discourse on the whole question of capital punishment. His article was entitled "Should Capital Punishment be Retained". This article was widely circulated and, moreover, was published in the Canadian Bar Review.
Those figures are applicable, I suggest, to the countries and those years for which they are quoted, but are they applicable to present day conditions? I do not know. Can we

establish by statistics, absolutely and in a scientific manner, that capital punishment is, in certain cases, a deterrent? This is most difficult to establish because there is no valid basis for comparison. It is all right to say that one country has retained capital punishment and another has abolished it, yet there seems to be no difference in the rate of murders committed in each.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: Does the hon. member accept the figures of the United Nations in this regard?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept them as such in view of the fact that I have not studied them with the dedication the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has. I present these figures in an effort to establish that one can either make a case for or against capital punishment by the use of statistics. Certain learned individuals have made such cases, by figures, showing that capital punishment does act as a deterrent under certain circumstances.
We have the opinions of professional individuals who are dedicated to the hunting down of criminals. I refer to the commissioner of police for London, who testified before the royal commission, to which I have referred, giving examples establishing the deterring effect of capital punishment. That individual referred to a certain group of hoodlums. One of the members of that group was apprehended, convicted of murder, and sentenced to hang, but that sentence was commuted. That group continued its operations in the same way, perpetrating crimes of violence, including murder. Subsequently two members of that band were arrested, convicted of murder, sentenced to hang, and the sentences were carried out. Following their execution that band of hardened criminals discontinued its operations. It is the considered opinion of that man, whose life work has been devoted to dealing with crime in the largest city in the world, that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder, and I suggest his opinion should carry some weight.
In the debate on capital punishment in the United Kingdom House of Commons of February, 1955 the home secretary gave various reasons why that government was opposed to the outright abolition of capital punishment. One reason he gave in support of the government's rejection of abolition of capital punishment was the evidence of many experienced persons that the death penalty was

a unique deterrent to the professional criminal. I think that is a very forthright indication of the nature of the evidence placed before the commission, which spent years investigating the matter.
In Canada we have officers of the law charged with the enforcement of law and order, who have come to this same conclusion. I refer, as an example, to the opinion of the former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Nicholson, who during an interview conducted by a reporter of the Ottawa Citizen, and reported in that paper in February 25, 1960, is reported as having said:
It would not be an exaggeration to say the criminal fraternity generally would welcome abolition of capital punishment.
Therefore a strong case has certainly been established for the value of capital punishment as a deterrent. There is another thing to remember in discussing deterrents. One must keep in mind the kind of offence which now will be punishable by death. It is the deliberate type of murder; it is murder planned by stealth, cunningness, and all the sordid details that go with the commission of crime. It is precisely these people, Mr. Speaker, to whom the fear of capital punishment, the spectre of capital punishment, will be the most frightening. When they put into the balance or on the scales the pros and cons which would move them to commit their crime there is, I submit, a heavy weight against the commission of the crime when they know that swift and certain justice will follow in the form of execution by hanging. I think this cannot be denied. Even if after coming to the deliberate decision to commit crime and setting out on that sordid mission of murder, when everything else, every other feeling of human decency has failed, I still think that on the road to committing that crime prospective murderers will see the road sign which reads "To the gallows", and many may, even at that late hour, be deterred and not commit the crime of murder which they propose. That is why we cannot treat the commission of murder as a statistic because statistics are silent on the hidden motive that determines criminal offences.
With all the respect that is due to the hon. member for Vancouver East, who certainly was most sincere in his expose of his thesis, I still heartily and fully agree with the Minister of Justice who states that statistics are not reliable because there are no statistics on crimes which are not committed.


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit a question. Is the hon. member aware that
Criminal Code
Commissioner Nicholson, whom the hon. member quoted a moment ago, on a recent television panel discussion modified the statement which was attributed to him with respect to the application of enforcement; by that I mean the certainty of apprehension rather than the punishment itself.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I thank the hon. member for York-Scarborough for his explanation which I accept, but if words have any meaning, when Commissioner Nicholson said "It would not be an exaggeration to say the criminal fraternity generally would welcome abolition of capital punishment" he meant just that; that the criminal would feel a lot safer in this country if capital punishment was no longer in force.
What else will this bill do, Mr. Speaker? I am absolutely convinced that it will reduce the incidence of crime that will be described and charged in an indictment having to do with a capital offence. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that it is the trend of modern criminology and also the trend of the times, but the bill does retain the essential distinction between the deliberate, the planned and the non-deliberate, nonplanned murder. It creates a new substantive offence of non-capital murder.
I believe it was the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who said that this might cause a certain amount of difficulty for the crown attorney who must draft the indictment and decide whether a capital indictment will be laid. Certainly, it places a great responsibility on the prosecution office. I am sure the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont knows that the district crown attorney is not alone in determining what type of indictment or accusation will be laid. He must consult the attorney general's department. They have a staff of experts to deal with criminal prosecutions. I am sure also that in cases where there is any doubt in the mind of the crown attorney or of the provincial attorney general, or of his department, they will rather opt for the non-capital offence than the capital offence. This is normal criminal procedure and is entirely in line with the great principles that we adhere to in this country in the matter of justice, and especially criminal justice: The cases where it will be possible, first of all to lay a capital indictment; second, the cases, where it will be imposed; and, third, the cases where once imposed the sentence will be carried out, must be reduced to the absolute minimum. I say this well knowing that the application of this law may not be easy.
As a matter of fact, there is-and I am sure the Minister of Justice has thought of this question-the serious matter of the proof of

Criminal Code
the offence. How are we going to prove that such and such a murder was a deliberate, planned murder? In how many cases is the planning done in the mind of the criminal and his deliberation is not known by anyone but his own secret soul? This is a very serious difficulty with which the law officers will be faced. But at the same time it is a recognized principle of law that difficulty of proof must not deter a legal principle. Today we are establishing new offences, the substantive offence of murder and non-capital murder, and it will be up to the law officers to apply the law with the greatest amount of care that lies within their competence.
Moreover, this bill which reduces first of all the number of cases where a capital offence may be laid, also places an intricate legal machinery at the disposal of and to the advantage of the man accused of a capital offence. Quite a bit of this is an innovation; some of it is an amplification of existing measures laid down as a safeguard for the man accused. They assure that he will have an absolutely fair trial and every possible means of defence will be placed at his disposal.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, when the present bill becomes the law of the land no person accused of a capital offence will be able to plead guilty. This surely is a reasonable enactment and disposition. When one faces such a serious offence as capital murder one's mind may very often not be too clear. One is under heavy tension and it may be that owing to despondency or other reasons a person accused of capital murder may plead guilty to an offence that he did not commit. This danger is eliminated. An accused man is not permitted to plead guilty to such an offence.
There are other safeguards provided. The law will now call for an automatic appeal of the case when an accused has been found guilty of murder. There is an automatic appeal from the court of first instance, to the provincial court of appeal. This is a reversal of the former legal disposition. An accused did have that right but he had to take the initiative in exercising it. Under the present legislation the initiative will no longer be that of the accused. The choice will no longer lie with the accused but rather the crown will take the initiative of lodging an appeal. The accused will be furnished free of charge with a transcript of evidence and other legal documents necessary to prepare his defence adequately.
Once the provincial appeal court has disposed of the case there is now an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada on all matters of fact, law, or mixed fact and law. That is another safeguard. Again, when

the jury has found an accused guilty of capital murder it is the duty of the judge to ask the jury then if it recommends clemency in the particular case. The hon. member for Vancouver East was not sure whether such a provision would be better than the existing legislation in that regard. He felt that it was almost indecent to ask a body of men who have just condemned a man to pay the supreme penalty whether they recommend clemency. But, Mr. Speaker, under the existing law juries can and very often do recommend clemency for a man whom they have just convicted of a capital offence.
I am sure that the reason this enactment is in the present bill lies in the experience that many lawyers have had. I know I have had it myself. After a jury has convicted a man of this offence and has been discharged, the jurors will come and say to the lawyer that if they had only known they would have recommended clemency. This clause makes it impossible for a jury to fail to recommend clemency because of an oversight or because of a misapprehension of their position in that regard. To my mind this is an additional safeguard in favour of the accused person. By this bill, we are providing all these safeguards.
A new offence is created which will reduce the number of cases where murder will be punished by hanging. This whole procedure is all in favour of the accused and will tend to reduce the number of cases where the sentence of death will be carried out.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member mind answering a question? Is it not a fact that over the years it has been his experience and the experience of others that the very thing he is now discussing has differentiated between those people who have received clemency and those who have not? That is the crux of the bill. Whether it is this government or former governments, over the years that is the very thing that has differentiated between those people who have received clemency and those who have not.


Paul Raymond Martineau: That may be so. I think the hon. member should bring out the details of his argument. It is a point most worthy of the consideration of the house.
I should like to deal with another matter for a minute or two. I was struck by a word that the hon. member for Vancouver East used in his speech. He said that capital punishment was so "irrevocable", and indeed it is irrevocable. That is why we must go so slowly in imposing it and in carrying it out. I also think it is against the trend of the times. But did the hon. member ever stop to consider that the death meted out to the victim of the murderer is also irrevocable?

The gravity of the offence, the irrevocable nature of the murder that is committed, the irrevocable loss of the innocent person who is going about his business and suddenly has his life snuffed out are factors that must also be recognized.
I know that the hon. member will perhaps say that I am advocating revenge and am treating the matter on an emotional level. No, I am not, and I do not think that should be the primary consideration. At the same time, however, society being what it is, we must deal with murder with the most energetic and vigorous means at our disposal. I know that the adherents of abolition will say that capital punishment is a survival of the dark ages and we should get rid of it. Yes, get rid of it, Mr. Speaker, but murder may also be a survival of the dark ages. There is absolutely no pleasant way to deal with murder much as we in our polished twentieth century society would like to forget these things, much as we would like to forget that murder does exist and to forget that it is the duty of society sometimes to protect itself and to impose capital punishment on rare occasions. Certainly we would like to banish all that but, still and all, murders do occur and they must be dealt with with mercy but also with justice because in the last analysis justice is the basis of our society.
That is about all I wish to say on the question of murder and its punishment. I sometimes think of the words of Shakespeare when he describes murder as "murder most foul". In speaking of Macbeth Shakespeare says at one point: "Now does he feel his secret murders sticking on his hands".
These are things that this house is seized with today, and that is why I must commend the Minister of Justice for bringing in this bill which is a step forward, a step in the right direction. It gives to the man accused of murder all the safeguards necessary for his protection. It treats him with clemency, treats him with mercy, but also maintains through justice that equilibrium without which society cannot function. The minister has certainly gained the great respect not only of the house but I am sure of the great bulk of our population in that he has recognized the exigencies of a modern society tempered with mercy but based on justice. He has found a middle path between the two.
This morning when the Minister of Justice made his opening statement on this bill he referred to the history of our western civilization in the matter of dealing with capital punishment. He referred to the days of King Henry VIII when, I believe, some 70,000 persons were executed. He referred to the days of Robert Peel when over 200 offences were
Criminal Code
capital offences. Today, we are again limiting the number of offences punishable by death. We are, therefore, following along the line of progress but we are not disrupting the essential functions of our democractic society. I support this bill, therefore, and once again I congratulate the minister and all those who have worked to bring about the introduction of this measure. I feel sure it will receive the support of a vast number of our population.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question of the hon. gentleman? Did I understand him to say that his interpretation of the bill is that those who cannot afford it will have the best possible assistance in their defence? Does that mean that a chap like Mr. Branca, Q.C., or Arthur Maloney, great criminal lawyers, will be made available for the defence?


Paul Raymond Martineau: No, I did not say any such thing. I stated that the transcript of the evidence and the other records that are necessary in order that the accused may establish his appeal and his defence will be delivered free of charge to the accused. I did not go further than that. If I gave that impression, I should like to correct it.
Mr. H. W. Her ridge (Kootenay West): Mr. Speaker, I rise to briefly express my views on this very important question and this very important bill. There is no necessity for me to take the time of the house by repeating the excellent arguments put forward in support of the principle of the abolition of capital punishment because they have been well stated by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and other members in this house. I presume all members of the house know that it is part of the policy of the C.C.F. to work for the abolition of capital punishment.
I listened with great interest to the minister's very well prepared statement of the history of legislation in connection with capital punishment and the efforts of various persons, organizations and members of legislatures to modify the legislation which imposes capital punishment. Throughout the years I have noticed with interest a growing public awareness of the importance of this question. I think that, as is the case with all reform measures and proposed amendments to legislation, we have to give credit to the pioneers who took a stand on this question when it was not by any means as popular to do so as it is today, particularly 40 or 50 years ago.
My attention was first drawn to the subject by the father of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who was then the member for Vancouver East in the provincial legislature. I had been brought up in a very traditional sort of way to accept the conventional attitude toward life and crime by my Liberal father

Criminal Code
and my Conservative mother. I heard the father of the hon. member for Vancouver East speak on this subject in 1932. At that time I did not agree with him entirely, but his speech did cause me to give the subject some consideration. Since then, I have read a considerable amount on this subject. I have listened with interest to the debates in the provincial legislature and in this house and I have discussed the matter with a number of people.
I was particularly impressed with the standard of debate on the bill advanced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), on both sides of the question. I was particularly taken with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney). In addition to the debate in this house, there has been quite a stirring of opinion in the country. I think the last debate we had on this question did create a great deal of interest in the country. There are certain organizations that have worked for years for an amendment to the law, particularly the Society of Friends, organizations of that type, and many in all churches. There have been editorials in the newspapers and articles in magazines and the wardens of penitentiaries and other officers have given their opinions to various parliamentary committees. The welfare council of Canada and other welfare organizations on a provincial scale have also given this question serious consideration and expressed their opinions by resolutions and by correspondence.
I noticed after the debate in the house on the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, there was a big surge of interest in this subject in the press, in letters to the newspapers and I think generally speaking in the correspondence members received from organizations and individuals. I think that is a very healthy state of affairs and does indicate the value of focusing attention upon moral questions by debates in this house.
I think we must express our thanks to the member for Vancouver East and to the member for York-Scarborough for initiating these debates in recent years, and to all those who took part in these debates on both sides of this important issue. It is clear, even from the literature I have read over a period of years, that the attitude of organizations and writers is different today from what it was 30 or 40 years ago. We are in a changing society. This measure indicates there is a change in the public conscience on these questions and concern as to whether we have been doing the right thing by those who are unfortunate enough to commit crimes of this nature. I think to some extent the whole

of society is responsible. No man is an island. We are all partly responsible for the crimes of an individual.
In my opinion, and I have thought a lot about this subject, I do not believe you can prove the arguments on one side or the other through the use of statistics. I have read the statistics very carefully and when you finish dealing with the statistics, you are pretty well on balance; you are where you started. In my opinion, this is a moral question. This is a matter of opinion on the moral question: Has the state the right to take a person's life? The members of this group believe that the state, in a Christian civilization, does not have the right to take a person's life. There are those who just as conscientiously take the opposite view.
This bill has been introduced because of the government's awareness of the growing public conscience with respect to this type of legislation. Those who support the abolition of capital punishment have a great deal of credit coming to them for creating public opinion and a public climate that has caused the government to take this progressive step. Like the hon. member for Vancouver East, I believe this a forward and progressive step. This amending legislation, makes our Criminal Code somewhat more humane. To that extent we welcome it and support it.
When reading the bill and looking through my files, Mr. Speaker, I found a copy of The Bulletin issued by the Anglican Church of Canada. I might mention the fact that I am an Anglican supposed to have Unitarian tendencies and be attracted to some aspects of pantheism. In any event, I am very much interested in what my church has to say on these questions.


Mr. Small:: High or low?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I had better explain, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be misunderstood. I felt obliged to say that I was an Anglican. When I was a boy the Anglican church was supposed to be the Tory party at prayer. However, I want to remind hon. members that in quite recent years we have had an archbishop of Canterbury who believed in socialist principles, so we are well in the vanguard of reform nowadays.
I wanted to refer to this excellent bulletin on capital punishment. It deals with all aspects of it. The question has been given very careful consideration by a committee under the chairmanship of Rev. W. W. Judd of the council for social service of the Anglican church. I was taken with two paragraphs which I intend to read and which I think are particularly appropriate in view of the minister's decision to introduce this legislation. I read paragraph 1:

When one man deliberately murders another, the problem arises with the government and parliament as to what is to be done about it, and with him, in the interests of public safety, peace, order and good government. It is not a problem that can easily be solved simply by facts, reason, and argument.
We all realize that from the debates and discussions in this house. The paragraph continues:
Experience shows that it ultimately boils down to a question of opinion; opinion based on good understanding of all the facts and considerations, with good judgment, but involving also feeling, sentiment, and conscience.
Each person must make his decision with regard to his attitude towards this question on the basis of his own conscience.
On a later page in this copy of The Bulletin I read a reference to the Canadian Welfare Council which I thought was particularly appropriate after reading the terms of this bill:
The Canadian Welfare Council in a brief to the joint committee on the revision of the Criminal Code, makes the following policy statement, "The Canadian Welfare Council expresses approval of the abolition of the death penalty in principle, and recommends as a first step, the abolition of the mandatory death sentence." Their statement concludes with these words, "We believe that the adoption of this recommendation would lead to a gradual reduction in the use of capital punishment and provide an opportunity to note the effects on the rate of murder. We are fully confident that before too many years have passed the desired goal-complete abolition of the death penalty-would prove feasible."
I trust that the hopes of the Canadian Welfare Council as expressed in this resolution will be realized within a few years after this bill becomes law. That is why I am quite prepared to say it is a progressive step in the right direction. We support it on that basis.
One thing I regretted as did the hon. member for Vancouver East is this. I may say that although I am on the left wing of the party and he is on the right wing, we agree on a great number of questions. However, he mentioned the fact that he regretted that in the bill there was no mention of a change in the method of execution or of taking a person's life. We in this group are of the opinion that our present method is barbarous in the extreme. We regret that the bill does not include some revision or amendment of the present practice in that respect.
There is one other matter I want to mention before taking my seat, and I know I am speaking in the presence of persons learned in the law. When I look over at the other side and see the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) looking at me I am deeply conscious of my lay status, shall I say, when it comes to this type of legislation. But on occasion
Criminal Code
I have been impressed and concerned with the complete lack of knowledge of the law and of understanding of the purpose and function of juries by persons called to serve on juries. It is not their fault. I have seen called to serve on a jury men who, because of their limited experience-they maybe live in isolated places-or because of their lack of opportunity had not the foggiest idea of what the jury stood for or what its real purpose and function was in a democratic society in giving effect to the principles of justice found in our legal codes. In talking to some of these men I could see that they were persons who, without this knowledge would be easily influenced by persuasive counsel. Mind you, that is a very serious matter when a jury is considering such crimes as murder and other serious offences under the Criminal Code.
I have felt for a long time-and I mentioned this matter once before in the house some years ago-that something should be done to correct this situation. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice for Canada could give some lead in that direction to the provinces. I presume that the primary responsibility would be that of the attorneys general of the provinces. I think there should be published some form of simple manual that deals with the history of the jury system, its purpose in our society, its function and its procedures and which possibly contains some elementary instruction on the rules of evidence and how to deal with these complicated questions and provides information on the status of the jury, its importance and its prestige in our society. I have talked to men who have served as jurors on a few occasions-and I am not saying that this frequently happens-who were quite unconscious of the serious and important function they were going to perform as members of a jury considering a very serious charge. I think something should be done in that connection.
When the minister concludes this debate I wish he would give to the house his opinion on whether something can be done under his direction or at his suggestion-I do not want to suggest "under his direction" to the provinces-to the attorneys general of the provinces or possibly the matter could be discussed by the Minister of Justice with tlu attorneys general of the provinces when they meet. I think they have a meeting annually in connection with uniform legislation or something of that sort. Possibly the bar association could give some consideration to the matter. I know that I am floundering here, Mr. Speaker, because I am a bit out of my depth. However, I have often felt that something could be done to improve the present

Criminal Code
situation by providing a somewhat easily read simple manual along the lines I have suggested.
That is all I have to say at the present time. I intend to make a few comments when we are discussing the various clauses of the biU.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I think when the House of Commons passes the bill before us this evening the system of justice in Canada will have taken a long stride forward. In fact I believe, bearing in mind that the administration of justice is perhaps the strongest indication of the state of civilization of a nation, civilization in Canada is taking with this bill a very long step forward.
It may be that, being one of those who has put the sanctity of human life so high that I am in favour of the complete abolition of the death penalty, I am perhaps looking with too much enthusiasm on this amendment to our present rather stringent law.
However, I do feel I am completely correct when I invite all my hon. friends to look at the process of civilization and to study history down through the ages. I am sure they will find that the more civilized the nation, the fewer are the crimes for which their citizens may be put to death.
It is true that in this bill we do not say that some crimes are now out of the death penalty category, but the division we have made amounts to the same thing. I suggest that the question of whether or not the death penalty should apply in Canada involves not just a purely legalistic study of the problems involved; it is not a matter of logic, of cause and effect which can be determined with mathematical certainty. What we must do is satisfy the conscience, the feeling as well as the common sense of hon. members of this house and Canadian citizens generally.
I do suggest that a logical approach, a study of cause and effect is perhaps going to be guided most by statistics; by a good look at what has been done in other countries and what is the effect of the removal of the death penalty in those systems where it has prevailed for some considerable time and where the degree of civilization is in other respects analogous to our own.
I will not attempt this evening to give the house any breakdown or go in detail into these facts and figures. We have had in this house a very thorough discussion along these lines. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney), for instance, has given us a very inspiring address on this matter as well as the considerable benefit of his own vast experience as one of Canada's leading lawyers. Along these lines we have had the very hard
[Mr. Herridge.l
work and dedicated service of sponsors of various bills, including the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). We have been besieged, I might say, with statistics which perhaps in some instances are as much confusing as enlightening.
One thing that has impressed me above all in the arguments that have previously been heard, which we have heard repeated in the house today and which causes me considerable anxiety-I almost said "anger"- is the argument put forward by those who are in favour of the death penalty and who continue to misquote abolitionists by saying, "It is argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent".
Mr. Speaker, I have not heard such an argument in this house. I do not believe part of the argument used by any of us who believe in the abolition of the death penalty is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. We merely state that life imprisonment is also a very strong deterrent. We are not convinced that statistics show that the death penalty is any greater deterrent or that its removal and substitution by life imprisonment has caused any significant change, in so far as we can see, in the number of capital crimes.
I should therefore preface the first part of my few remarks on this subject by saying I am grateful that we have taken such a step forward in justice and in civilization as to reduce the number of crimes that we may punish with the death penalty.
I look forward to our next step, when we may give full scope to our Christian and humane feelings and realize that there should be no death penalty; that in a civilized society putting to death any member of society it is merely, to that extent, recognizing its own failure to provide sufficient guidance to that person, or failing that person to some extent.
As we find ourselves more and more civilized we must admit that we hold a greater duty to our fellow man and I hope our failure, however slight it may be, will not be reflected in taking away his life so long as we can point to one iota of guilt on our own part for his offence.
I think the bill before us today reflects two or three principles that we who have had some practice, at least, in criminal law must recognize. First, a look at those offences which have been made non-capital shows that here are those offences which have given most trouble to judges and juries. Here are listed the categories of cases where trial judges I am sure would inform us they have found, in so far as they are concerned, that the crown had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it was legally necessary for a jury

to bring in a verdict of guilty but the jury for some reason returned a verdict of not guilty.
I suggest that on looking over this list of cases it will be found that the jury has always failed to find that degree of moral guilt which would give them the necessary backbone, shall we say, to bring in a verdict of guilty when they knew it would result in the death penalty and when they felt the accused should not be put to death.
I think, further, that consideration of the breakdown of the bill before us now proposed by the government will show that by and large those non-capital cases cover most of those cases where the cabinet has commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. I am not saying they will all be found there, but I do believe that taking the two considerations into effect; the unwillingness of juries and the results of consideration by cabinets over the years; practically all cases of non-conviction where there should have been conviction and commutations which have been handed down, would fall within these categories.
I suggest that perhaps we may have been one step further forward if we had given juries the right to consider each particular case a little further. Rather than leaving it to the crown to determine whether a particular case is or is not a non-capital case, perhaps we should have given the jury the right to decide this matter. If we had left upon the jury, the avenue of discretion in each case, or perhaps only in respect of those reserved capital cases, of considering the evidence brought before it, allowing it to present its own opinion regarding the capital or non-capital aspects of the case, I suggest we would have been further ahead with the jury system today.
These juries are, after all, selected from men and women of each constituency. They understand the circumstances existing in communities across the length and breadth of this country. It may be true to say that justice is rough and ready in one area while refined in another, but surely the individuals resident in those varying areas have a better appreciation of the circumstances involved, in respect of justice as it is found in those areas. I suggest that no more competent individuals will be found than the ordinary citizens of this country; the individuals who form our juries, who in turn decide whether an offence is of a capital nature against society, as society knows it.
In brief, I suggest that society, as we know it should regard a capital offence against itself not as a matter applying to the whole of Canada but, to a great extent, a matter of local application, which is familiar to those
Criminal Code
individuals who have lived, worked, played, and perhaps sinned in that locality. I cannot foresee a detraction in any way from our system of justice as the result of our stating that a different result may follow a different set of facts in different areas of this country. I suggest that we have not, as yet, invited juries to give proper and sufficient consideration to the facts presented to them.
Perhaps I may be permitted to discuss the question of capital punishment itself for a moment or two. We have relegated a certain number of crimes to that area which involves the punishment of death. I have mentioned that it is my belief and experience that many juries unwillingly acquit accused individuals of murder because of the knowledge that the death penalty will be imposed. If life imprisonment ' is substituted for the death penalty in cases of murder. I suggest that we will probably find many individuals inclined to acquit because the imposition of that penalty is against their belief, and may even be more repugnant to them. I know that statistics compiled by officials of various states of the United States, which have abolished capital punishment and adopted in its stead imprisonment for life as the penalty, show an increase in the incidence of capital offences. In view of this fact I am unable to understand the emphasis placed, by this present bill, on the deterrent effect of capital punishment. We have, in support of the deterrent to hardened criminals, only statistics showing an increase in the incidence of murder in those states which have retained capital punishment, while at the same time, in those areas which have actively attempted to abolish the death penalty, there has been little or no perceptible change. I am convinced that statistics will show that hardened criminals, who have been incarcerated, realize that this is the most effective form of punishment. I suggest, therefore, it is not the fear of death that has persuaded these individuals to refrain from committing murder, but perhaps the fear of life imprisonment itself.
It has been suggested that the abolishment of capital punishment in cases of murder, and the substitution therefor of life imprisonment, will increase the number of murders. Several of my laymen friends this afternoon, who are not lawyers, have suggested this possibility. I can perhaps understand their point of view, that juries should be instructed to a greater degree in respect of the application of the law regarding the imposition of capital punishment. However, I am unable to conceive of any case in Canada where the judge involved failed to make the jury fully aware

Criminal Code
of the fact that it was the jury who were judge of the facts but must accept the court's instruction as to the law.
I do not understand the reasoning behind the suggestions of some hon. members regarding extra instruction, of this type, on the part of judges to juries in the proper handling of their duties. On the contrary, I suggest that what is needed is a common sense approach, so that the facts may be brought before the jury made up of ordinary citizens of this country who hold the lives of men in their hands.
Most of us in this house are aware that these individuals often hold our political lives in their hands yet find, when we are victorious, that we can trust their judgment. If we find we cannot trust their judgment regarding right and wrong, surely we should abolish the jury system completely. If we find we are unable to trust these individual citizens of Canada to that extent, surely we cannot trust democracy itself. My suggestion regarding instructions to juries in respect of that category of crime involving capital and noncapital offences involves the principle that if a jury is capable of electing a man who will partake in the making of laws, surely it is capable of understanding how to administer them. When we are only capable of putting our thoughts into words which we hope will embrace the broad general situation, and on which they must vote to elect their members surely those voters acting as jurymen are capable of deciding whether or not a particular set of circumstances falls within the principles embodied in the law.
I should like to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by reassuring the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) that I am entirely in favour of the amendments embodied in this bill, although I must say, as a lawyer, that as a result of the passage of this legislation I anticipate more convictions than have taken place to date, perhaps as a result of the fact that juries may no longer be reluctant to convict because of the knowledge that the death penalty is inevitable. I do believe, however, that justice will be better served under this law than heretofore. I believe there will be fewer lawyers who will see their clients hanged while entertaining lingering and serious doubts as to their guilt.
Perhaps hon. members will forgive me if I make reference to a particular case, and I hope the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) will overlook my mentioning his name in saying that he, as a prominent lawyer, will have reason to support me in this suggestion. Recently there was the Coffin case and in the province of Alberta the Cook case; I feel I am safe in saying that defence counsel was in doubt as to the guilt of the

accused in these cases, although they were both hanged. It is not necessary for a lawyer to believe in the innocence of the accused or even to have serious doubts about his guilt. However, individuals have been hanged while outstanding barristers have had reservations as to their guilt, and this fact alone should weigh heavily on the conscience of us all. It is, of course, only right to say that we all have great confidence in our system of justice, but it is very callous to say that we are perfectly willing to place our trust, in respect of the guilt of individuals, in our own infallibility.
This is what has happened. Hon. members know eminent counsel who have serious doubts about the guilt of people who have been hanged. I hope hon. members will understand that I am happy to know that we will have fewer hangings, and hon. members will also understand why I look forward to the day when we shall have none.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to place before the house my few remarks concerning what I consider a most important social problem. I refer to the abolition in some form of capital punishment in this country. It is my intention to be brief. I should like to pay tribute to those hon. members who in the course of this debate, as well as in similar debates in the past, have expressed important opinions on this matter. On this issue of capital punishment, and possibly on other major issues which have been discussed by the citizens of this country I must say that in spite of all that has been said in this house I have not materially changed my opinion on the matter. The history of the study of capital punishment in the world and of its abolition in certain countries is a long one and I must say a confusing one. Especially is this so if one were to use the study to make up one's mind as to what should be done in this respect in our country.
I do not find that in the month of May, 1961, the problem of capital punishment is an urgent national problem. I say to the Minister of Justice that we may find the consequences of this legislation important but I do not find that a bill of this kind is occupying the minds of the Canadian people to any great extent. If the business of the house permits it and if time is set aside to discuss this legislation, then I am prepared and most anxious to express my views on the matter.
Since this matter was brought up indirectly by the endeavours of and the promotion given to the problem by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) in presenting his private bill, and also by similar bills which have appeared on the order paper, we have

received many memoirs. The efforts of the hon. member and others have undoubtedly prompted Canadian citizens, organizations and especially churches-I appreciate their contribution very much-to forward their views and memoirs and to express opinions on the matter.
I am not speaking for members on the government side of the house; I speak with a free mind and what I say is my own opinion. However, I accept the responsibility of representing the many thousands of people of my riding of Nickel Belt, and I feel that hon. members in making their decisions must take into consideration the opinions, the wishes and the standard of life of Canadian citizens as a whole, and especially that standard which they would like to see implemented in Canada. In coming to the opinions which I am about to express I felt it was necessary to pay as much attention as possible to public opinion on this matter. I will not give statistics to which many hon. members have made reference; they are not always helpful. I will save much of the time of the house by not referring to the many documents which we have and which relate to this matter. However, I should like to emphasize that in speaking about statistics one thing must be kept in mind. Most of them pertain to the deterrent aspects of capital punishment.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, as I view those tables and cumulative figures, they mean very little to me because the statistics which we would like to have on this problem of deterrents are not available. In other words, I refer to the punishment which deters the commission of a crime. This deterrent is based primarily on the fact that the crime will not be committed. Therefore, throughout history there has been no way of knowing of the possible cases of murder which may have been prevented owing to the punishment which was attached to the commission of the crime. We find differences in statistics over the decades. We can make a study and in some way we can find a relation to world problems, and to wars which have occurred from time to time, connected with the commission of the crime of murder. But in no instance can one prove through statistics that the punishment has or has not minimized the commission of the offence.
I am of the opinion, as I have looked into this matter, that surely there must be a way of doing away with certain anomalies in the Canadian Criminal Code today. I would like to ascertain whether our courts are equipped to deal with this problem. As it is today, practically every case is brought to a final conclusion by the cabinet of this country.
I believe the Canadian people feel that there are types of crimes for which such a
Criminal Code
severe punishment as hanging is not absolutely warranted. Therefore, I would be prepared to approve of and support the general principles of this bill. However, Mr. Speaker, I have certain reservations as to how these principles can be implemented. I shall avail myself of the opportunity of discussing detailed problems concerning the bill when we are in committee of the whole.
On the whole this bill enunciates two principles. First, it distinguishes between the more culpable types of homicide which would require capital punishment and other types which would not. In this sense it does away with the problem with which our courts were faced in the past, namely in all cases to make a straightforward decision. As one discussed this matter with juries and judges in the past, one came to the conclusion that this position did not satisfy men placed in authority who were required to pass judgment in cases involving a sentence of capital punishment. Therefore I feel that the bill brings about this distinction as a major principle and gives to the crown and the courts the opportunity-I do not like to use the word "elasticity" in this instance- to use judgment in distinguishing the gravity of the offence of murder committed.
I realize that we are being asked to bring about a change in the way we will from now on punish those guilty of this most grave offence. There are only 265 members of the House of Commons and on behalf of the 18 million people of Canada we will make that decision. It is thus that parliament operates and undoubtedly, as with other difficult problems, the house must make this decision for itself and for the people.
In discussing this matter I should like to indicate how much I appreciate the documents that have been forwarded to me by many people. As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) did a moment ago, I should like to express my appreciation of the most complete memorandum forwarded to members of parliament by the Anglican Church of Canada. It is a most detailed report and it indicates how the council of that church divided on the question. If I recall the figures correctly, 58 voted in favour of the abolition of capital punishment and 40 were opposed. Undoubtedly the result of the vote was forwarded to us to give members of parliament the most detailed information as to the decision of that group. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I had also the opportunity to read some French literature on that subject, and I should like to read to the house a bulletin from the Roman Catholic church of Canada, released at the time this subject was being discussed here.

Criminal Code
I saw in Le Droit for Thursday, February 18, 1960, the following official statement from the Canadian Catholic Conference. That statement was published on the front page of the newspaper, and I should like to read an important paragraph which sums up the views of that group:
In a bulletin published Wednesday, the Canadian Catholic Conference stated that the traditional teaching of the church is that the state has the right to impose the death penalty.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the article does not go into details, nor does it give an opinion on the matter which awaits now and awaited then a decision from the government. Nevertheless, the article explained the general attitude of that institution toward the problem which is being discussed.
(Text):
Before I finish I must state that for a long time I have felt that too many sentences have been commuted as a result of appeals to the cabinet. I should like to refer to a graph appearing in a Canadian Press article in Le Droit of Monday, March 28, 1960. From reading the article I presume it was published because of the debate that had taken place in the House of Commons having to do with the punishment of murder in Canada. The graph outlines the number of murders and commutations of sentences in Canada in the period from 1930 up to and including 1959. Possibly because of the situation immediately after the war in Canada the number of murders, as a layman like myself can plainly see, increased greatly beginning around 1945 while at the same time commutations of sentences also increased. As we reach the year 1959 we see from the graph that the two lines representing murders and commutations are widely spread apart whereas in 1930 they were very close to one another.
In supporting the bill I must say, having in mind all the opinions expressed, that it is my honest belief that justice must be applied equitably having regard to all the circumstances. I am not too sure that the bill provides the complete remedy for that problem. That matter will undoubtedly be discussed in committee. However, I do think that the bill does make an effort to accomplish this end.
I recall that when I was at school I learned a principle that I appreciated very much. It was a Latin phrase I learned from my teacher, "In medio stat virtus", which means that the middle course is possibly the one nearest to what is right. Having regard to our Canadian way of life today, we believe
fMr. Godir.l
that a remedy should be sought, but I am not one of those who would like to see capital punishment disappear altogether. Inasmuch as this matter was brought before parliament by a private member, I find it odd that the government, in this year in which it was going to solve so many economic problems, has brought before the house a bill which undoubtedly reflects the opinion of members who have spoken.
I cannot bring myself to believe in the complete abolishment of capital punishment. The letters I have received from many citizens indicate to me that the people of Canada are still prepared to distinguish between the man who follows the law and the man who disobeys the law. There must be that distinction, particularly when it is a case of taking someone's life by murder. The Canadian way of life is not that of a soft society in which people are tempted to say that although a man has not conducted himself properly other forces are to blame and therefore no distinction should be made between him and the person who follows the rules and regulations of society in every way. Therefore I am absolutely opposed at this time to the complete abolishment of capital punishment. I cannot perceive what may be the Canadian way of life in the future and the outlook on capital punishment. It may be that 50 years from now our society will have become very soft and may not think such punishment to be practical. As I know our Canadian way of life today, I feel sure our society is a strong one and not a soft one. It is not one which is prepared to do away with severity in distinguishing between those citizens who follow the rules and those who disobey them.
I am pleased to support the proposed bill which brings about certain required changes in those sections of our Criminal Code which deal with murder and capital punishment. As I have said, I am prepared to support the bill, and I trust that hon. members will give us more information on this subject as they speak tonight. I must say, too that although at the outset of my remarks I said I had listened to debates on this subject for the last few years and had not changed my position materially, I must state that this is not the result of any lack of desire to see the other person's point of view. I shall be pleased to continue to listen to the arguments advanced by other hon. members and I shall keep an open mind on the subject. If it is possible to change my opinion, I will certainly change it.


Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I will only say a few words because I know there are other hon. members who

are anxious to speak on this important piece of legislation. As I participate in the debate tonight, I cannot help but call to mind the arguments advanced in this house on February 18 and February 25, 1960, when we debated the bill so eloquently and so skilfully presented at that time by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). I recall very well the excellence of his argument and the excellence of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who spoke in support of it. I recall, too, the excellence of the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) who spoke against it. I remember the ardour and the emotions that those speeches and the other speeches evoked in the persons who participated in the debate.
I feel that the debate that is taking place today is the culmination of a long effort by the pioneers in this field, of many distinguished members of this house, including Mr. Thatcher, the member for Vancouver East and the member for York-Scarborough. I feel that in this piece of legislation the government has very sensibly and very carefully incorporated what was obviously the thinking of the public as expressed in the debate at that time by the various members of parliament who participated in it.
This is really, in my opinion, a very historic day in Canada. I recall that on the occasion of the debate in February, 1960, the attendance in the house was good and I particularly recall how crowded were the galleries as the citizens of Canada listened so intently to the speeches that were given then. Today is really an historic day. I regret that more members of the public are not here to share in its importance. I think we have reached a real milestone. The administration of justice in Canada has been advanced today by the presentation of this bill in a way that is of far-reaching importance.
I want to extend my congratulations to the government, particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Browne), because after all those are the members of the government primarily responsible for the subject matter of this bill and for the way in which this matter has been brought before parliament. I will not forget in a long time the magnificent speech that was given this morning by the Minister of Justice. It will go down in the history of this country as one of the really important contributions to parliamentary debate in Canada. I am sure he must feel proud to know that in his capacity as Minister of
Criminal Code
Justice he has occupied the position of presenting a bill of such great importance in the history of our country, a bill which is imaginative and realistic.
This measure is not, as some members have said, an important step in the right direction or a first step in the right direction. I was looking last night for a means of describing how important an advance it is in the development of our criminal law. At that time I had the pleasure of meeting the well known and popular young columnist from the Ottawa Journal, Timothy Burke. I told him what was going through my mind. I told him I thought this was far more important than a first step, and I should like to find language that would be adequate to describe how important an advance in our criminal law it was. He told me the expression for which I was groping was that it was a seven league stride. This is indeed what it is. This is far more than just a first step in the advancement of criminal law in Canada.
There were some members who participated in the debate so far who expressed some doubt about the degree of support the measure would receive from various elements in the country. Speaking on behalf, I think I can say without any hesitation, of the entire bar of Canada in the practice of criminal law on the defence side, I think I can assure the government that the bill would receive their universal support. I think that the members of the bar who practise in that area of the criminal law express views that are entitled to the respect and consideration of this house.
There are those who will find it difficult to reconcile the fact that somebody like myself and the hon. member for York-Scarborough, who have expressed such strong views and have advocated so long the abolition of the death penalty, could now support this measure. I do not unsay a single word I have uttered in that respect over the years. Nor do I recall a single syllable that I spoke in this house on February 18,	1960. I
firmly believe that the death penalty is absolutely useless and that it has no more deterrent effect than a sentence to life imprisonment would have. On the other hand, I have always felt, and particularly so since the debate took place in February, 1960, that abolition lacked that basic public support which is required if laws of abolition are to be successful. There is no law that is more peculiarly required to have public support than a law abolishing the penalty of death. I believe in abolition, but I believe it must be effective abolition and it cannot be effective abolition without the support of the public, and of a great majority of the public.
I recall that last summer, I think it was late in June, there was an outbreak of capital

Criminal Code
crime in the city of Montreal. As I recall it, there were some 11 murders in approximately eight or nine days. I often thought to myself that if the bill presented by the hon. member for York-Scarborough had ever become law, every one of those crimes would have been attributed to the new law of abolition and we would now be confronted with a campaign to restore the death penalty. If the death penalty is to be effectively abolished, therefore, there must be public support. It is not sufficient to appeal to the government to bring about abolition. What the people who favour abolition, who sincerely believe in the wisdom of abolition, have to do is to create in the public an awareness of the futility of the penalty of death. Public support is an essential element of abolition.
What impresses me so much about the present legislation is the transfer to the jury of the obligation to decide whether or not an individual should be sentenced to death. As someone who has practised in the criminal courts for some 17 or 18 years now, I may say that my confidence in the jury system, my confidence in the integrity of the jurors, my confidence in their ability to somehow or other ultimately arrive at the right result in every case that comes before them increases day by day. I have faith that when they, as the representatives of society, are confronted with the issue of deciding whether or not the sentence of death should be passed, they will somehow or other arrive at the right decision. Of that I am sure. There are those who say-and I agree with them-that the new law will greatly reduce the number of occasions when individuals charged with murder will be convicted of capital murder; that is under the new law. Of that there can be no doubt, and that is exactly as it should be.
I was particularly pleased to see that, even in cases of murder where there has been a conviction, before sentence of death is passed the jury will be asked whether it is their desire to recommend clemency. That is a very forward step. That matter created a good deal of injustice I always found in the past. There were many juries who did not realize that they had any right to make such a recommendation or that there was any custom that would permit them to make any recommendation of mercy. However, I always felt that in these capital cases there were many juries in the past who would have recommended mercy had they been aware of the fact that it was within their province so to do.
This legislation will lend some standardization to that procedure in the future. In the past certain inferences were drawn from the failure of a jury to recommend mercy; and

often juries which refrained from doing so, as I have indicated, did so because they were unaware of their right so to do or of the fact that a practice had grown up permitting them so to do if they so wished.
One feature of that aspect of the new bill which causes me a little bit of concern, and which I perhaps could mention more appropriately at the committee stage, is whether or not a majority recommendation from the jury with respect to clemency would be accepted. It occurs to me that perhaps not only should a recommendation of mercy be permitted by the entire jury but that if any member of the jury or any part of the jury desires to make such a recommendation it should, under the authority of that section, be forwarded to the Minister of Justice.
I am also very glad to note that under the new bill there is no interference with the present power of commutation and that there is no curtailment of the right of the governor in council to review every capital case in which the sentence of death has been passed. That is a power that should never be given up. I have in mind at the moment particularly the cases of individuals who are at present under sentence of death in Canada. I do not know how many there are; I imagine there are some 10, 11, or 12. It strikes me- and I say this with the greatest possible respect-that the government should consider the advisability of commuting every one of those sentences. It seems to me that under the present state of the law, or at least under the state of the law as it will be when this bill is enacted-as I so much hope and expect it will be enacted-a jury will be asked whether or not it will recommend clemency. It seems to me that the government, in reviewing the sentences of those who are at present under sentence of death, would be required to ask itself this question: What would the jury have done in the case now before us had this provision of the law been effective before today? There being some doubts as to what the answer of the jury might have been had that question been presented to them in such cases, it seems to me that very careful consideration should be given to the advisability of commuting every one of those sentences of death which have been imposed and which have not yet been carried out as of today.
Also, in the case of killings that result in the course of the commission of a felony, I should like to see either some consideration given to an amendment to the present bill or careful and discreet use of the power of commutation in order to make sure that the capital penalty is not exacted in any case in which death resulted, even in the course of the commission of a felony, in circumstances

Criminal Code
that were accidental. That situation is not uncommon. The Rowe case in London, Ontario, a few years ago is an illustration of a death which resulted in the course of the commission of a felony but which was committed in circumstances that were unintentional and accidental. I should like some thought also to be given to the applicability of the sentence of death to accidental killing perpetrated, even though it may have been in the course of the commission of one of the felonies enumerated in what is now section 202 of the Criminal Code.
I was very much impressed to see the appeal procedures that are provided under the new bill. There is an automatic right of appeal to the court of appeal of the province. This does not represent much change from the present practice. However, the present bill greatly enlarges the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada. It gives that court jurisdiction to review something that it never has the right to review up until now. I refer to issues of fact in a case of this sort. Up until now the Supreme Court of Canada had jurisdiction only where a question of law was involved in respect of which that court had given leave or in respect of which there had been a dissent in the provincial appeal court whose decision was under review. This additional safeguard I think is further evidence of the desire of the government to see to it that, before any human life is exacted, no safeguard be overlooked.
The present law is a great improvement on the present English law which makes distinctions that have been absolutely unworkable. For example, it is capital offence in England to kill your victim by shooting, but it is not a capital offence if you were to kill him by some slow process of torture that would not amount to shooting. The law in England has proved to be unworkable. The law presented by the government today has avoided any of the unworkable features of the law at present applicable there.
I was hopeful that this debate would proceed in a way that would be non-political. It has been characteristic of this house and of every legislature of the commonwealth, to the best of my knowledge, that debate on the subject of the penalty of death and other related subjects should avoid the characteristic of political controversy. By and large, I think that we have suceeded so far today in the house in following the same pattern. One or two of us have overstepped the line a bit, in my opinion, but I should like to think that hon. members who speak from now on will, regardless of their political affiliations,
approach this bill with that non-political outlook that I think it requires if it is to be effectively discussed and voted upon in this house.
I conclude then by saying that I admire the government for the courage it has shown in what it has done and for the excellence of the legislation it has presented and that I look forward to the day when the public of Canada, schooled in the needlessness of the penalty of death, will agree some day there should be presented a bill that will bring about its complete abolition.
(Translation):


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, I should like to offer my most hearty congratulations to the previous speaker. Indeed, I am sure that the house had long been waiting to hear that learned speech which revealed the ability and skill my colleague has naturally acquired during his professional practice before the courts where he devotes his energy and talents to the defence of criminals. I wish to tell him how I appreciate his contribution to this debate.
During the debate on capital punishment last year, I had occasion to state my feelings on the necessity of a bill to abolish capital punishment and I mentioned various psychological, legal and sociological considerations in support of my argument.
I stated at the time, that in trying to set aside all possible motives for the retention of capital punishment, one should not ignore the miscarriages of justice which are always possible under our judicial system. If society has the right to punish criminals, it also has the duty of rehabilitating them and of playing to the fullest extent this long established humanitarian role.
I am glad that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is bringing in today various amendments to section 202A of the Criminal Code to give a more adequate definition of the various degrees of guilt on the part of those who are accused of murder. In my opinion, such a definition comes at a most opportune time, when the people of Canada have been following with great interest the debates held here last year on this crucial matter. I feel that the public has given so much thought to this matter over the last few years, that, today, people from all corners of Canada look to our legislators for definite leadership with respect to that most important problem.
How many people who have been brought before the courts, could have benefited by the

Criminal Code
interpretation of section 202A as it is amended today if the judge had been free to explain to the jurors the various degrees of homicide?
In my opinion, the definition of capital and non-capital murder is well timed. How often in the past have we experienced difficulty when we tried to obtain from a judge an adequate definition in order that the criminal intent of the individual indicted of non-capital murder be determined. The definition which the minister was kind enough to explain to us this morning is consistent, I think, with the continued evolution of our court jurisprudence on such a vital matter.
Some judges have in the past attempted to show jurymen that there was an important difference between the responsibility of a person committing murder under emotional impulse or extreme anger, and that of the person who has coldly deliberately arranged all the actions leading to murder. By giving this definition of capital and non-capital murder, the Minister of Justice indicated clearly an evolution of our jurisprudence which could greatly contribute to prevent misinterpretation of the actions of the man who has to answer before his peers for a charge of murder. The step taken by the government today deserves commendation because, as I say, it shows courage.
It is good that, at times, our system of justice be revised so as to clearly define the intentions of those responsible for giving our courts principles defining the whole subject of human existence and individual freedom. It was suggested this morning that the new definition of murder would place a tremendous responsibility upon the jury. Is it necessary to remind hon. members that, in the context of our present judicial system, the jury is master of the facts and must return its verdict according to the evidence before the court. The jury has always had the advantage of receiving charges from the judge not only in matters of complex legal details, but of interpretation of facts, as indicated in our jurisprudence.
Briefly, let us say that from the evidence he can bring out certain important points in the evidence and ask the jury to consider them attentively before reaching a verdict. This specific definition of capital and noncapital murder will dispense the trial judge of having to elaborate a definition so as to differentiate between manslaughter and murder.
The bill which was submitted today will ease the task of our judges and definitely confirm our jurisprudence on this very important matter.
The member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont suggested this morning that all jury decisions on homicide ought to be reviewed by three judges. I refer him to section 8 which says:
In every case where the death penalty has been Imposed, on any ground of law or fact or mixed law and fact, an appeal against this sentence is granted the accused.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is a satisfactory answer to the suggestion made by my hon. friend that the sentence of the jury should be revised by three judges, if, as provided by the amendments now introduced, automatic appeal is available to the accused, in such a way that the sentence be revised by judges of the appeal court on the grounds of fact as well as law.
It was mentioned this morning that women should be exempted from capital punishment. I would agree in the case of non-capital murder, but not in the case of capital murder, because such an exemption would allow certain accomplices to use women to commit the crimes they are contemplating, since women would be exempted from hanging even for capital murder. I would also have liked to see the bill now before us authorize the crown to subject every individual accused of qualified murder to a medical examination, because psychoanalysis tends more and more to prove that criminals are mostly unbalanced people who, when they commit a crime, are unable to give their full consent to their act. We know that there must be, in our country, an element of proof when we decide to have an indicted person acquitted on the ground of mental illness. It must obviously be proved that at the moment of the crime, the accused was not sufficiently in possession of his mental faculties to determine the gravity of his action and be responsible for it. Now we know, Mr. Speaker, that psychiatrists will try to determine, by means of deduction and thanks to an examination of the accused after the crime, that the said individual was mentally not fully responsible when committing the crime, so as to be able to determine that his action might constitute a criminal offence, i.e. the mens rea and the actus reus. I therefore believe that the crown should be first of all asked to subject all persons accused of murder to a serious medical examination.
Like the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, I am opposed to the system of

hanging which still prevails in this country. To my mind, it is obsolete and repulsive. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to change that primitive method for the electric chair or the gas chamber, and I hope that the minister will be able to tell us in committee whether the government would consider changing a method of execution which is objectionable to whoever has even the slightest notion of humanity.
I am therefore happy, Mr. Speaker, to support the bill before us. This is a necessary evolution of our legal system and I trust that the years will prove the government right, because I think that the consequences of this legislation will help those who are responsible for the administration of law give the indicted criminal every possible guarantee of a fair trial, and protect him as much as possible against all prejudicial contingencies.
(Text):


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, before offering my congratulations to the minister on the measure he has placed before the house I should like to thank him and other hon. members for their very generous references to the measure I placed before this house last year.
When introducing his bill today the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), as other hon. members have noted, gave a fascinating and comprehensive review of the background and the movement over the years toward the abolition of capital punishment in this country, the United Kingdom and the United States. The minister was being unduly modest when he stated that he had sought to avoid the kind of result occurring from many of the decisions that have been made. There are references to that position in the homicide act of 1957 in England. This measure, which the minister has brought forward, is far more intelligent and far more difficult to assail from a political point of view. He has avoided many of the pitfalls in this bill.
When I placed before this house my bill on the abolishment of capital punishment I advanced five arguments in support of it. Of course, the first was the proposition that capital punishment is not and cannot be demonstrated to be a unique deterrent. Accompanying that proposition was evidence which shows that many countries and jurisdictions have found an acceptable alternative, the deterrent of life imprisonment. This bill, as
Criminal Code
proposed, does not refer to that proposition except in respect of the realm of public opinion, in respect of which I will speak in a little more detail later.
The question of morality in regard to capital punishment has been discussed, particularly that aspect of capital punishment which involves the degeneration and demoralization of all those individuals who are directly or indirectly connected with it. There is, of course, the record of the curious reverse effect of justice, in that juries have increasingly been reluctant to bring in verdicts which might result in the hanging of an individual. I feel this situation will be substantially corrected by measures contained in this bill, and in this respect, I congratulate the minister.
The most obvious objection to capital punishment is the irrevocable result. I will not reiterate, at this time, my statements in respect of this factor, but will only point out the additional safeguards contained in this bill, which will reduce the possibility of an unfortunate yet conceivable error in hanging an innocent man.
This proposed bill includes reference to the age limit at which an accused and convicted murderer can be hanged. It is one aspect which I feel is very acceptable, and which has been anticipated by many hon. members. This will remove the possibility of a situation existing where a judge would be required to sentence a 14 or 15 year old child to be hanged, when everyone, with the exception perhaps of the child, would be aware that the sentence would not be carried out.
There has also been considerable discussion regarding methods of execution; whether an individual should be hanged, electrocuted or put to death in the gas chamber, and whether the recommendations of the joint committee should have been incorporated in this bill. In this regard I mentioned in a speech made earlier this session that the method of execution is somewhat aside from the issue involved. I would suggest those individuals who favour the retention of the death penalty as a deterrent are somewhat inconsistent. They feel the death penalty should have menacing overtones. If that adds to the deterrent, then surely they must be in favour of hanging convicted individuals.
An aspect of this subject which I hoped would be dealt with in this bill has regard to the question of insanity. In that area, I suggest, there is much left to be desired. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) put forward a suggestion in which I think there is merit. I would follow his suggestion that perhaps a partial solution to the problem would be the embodiment of a principle of Scottish law regarding the diminished mental responsibility in respect of some murderers.

Criminal Code
As one who is untutored in the law, I feel it would be relatively simple to add a clause defining non-capital murder to include those cases where evidence of diminished mental responsibility is apparent. I should be grateful to other hon. members in the medical and legal professions, more learned than I, for assistance and guidance in this connection.
To return to the question of public opinion, the minister made reference to the fact that in 1947, and again in 1950 the Canadian institute of public opinion made two inquiries with almost identical results, in that 68 per cent were in favour of retaining capital punishment, and 23 per cent were in favour of life imprisonment. I pointed out earlier in this session that a more recent poll was conducted last year, and I feel the results of that poll should form part of the record of this debate. The results of that Gallup poll are; 51 per cent in favour of the retention of capital punishment, 41 per cent in favour of abolition of capital punishment, with 8 per cent of no opinion.
The matter of deterrence was dealt with by the minister. He made reference to the Gowers royal commission held in England. The minister's statement in respect to this commission had reference to the fact that no statistics existed concerning the number of murders which are not committed. This same point was raised during debate last year, as well as this year. Sir Ernest Gowers, following his chairmanship of that royal commission, wrote a book from which I have quoted during earlier debates. His book indicated that at the beginning of that commission's hearings he was a retentionist, but at the end of the hearings he was an abolitionist. I feel the epilogue to that book has relevance to the statement made by the minister, and I should like to quote a portion of it. The portion in which I am interested, and which I feel has relevance, reads as follows:
There remains the argument that without the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment more murders would be committed. This is the only serious utilitarian argument in favour of capital punishment, and the one on which throught-ful supporters of it almost wholly rely. It is also the argument that can be put most readily to the test of evidence in the proper sense of the word; and, as we have seen, such evidence as there is goes to show that the abolition of capital punishment does not in fact have this result.
The minister's statement in support of retention of the death penalty as such, was something less than an argument to that effect, and leans, I notice, very heavily on the matter of public opinion. This is, of course, as it should be. This reference occurred on a number of occasions. The minister suggested that the bill should broadly reflect and support public opinion. He goes on later to say:

We have taken account of the fact that the country, as reflected in the house, favours retention of capital punishment.
That certainly is so. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) said that a free vote on the question of abolition or no abolition was required to test public opinion both in the country and in the house. With the greatest respect for the hon. member who supported my bill last year, I would suggest to him that he at that time, or even now, should have made an individual sampling of this house, as I have done, not only in analysing the debates but in discussing the matter with private members, and he would have found beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever that a bill such as the one I proposed last year would be defeated and decisively so. It would be putting one's head in the sand to think that an alternative result would be obtained.
The minister went on to say:
-and have produced a bill which represents our views of what is the kind of law by which Canadians would wish to be and should be governed.
A later reference reads as follows:
In our view, Canadians properly attach so high a value to the sanctity of human life, that the law which translates this feeling into effective form should provide the maximum sanction for its deliberate breach, and no other penalty would be considered adequate.
Again the reference to the public view. Then, later, in the next paragraph we find this:
-this bill reflects the view that Canadians are not prepared to accept the abolition of the death penalty.
There is at least one more reference to the public in the concluding remarks of the minister where he said:
We submit this bill, then, Mr. Speaker, in the belief that the protection of society demands that one who deliberately commits murder should be liable to the death penalty, and that this reflects the views and demands of Canadian society.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, with the point very tellingly made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) that it would be folly now to move considerably ahead of public opinion in this matter and bring down a bill which would abolish capital punishment only to have an aroused and disturbed public opinion force the restoration that other members have suggested. In such an eventuality the cause of ultimate abolition would be set back at least 25 years.
As I have said, the minister, having properly emphasized the essential ingredient and importance of public opinion in this matter, must certainly appreciate the degree to which public opinion has altered in this regard. In the figures he mentioned the abolitionist

group in Canada stood at 23 per cent a relatively few years ago. Last year that figure had risen to 41 per cent, and there is little doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that ultimately this opinion, which has grown substantially in the last few years, will continue to grow and will pass into the majority opinion suggested a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Parkdale. I will, and I know this is true of every abolitionist, do everything I can to hasten the arrival of that day. I would hope also that the careful and repeated reference to public opinion on the part of the minister in presenting this bill will also be repeated when public opinion favours abolition, as I am certain it will do.
Last year the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) made this statement in the concluding part of his remarks:
Let me emphasize one truth: Vox vopuli, vox Dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God. If you want to know what God thinks, ask the people and you will know.
I think that when the people are asked in a relatively few years what their opinions and views are, there will be a decisive reply to the effect that capital punishment should be abolished. Many hon. members who have participated in the past and at the present time in the drive to abolish capital punishment have described this bill as a milestone and an important step forward. It has been described also, Mr. Speaker, as a measure which tempers justice with mercy, and mercy with common sense. It will, I know, receive the support of all hon. members in this house ultimately interested in the abolition of the death penalty, and it will serve as an example in the political history of our country of an outstanding case where effective government leadership has led toward an essential ultimate goal.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, last year the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) sponsored a bill which captivated public opinion at the time. After two days of debate, a considerable number of members stood up against the abolition of capital punishment while a lesser number stated their support of such a move. I think that all those who had the opportunity of expressing their views last year were inspired by a common spirit, a sincere wish to improve the situation according to the people's desires. I took part in that debate and I expressed my opposition to the bill sponsored by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. My reason for taking that stand was to protest against the freedom which the bill was going to give to 90205-6-333
Criminal Code
the most hardened criminals, the most repulsive killers while, on the other hand, I was in favour of any legislation which would show true humanitarian sympathy to anyone who, in a moment of mental weakness, would have committed a murder.
Even though they took opposite stands, I think everyone aimed at the same thing, that is to bring the people of Canada to express their opinion on a problem on which parliament's attention has been focussed for forty years. The only difference between the two groups was the means they were suggesting to achieve that end.
Indeed, if one takes a retrospective glance at the various bills which were introduced in this house, one will see that as far back as in 1912, the hon. member for Montreal-St. James, Mr. Wilde, moved that capital punishment be abolished. I suppose that idea had not yet made its way or perhaps events were not as favourable then as they are today with respect to the amendment now introduced by the minister. Be that as it may, I feel it is every member's duty to congratulate the minister on the bill he is introducing for our consideration today.
However, even though I do not wish to play politics with this matter, I think that each and everyone of us should explain this legislation and publicize the excellent speech the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) made in the house, this morning. In my opinion, this question of the abolition of capital punishment is far too important for us to make a political football out of it to achieve personal ambitions or popularity when human lives are at stake. If, on the one hand, the state considers the fate of the murderer who must pay a debt to society for the crime he has committed, on the other hand society must also consider the needs of those who are deeply affected by the passing of the human being whom the murderer has just killed.
I think this bill is timely, because it constitutes a link between two schools of thought which are looking forward for an improvement which modem times, the evolution of thought and systems demand and which has become imperative.
As far as I am concerned, I shall support the bill because I think, in my humble opinion, it corresponds to the feelings I expressed last year when I took position against the bill introduced by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, because I wanted, so to speak, to have truth strike a middle course.
However, in considering the bill closely, I note some interpretations which I think doubtful. I may be wrong, but on the other

Criminal Code
hand, after a serious reading of the various sections of this bill, a question comes to my mind which I shall put to the minister.
The explanatory notes opposite section 1 indicate that the definition itself of murder remains unchanged. When we read the definition of a culpable homicide in section 201, paragraph (a), subparagraph (ii), we find that:
Culpable homicide Is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm.
Now, if you read the exact wording of section 202A, you see that the difference between a capital and a non-capital murder is based on the intention of the person who commits the crime. What is the possible distinction between the actual definition of the murder and the definition to be found in section 202A, subsection (2)?
I wonder whether the Minister of Justice, when the bill is considered in detail, could not define more accurately the wording of the bill by adding, for instance, the following words: Murder is capital murder, in respect of any person, where it is-and perhaps it could be mentioned-arranged, decided, planned and deliberate. That way, there would be no doubt as to the category of the murder.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The distinction between murder and capital murder is, of course, an important principle of the bill, but when the hon. member referred to clarification in committee I think he was quite right that the details of distinction and definition might better be left to the committee stage.
(Translation):


Rémi Paul: I endorse your remarks, Mr. Speaker, but on the other hand, I feel that during the discussion of this bill, we must point out matters which, in our opinion, are significant in order that this legislation which is extremely important and has been discussed for several years, might achieve as fully as possible the purpose for which it was designed.
For instance, under the amendment to this act, a person committing a capital murder will now be liable to imprisonment for life.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont (Mr. Deschatelets) wondered this morning whether life imprisonment really means for life.
The bill also provides that a murderer under 18 would be exempt from a capital

murder charge. As for me, by reason of the evolution of our young people today, and of the many crimes committed by juvenile delinquents, X wonder whether that age limit should not be brought down to 16 or 17.
Nevertheless, I heartily endorse the bill in its present wording, but it might be wise to consider the advisibility of reducing the age of 18 years to that of 16 or 17.
In order to ensure that the law will be properly applied, I also wonder if the attorney general and the crown attorneys should not automatically lay a charge of capital murder when it is proven at the hearing that the crime, by the way it has been prepared and perpetrated, would justify such a charge. When such a charge has not been laid, the accused would have committed a capital murder but would not have been charged accordingly, for then it would not be anymore a specific crime.
The act, as it is submitted to the house, protects any person accused of murder, in order that only genuine murderers be hanged; when the murder has not been premeditated or is accidental, the penalty is life imprisonment.
Under 13, the trial judge may ask the jury if it wishes to recommend the murderer to the clemency of the court. I think this clause places the jury in a difficult position. Anyone who has some experience of murder trials knows very well what a strain it is for those who have to try one of their fellow men. After being shut in and kept apart from the others for three, four, five and sometimes ten days, their nerves are shattered and it is with much difficulty that they return a verdict which up to now involved, in most cases at least, capital punishment.
Then, before passing sentence, many a time before the relatives and the friends of the accused, the judge would ask the jury: Do you wish to recommend the murderer to the mercy of the court? If so, I shall report accordingly to the Minister of Justice.
Not a single juryman would have the courage to oppose mercy towards the murderer, and either through fear or embarrassment, the judge's request will be granted. Would it not be easier for members of the jury when the presiding judge is addressing them to be enlightened on the advisability of returning a verdict which might include certain considerations for clemency.
Therefore, this recommendation of mercy that the jury would have to make to the court in favour of the accused would have been carefully considered and decided upon

under more human and less embarrassing circumstances than those that a jury will be faced with after having convicted an accused of capital murder.
They should normally object to mercy, by refusing to reply on behalf of the accused to the question that the judge presiding over the hearing would put to them.
I respectfully submit that such procedure puts the jury in a difficult position, and I wonder whether charges along those lines made to a jury before it retires to consider its verdict would not afford all murderers the same advantages and protection.
The minister will no doubt give us information as to the possibility of defining as a capital murder a second crime committed by an accused.
Let us suppose for a moment that an accused convicted of non-capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment is released after 15 or 20 years and commits another murder.
In order to protect society, should we not then automatically define as capital murder that second murder committed by such a person?
This morning, the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) seemed to plead for the fair sex, and invited the house to adopt an amendment to the act so that women be exempt from hanging.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is one of my weaknesses.


Rémi Paul: Maybe he was inspired by sympathy, maybe it was love for the fair sex-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It could be, for that matter.


Rémi Paul: But I wonder if it is with deep conviction that the hon. member made that suggestion to the house.
Unfortunately, we still remember the case of that famous murder which was premeditated, planned and carried out a few years ago by a certain woman, when a plane crashed at Sault-au-Cochon, not far from Baie St. Paul in Quebec.
I think the woman who had planned such a crime deserved the punishment she received.
I therefore think we should not make any exception for women if they are coward enough to plan the suppression of one of their fellow human beings.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make in this house.
90205-0-333i
Criminal Code
I am sure that at the conclusion of this debate, we shall have taken a great step to meet the requirements of the two schools of thought. On the other hand, while society must be protected, it must also protect. So it continues to lend a compassionate hand to those who, through weakness, passion or distraction, have committed a crime.
I feel that in maintaining capital punishment for capital murder, we are giving a further proof to the Canadian people that Canada has had this legislation in its statutes for many years and that the members of this house intend to keep it, in order to ensure continued protection to society, the family and the individual.
(Text):


Mr. H. F. Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: At the close of this great debate which has excited the interest and the emotions of Canadians, as have similar debates in other countries on this subject, I think it is fitting to pay tribute to all those inside and outside of this house who have played a part in reaching the position that we are in today in relation to a possible solution of this problem through the medium of this bill. I think that the abolitionists, and those who have favoured keeping the Criminal Code as it is, will greet this bill with considerable relief.
The bill represents, in my view, a great step forward. It removes the death penalty for those murders where premeditation is not a factor. This is a great advance. It retains the death penalty for those persons who have decided themselves that someone else's life shall be forfeited. I feel this has been one of the factors in the arguments both inside and outside of the house for retaining the provisions of the code as they are at the moment. There has been a fear that those who commit planned murders, those who engage in crimes which could well result in murder, might not receive full justice if abolition were brought about.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) mentioned with favour the provision to leave clemency with the jury. In his remarks, he suggested that perhaps this verdict should not be arrived at unanimously. I have great respect for the opinions of the hon. member for Parkdale, particularly in this field. I do believe, however, although his suggestion is one that should interest the members of the house and should receive their serious and deep consideration, that the retention of the unanimity rule in so far as clemency is concerned would result in a much

Criminal Code
more thorough examination by a jury of the question of whether or not clemency should indeed be recommended.
The jurors when they get together by themselves to decide these matters, if they are placed in a position in which the majority could decide whether or not there should be a clemency recommendation, I feel would tend not to give the serious consideration that should be given to a recommendation for clemency. The tendency might be merely to let a majority ride and not to explore all the aspects of the case which should go into such a serious recommendation. I believe there is also a clause in the bill permitting the governor in council in commuting a sentence of death to direct that the prisoner shall not be released from the imprisonment to which the sentence is commuted without the prior approval of the governor in council, and this applies to capital murder. I wonder whether consideration should not be given to including within the bill a similar provision in respect of those murders which are not capital murders. Otherwise we might have people being released from prison after paying a relatively short penalty and without that serious consideration which should be given by the highest authority to the release of a person who has committed a murder.
Those were the two thoughts I wished to place before the house. I wish to close by complimenting the minister on this step forward. I think it will meet with general approval. Indeed, from the reports that I have read and the opinions of lawyers that I have heard on this matter, I believe it is generally regarded as being a great and imaginative solution to this question which has exercised Canadians as a whole over the last four or five years.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, an issue that concerns the sanctity of human life affects the emotions of everyone in the House of Commons. I can quite understand the zeal of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and the support he has had from the hon. member from Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) and others on this rather moral issue. It is an issue that far transcends party lines. I can appreciate the attitude of those who feel keenly about it. I think it is a matter of deduction to arrive at what is actually meant by the sanctity of human life.
I believe I have a very kindly heart. I have terrific sympathy for anyone who even is obliged to go to jail for the commission of a crime, whether it is stealing a loaf of bread for his family, exceeding the speed limit with his car, or something else. However, while I am not a lawyer, I notice that there are degrees of penalties. A man is fined so much for going through a red light. He is fined much

more if he kills a child running out on the road on the way from school. He is fined much more and he loses his licence if he is convicted of manslaughter or if, through impaired driving, he causes an accident in which a whole family is killed. I am wondering whether we are not being carried away with our sentimentality and our heartfelt sympathy for the man who has a background that prompts criminality.
I am more concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the death of one lovely little child and her innocent mother than I am about the death of all the criminals who have been hanged on all the gallows to date. Do not let us get "chicken". Do not let us get soft. It is not a matter of revenge. Good men-and there are many that I know personally-saw good comrades die in battle for the great principles of liberty and freedom. Many thousands of good men have died for fundamental principles. A few criminals have been hanged for dastardly crimes against society. We are not here to protect criminals from the gallows. We are here to protect society in general. In the twilight of my career in politics I would shudder if I thought I had cast a vote for the total abolition of the death penalty if it meant that one of my grandchildren or one of yours, Mr. Speaker, or one of the grandchildren or daughters of my many other friends in the house were killed because some fellow said, "I will only get a light penalty anyway".
One of the hon. members who has spoken said that this legislation is only a beginning and that it will develop to the point of total abolition which is the objective of some sincere hon. members in this house. Surely we should stop, look and listen. If a $1,000 fine is a penalty to a man who cannot find the $1,000, five years in the penitentiary is a greater penalty. But if a judge says, "Because of the crime that you have committed, you will be taken to the place of execution and you will hang by the neck until you are dead", surely that is a deterrent. I once heard that sentence pronounced on a man whom I knew and I felt the cold chills go up and down my back. No man can tell me that sentence is not a greater deterrent than is one pronounced by a judge who says that the man will go to jail for the balance of his life, knowing that the government might be soft enough to let him out in about 20 years.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Or 12 years.


William Earl Rowe: Or 12 years, as the hon. member from Newfoundland says. Do not let us be soft, Mr. Speaker. We are here as trustees for society. We are here to protect these happy little children that are running out of school, these innocent little girls who know nothing

of the dastardly things that have corrupted society and broken hearts down through the years.
Mr. Speaker, I would vote against my party if it was inclined to abolish any provision that I thought would be a deterrent against crime and would protect society in general. I am not unaware of the fact that there may have been doubts. Some of our most eminent lawyers, hard hearted as some of our people think they are but learned in the law, believe that every man is entitled to a fair trial. I know it almost breaks their hearts if they think that some man has gone to the gallows who was a near criminal, or who was near to committing a crime but there was not quite enough evidence to prove that he committed it. We all feel very keenly on that score where an innocent man might have been hanged. But down through the ages, in the old land and in this country, how many of those cases have there been?


Harold Edward Winch: Enough.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend says "enough". May I say that from my childhood I can remember scores of little girls who have been raped and murdered, little boys who have been murdered, mothers who have been murdered and clerks who have been shot. I think of the thousands of better men than we are who tonight sleep in Flanders fields as a result of meeting death in the first great war and of the thousands who are buried in the English channel as a result of the second great war. Those men died for fundamental principles. If two or three who were near crime were hanged but probably should not have been hanged, if they were a deterrent in order to save society in general, I think they died in a good cause.
I am not going to pursue this matter, Mr. Speaker. I was not in the house this morning, but I heard that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) gave a brilliant explanation, as usual, of this bill. The Minister of Justice is most capable of doing this.
Perhaps I am not as familiar with this matter, being a layman, as I might have been had I been a lawyer, but it would not have changed my sentiment at heart: we are here to protect society; we are not here to protect the criminal.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in my preliminary remarks, I intended to show to what extent the two theories confronting each other are defenda-ble. And I think we had this evening a perfect illustration of what I was going to say as felt by all hon. members who
Criminal Code
listened to the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Maloney), speaking with all the conviction he has acquired in his brief but fruitful career at the bar. Indeed the death penalty in its present form is practically a crime.
He expounded his philosophy in a composed and passionless way, and we agreed with him.
On the other hand, the case for maintaining capital punishment is also defendable. In fact, I think that what the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), just told us, is as good an illustration of the reasons for maintaining capital punishment. Both theories were well defended, first by the hon. member for Parkdale, that brilliant young criminal lawyer who, during his career, has frequently been in touch with people who were under indictment for murder, and then by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe who had the advantage of a long experience of men and things and who was basing his judgment on that very experience, which is so valuable.
All that, Mr. Speaker, goes to show that when it is a question of forming an opinion for or against the abolition of capital punishment, the responsibility resting on members' shoulders is extremely heavy. And that is precisely why, last year, I refrained from taking part in the debate, when the bill of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) was introduced.
At that time, I felt a bit like the man in the street who, one day, believes that maintaining capital punishment is essential for the protection of society and the next, after hearing a lecture or the narration of some moving occurrence, prefers complete abolition. As I said, I did not take part in this debate because I wanted to study the question thoroughly, with an open mind, without passion, as one should when considering such a complex matter which may entail so very serious consequences. 1 wanted to take some advice and consult even the man in the street on the way he felt with regard to this matter.
Today, I would still not be able to determine which is my honest opinion if I were asked to decide for or against the abolition of capital punishment.
I believe that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) also thought that public opinion was not sufficiently enlightened, nor clear enough to be faced with legislation tending completely to abolish the death penalty. Now a middle way has been found thanks to which nobody, I think, may be unfairly convicted of capital murder entailing capital

Criminal Code
punishment, whereas to this day anyone who had killed has been a murderer, there being no alternative even if, deep down in his conscience, the individual having committed- and I even hesitate to say the word-a murder for some motive which submitted to a jury, would have been valueless, was doomed to hang.
In other words, if you had killed, if you had committed a murder and were unable through reliable witnesses or by your own means to justify such action on some ground or other, you were heading for the gallows. And that is precisely where the injustice was. Today, a distinction has been made between capital murder and non-capital murder.
I might perhaps immediately deal with the suggestion made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere (Mr. Paul), who proposed that anybody who killed be accused of qualified murder. I rather believe that we should do the opposite. In the vast majority of cases, the indicted should be accused of non-capital murder, because it is extremely painful to bring an individual before the courts and prove his intention, or prove that his crime was premeditated.


Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to call it ten thirty?
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Will the hon. member call it
ten thirty?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Speaker, would the leader of the house indicate whether it is the intention of the government to continue this debate tomorrow, and if so and it is concluded, does he adhere to what he said last evening, that we would take up the estimates of the Department of Justice after the conclusion of this debate?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last evening that if the debate on this bill were not concluded today we would consider continuing it tomorrow. That is the case; we will continue tomorrow with the debate on this bill.
If it is finished in time tomorrow, we will proceed with the estimates of the Department of Justice.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.



ANSWER TO QUESTION

[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. Regier: 1.	What are the arrangements that have been arrived at between the Department of Finance and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as to the disposal of the potential proceeds of the proposed sale of mortgages now held by the C.M.H.C.?
2.	What have been the total amounts of repayment on principal collected by C.M.H.C. for each of the past five years on moneys that it has advanced for home construction?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
Question
1.	When the corporation has effected the sale of a group of mortgages it will determine with the Department of Finance whether to use the proceeds of sale for the making of new direct loans or whether to make prepayments upon its debenture indebtedness to the treasury. The decision will depend largely upon the then current money market and the demands upon the corporation for direct loans at that time.
2.	Principal Collections on N.H.A. Loans
1956		 $ 24,786,802
1957		 22,642,635
1958		 28,526,518
1959		 30,592,793
1960		 36,487,987



$143,036,735 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 24, 1961

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on standing orders-Miss Aitken.