1966-03-23

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, one of the well established traditions of parliamentary practice precludes casting reflections upon the votes of hon. members. I should therefore like to invoke privilege in reference to a comment in today's Globe and Mail which states:
Mr. Macquarrie's vote was greeted by hoots from Liberal benches and he sat down quickly, pink with embarrassment.
Lest such a reference leave the impression that my vote was cast by inadvertence, I must make the modest claim that although not outstanding in athletic prowess, my alacrity in rising to vote was at least as great as that displayed in resuming my seat after voting.
Having been blessed with a ruddy, cherubic countenance lo these 46 years, I therefore must deny any suggestion that the pink cast of my complexion stems from the coincidence of voting on that occasion with members of the New Democratic party. Further, Mr. Speaker, I may say that while my life has had its embarrassments, the act of demonstrating lack of confidence in the present government was certainly not one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say at first blush that the hon. member does not have a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



HIDES AND LEATHER-REQUIREMENT OF EXPORT PERMITS

Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that under the powers of the Export and Import Permits Act, general export permit Ex-2 has been amended effective tomorrow, March 24, deleting hides, skins, leather and leather manufactures from the schedule to the permit. This has the effect of
requiring individual export permits for all such products of foreign origin exported from Canada to all destinations except the United States.
On March 7 the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that shipments of cattle hides, calf and kip skins and bovine leathers destined anywhere in the world except Canada would require a validated export licence. On March 11 the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that export quotas had been established for cattle hides, calf and kip skins and bovine leathers "to provide adequate supplies for domestic needs." As Canada was exempt from the control, no quotas were established for exports to this country. However, U.S. exporters are required to certify that exports to Canada are for consumption in Canada.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In trade with the U.S. Canada is a net importer of cattle hides. Our tanners rely heavily on U.S. hides, particularly during the winter months when supplies of suitable Canadian hides are at their lowest. It is important to this Canadian industry to have free access to cattle hide supplies from the U.S. as well as domestic sources. The action taken to require individual export licensing will permit the government to control possible diversion of United States supplies through Canada to offshore destinations, and is designed to maintain Canadian access to United States supplies.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask leave to table a report entitled "Private and Public Investment in Canada-Outlook 1966" in English and in French.
The report indicates that total capital expenditures in Canada are expected to reach $14.5 billion this year. Such a program, if realized, would be nearly 14 per cent above the actual outlay in 1965. The strong advance in capital investment indicated for 1966 follows increases of 17 per cent in each of the two preceding years. A notable feature of the program is the increased emphasis on the buildup of facilities in basic industry. Capital
March 23, 1966

Report on Canada's Economy Tabled outlays in all goods producing industries are expected to be up 18 per cent. Within this goods producing sector an increase of 20 per cent is indicated for manufacturing and 36 per cent for mining.
These outlays involve both expansion and modernization of existing facilities. Once these programs are completed Canadian industry should be more competitive and also better able to supply rising demands in both domestic and foreign markets. Outlays for social capital needs are expected to increase by 15 per cent in 1966; spending for universities and schools is likely to rise by 26 per cent.
The strong advance in capital spending indicated for Canada as a whole is reflected in the program in each of the five principal geographic regions. The increases expected range from 10 per cent to 11 per cent in Quebec and the prairies, to 15 per cent in the Atlantic provinces and 16 per cent in Ontario and British Columbia.
The substantial increase in investment outlays planned for the current year indicates that capital spending will continue to give strong expansionary impetus to the Canadian economy. The program envisaged will add to the demand pressures now present in the economy, particularly for technical skills and materials which are already in tight supply. In these circumstances capital programs are increasingly subject to delays arising from supply limitations.
To forestall the further buildup of demand pressures, there is need for reasonable restraint on the part of all groups concerned in embarking upon new projects, particularly those not urgently required to improve efficiency or expand industrial capacity.


Mr. Winch:: Does that apply to politicians' minds?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a remark or two with regard to the first part of the minister's statement concerning the permits now required to export hides. This by itself is not too significant, but when you realize that the Canadian government faithfully followed the example of the United States government in applying export controls on shipments on copper and copper products, with this following so shortly afterward, once again following the United State's lead, this seems to indicate a very faithful following by the government of United States economic practice.

Even though this country is short of certain products, as is the United States, this policy does bring into grave question the path upon which the government now is seemingly embarking. Now, to keep within the small framework of North America production of all goods here for our own advantage does not appreciate that in the long run Canada's interest lies in the maximum amount of multilateral trade. The production of this country should be available to all countries of the world, not to just one or two neighbours.
If this policy is to continue it will mean a radical change from what governments in Canada have done for a good many years, and I suggest it means we are heading into very grave danger.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, following on
the comments of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, what I would remark in this regard is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now given the definition that he said he was unsure of a little while ago, when someone asked him whether he was a continentalist. Obviously this statement today indicates that he is a continentalist.
In regard to the second statement the minister made in reference to the private end public investment program for 1966, one of the important things that is revealed is the way the ratio between social capital, private capital and industrial capital investment has been changing since 1961. Business capital expenditures have now reached 61.6 per cent of total investment, whereas social capital investment has declined to 38.4 per cent. In 1962 there was a ratio in this regard as between 57 per cent and 43 per cent, so it was almost in balance.
I suggest there is not much use in the government warning us that our economy is being overheated when apparently it accepts with some nonchalance this evidence of further fuel being added to the fire.
The first part of the minister's statement seems to indicate a certain satisfaction over these revelations, yet at the end we have the usual rather weak suggestion that there must be some reasonable restraint. The minister does not tell us just what sort of restraint the government intends to exert to prevent the continuation of this imbalance between business investment and social and capital investment, which I think can reasonably be said to be one of the causes of the overheating of our economy and one of the dangers of inflation
March 23, 1966	COMMONS
about which we have been told so much lately by various ministers of the government and various spokesmen on behalf of the government.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I think the comments I could make regarding the trade policy mentioned by the minister have been covered by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. This policy points up several important factors which relate to trade that go beyond any comment that could be made at this time. However, I should like to comment briefly on the latter part of the statement.
I think it is significant to note the minister's concern, and I can understand that concern in view of the general policy the government has been outlining. Our borrowings in New York in January and February were 11 times as much as they were last year during the same period. When we speak about $14J billion, we are speaking about 80 per cent of our total money supply in Canada. I suggest that the problem to which the minister has referred in this case will never be solved until there is a distinction placed between social or public capital and commercial or industrial capital. At the same time the government must understand that in differentiating between these two types of capital there is need for a broader monetary policy than it is advocating at the present time.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house know that a new government policy is usually announced in one language only.
I therefore wish to inform the house that I shall announce the new government policy for the dairy year starting on April 1, 1966. This policy will ensure a price of $4.00 per hundredweight of milk to Canadian producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a new policy for the dairy year beginning April 1 which is intended to raise producers' incomes, stabilize the industry and prevent any uncontrollable consumer price increases caused by shortages.
During the dairy year now ending government policy was to ensure producers, through
DEBATES	3041
Announcement of Dairy Policy a combination of supplementary and deficiency payments, a national average price of $3.50 per 100 pounds of manufacturing milk. While this represented a significant improvement in the producers' position over previous years, when prices averaged less than $3, production has not kept pace with population growth and demand.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
During the last calendar year domestic consumption of butter exceeded production by some 20 million pounds. Farmers have been moving out of dairying at a disturbing rate during recent years. Some have switched to other kinds of farming, such as raising beef and hogs, because these offer a better living. Far more disturbing are the numbers moving out of farming altogether and going into industry and other urban occupations because they cannot make a living on their dairy farms any more. Because dairy farming requires a substantial investment in relatively permanent equipment, farmers who leave do not tend to return even when prices have improved.
The outlook for the new dairy year is for continued deterioration in the economic position of the dairy farmer, unless government action such as I am now announcing is taken. Unless the producer's confidence in his ability to make a decent living from dairy farming is restored, we face the prospect of shortages. Shortages would, of course, raise the prospect of consumer price increases that could contribute seriously to a higher cost of living. Because of these considerations the government has decided to make the following major changes in its support program for the new dairy year:
1.	The support level will provide for an average net return of $4 per hundred pounds of manufacturing milk testing 3.5 per cent butterfat content, basis f.o.b. the factory.
2.	The support level will be achieved by direct monthly or quarterly payments to producers from the federal government.
3.	The federal payments will be made on a portion of surplus fluid milk.
The Agricultural Stabilization Board will provide details on the application of the new policy to the various categories of producers. The policy will apply in general as follows: For producers of manufacturing milk, the board will take measures designed to permit processors to pay a price of $3.25 per hundred pounds for 3.5 per cent manufacturing milk. Direct payments to producers from the board
March 23. 1966

Announcement of Dairy Policy of 85 cents, minus a 10 cent export assistance levy, will be used to bring producers' average net returns up to the $4 level.
For cream shippers the board's offer to purchase price for butter will be raised to 59 cents a pound. The cream shipper should therefore receive from the market for his butterfat the equivalent of 59 cents per pound for butter. To this will be added a direct federal payment of the equivalent, on a butterfat basis, of 85 cents per hundred pounds, less the 10 cent export assistance levy.
For fluid milk shippers the board will make direct payments of 85 cents per hundred pounds, minus the 10 cent export levy, for deliveries surplus to 120 per cent of deliveries sold for the fluid milk price. The direct payments will be made to milk shippers each month and to cream shippers each quarter.
It is still the intention of the government to introduce at this session legislation for the establishment of a Canadian dairy commission. One of the functions to be proposed for the commission on its establishment is provision of export assistance on dairy products. In order to finance this activity a levy will be made against all milk and cream supported under this program to finance the movement into export markets of dairy products surplus to domestic requirements. Until the commission is established the board will be authorized to operate the export program and deduct the export assistance levy at a rate of 10 cents per hundred pounds of 3.5 per cent milk. In the event that the whole of the export assistance levy is not required, the balance in this fund at the end of the dairy year will be distributed to producers.
Effective April 1 the present subsidy of 10.9 cents per pound on eligible butterfat used for the production of creamery butter will be discontinued. The board at the same time will raise its offer to purchase butter from the present 55 cents per pound to 59 cents per pound. This will be offered on the basis of designated centres across Canada and present price differentials between these centres will be removed. This level of butter price support will be combined with an appropriate offer to purchase and export assistance on primary products such as skim milk powder and cheddar cheese. The government is confident that this combination of support will permit processors to pay a base price of $3.25 per hundred pounds for 3.5 per cent milk.
However, the federal government has no authority to set the prices that processors pay
[Mr. Greene.l
to producers. I feel it is important, therefore, to stress that it is incumbent upon producer groups and boards to do all they can to see that this market price level is achieved. In discussions with provincial ministers I have been impressed by the degree of co-operation and interest shown in the federal government's dairy policy proposals, and I am confident that this support will continue.
As was the case during the dairy year now closing, the Agricultural Stabilization Board will continue to be advised on its export assistance program by a joint committee of producers and processors.
As indicated already, an innovation in the new dairy policy will be an extension of federal price support to a portion of surplus fluid milk. The payment to fluid milk producers will be at the same rate of 85 cents per hundred pounds, minus the 10 cent export assistance levy. The payment will apply to milk delivered in excess of 120 per cent of the producer's deliveries for which he receives fluid milk prices. If the supply-demand situation indicates a need, this percentage will be adjusted accordingly in subsequent years.
Let us assume, for example, that a fluid milk shipper delivers during the month a total of 20,000 pounds, but he is paid at fluid milk prices for only 14,000 pounds and at lower prices for the rest; 120 per cent of
14.000	pounds is 16,800 pounds. The amount of this producer's deliveries eligible for the direct federal payment would therefore be
20.000	pounds minus 16,800 pounds. The federal payment would be made for 3,200 pounds.
Because the registration of fluid milk producers under this new policy and the establishment of a reporting system from processors will require some time, it is not anticipated that it will be possible to make the first federal payments to fluid producers as quickly as to manufacturing milk producers.
Authority will also be provided to permit the board to make an appropriate adjustment in the direct payment to producers should the board's selling price of butter be increased above the purchase price of 59 cents per pound during the support year.
Obviously this new policy represents a massive administrative undertaking, and to be successful will require the co-operation of everyone involved whether they be producers or processors, all of whom stand to benefit from effective implementation of this policy.
March 23, 1966

Only the fullest co-operation will ensure rapid and accurate mailing of producers' payments.
The policy on which we are embarking is designed to bring economic stability to the dairy industry and to ensure adequate domestic sources of dairy products for Canadian consumers. Should the supply situation become such that importation of butter were required, any such imports would be brought in through the medium of a government agency in order to avoid disruption of the dairy support program.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I thank hon. members of this house, both those from this side who have been pushing me and those from the other side who have been pulling me. I sincerely hope we have achieved a new day in dairy policy which will bring a better way of life to dairy producers and a more secure supply to avoid any dangers to the consumers of dairy products in this country.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure to the announcement of the new dairy program by the Minister of Agriculture which will commence next week. Since the minister made the announcement in both languages perhaps I would be better advised to answer in both languages.
The first point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that parliament, the country and everyone will recognize that an effective opposition have succeeded in bringing about a policy they have been advocating for the last 12 months.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: We convinced them.


Clément Vincent: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you will recall, we, on this side of the house, prepared last year a program asking the government to grant a minimum price of $4 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk. Under that program, we suggested to the Canadian people that a minimum price of $4 per hundredweight be set. At that time, if you will recall, we heard our hon. friends opposite say that it was nonsense, that it was impossible to carry out such a project.
We kept on asking for it and we had the support of the farming organizations in the country and of the whole population. We kept on asking for it until today and it must be
Announcement of Dairy Policy admitted now that thanks to its continued efforts, the opposition succeeded in getting what it had been asking for the last 12 months.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) spoke a little earlier about last year's dairy policy. You will no doubt recall that last year, as soon as the new policy was announced, we rose to complain about some measures included in that policy. Afterwards, and there again, the opposition was right. In fact, some Canadian dairy producers were forced to say recently in a telegram addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and to other cabinet members, as well as to some new experts in dairy farming, more exactly the hon. members for Hochelaga and Mount Royal (Messrs. Pelletier and Trudeau), that last year's policy was insufficient, that it had not reached the prices set by the government, that is $3.50 per hundredweight.
In this year's new program an average price of $4 per hundredweight is mentioned. Mr. Speaker, allow me to tell you right away that the farmer does not want an average price but a minimum price. It is humanly impossible to break down all the figures given by the minister but one sure thing is that over the week-end, we will take a close look at that new policy. If it really grants a minimum price of $4 per hundredweight to the dairy producers, we will be the first to congratulate the present Minister of Agriculture. On the other hand, if that new policy does not guarantee a minimum price, in short guarantees only an average price, that will not satisfy the dairy producers of Canada.
The minister also pointed out the shortage of dairy products. As a matter of fact, we know that this year the national dairy production went down by 500 million pounds. We also know that there is a shortage of butter in Canada at this time. In fact, only this morning I received a telephone call from a store owner who has been asking the Department of Agriculture for butter since last week. He was asked to wait for two days. He phoned again and was asked again to wait two more days. That proves that there is a shortage of butter now in the warehouses administered by the agricultural stabilization board.
There is a shortage of cheese in Canada. It will be necessary to find new export markets and that is something we will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) to do so as to help the Canadian dairy
3044	COMMONS
Announcement of Dairy Policy producers. That minister also told us that payments would be made to the dairy producers every month. In that regard, and on behalf of the Canadian dairy producers, I must ask the minister to see to it that those payments are not delayed like those which the producers have been waiting for since last year. The dairy producers will have to get those payments as soon as possible in order to benefit from that money and spend it as they see fit.
Figures were given us about fluid milk. We will make the calculations and we will see if that policy will satisfy the producers of fluid milk who are sometimes forced to sell their surplus which make up at times 40 to 50 per cent of their production.
Another point, Mr. Speaker. The minister referred to a subsidy of 85 cents per hundredweight, from which is deducted 10 cents per hundredweight for export assistance.
It was asked in the past, and again today by us, as well as by dairy producers, that the first $5 million for export assistance be paid by the government, and this, I think, is normal.
Mr. Speaker, the last point I wish to raise is that related to the announced establishment of a national dairy commission, which we have been expecting since last year, when the minister told us that everything would be done to prepare legislation in this regard.
We still have to hear that announcement, and we want this dairy commission to be established as soon as possible so that it may render appreciable services to eastern farmers, to dairy farmers, who have been asking the federal government to set up that commission for several years. This leads me to refer to the job done by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), when he was Minister of Agriculture. He started that job back in 1961 and his work was completely stopped from 1963 up to now.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I shall say once again that we are glad to learn that the government has apparently adopted, point by point, our dairy policy and we hope for one thing only, that is a minimum of $4 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers in this country have been waiting with impatience and anxiety for an announcement by the Minister of Agriculture of the dairy policy for the

DEBATES	March 23, 1966
coming year. I am sure they are glad he has made the announcement, and that the support level for milk is now going to be set at $4 per hundred and the support price for butter at 59 cents.
There are only two brief comments I want to make. The first is that the problem in deficiency payments is to ensure that the benefits accrue to the producer and that the full $4 will be the minimum price for the producer which he will be absolutely sure of receiving, plus any additional amount which the market may warrant.
The minister put his finger on the real problem when he himself said:
However, the federal government has no authority to set the prices that processors pay to the producers. I feel it is important, therefore, to stress that it is incumbent upon producer groups and boards to do all they can to see that this market price level is achieved.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I think the minister touched there on what is the real problem, because in many cases the benefits of the support prices have not always found their way back to the producers. In many cases the producers have not been getting the full benefit of the agricultural prices stabilization legislation. This is not the time to suggest techniques by which better results could be achieved, but there needs to be some federal co-ordination of the various provincial marketing boards and cooperatives. We also need something for which this party has been pressing for a long time, a national co-operative act to allow groups to organize on a federal basis. Certainly at the present time there does not seem to be any guarantee at all that this support level will in fact bring to the producer the price which has been named by the minister.
The other point I wish to make has to do with the proposed Canadian dairy commission to deal with the export of dairy products. Such a commission is certainly required and we hope the necessary legislation will be brought down this session. I would say this to the minister, however:	The
suggestion that there should be a levy on all dairy products to provide the necessary funds to subsidize exports seems to me to be taking away with one hand what is given by the other. I do not know any government in the western world which does not subsidize exports, particularly of agricultural products, out of general revenue rather than by placing a levy on producers. It seems to me this is a responsibility and a burden which society as
March 23, 1966	COMMONS
a whole ought to assume, and that it should not be placed on the shoulders of an industry which is already very close to being bankrupt.
I hope that before the minister brings this legislation down he will give serious thought to this aspect of the matter. I can see very little value in taking 10 per cent away from dairy producers to subsidize their exports. If the minister were prepared to recommend that his colleagues give some thought to subsidies out of general revenue he would be going much further to help in the export of dairy products.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now we had been looking forward to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). The minister notes that the national consumption of butter exceeded the production, and he mentions it at the outset. I trust this will open the eyes of agricultural organizations across Canada and particularly in Quebec. When the dairy industry is our main industry, and we realize it cannot even produce enough butter to meet the Canadian demand, agriculture has reached a crucial point and it is time for the minister to give greater assistance to the farmers.
He also stated that in the last few years farmers have quit dairying, for good reasons. First of all, for lack of prices in line with production costs. That, I believe, if the first cause the second being the fact that governments fail to help the farmers soon enough.
A while ago the spokesman for the Conservatives said: "We have been asking these adjustments from the minister for the last 12 months". To my mind, the first to have failed to help the farmers are precisely the Conservative party when they were in power.
We have been asking for this, not only in the last 12 months, but since we came here four years ago. It is not only in the last 12 months that things have been going from bad to worse, on the contrary, for over ten years now agriculture has been on the wane in Quebec. People wonder how this will end up. Prices paid to farmers are far from being what might be called "average", or "equivalent" prices.
There is also another cause, the epidemics which often decimate the dairy herds as has been happening in our area for the past two years. It is absolutely necessary that the minister do something about that. We are
DEBATES	3045
Announcement of Dairy Policy witnessing the disappearance of more than a third of our dairy herds on account of brucellosis. The government has done nothing to increase assistance to farmers whose herds have been decimated by this epidemic. It is absolutely essential that the minister take steps to enable farmers to rebuild their herds and bring their production to the level at which it should be in the province of Quebec.
At long last something is announced that all farmers-with the Catholic Farmers' Union at the forefront-have been asking for, a price of $4 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk.
On the other hand, there is in the statement one part I do not relish, the one which speaks of producers' average net returns. There is still talk of "average". The Catholic Farmers' Union has always called for a $4 per hundredweight minimum price. The famous $3.50 average price paid last year never gave the producers $3.50 but $3.10, $3.05. The minister must correct this part of his statement to read: the minimum price is $4 per hundredweight for consumption milk.
I congratulate the minister, particularly when he states that the federal payments will apply to that part of the surplus of fluid milk. This policy was imperative in the province of Quebec because of the many producers of fluid milk, who, without help or subsidy, had to sell the rest of their milk as manufacturing milk.
I also congratulate the minister on having hurried, as I mentioned to him the other day that this matter had to be dealt with this year. I think the farmers will be very happy for everything is mentioned aside from the small lack which I pointed out at the beginning. However, I thank the minister for his fine effort and I hope that this will continue so that the farmers will be treated fairly and be able at least to meet the demand of the country.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. At the outset I want to say we welcome this announcement respecting a national dairy policy or national dairy price policy, if I may put it that way because, as mentioned in the statement, the national dairy commission has not yet been set up. The minister indicated that he intended to bring in legislation during this session for that purpose, but that has not yet been done.
March 23, 1966

Announcement of Dairy Policy
It would be very easy to say that this statement is a repetition of some of the same old things, that it is too little and too late. In his opening remarks the minister indicated that the government was motivated first of all by the large number of dairy farmers who are going out of the dairy industry into other production such as hogs and beef. He also said he was disturbed by the number of dairy farmers who have moved out of farming altogether to the point where Canada now faces the prospect of a severe shortage of dairy products for our own home consumption. I think that is altogether too painful a process to go through before there is positive government action taken to correct the causes. Therefore when I say it is too little and too late I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree that according to his own statements it is, because literally thousands of dairy farmers had been severely hurt prior to the minister's statement.
Further, in looking over the statement we recognize there will be a massive administrative problem involved and we hope members in all parts of the house will support the minister in setting up an efficient administrative machine to deal with the problem. But, Mr. Speaker, most statements of government policy do not always turn out to be what they appear to be at first glance.
For example, it may look as if the cream shippers are going to have an advance of 4 cents a pound in the offer to purchase under the Agricultural Stabilization Board, plus 85 cents per cwt. for milk-that is, the 3.5 per cent milk. However, when one contrasts that with the 10.9 cent subsidy now being paid, the apparent increase mentioned in the minister's statement is not going to take place, because at least to the extent of about 50 per cent this is a transfer of the subsidies from one route to another.
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is no increase to the cream shippers, but it is only about 50 per cent of what it appears to be. I now have one or two questions to raise.

We are wondering whether this 85 cents per hundredweight is going to be paid to the producers of manufacturing milk at all places of delivery in Canada. That is not spelled out in the statement. We also hope, along with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, that there is not going to be a temptation on the part of the processors to reduce the price they are now paying, that is, 3.25 cents a pound for the milk, and take advantage of the subsidy so that it will not get back to the producers.
Generally, we think this is a step forward and the closing paragraph of the minister's statement, in which he suggested that there is going to be some protection for the importation of butter into Canada, or at least some government supervision-I think he even said a government agency for bringing butter in if we need it-does in fact fall into line with our contention that our home market should be insulated to some extent from the surplus prices at which butter and butter fat is sold in other countries.
We hope, as the minister moves into this massive new administrative program and policy, that he will be successful in his determination to raise the net income of the dairy producers in Canada.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Mather: 1.	What, in dollars, was the federal revenue on the sale of beer, ale, wine and distilled liquor during 1965?
2.	What was the federal expenditure in that year in promoting temperance and supporting antialcoholic programs?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and National Health and Welfare as follows:
March 23, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
1. 1965 Revenue-Ale, Beer, Spirits, Wine
Commodity Ale and Beer Spirits Wine
Domestic (excise duty) (excise duty) (excise tax)
$106,394,832 $145,268,424 $	4,204,677

Questions
(customs duty) (customs duty) (customs duty)
Import
(Jan.-Oct.
only)
available
$	228,736

TOTALS	$255,867,933	$27,668,505
Note:	Above revenue figures do not include the 11 per cent federal sales tax which
also applies but is not identifiable with specific commodities.
2. In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned, expenditure on promotion of temperance and supporting anti-alcoholic programs was nil.


AIR PASSENGER TRAFFIC
Mr. Knowles: During 1965, how many passengers embarked by air from, and how many arrived by air at, each
of the following airports (a) Halifax (b) Montreal (c) Ottawa (d) Toronto (e) Winnipeg (f) Regina (g) Saskatoon (h) Calgary (i) Edmonton (j) Vancouver?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Passenger statistics for the full year 1965 are not yet available. Preliminary estimates for the first nine months for scheduled services only, are:
Halifax International Montreal International Ottawa International Toronto International Winnipeg International Regina International Saskatoon International Calgary International Edmonton International Edmonton Industrial Vancouver International
Emplaned	Deplaned
140,000	141,000
989,000	1,027,000
162,000	164,000
1,228,000	1,265,000
264,000	264,000
58,000	57,000
38,000	37,000
209,000	207,000
133,000	133,000
51,000	50,000
445,000	445,000


AVAILABILITY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE INFORMATION
Mr. Rapp: 1.	Is information from the files of the central index in connection with social insurance made available in whole or in part to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or other police forces?
2.	Is the information on file, as obtained for the purpose of securing social insurance numbers, made available directly or indirectly to the Department of National Revenue for income tax purposes?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1.	Yes, pursuant to section 98 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the commission, when it deems it advisable to do so, continues to make certain statistical information contained in the files of the central index and received
under the said act, available on request to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other police forces.
2.	Under the Canada Pension Plan, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible for the general administration of the act, the Minister of National Revenue is responsible for the collection of contributions for all persons covered by the Canada Pension Plan, and the comptroller of the treasury has the responsibility of assisting in the administration of the act.
As provided by the legislation which established the Canada Pension Plan, information from the central index is provided to these departments for these purposes.

March 23, 1S68
Questions


C.N.R. ASSETS, LIABILITIES, PROFITS, LOSSES
Mr. Godin: 1.	What were the total assets and liabilities of the C.N.R. for the years 1945 and 1965?
2.	What were the profits and losses of the C.N.R. during the years 1945 and 1965?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The information relating to the year 1945 is shown hereunder as recorded in the company's annual report for that year. Figures for 1965 are not yet available in Ottawa, but will be in that year's annual report to be published very shortly:
1.	Total assets at 31 December, 1945, $2,303,355,017; Total liabilities, including shareholders' equity, at 31 December, 1945, $2,303,355,017.
2.	Surplus-year 1945, $24,756,130.


NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE-BILINGUAL NAME
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How and when was the Northern Ontario Pipe Line incorporated?
2.	Has this crown corporation a bilingual name and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the government intend to give this crown corporation a bilingual name, and (a) if so, when will it do so (b) if, not, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. The company was incorporated on June 7, 1956 by an Act of the Parliament (Chap. 10 of the Statutes 1956).
2.	The title of the Company in the French edition of the Statutes reads as follows: "loi etablissant la societe de la Couronne 'Northern Ontario Pipe Line' ".
3.	The Government intends to liquidate the Company as soon as an appropriate Act can be submitted to the House.


SIX INCH GUN, FORT MCNAB
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources received a request for the removal of a 6-inch mark VII rifled breech loading gun on mounting with shield from Fort McNab for display at Fort Rodd Hill in British Columbia?
2.	If so, what decision has been reached?
3.	If no decision has been reached, when wiH action in this matter be finally determined?
4.	What immediate plans has the department for this gun?
5.	Have any acts of vandalism been noted in connection with the gun?

6.	If so, what damage has been done?
7.	Can the damage, if any, be repaired or corrected?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	Because of the importance of this piece of equipment to the collection of armament related to the national historic park system, the department's immediate plans are to remove this gun to the mainland to protect it against the ever present danger of vandalism.
5.	No doubt over the years vandalism has occurred, but no specific recent incidents have been noted. While the department had been informed that the breech lock had been stolen, it has now been determined that this vital part of the gun was already in safe storage.
6.	Fortunately no significant damage has yet occurred.
7.	Yes.


GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY USE OF C.N.R. TRACKS
Mr. Winch: 1.	What is the basis of charge to the Great Northern Railway for the use of the Canadian National Railways' tracks between New Westminster and Vancouver?
2.	Does the federal government or the Canadian National Railways, or any other authority, make any payment to the Great Northern Railway for its service from the international border to Vancouver?
3.	What charge, if any, is levied against the Great Northern Railway for running passenger and freight service over Canadian territory in British Columbia?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Regarding parts 1 and 2, the management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The Great Northern Railway operates over its own trackage between New Westminster and Vancouver.
2.	No. However, the C.N.R. has running rights over Great Northern trackage between New Westminster and Vancouver for which it pays rental on an agreed formula basis.
3.	None.


WAGE RATES OF CARPENTERS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	What is the hourly rate required by the Department of Public Works to be paid to contractors for the services of a first class carpenter?
March 23, 1966



2.	What rate is being paid by the contractor at the construction of the Christmas Island post office for the services of a first class carpenter?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minisier of Public Works):: 1. Each construction contract contains labour rates established by the federal department of Labour for the particular project. These vary depending upon the location of the project, but are the minimum the contractor must pay to workmen employed on the project.
2. Prior to February 28, 1966, $1.50 per hour; subsequent to February 28, 1966, $1.75 per hour.


EXPO '67-INVITATION TO NATO
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has NATO been invited to participate in Expo '67?
2.	If not, what Is the reason?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No.
2. NATO has not been invited to participate in Expo '67 because of its policy not to take part in fairs or exhibitions such as Expo '67. NATO was not represented at the last first category exhibition recognized by the Bureau of International Exhibitions held in Brussels in 1958. However, the Canadian government has invited all member countries of NATO to come to Expo '67 and almost all have agreed to participate.


CONSOLIDATION OF STATUTORY ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Mr. Caouetle: Has the government published a consolidation of the decrees, orders and regulations in force in Canada, and (a) if so, when will it become available to members of parliament (b) if not, what is the reason?
Questions


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The last consolidation of all statutory orders and regulations was published in 1955, following the 1952 revision of the statutes of Canada.
Regulations are now being consolidated where possible on an ad hoc basis after a certain number of amendments have been promulgated. The consolidated regulations together with any amendments are listed in the "Consolidated Index and Table of Statutory Orders and Regulations" which is published quarterly by the Queen's Printer.
Consideration is being given to the publication of a consolidation of regulations following the revision of the statutes of Canada which is now in progress.


RESERVATIONS OF BROADCAST TIME DURING ELECTIONS
Mr. Caouelfe: 1.	Does the Board of Broadcast Governors know who reserves certain time periods on radio and television during an election period (a) on the national network (b) on the local networks?
2.	What was the period reserved by each political party during the official election campaign of 1965 (a) on the French national network (b) on the French local networks (c) on the English national networks (d) on the English local networks?
3.	What amount of money does this time represent for each political party?
4.	What total amount does this time purchased for political broadcasts represent?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 
ONTARIO SCHOOL BROADCASTS
[Stage Direction]
3.	Unknown.
4.	Unknown.

Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys (a) at the head office (b) in the other Ottawa offices, during the summer of 1965?
2.	Who recommended these employees?
3.	Do they have relatives-father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. (a) 243 (b) nil.
2.	They were employed through, and with the approval of, the Civil Service Commission.
3.	No records are maintained which show where an employee's relatives are employed.


SUMMER EMPLOYEES, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Mr. Reid: 1.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation carry the Ontario Department of Education's programs known as "Ontario school broadcasts", and (a) if so, what are the arrangements between the Ontario Department of Education and the C.B.C. (b) if not, what is the reason?
2.	Are these programs carried over C.B.C. stations or affiliated stations in Northwestern Ontario?
3.	Are these programs carried over the C.B.C. satellite stations in the districts of Kenora and Rainy River and, if not, what is the reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. No. The corporation offered the facilities of its full Ontario network to the provincial department of education, including C.B.C. and affiliated Ontario stations. The offer was not taken up by the department of education and therefore there is no C.B.C. network feed.
2. These programs are not carried over C.B.C. stations. The department of education approached a number of private affiliated stations individually, including those in northwestern Ontario which have been carrying the programs.


Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of Transport (a) at the head office in Ottawa (b) for the Canadian National Railways (c) in summer hotels, during the summer of 1965?
2.	Who recommended these employees?
3.	Do they have relatives-father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. (a) 117 extra employees comprising those hired as part of a planned overall government program for university students for summer work, those engaged as temporary leave replacements for continuing staff, those hired to meet peak office work loads, and those hired for general

3.	C.B.C. relay stations in the Kenora-Rainy River area do not carry the programs in question, although they do receive the school telecasts distributed through the C.B.C.'s national and Ontario networks. The corporation is not prepared to make just one part of its Ontario network available to complete a non-C.B.C. distribution system when the full facilities of the network have been offered but declined.


RESEARCH INTO GASOLINE PRODUCTION FROM COAL
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is Canada conducting research into the possibilities of deriving gasoline from coal by (a) coal hydrogenation (b) Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (c) H-coal process (d) or any other procedures?
2.	What are the merits of these various systems?
March 23, 1966


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. No.
2. (a) Coal hydrogenation (Bergius process) is uncompetitive with gasoline derived from oil, but mines branch of this department is using the extensive wartime experience of an engineer on their staff who periodically reviews technical and economical possibilities with particular reference to the maritimes coal problem.
(b)	The Fischer-Tropsch process, though considered a little less costly than the Bergius process, still cannot produce gasoline at present day prices. In Great Britain all research on the process has been discontinued.
(c)	The H-coal process is a more promising process than the Bergius and Fischer-Tropsch, but is competitively unfavourable with the H-oil process treating cheap, heavy residual oils. Mines branch is conducting research on variants of the H-oil process to obtain insight on the merits of this process in relation to the H-coal process and to secure data on refining Canada's large low grade oil reserves.
(d)	A project financially supported by the U.S. office of coal research is aimed at producing gasoline by hydrogenation of the distillation products from a multistage fluidized coal bed system. This project is in its early stages.


SAFETY INSPECTION OF VESSELS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Does any department of government assume responsibility or exercise jurisdiction in matters of safety inspection aboard vessels including Canadian forces craft, foreign or domestic commercial craft, while they are in Canadian territorial waters and ports for loading and discharging purposes, ship repairs, overhauls and inspections?
2.	If not, has this matter been considered and, if so, by what government authority and with what results?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1 and 2. The
Department of Transport exercises jurisdiction in those matters of safety aboard Canadian-registered civil vessels which pertain to soundness of hull, machinery, equipment and the safety of the ship and its passengers and crew. Repair and other personnel from shore establishments when working on board the ship from time to time are also subject to workmen's compensation regulations relating to their trades. NonCanadian ships may be brought under departmental jurisdiction at the request of a collector of customs if he has reason to doubt
Questions
seaworthiness. Ships' cargo handling gear is subject to departmental jurisdiction in all Canadian ports regardless of flag.


TENDER FOR MOBILE HOMES, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. MacRae: In connection with tender No, 556-5, dated January 14, 1966, for two mobile homes for the forestry department in New Brunswick (a) who was the successful dealer who was awarded the contract for these mobile homes (b) what were the sizes and makes of the mobile homes supplied (c) what were the successful tender prices?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: (a)	Bradshaw's Trailer Sales & Rentals, Res-tigouche Road and Pawnee Drive, Oromocto, N.B., One (1) house trailer; General Coach Works of Canada Ltd., Hensall, Ont., Two (2) house trailers;
(b)	From Bradshaw's Trailer Sales &
Rentals, Oromocto, N.B.:	One (1) house
trailer with tandem axle assembly 10 ft.x45 ft. manufactured by Glendale Mobile Homes (Maritime) Ltd., with factory at Sussex, N.B. From General Coach Works of Canada Ltd., Hensall, Ont.: Two (2) house trailers with tandem axle assembly, 10 ft.x42 ft., manufactured by General Coach Works of Canada Ltd., Hensall, Ont.
(c)	Bradshaw's Trailer Sales & Rentals, Oromocto, N.B.: One (1) house trailer at a cost of $4,900.00 F.O.B. Fredericton, N.B., sales tax included. General Coach Works of Canada Ltd., Hensall, Ont.: Two (2) house trailers at a cost of $4,394.00 each, F.O.B. Fredericton, N.B., sales tax included.


HOUSE OF COMMONS TELEPHONE OPERATORS
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	How many telephone operators are employed by the government for the House of Commons, and (a) how many speak French (b) how many speak English (c) how many are bilingual (d) among those who are bilingual, how many claim French as their mother tongue?
2.	Do these employees belong to the Civil Service?
3.	Are they better paid when they are bilingual?
4.	Does the government seek especially the services of bilingual telephone operators?
5.	Does the government allow employees who are not bilingual to occupy these positions and, if so, for what reason?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
No telephone operators are employed by the government for the House of Commons. Telephone operator service is furnished by the

March 23, 1966
Questions
Bell Telephone Company as part of the switchboard service, and it has been the practice to expect the company to provide bilingual service. In this connection the company has advised: in regard to 1 (a), that half the operators employed on the government switchboard speak French; in regard to 1 (b), that all speak English; in regard to 1 (c), that approximately one half the total list of operators, from which the duty operators are drawn, are bilingual, and this is generally true of the shift on duty at a particular time; in regard to 1 (d), that this information is not available.


USE OF GOVERNMENT WHARF, SAMBRO, N.S.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many fishing boats and approximately how many fishermen have used the government wharf at Sambro, Halifax county, in (a) 1960 (b) 1963 (c) 1965?
2.	What were the weights and values of the fish catch landed on said wharf in the same years?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. (a) 1960-10 vessels over 10 gross tons and 70 men on a continuous basis; 35 resident boats under 10 gross tons and 50 resident fishermen and 10 non-resident boats under 10 gross tons and 20 non-resident fishermen on an intermittent basis; (b) 1963-10 vessels over 10 gross tons and 70 men on a continuous basis; 50 resident boats under 10 gross tons and 60 resident fishermen and 15 non-resident boats under 10 gross tons and 30 non-resident fishermen on an intermittent basis; (c) 1965-12 vessels over 10 gross tons and 85 men on a continuous basis; 25 resident boats under 10 gross tons and 50 resident fishermen and 20 non-resident boats under 10 gross tons and 40 non-resident fishermen on an intermittent basis.
2.
Weight	Value
(a)	1960	489,000	lbs.	$176,000(b)	1963	558,000	lbs.	$120,000(c)	1965	315,000	lbs.	$118,000
was designed to carry a five ton concentrated truck load or a uniform loading of 150 pounds per square foot and since trucks in excess have been using the wharf it was necessary to erect a warning sign regarding the load limits.
2. No.


SKI SAFETY MEASURES IN NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Lamberl: 1.	Among the regulations of the national parks branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, are there requirements for first aid and medical facilities at the site of various skiing developments in the Banff and Jasper national parks?
2.	If so, what are such requirements?
3.	Do these regulations call for qualified medical practitioners to be on duty or readily available especially on week ends?
4.	If not, is consideration being given to this and other related safety measures on ski slopes in the national parks?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	This department has always provided for the safety of skiers in the parks. For many years ski patrols have been maintained in developed ski areas for the purpose of providing first aid and evacuation of injured skiers. Ski patrol personnel are thoroughly trained and highly qualified to perform the duties required of them.
Adequate telephone or radio communication systems exist between ski development areas and visitor services centres where medical practioners, hospital and ambulance services are available. Our present policy calls for ski patrol, first aid and evacuation services to become the responsibility of the ski area operators. The department will continue to set standards for these facilities and services.


RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF WHARF, SAMBRO, N.S.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Has the government wharf at Sambro, Halifax county, been condemned and are these restrictions on the amount of weight which may be permitted on the wharf?
2.	Are there plans to rebuild the wharf, or to build a new wharf?


George James McIlraith: 1. No, not condemned. The wharf [Mr. Byrne.)


DEATH IN FIRE ON H.M.C.S. &quot;PROVIDER&quot;
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Did fire occur aboard H.M.C.S. Provider in August, 1965, while she was drydoeked at Halifax shipyards, taking the life of William Scudder?
2.	What investigations were carried out by civil and military authorities into the death of Mr. Scudder?
3.	What were the findings of such investigations?
4.	Were any recommendations made to prevent further fatalities?
March 23, 1986

5.	If such recommendations were made, has action been taken upon them and, if so, what action?
6.	Was the work being carried out by William Scudder, just prior to his death under supervision and inspection of others and, if so, by whom?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, Mr. Scudder an employee of Halifax Shipyards Limited, died as a result of burns sustained in a flash fire aboard H.M.C.S. Provider.
2. A naval board of inquiry was held to determine the cause of the fire and report on the damage to H.M.C.S. Provider. It is not known whether any civil inquiry was held in regard to Mr. Scudder's death. This would be a provincial responsibility.
3 and 4. Service boards of inquiry are not public inquiries. The findings and recommendations of such a board are privileged.
5.	Appropriate action is being taken on the recommendations of the board of inquiry.
6.	Yes, the contractor, Halifax Shipyards Limited.


FEED GRAIN STORAGE, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Are feed grains from western Canada now available at various distribution points in the Atlantic provinces at reasonable prices?
2.	If so, have adequate storage facilities been provided to guarantee continuity of supply?
3.	If so. at what points?
4.	Are feed grains brought in during the summer season via the St. Lawrence seaway and thereby made available to consumers in the Atlantic provinces after the seaway traffic has ceased?


Maurice Sauvé: 1. Until March, supplies were short, but with the coming into effect, on March 9, of new reduced and competitive rail rates from the lakehead, western feed grains will now be available at more reasonable prices.
2.	At the close of navigation, storage space at Halifax was not sufficient to cater to both domestic and export trade.
3.	See 1 and 2 above.
4.	Yes, for most of the needs.


* GRANT TO HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNCIL
Mr. Noble: 1.	Has the government made a decision on the application of the Canadian highway safety council for an increase in their grant?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the increase in the grant?
3.	If not, when will a decision be made?
Questions
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and
Welfare): 1. Yes.
2.	$15,000, to bring total grant to $40,000.
3.	Not applicable.


OIL EXPLORATION PERMITS, EAST COAST
Mr. MacLean (Queens): Has the government of Canada issued exploration licences or permits to persons or companies for the exploration of oil off the east coast of Canada and, if so, how many such licences or permits have been issued in the last three years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, 986.


AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Mr. Mather: What percentage of Canadian aid to developing countries during 1965 was in the form of direct aid, such as food and other supplies, and what percentage was used to assist in "self-help" programs, i.e., the modernization and development of capital agricultural facilities and the improvement in production methods?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of the total of $165 million in multilateral and bilateral grant aid and development loans made available to developing countries during the fiscal year 1965-66, 21 per cent was in the form of foodstuffs. Approximately 16 per cent was devoted to the modernization and development of capital agricultural facilities in the form of projects such as irrigation and land reclamation, construction of food storage facilities, resources surveys, provision of fertilizers and fertilizer components and rural electrification schemes. In addition, substantial amounts were allocated for other economic development projects, many of which indirectly benefit agricultural production, including in particular power development, improvement in transport, increased educational facilities, and the provision of technical assistance.
[DOT]"CANADA 1966"- MAP OF AIR ROUTES


Mr. Sherman: 1.	When preparing the map for the publication Canada 1966, will the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys undertake to show thereon (a) the existence of a direct Air Canada route from Winnipeg to the United Kingdom via Hudson Bay (b) the existence of a direct Air Canada route from Winnipeg to Ottawa (e) the existence of a direct Trans Air route from Winnipeg to Churchill?
2.	If not, for what reason?

March 23, 1966
Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The next edition of maps MCR 20 and 21 will show (a) the existence of a direct air route from Winnipeg to the United Kingdom via Hudson Bay and (b) the existence of a direct air route from Winnipeg to Ottawa; (c) No.
2. Because of the small size of the maps, regularly scheduled routes only are shown. TransAir does not provide a direct service between Winnipeg and Churchill. However, this carrier does provide a service between these points via The Pas. The service between Winnipeg and The Pas is regularly scheduled and this route will be shown. TransAir provides a specific point service between The Pas and Churchill with some degree of regularity dependent on traffic volume. This route will not be shown.


FILM BOARD FILM &quot;EVERY SECOND CAR&quot;
Mr. Dionne: Has the C.B.C. been requested to show a second time the National Film Board's film "Every Second Car" and its French translation "Une auto sur deux", concerning traffic security in automobile construction?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: "Every Second Car" was telecast over the English Network twice, on March 3, 1965 and as a summer repeat on June 28, 1965. There have not been any requests to show it again and there are no plans to do so.
"Une Auto Sur Deux" was telecast over the French Network in September, 1965. There have been no requests to repeat it and there are no plans to do so.


REPRESENTATIONS BY TORONTO BRANCH, NAVAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the government received representations from the Toronto branch of the Naval Officers' Association of Canada, suggesting increased regulation of small boats?
2.	If such representations were received, did they contain reference to the dumping of refuse, debris or human effluent in lakes or coastal waters and, if so, what was the precise nature of such reference?
3.	What has been the reply to any such representations?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.

2.	Yes, rules proposed as follows: No debris, refuse, or human effluent shall be deposited or pumped into any body of fresh water, or into coastal waters, within a distance of twelve miles from land. All boats shall be equipped as required with proper containers for such sewage and waste, for subsequent deposit in authorized places ashore.
No broken or empty glass or metal containers shall be deposited in any coastal or inland waters, or indiscriminately deposited on beaches or other shore areas.
3.	A meeting was held between the Naval Officers Associations and the Department of Transport on February 15, 1966, to discuss the above representations. It was decided at that meeting that the representations be put forward for discussion at the next federal-provincial conference on small boats, invitations to which will be issued shortly.


'NAMES FOR NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NOVA SCOTIA PARK
Mr. McCleave: Will the government consider, or has it considered, giving the name of Sir Robert Borden or any other former prime minister to the national library of Canada and, if not, will the government consider giving the name of Sir Robert Borden to the new national park in western Nova Scotia?


George James McIlraith: When a decision has been taken as to what name will be given to the National Library of Canada and to the new national park in western Nova Scotia, it will be announced in the usual way.


WINTER WORKS, NOTRE DAME DE LA GUADELOUPE, QUE.
Mr. Langlois (Meganfic): 1.	What proportion of the total cost of the winter
works carried out in the parish of Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe, during 1961-62,	1962-63,	1963-64,
1964-65 and 1965-66, was paid by the federal government?
2.	What amount was paid in each year?
3.	What was the nature of the work carried out in each winter season?
4.	What was the cost of such work in each particular case?
5.	How many people were employed on such works during each winter season?
6.	What are the names of the persons so employed during each of these winter seasons?
7.	What amount has each person received for the work done each season during which he was employed?
March 23. 1966

Questions


Mr. John C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The Province of Quebec municipal guide does not list the parish of Notre Dame de la Guadeloupe as a municipality.
The information provided hereunder refers to the Village of La Guadeloupe, County of
3, 4 and 5.
Project No. Description
1961-	62
Que. 293 Clearing of creek and ditches.
Que. 1677 Digging water reservoir, brushing and clearing water course.
1962-	63
Que. 237 Improvements to roads, construction of reservoir.
Que. 1729 Clearing area around reservoir, digging ditches.
1963-	64
Que. 538 Road improvements, fence construction.
Que. 1836 Construction of fire station.
1964-	65
Que. 596 Construction of warehouse, development of playground.
1965-	66
Que. 1524 Installation of water mains and sewers.
Que. 1525 Improvement to roads, construction of bridge.
Frontenac.
1.	1961-62-38%; 1962-63-35%; 1963-64-
51%;	1964-65-11%;	1965-66-20% (Estimated).2.	1961-62-$6,564.63;	1962-63-$9,048.76;
1963-64-$28,199.65; 1964-65-$9,187.15; 1965-66-$39,638.00 (Estimated Federal Government Share).
Total Cost	No. of Workers
of Project $	Employed
6,600	50
10,750	33
16,562	59
9,550	20
23,700	50
31,900	60
85,730	103
159,200	26 (Estimated)
34,863	25 (Estimated)
6.	Information not available.
7.	Information not available.


REMOVAL FROM MARKET OF ANTIBIOTIC LOZENGES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the government taken any action to remove from the market any kinds of antibiotic throat lozenges and, if so, on what date was such action taken, and for what reason?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No. The food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare has notified manufacturers of throat lozenges containing less than
3,000	international units of penicillin, that these products will be placed on prescription. Action has been initiated to amend the food 23033-193
and drug regulations to bring this requirement into effect. This action is being taken to ensure that these products are used under medical direction, since small doses of penicillin may result in the development of sensitivity to this drug in certain individuals as well as the development of resistant organisms.


REPORT ON WINNIPEG BASE OF AIR CANADA
Mr. Sherman: When does the government expect to have the Thompson commission report, on Winnipeg's aviation future, available for presentation to Parliament?


John Ross Matheson: I am informed by the commissioner as follows: The report, in English, of the commission of inquiry into

March 23, 1966
Questions
problems relating to the future of the aircraft overhaul base maintained by Air Canada at Winnipeg international airport is ready, and as soon as the documents have been translated into French and the printing completed it will be submitted to the governor in council. It will then be for the government to consider the question of publication of the report.


GRANTS TO CLASS A FAIRS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What funds are made available by the government of Canada to class A fairs?
2.	How have these funds been disbursed to each class A fair for each year since 1963?
3.	What programs are contemplated for the fiscal year 1966-67?


John James Greene: 1. Funds are available to each class "A" exhibition in respect to the following, on an annual basis:
(a) Permanent improvement grants for the building, repair or alterations of facilities
for the display of agricultural products or improvements to exhibition grounds. This grant is based on 50 per cent of actual expenditure to a maximum of $3,000.
(b)	Grants with respect to judges. This is a total expenditure grant for payment to judges of specified agricultural exhibits to a maximum of $500.
(c)	Junior activities grants. A total expenditure grant to pay for transportation of club exhibits, accommodation and meals of exhibitors, trophies and prize monies on interclub competitions. Maximum grant $1,000.
(d)	Prize money grants. Class "A" exhibitions showing under the new livestock classifications receive 50 per cent of the prize money paid out in the new classes.
Major capital grants
Major capital grants are paid in respect to agreements made effective prior to June 21, 1962.
2.


GRANTS TO CLASS &quot;A&quot; EXHIBITIONS-FISCAL YEAR 1964-65
[Stage Direction]
Judges	Junior Activities	Permanent Improvements	Major Capital	Prize Money	Total
		MARITIME PROVINCES				
Truro, N.S	.. 500.00	1,000.00	2,339.11	3,839.11Windsor, N.S	. 500.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	4,500.00Charlottetown, P.E.I	. 500.00	2,150.89	2,650.89QUEBEC	Sherbrooke	. 500.00	1,000.00	2,201.30	3,701.30Quebec City	. 500.00	1,000.00	4,000.00	5,500.00Montmagny	. 500.00	1,000.00	2,012.91	8,217.65	11,730.56Lachute	. 500.00	970.87	3,000.00	4,470.87Trois Rivieres	. 470.00	987.75	3,000.00	4,457.75Victoriaville	. 425.00	1,000.00	2,000.00	3'425.00Rimouski	. 500.00	1,000.00	856.99	2,356.99Ormstown	. 500.00	838.73	2,132.20	3,470.93St. Hyacinthe	. 500.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	4,500.00ONTARIO	Belleville	. 465.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	4,465.00Toronto	. 500.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	4,500.00Ottawa	. 500.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	4,500.00Lindsay	. 500.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	4,500.00Simeoe	. 500.00	977.00	3,000.00	3,750.00	8,227.00Galt	. 500.00	942.73	894.73	2,337.46Peterborough	. 500.00	1,000.00	2,708.82	4,208.82Welland	. 332.00	645.00	3,000.00	3^977.00London	. 500.00	971.00	3,000.00	9,222.50	13,693.50MANITOBA	Brandon	. 500.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	4,500.00Winnipeg	. 500.00	1,000.00	3,000.00	1,837.50	6,337.50﻿March 23, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	Questions	3057Judges	Junior Permanent Activities Improvements	Major Prize Capital Money	TotalSASKATCHEWAN	Prince Albert.	
Regina	
Saskatoon	... 165.00 ... 500.00 ... 500.00	1.000.	00 2,868.53 1.000.	00 3,000.00 1.000.	00 3,000.00	1.995.00 2.135.00	4,033.53 6.495.00 6.635.00ALBERTA	Calgary	
Edmonton	
Lethbridge	... 500.00 ... 500.00 ... 500.00	895.00 3,000.00 1.000.	00 3,000.00 1.000.	00 3,000.00	2,810.00	4.395.00 7.310.00 4.500.00BRITISH COLUMBIA	Cloverdale	
Vancouver	... 500.00 ... 500.00	1.000.	00 3,000.00 1.000.	00 3,000.00	4.500.00 4.500.00

[Stage Direction]
MARITIME PROVINCES		
Truro, N.S	. 500.00	1,000.00 1,939.40	4,062.00	7,501.40Windsor, N.S	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	3,960.00	8,460.50Charlottetown, P.E.I	. 500.00	2,334.93	8,167.00	11,001.93QUEBEC	Sherbrooke	. 500.00	1,000.00 2,075.98	5,232.50	8,808.48Quebec City	. 500.00	1,000.00 4,000.00	10,047.50	15,547.50Lachute	. 500.00	880.57 3,000.00	3,975.00	8,355.57Trois Rivieres	. 440.00	934.00 3,000.00	7,755.00	12,129.00Victoriaville	. 500.00	1,000.00 312.70	6,485.00	8,357.70Rimouski	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	4,500.00Ormstown	. 500.00	830.16 3,000.00	4,330.00ONTARIO	Toronto	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	28,433.50	32,933.50Ottawa	19,115.00	19,115.00Lindsay	. 500.00	1,000.00 2,571.54	4,031,50	8,103.04Simcoe	. 500.00	951.28 3,000.00	4,264.50	8,715.78Galt	. 500.00	942.73 894.73	2,337.46Peterborough	5,391.00	5,391.00Welland	. 378.95	646.00 3,000.00	3,202.00	7,226.95MANITOBA	Brandon	. 500.00	1,000.00 2,633.33	12,908.00	17,041.33Winnipeg	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	8,747.50	13,247.50SASKATCHEWAN	Prince Albert	1,476.00	1,476.00Regina	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	16,196.50	20,696.50ALBERTA	Calgary	. 500.00	340.00 3,000.00	24.237.50	28,077.50Edmonton	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	25,574.00	30,074.00Red Deer	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	5,092.50	9,592.50BRITISH COLUMBIA	Cloverdale	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	4,500.00Vancouver	. 500.00	1,000.00 3,000.00	10,432.50	14,932.50
3058
[Stage Direction]
March 23, 1966
Questions
3. A continuation of the current program is proposed. Any decision to modify plans will be announced.

Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given to permitting the entry, free of duty and excise tax, of farm equipment and apparatus of a type not made in Canada and needed in the preparation of fruit and vegetable products?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Requests that the duty and sales tax be removed from equipment and apparatus of a class or kind not made in Canada used in the preparation of fruit and vegetable products, as well as representations on other tariff and sales tax matters, are being studied during the preparation of the budget.


BILL OF RIGHTS PRINTED ON PARCHMENT
Mr. Slefanson: Has the Queen's Printer on hand a stock of the Canadian Bill of Rights printed on parchment and, if not (a) for how long has this document been out of print (b) what plans has the government for printing additional copies so that they will be available to the general public?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No for the English version; yes for the French version; (a) February 1966 for the English version; (b) demand did not warrant the cost of a reprint so far.


LIMIT ON FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Mr. MacRae: Is consideration being given by the government to introducing legislation which will have the effect of limiting federal election campaigns to a maximum of four weeks?


John Ross Matheson: The answer to this question is the same as that given to starred question No. 927 on March 21, 1966, reference Hansard page 2928.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Allard: 1.	By grants and research scholarships, what amounts were spent in each province by the National Research Council in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	What federal institutions in addition to the National Research Council are engaged in research?
3.	By grants and research scholarships, what are the amounts spent by the Canada Council in each province in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
Return tabled.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Since June 15, 1963, how many dominion-provincial conferences have been held?
2.	Which of these conferences were held at the (a) ministerial and which at the (b) official level?
3.	At which conferences were the sessions open to press and public?
Return tabled.


ARDA PROJECTS, QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In 1964-65, what projects were undertaken under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and what was the nature of these projects in (a) the province of Quebec (b) the county of Chapleau?
2.	What is the cost of each of these projects?
3.	What projects are under study and due to begin soon in (a) the province of Quebec (b) in the county of Chapleau?
4.	What amount will be earmarked for each of these projects?
Return tabled.


USE OF AIRCRAFT BY FORESTRY MINISTER
Mr. Coates: 1.	On how many occasions has the Minister of Forestry had the use of a Department of Transport aircraft or a private aircraft at the government's expense since he was appointed to the cabinet?
2.	On what dates did the Minister of Forestry have the use of an aircraft at the government's expense, what was the destination of his flight on each occasion, and for what period of time was the plane available on each occasion?
3.	What are the names of all the passengers who joined the minister on each of the aforementioned flights and what was the purpose of the flight in each instance?


USE OF AIRCRAFT BY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER
Mr. Coaies: 1.	On how many occasions has the Secretary of State for External Affairs had the use of a Department of Transport aircraft or a private aircraft at the government's expense since he was appointed to the cabinet?
2.	On what dates did the Secretary ox State for External Affairs have the use of an aircraft at the government's expense, what was the destination of his flight on each occasion, and for what period of time was the plane available on each occasion?
3.	What are the names of all the passengers who joined the minister on each of the aforementioned flights and what was the purpose of the flight in each instance?
March 23, 1966


Mr. Coales: 1.	On how many occasions has the Minister of National Health and Welfare had the use of a Department of Transport aircraft or a private aircraft at the government's expense since he was appointed to the cabinet?
2.	On what dates did the Minister of National Health and Welfare have the use of an aircraft at the government's expense, what was the destination of his flight on each occasion, and for what period of time was the plane available on each occasion?
3.	What are the names of all the passengers who joined the minister on each of the aforementioned flights and what was the purpose of the flight in each instance?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get an explanation from the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State as to why he has announced that questions Nos. 516, 517 and 518, standing in my name, are to be made orders for returns. I would like to know why and when this information will be made available. I do not quite understand why they are being made orders for returns.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it is a decision of the house which has been rendered already; therefore I do not think the hon. member can ask for an explanation at this time.


Mr. Coates:: There was no question of unanimous consent that they be made orders for returns.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 108 and 112 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations regarding classified documents and subject to the approval of the provincial authorities concerned. Would Your Honour call notices of motions Nos. 106, 107, 109, 110 and 111? I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


NEW BRUNSWICK-RE-ROUTING OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Flemming:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and memoranda of telephone conversations or verbal interviews between the Minister of Public Works of the Government of Canada, or any
Motions for Papers
official of said department, and the Premier of New Brunswick, or the Minister of Public Works of the Province of New Brunswick, or any official of the Government of New Brunswick or any other person, concerning the change in routing of the Trans-Canada Highway between the highway bridge situated approximately 1 mile north of Hartland in the county of Carleton and Andover in the county of Victoria, since April 22, 1963.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it will be noticed that this motion asks for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and memoranda of telephone conversations or verbal interviews between the Minister of Public Works of the government of Canada, or any official of said department, and the premier of New Brunswick, or the Minister of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick, or any official of the government of New Brunswick, or any other person. The expression "any other person" if it is taken to include memoranda of conversations between departmental officials and other persons within the federal department, or exchanges between the minister, deputy minister and officials, or between ministers within the federal government, there would be objection to that; but if that phrase merely is meant to include memoranda of telephone conversations or interviews between federal officials and officials of New Brunswick, there is no objection. Subject to that reservation I am quite agreeable to the order passing.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicioria-Carleton):: That is quite satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Minister of Public Works is it the pleasure of the house that notice of the motion No. 106 be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENT OF DISABLED PERSONS ACT Motion No. 107
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan regarding any request from the government of Saskatchewan that the Disabled Persons Act be amended to (a) increase the benefits, and (b) alter the federal regulations with a view to increasing eligibility.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this motion No. 107 is acceptable subject to the usual

March 23, 1966
Motions for Papers
reservation that the assent of the provinces is received and that the expression "other documents between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan" shall not be interpreted to include documents that normally are regarded as privileged.
I would apply the same reservation to motions Nos. 109, 110 and 111 standing in the name of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motion Nos. 107, 109, 110 and 111 be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 108-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan since May 22, 1964 regarding a joint study of the utilization of Saskatchewan lignite coal.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 109-Mr. Douglas:
That an	humble	address	be presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan since June 1. 1964 regarding a federal-provincial conference on health services.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 110-Mr. Douglas:
That an	humble	address	be presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan since May 22, 1964 regarding the Canada Pension Plan.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. Ill-Mr. Douglas:
That an	humble	address	be presented	to	HisExcellency	praying	that he	will cause to	be	laid
before this house a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan concerning implementation of the recommendations of the

royal commission on health services, or any steps preliminary thereto, since May 22, 1964.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 112-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the Minister of Finance and the premier of Saskatchewan concerning a request by the government of Saskatchewan for changes in the application of tax regulations as they affect potash mines using the solution method of mining.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 112 is acceptable with the same reservations that have been expressed concerning the consent of the premier of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Minister of Finance is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 112 be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I directed a question to the Solicitor General with regard to a convicted murderer, Georges Marcotte, who gave a lengthy interview in the prison, and also evidence in respect of his artistic ability was made available to the press. The question was, under what circumstances was permission given to him. Is the Solicitor General now in a position to give the information.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I should say that this matter arose as a result of a visit by Mrs. K. H. Lines and Mr. Grant Johnston. Mrs. Lines is president of the Creative Awards Association. This association was founded to promote creative talents among prison inmates in the fields of art, music and literature. As president of this association, Mrs. Lines was a welcome visitor to the federal institutions in the Montreal area.
March 23, 1966	COMMONS
On the day in question Mrs. Lines was granted permission to inspect hobbycraft articles at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. On this occasion she was accompanied by Mr. Grant Johnston, who apparently also was interested in the program of the Creative Awards Association. St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary lacks facilities to exhibit hobby-craft in any place other than the place where hobby work is actually carried on. Mrs. Lines and Mr. Johnston were escorted to that area by a penitentiary officer. A group of inmates were there, engaged in hobby work. The purpose of the visit was specifically to inspect hobby work and no authorization for a press interview had been issued. One of the inmates in the hobby area at the time of the visit was Georges Marcotte. It appears that Mr. Grant Johnston took advantage of this opportunity to interview Marcotte and apparently as a result of that interview, the publication appeared in the press.
Again I re-emphasize that no authorization was issued for a personal interview by any person with Marcotte for the purposes of publication.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that in recent days price increases on a number of commodities have been voluntarily rolled back in the United States in order to comply with the guide lines which were established by that government? I would like to ask the minister whether any thought is being given by him and his colleagues to instituting a similar type of action in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of thought has been given to this matter, but so far we have not concluded this would be a useful means of controlling prices. We might change our minds, but the view at the present time, looking to the situation in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, where in most cases prices have risen much more quickly than in Canada, is that experience has not been such as to encourage us in this direction.
DEBATES	3061
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Could the minister tell the house how a revolutionary such as Ronald Ramsey could have been admitted to Canada?
Could the minister tell us also about the possibility given to him of entering this country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot inform the house about all the possibilities there are of entering Canada. We know how easy it is to enter Canada from the United States and even from European countries.
I do not think anyone in Canada would find it acceptable if we were to maintain such a close check at our borders that vexations would result for all our people.
So, I have no way of knowing. Unless the hon. member for Villeneuve tells us how Mr. Ramsey entered Canada, I myself cannot say.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The minister should ask the C.B.C. Perhaps they could tell him. But here is my supplementary question: Did Mr. Ramsey ask the minister to grant him the right of sanctuary in Canada or must he still ask for it?


Jean Marchand: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns his announcement on March 7 that a judicial inquiry would be established to investigate the general operation of our security procedures, with a view to determining whether or not they are now adequate, and to assure the protection of the rights of private individuals in any investigation. Can the Prime Minister tell us when he expects to announce the establishment of this very vital and important judicial inquiry and, if possible, who will be heading it?
March 23, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope to announce the establishment of this commission as soon as possible.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform us what will be the total cost to the treasury of the subsidies and so forth which will be paid during the coming dairy year under the dairy policy he just announced?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, it is estimated to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $90 million.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary and related question which perhaps should more properly be addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance, rather than to the Minister of Agriculture. What will be the effect on our position in GATT of these subsidies on the export of dairy products which will result from the announced program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question should be asked at this time. The hon. member is asking what the effect of this policy will be on GATT. I do not really believe that the information which might be conveyed to the hon. member at this time is the type of information which should be sought during this question period.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the very type of question which is appropriate at this time. The effect to which I refer is one of the most important of the policy or program just announced, and one which the members of this house should know about.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister might perhaps have given this information during his announcement, although I felt the announcement was long enough. If hon. members want to hear more from the Minister of Agriculture, then perhaps he should be allowed to answer.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to point out, in reply to my hon. friend's question, that we were very careful in this regard. This matter was raised in several of the commentaries of members opposite.

The levy on exports is not in the form of government payments; it is a levy from the producer. They are in fact getting 85 cents in producers subsidy, and the 10 cent levy is taken from their money. If the hon. member will look very carefully at the statement, he will note that if there is any money left at the end of the year as a result of that levy, it goes to the producer. This is not an export subsidy by the government; this is producers' money.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a supplementary question may I ask whether it is a fact that the 10 cent levy is subtracted from the subsidy being paid by the government to the producers?


Mr. Speaker:: This is exactly what I had in mind a moment ago when I thought we might get into a debate. This is not the type of question that should be asked now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question arising out of the statement he made today. Has the minister or his department calculated the increased price per pound of butterfat to the wholesalers so that there will be no additional increase in price to the consumer over and above this change in the wholesale price?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not just certain of the purport of the question, but as the hon. member knows, the price has been increased 2 cents, as was stated in the announcement, and I think this portion of the increase will be passed on to the consumer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With the withdrawal of the 10.9 cents per pound subsidy on butterfat, I am wondering if this will affect the wholesale price of butter.


John James Greene: In our view, Mr. Speaker, only to the extent of 2 cents, which is the increase that we have put on; because the extra subsidy goes into the 85 cents that we are paying under the new program.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of my understanding that he is to meet later this afternoon with
March 23. 1966	COMMONS
representatives of the civil service associations, can he say whether this means that the government has made a decision on bilingualism in the public service, and can he indicate when an announcement regarding this matter will be made to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the meeting this afternoon is for the purpose of receiving the views of officers of civil service organizations in respect of this very important matter.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister answer the latter part of my question? Has the government made a decision on bilingualism and when will an announcement be made in this regard to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no final decision will be made until we have received and considered the views of these representatives. When a decision is made it will be announced to the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has the minister's attention been directed to the fact that within the last two weeks there have been substantial layoffs of skilled and semi-skilled workmen in branches of Canada's machine tool industry which up to now have been manufacturing automobile parts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it is proper to ask whether this type of information has been brought to the attention of the minister. Certainly that is not the type of question which should be asked at this time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Has he instructed officials of his department to look into the causes of and remedies for the recent lay-offs in the automobile parts industry in Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: They have been engaged in this task for the past three weeks, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	3063
Inquiries of the Ministry HATE LITERATURE



INQUIRY AS TO COMMISSION REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. On Monday last I asked him about the report of the Maxwell Cohen committee on legislation concerning a possible amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with hate literature, and whether he was considering tabling copies of that report even though the printing had not been completed. The hon. gentleman was good enough to say that he would look into the matter and reply "tomorrow or the next day". That "tomorrow" was yesterday and the "next day" is today. I wonder whether the right hon. Prime Minister can give us a reply at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet had an opportunity to read the full text of the report, and I wonder whether in the circumstances my hon. friend will allow me to say again that I will reply tomorrow or the next day.


David Lewis: What alternative have I?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address an unprecedented double-barrelled question to the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon. leader of the official opposition.
In view of the suggestion which appeared in today's Gazette, that the Prime Minister would respectfully propose to His Excellency the Governor General that the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should be asked to form a coalition government, would the right hon. gentlemen care to make some remarks on this unique proposal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while this question I know is out of order, perhaps you will allow me to say this. I am sure my hon. friend has asked this question in very good faith and is undoubtedly interested in this kind of change, because it is the only kind of change which could ever permit him to serve in a government.

March 23. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell us when she intends to call the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since the
Secretary of State of this Liberal government has been telling us for two years it will be "soon", could we know whether this means at this session?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the government house leader-


David Lewis: He is not
here, he is gone.


Maurice Allard: -or to the Prime Minister.
It has to do with notice of motion No. 66, which will be called this afternoon.
Would the Prime Minister or the government leader consider the possibility of calling separate votes on Parts I and II of the resolution, as well as on Part III? As a matter of fact, parts "a" and "b" of the resolution-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I point out to the hon. member that this is a point of procedure that he might raise during the debate, but which cannot form the subject of a question at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the resolution coming before the house this afternoon, which is of transcendant importance and of great consequence. I wonder 
whether the Prime Minister intends to place before the house and country his considered views on this question, based upon his experience as Prime Minister for some three years, having had a large number of cases come before him for consideration? Whatever the outcome of the free vote on this resolution, will the Prime Minister give consideration to submitting this question of the abolition of capital punishment to a committee of the house in order that the fullest possible evidence might be taken in connection therewith and so that this house can be made fully aware of the various commissions which have dealt with this question in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, before a final decision is made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, let me say that I am a member of this house at this stage and would prefer to listen to the views of other members before deciding what my own responsibility is in regard to participation in the debate. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, I think we should discuss the resolution on the order paper and the right hon. gentleman's suggestion can be considered while we are discussing it.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the fate by commutation or otherwise of those now under sentence of death be determined by the cabinet in the light of existing law and practice or await the outcome of the debate which will commence shortly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely this is an improper question, Mr. Speaker, as it deals with the royal prerogative.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of statements appearing in the press following his visit to Vancouver, can he inform the house what plans are being considered for a National Harbours Board wharf development in Vancouver between Centennial pier and C.P.R. piers B and C?
March 23, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to judge just how urgent this question may be, but I am sure it can be properly placed on the order paper.


Grant Deachman: I wish to debate it at ten o'clock.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Industry, is based on reports published today showing that in 1965 there was a 13 per cent increase in road deaths in the province of Ontario alone. I should like to ask the minister whether in his attempt to bring the automobile under the rule of law he is actively considering a request from the state of New York for Canadian assistance in the building of the New York prototype safety car, and might we expect an announcement in this regard fairly soon?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are looking earnestly and diligently at the suggestion of the state of New York for the construction of a safety car and hope to reach a conclusion in the near future.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister arranged a meeting in Ottawa next Monday with Mr. Ronald Todgham, president of Chrysler Corporation and president of the Canadian Automobile Manufacturers Association, and will automobile safety be on the agenda for discussion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Automobile safety is not the principal purpose of the meeting, but undoubtedly I shall be discussing it with Mr. Todgham.



INQUIRY AS TO TIME DEVOTED BY C.B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Secretary of State. Since the C.B.C. deficits are considered to be partially justifiable on the basis of public service, I should like to ask the minister how much time has been allocated by C.B.C. radio and C.B.C. television to matters of highway safety which contain Canadian material?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might be placed on the order paper.
DEBATES	3065
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



GRANT TO AID CANNERY ON QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether he has received a telegram from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union in British Columbia occasioned, I think, by the reluctance or inability of the Indian affairs branch to provide a grant in aid to a particular cannery on the Queen Charlotte islands. If the Prime Minister has received that telegram, which I understand proposes a certain course of action, could he indicate to the house what his response has been?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have received that telegram, Mr. Speaker. The matter is under consideration.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. May I ask him whether he is in a position today to make a statement that will allay the fears that have arisen throughout the province of Nova Scotia within recent days in regard to the future of the steel industry at Sydney?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the circumstances which gave rise to the most recent apprehension about the steel industry were fully explained yesterday.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I would ask him whether he is aware of the union side of the question with respect to the steel operation in Sydney, wherein the union claims that there has been a 50 per cent reduction in the work force. Since the minister referred to the explanation given yesterday, I would ask him to explain just what is meant by "an increase in employment of from nine to 12 man years."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is argumentative and cannot be accepted.

March 23, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South): I do
not propose to put forward an argument, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot understand why a question directed to the minister in respect of what he said yesterday is argumentative. I asked him to explain what he meant by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A ruling has been made.


Malcolm MacInnis: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would interest himself in the union side of the question of the reduction in work at the Sydney steel operation, as opposed to the minister's interest on the company side.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister of Finance intend to bring forward any fiscal policies which will be specifically designed to offset the effect of his tight money policy in the Atlantic area, which at the present time has an unemployment rate of 10.9 per cent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I was going to direct to the Minister of Justice, but on reflection I think I should bring it to the attention of the President of the Privy Council in his remaining capacities in the legal field. The question is this: Having in mind the announcement today in British Columbia that a royal commission has recommended complete divorcement of the jobber and retailer marketing of gasoline products and an end to consignment selling. I wonder whether the minister can say when the federal government will announce its decision in regard to the very long-standing recommendations of the restrictive trade practices commission in this respect?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's notice of intention to ask this question was sent to the Minister of Justice and has been referred to me. I thank the hon. member for 
that notice. Hon. members will be aware that, as I have told the house on previous occasions, the question of implementing the T.B.A. report is being given very serious and careful study. I will say frankly that one of our most difficult problems in this respect is to see how the recommendations in the report should they be accepted by the government, can be translated into law with any hope of giving effective relief to the retail gasoline dealers.
We are also required to consider whether it would not be preferable to undertake a more far-reaching review of the anti-combines legislation, of which the T.B.A. report would form a part. It is these considerations that have caused us to be deliberate rather than hasty in our consideration of the matter and, of course, we have felt obliged to await the outcome of the case recently decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the constitutional aspect of a part of the act was in issue.
I can assure hon. members, however, that we are giving earnest attention to the whole matter and I hope to be able to make known the position of the government before very long.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforfh):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recently a question was put to the minister regarding food aid for India and the government food aid plan generally. In the course of his short, concise answer the minister said he might expand on it at a later date. I wonder if he is in a position to do so today.


Hon. Paul  Marfin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the government proposes to provide to India during the current calendar year approximately one million tons of food, principally in wheat and flour, worth about $15 million during the first quarter and $56 million in the remainder of the calendar year. Out of the basic aid program and the progressive increase fore-shadowed in the Speech from the Throne, it is also intended to provide substantial help to other developing countries now experiencing serious food situations, such as Pakistan, which was mentioned the other day by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and Ghana, where early assistance is badly needed. The
March 23, 1966

government's intention is that the total food aid program for the coming fiscal year should be raised to about $75 million.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding Canadian food aid to Pakistan. I wonder if the minister has noted that today the Pakistan government announced the purchase of tanks and military aircraft from red China?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member cannot ask if a minister has noted a report. The question is not properly put.



FOOD AND DRUGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can tell the house when the first meeting of the special committee on food and drugs will be held?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot, but I will make inquiries.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread protest against regulations laid down by the Winnipeg Grain Exchange under which the port of Montreal is not allowed to handle grain grown outside the country, will the minister assure the house that the government will permit representatives of the port of Montreal to contest such regulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can inform the hon. gentleman and the house that I am already making arrangements to meet early in April with Montreal port authorities, and all the other interested bodies.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury moved:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code lor the purposes of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
Criminal Code
(b)	substituting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in those cases where the death penalty is now mandatory; and
(c)	providing that no person upon whom a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is imposed shall be released from imprisonment without the prior approval of the Governor in Council.
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before the start of the debate on this interesting resolution. May I ask the four movers if they would agree to divide their resolution in two parts for the purpose of the vote. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are directed especially to people who favour abolishing the death penalty, if paragraph (c) was separated from the other two, this would allow hon members who favour abolishing the death penalty as well as those who want it retained to vote for that third paragraph.
I would ask the movers of that resolution whether they would allow the house to vote separately on paragraphs (a) and (b) which are quite clear in one way or the other and on paragraph (c). Several hon. members who will probably vote for the retention of the death penalty will be glad to see that a sentence of life imprisonment cannot be mitigated without the approval of the governor in council.
I would like a ruling to be made on my point of order before the debate starts.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before considering the point of order, I would say to the hon. member that the chair had recognized the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). The hon. member for Sherbrooke has moved an amendment without really doing so. I do not believe it is possible at this time to discuss the matter in that way. The hon. member could move an amendment to that effect and the chair would rule whether it is in order.
The hon. member is now asking a hypothetical question that could be considered by the members who introduced the resolution. For the time being, the movers of that resolution must be given an opportunity to express their views.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a precedent in this house. At that time, it was incumbent on the Speaker to divide such a resolution in two. Since paragraph (c) is inconsistent with

March 23, 1366
Criminal Code
paragraph (b), and some of us are being asked to vote on contradictory matters might it not behove Your Honour, by virtue of the standing orders, to divide the resolution? This occurred two years ago, I believe, at the time of the debate on the Canadian flag and even before the debate started, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had made observations. The chair decided later on, even before the debate started, to divide the proposed resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be pleased to consider the suggestion, but I must say to the hon. member that, at first sight, it seems to me circumstances are now totally different from those he alluded to.
I expect the hon. member has based his proposal on the stipulations of citation 200, paragraph (4) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which states:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
As I have just said, at first sight, there does not seem to be separate propositions, but only different interpretations of the same proposition.
At any rate, I shall be pleased to look into the hon. member's suggestion, at the first opportunity.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, can we conclude, that you will take this into consideration and give a ruling later?


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that I have almost made up my mind on a ruling, but that I shall nevertheless study the suggestion he has just made.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Sfraih-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a word with regard to the interjections made by hon. gentlemen who spoke to the point of order. I cannot see any difficulty in the manner in which the resolution is before the house. I do not believe the separate sections are contradictory, but rather that they are complementary. It is, to all intents and purposes, one resolution which would carry out one thought if voted upon as it is.
I should like to commence my remarks in this debate, Mr. Speaker, by thanking my co-sponsors on this motion, the hon. members for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne); York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) and Danforth (Mr. Scott) for their co-operation in bringing

about this resolution as a means of having the debate. I should like to go further than calling it co-operation, sir, because it is indeed generosity. I feel those three hon. members have shown a particularly selfess interest in bringing this debate before the house.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
They had all sponsored bills on the order paper. I am sure that each one of them was anxious to have the honour that I now have of introducing this subject, and I know that each one has a very valuable contribution to make toward the debate. I, sir, have the honour of speaking first only because of the generosity of the other three members who allowed a draw to be held, which I won. Therefore I have the privilege of speaking on my own behalf first.
I think I would speak for every member of the house too when I express satisfaction that the government is making available these three days for the consideration of this problem. It is a problem that has been before the house on previous occasions. It is one on which many hon. members intend to speak, I know, and the subject has aroused the interest, indeed in some cases the excitement, of people in Canada generally. It is one that has stirred the conscience and the consciousness of every member of this house and is a subject that we as members must deal with.
I think that most of us who were in this house in 1960 will remember that we had a most informative debate on a bill sponsored by the previous member for York-Scar-borough, Mr. Frank McGee. Unfortunately that debate did not last long enough to allow the house to come to any conclusion, but many valuable contributions were made which I think had much to do with the subsequent forward step of the government in dividing murder into capital and non-capital murder.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has previously introduced in this house a bill to abolish capital punishment. The present Premier of the province of Saskatchewan has also brought this problem before the house on other occasions. There have been many important changes made, I think, as well as much progress in the consideration of the question of sentencing all people found guilty of murder.
I have mentioned in my remarks the cooperation received from my fellow sponsors of this resolution, which is a good introduction to the fact that the resolution is presented to the house as one which we are asking
March 23, 1966

the members of the house to consider on a non-political basis. The duty of each member, I think, is not one of considering which way his party is going to vote. We who sponsor it belong to different parties. We who have had something to do with arranging for this debate have approached the question on a strictly non-political basis. The arrangements have been made with the co-operation of the government and on the basis that each member shall have the chance to debate the matter in the most practical manner so that the question may be given the fullest consideration. Each member may say what he wants to say and can listen to other views which may be of assistance to him in arriving at his own decision on the disposition of this resolution, a decision which each member will have to make entirely on his own.
It goes without saying, sir, that no matter on which side of the debate one speaks or on which side one will eventually vote, whether for the abolition or for the retention of capital punishment, I think there is general agreement in the house that those who speak on either side are speaking with absolute sincerity. This is a problem which raises honest doubts in the minds of those who have to consider it. An argument which is sufficient to convince one man may not be seen by another man in quite the same light, and there does exist what I consider to be a very honest difference of opinion in the method of arriving at the same solution which we all seek. I think one thing we all have in common, whether we are in favour of abolition or retention of the death penalty, is the protection of society.
This is the first point I should like to make on my own behalf, since I am asking for the abolition of the death penalty. It is my considered opinion that the removal of the death penalty in accordance with the terms of this resolution does nothing to weaken the defences of society against potential murderers.
It is my second proposition that one sign of advanced civilization is that the more civilized a country becomes the more reluctant is the society of that country to take the life of any person. It is therefore a double-barrelled suggestion which I make. I seek the full protection of the people in this country without seeking to weaken any protection they presently enjoy from the law, and the remedy I seek will I think enhance the reputation and stature of this country as a civilized country.
Criminal Code
It is my considered opinion that the sentence of life imprisonment is just as much a deterrent as the death penalty. I think that when Arthur Maloney of Toronto spoke in the house on this subject, he spoke with a measure of calmness, logic and sincerity which certainly excited the admiration and respect of every member who heard him. I should like to read just two paragraphs which illustrate both the tone of his speech and the argument he used in 1960, to be found at page 1198 of Hansard for February 18 of that year. Here are the two paragraphs which impressed me both as to content and as to the manner and tone with which Mr. Maloney dealt with this question:
There is no question of revenge or retribution, I am sure, that enters into the thinking of any of us in this house, and certainly not into the thinking of anyone who favours the retention of the penalty of death. To me the sole question to be determined and the only question we are called upon to decide is this: Is the penalty of death the only effective deterrent available to stamp out the crime of murder or is there another alternative penalty that is equally effective and less drastic?
There is a wealth of incontrovertible evidence, to some of which you have already been referred, to which you can look in your search for an answer to this question. This evidence demonstrates to the point of moral sureness and certainty that the penalty of death is not the only effective deterrent to the crime of murder and that a sentence of imprisonment for life has proven, where these experiments have been made, to be equally effective.
It is on that basis that I make my argument. I, as a citizen of this country, feel that the only excuse society has for taking the life of any person is if it is proven necessary to do so for the protection of our society and our way of life. In order to prove that it is necessary, obviously, to prove that no other means will avail. I cannot follow the logic of reasoning that if it is wrong for one person to take a life then it is right for a group of us to take a life. Our rules and our laws reflect the opinion of the majority of the people, who have expressed their opinion in the formation of the government. But, after all, it is only the opinion of the majority of the people. Even if that opinion were unanimously held by my fellows, I would not think it right to take a life. But, as I say, it is only a majority opinion and the majority can only be justified if it is proven that no other method can be found to protect our society.
I can certainly understand the concern of those who believe that the death penalty is the most effective deterrent.

March 23. 1966
Criminal Code
[DOT] (4:20 p.ra.)
Certainly, those of us who have great respect for human life and who abhor crimes of violence, feel this might not be a very powerful deterrent. If we look back on history we will find that the attitude of government and of society has always shown this great belief in the deterrent power of the death penalty. We need only look back in British history 100 years or so to find that there were between 100 and 200 crimes for which people could be put to death. There was such faith in the power of the death penalty as a deterrent that on each occasion when an attempt was made to remove it as a punishment for one offence or another, the cry went up: Crime will increase.
I should like to quote from an argument put forward by Mr. G. Arthur Martin, Q.C. of Toronto who used to be a believer in the death penalty but who came to think, after studying the question, that capital punishment was unnecessary in our society. He tells us that in 1810 Sir Samuel Romilly introduced a bill into the House of Commons to abolish capital punishment for the theft of five shillings or over from a shop. Mr. Martin reminds us that this is what Chief Justice Lord Ellenborough said when that bill was discussed in the House of Lords:
I trust your lordships will pause before you assent to an experiment pregnant with danger to the security of property, and before you repeal a statute which has so long been held necessary for public security. I am convinced, with the rest of the Judges, public expediency requires there should be no remission of the terror denounced against this description of offenders. Such will be the consequences of the repeal of this statute that I am certain depredations to an unlimited extent would be immediately committed.
Later in the debate the Chief Justice of that day continued:
My Lords, if we suffer his Bill to pass we shall not know where to stand; we shall not know whether we are upon our heads or our feet. Repeal this law and see the constrast-no man can trust himself for an hour out of doors without the most alarming apprehensions that, on his return, every vestige of his property will be swept off by the hardened robber.
This is consistent argument. It is perfectly true that capital punishment is a deterrent. Often we shall hear people say when discussing this subject that it is not a deterrent. They say this loosely, meaning that it is not a greater deterrent than, for example, life imprisonment. I do not think any of us who ask for the abolition of capital punishment deny it is a deterrent. We simply say that other deterrents are just as effective.

Throughout the history of England, and indeed the history of Canada, as time went on and as the death penalty was removed from more and more offences, the same cry was raised-that crime would increase and offences be encouraged. This represents a consistent feeling throughout society. Not just in Great Britain or in Canada but throughout the world, there is this belief in the efficacy of capital punishment as a necessary stem to wrongdoing.
What we should do, I suggest, is consider what happened as we removed various offences from this category. In no case has there been that great increase in the number of those offences which was so direly predicted. We have come a long way. I submit we have come almost to the point where we are a completely civilized society-that we might reflect, as we ask the would-be murder to do, on the sanctity of human life which is, to me, so sacrosanct that society itself does not have the right to take it away.
The question again hinges on this: Are we now at that stage where we can once again consider the argument whether capital punishment is still a necessary deterrent and whether, if that deterrent is taken away, there would be an increase in the number of murders, or increased encouragement to commit murder? Again, Mr. Martin has summed up this situation in reasoning which I think illustrates the type of thinking we must bring to bear on this problem. The arguments are well known. Familiar arguments are put to us many times; we hear them and hear them again. But occasionally something clicks or makes a special appeal to us, and we see things in a new light. I have never found anything which is as effective as the manner of putting the argument which Mr. Martin uses. He expresses it this way:
Those who favour the retention of the death penalty sometimes ask "Can it be proved that capital punishment in no case deterred a person contemplating murder who would not have been deterred by the threat of life imprisonment?"
I think a frank answer to this question must be in the negative. It is by its very nature a proposition incapable of proof, but it may be confidently asserted that such instances must be very rare. The question, no doubt, has its origin in the mental processes of a normal person who brings his mind to bear upon the problem in the abstract. He asks himself, "If I were contemplating murder would I be more deterred by the penalty of death than the prospect of life imprisonment" and he feels that he would. If he explored the problem fully in his mind he would also find that he would also be sufficiently deterred by the prospect of life imprisonment. The question presupposes a man normal enough to contemplate
March 23. 1966

murder and the possibility of being put to death for it and as a result being deterred, but sufficiently abnormal that he is not deterred by the prospect of life imprisonment. Such a delicately balanced kind of abnormality must be rare. Moreover, does anyone think that a person contemplating murder goes through this process?
The logic of this argument appeals to me. Certainly if we are to consider the death penalty as a necessary deterrent we have to face this situation-that we as normal people approach the suggestion of murder with a normal mind. We are trying to find a device to influence a person with an abnormal mind who can nevertheless plot and premeditate the death of a human being. Then we put ourselves in the position of saying: It would make a difference to me if I were going to hang or not, supposing I were contemplating committing this crime. Surely a man abnormal enough to contemplate murder will not have the same respect for the differences in the penalty as we have. If he is abnormal enough to consider the crime, or to run the risk of being caught, then he does not have our type of mind and is unlikely to make this clear distinction. If he did make such a clear distinction then perhaps it would not mean as much to him; some would prefer to be put to death.
I have indicated that the important question in the mind of anyone who intends to plot or contrive a murder is the risk of apprehension. This is his one and only thought, I am sure. My experience in the law is not as great as that of some hon. members of this house, though it has been considerable. And I have not yet found a criminal who ever plotted a crime and guided his conduct on the basis of the length of the punishment which would be awarded for such an offence. There is only one thought in the minds of those who commit these offences: They feel they will not be caught.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Some of the safeguards we could put up, instead of capital punishment, have been dealt with in various ways. We find from a study that the causes of murder itself are some of the social evils of our age, and I suggest that we should try to correct those.
I have as much compassion, as has any man in this house who wants to hang a murderer, for the family of the deceased. I do not want to mollycoddle criminals, but I do not see how hanging a man is going to bring someone back to life. I know some good arguments will be presented on this and I
Criminal Code
want to thank the house for its attention and for the privilege of being allowed to lead off this debate.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have been able to associate my name with those of three distinguished members of parliament in presenting this motion. I am also pleased that so many members of the house are interested in this measure, and deeply pleased that a former member, Hon. Frank McGee, who showed such great concern about this question during his parliamentary life, is in the gallery today.
I believe that capital punishment casts a shadow upon the social structure of twentieth century civilization. To me, carrying out the death sentence is nothing less than an act of vengeance perpetrated by the state on behalf of the people. I believe it is some form of hangover of a barbaric method of retribution that should hold no place in the enlightened society of our age.
Since I appear to feel so strongly about this matter hon. members may well ask why I have not raised the question in the house previously and introduced amendments to the Criminal Code, which is the only way to remedy the situation. Well, Mr. Speaker, from my long experience in this house, observing its procedures, I held no illusions that it would be possible to introduce a bill and conclude discussion on such a controversial subject in the one hour that is allotted for private members' business each day. However, now that the government-and I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for his decision-has agreed to provide time normally allotted to government business for a discussion of and a conclusion in this matter, I believe the time is opportune. I sincerely hope this measure, calling for total and complete abolition, will receive majority support of the house.
I personally am unalterably opposed to the taking of the life of any creature, either by an individual or by the state, except unavoidably in self defence, or to fulfil a need. I have concluded therefore that the people I represent in this house would not expect me to sacrifice my conscience to their opinions. To me the question of abolition of capital punishment is a moral one, affecting the nation's social attitudes toward human life. Each member must come to a conclusion which squares with his own conscience and not the will of his constituents or of his political party, and of course this has been amply

March 23. 1966
Criminal Code
demonstrated by the way in which the motion was introduced.
The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and indeed the leaders of all parties represented in this house have recognized the special character of this measure. Only a very small percentage of the public can possibly acquaint itself fully with the rational aspects of this issue. For the most part the uninformed will have had their minds made up, based on their personal emotions.
It is important, therefore, that all members who propose to vote on this motion listen attentively to all of the debates, and to peruse carefully all of the evidence presented by hon. members on both sides of the question. If we then do not come to the conclusion that the taking of human life under any pretext, save in self-defence, is wrong, we justify retention of capital punishment for its deterrent value or, in reality, for the natural human reaction, the love of vengeance.
Thus far my studies and research have not produced anything like conclusive evidence that fear of the death sentence is an effective deterrent to murder. Nor does the example set by carrying out the death sentence contribute significantly to the deterrence of other murders. In fact the statistical studies of Thorsten Sellin and other renowned sociologists lead one to believe that it has no deterrent value whatsoever. However, it is not my intention to argue the utility of this institution, and I will leave that to other hon. members. I am sure the statistical reviews will prove this point.
While it is ofttimes said that "vengeance is sweet," the Christian and twentieth century approach to modern penology rejects such a proposition. Indeed it should be the determination of the state and its legislators to stress the value and the sacredness of human existence.
In this regard I wish to quote very briefly from an eighteenth century radical Liberal politician, John Bright, a member of parliament for Durham who spent some time in Gladstone's Cabinet. He had this to say:
A deep reverence for human life is worth more than a thousand executions; and is, in fact, the great security of human life. The law of capital punishment, whist pretending to support this reverence does in fact tend to destroy it.
It is my opinion that a national re-evaluation of human existence cannot help but influence international attitudes. A nation which debases the value of human life by its

extinction cannot hope to lead in the area of preventive diplomacy. In a scientific age when the mere pressing of a button might herald the complete destruction of all living creatures on this earth, we must seek to create respect for human life. Such a pursuit should be a paramount consideration for legislators and diplomats alike.
But desire for revenge is a powerful human motivation. The urge to kill, or at least to take some pleasure from the misfortune of others, is a basic human trait which this barbaric institution simply serves to abet.
Hon. members may say these strong words are unduly critical of our fellow men, but let us just take a look at some examples of human behavior which bear evidence to the truth of what I am saying. My purpose in producing such evidence is not to be critical but to show that none of us can escape these human instincts.
Psychiatrists inform us that there is often a very thin line between sanity and insanity. Many of us from time to time momentarily approach this boundary in fits of temper or other uncontrollable passions. Our official attitude therefore toward the value of human life may well condition the thinking of borderline citizens.
Is it not true that men and women, indeed even mothers, will pay fantastic sums for the privilege of obtaining ringside seats at a professional prizefight? What do they go there to see? Surely it is not entirely to watch the manly art of self defence but rather to see two human beings pummel one another, at times into insensibility and even to death.
Again, huge crowds will gather in the countryside to watch a sky diving demonstration by local acrobats. What do they go out to see? Only to thrill, I suppose, at the sight of a highly trained parachute jumper floating gracefully to earth. From whence comes the thrill at the dexterity of the trapeze artist? Is it pleasure for the deftness and the precision of such performances? No, the real thrill is derived from the knowledge that each contestant participates at the risk of life and limb.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Was there ever a sight more degrading, at least to me, than that of a mother clutching the ropes of the prize fight or wrestling ring and shouting advice to her favourite, very often with the phrase "Kill him, kill him". Was there ever a thought more disgusting
March 23. 1366

than that of sightseers being permitted to watch an execution by hanging or otherwise.
Just a few weeks ago I was startled to learn that an African ruler in one of the emerging nations arranged, through the due process of an act of parliament, the execution of a political or revolutionary murderer, and arranged that this execution take place in full view of the bereaved survivors for his and their satisfaction.
Yes, we of a more mature civilization have progressed more rapidly and further in this so-called process of evolution and can only look upon such savagery with nothing but horror and revulsion. Yet we retain the institution itself, with only those directly concerned with the mechanics of the operation participating in the inhuman act. Surely it is our duty as legislators, commonly regarded as leading citizens, to take the initiative, and in this sense I simply infer that we should lead by example. Perhaps this proposed bill could be the first step toward eliminating the ills within our social structure which cause such derangement of human minds as results in the crimes of murder, homicide, rape, or worse.
For those who seriously contend-and they are legion-that capital punishment is a valuable deterrent, let me say that to accept such a premise is abjectly to admit the failure on the part of society to alleviate the causes of murder. True, we may deter for all time the possibility of one individual ever again committing the crime of murder. We have not, however, taken a meaningful step to remove the cause. We simply have managed to bury forever the evidence of this one single failure on the part of society.
The emotionally disturbed persons-that is, persons of unbalanced minds, often caused by the stresses of poverty, broken homes, sexual frustrations and drunkenness-are the ones most frequently involved in the crime of murder. While society appears to be making some progress against the scourge of poverty, usually associated with incompetence due to lack of education, we now are faced with a new problem, a problem arising from rapidly developing automation and technological change.
I would like to quote Professor Reid, Professor of Economics at York University, who said:
"During the 1950's the new technologoy of automation began to cleave society, particularly its younger members, into the two clearly distinguishable classes. Today one class is made up of the undereducated most of whom, because they are
Criminal Code
undereducated are chronically unemployed or work only sporadically and who, because they are unemployed, live in deprivation, poverty or destitution."
Our new technology may very well cement those conditions in our society which tend to perpetuate the sons and daughters of the poor staying poor and to perpetuate the sons and daughters of the middle and wealthy classes staying middle class and wealthy. In Professor Reid's opinion, the educational system of our time fails lamentably in eradicating a long standing social evil.
Let us not then take the negative approach which may satisfy our conscience simply by hanging or imprisoning for life the product of this social condition. Let us do something practical; yes, more productive. Let us do so by mounting an all-out assault on the economic barrier against the obtainment of higher or even secondary education.
Sexual frustrations resulting in criminal perversion, I believe, may be traced to the serious lack of education in respect of such matters in our schools and homes. The dissemination of the knowledge of sex, the most powerful, indeed the most necessary of all human passions, is to all intents and purposes left to murals and hieroglyphics on toilet walls; in some cases it is left to the incoherent jargon of minds already rendered unwholesome by the system and by the vicious pornographic peddlers of our time. No wonder perversion with all its consequences develops among young and mature alike.
Is any real progress being made to rehabilitate unbalanced minds resulting from these social ills? Maclean's magazine, a reputable non-fiction periodical, in a recent article informed us there are one and a half million sure, and perhaps a million more, emotionally disturbed children in Canada today. Author Sheila Keirn says that authorities estimate there are 30,000 children whose disturbance is so severe that they require institutional care. Yet there are facilities for treating fewer than 500 children in Canada.
Now, may I address a few words to my colleagues who are members of my own Catholic faith. Surely in a matter such as this we should give equal if not prior consideration to the teaching of the New Testament rather than conform to the Old Testament. If Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek and his often quoted prayer for his own executioners, "O Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" have any real meaning, it categorically rejects the barbaric practice of retribution.

March 23. 1966
Criminal Code
If we are prepared to accept this fact of Christianity, then the only logical reason for retention is its deterrent value. There is no logic, nor real reasoning power, in a mind so demented by one or other of the overpowering human passions, that it would contemplate the taking of another's life. Even the prospect of eternal damnation in hell's fires, an infinitely greater punishment than early death by execution, serves no deterrent to the mentally deranged.
I ask hon. members just for a moment to pause for an examination of their own conscience. I implore hon. members, having insight, perhaps possessing better than average intellect, having knowledge of the weaknesses and passions which govern human behaviour, to ponder with me these thoughts. Perhaps only an accident of birth, or even fate, has guided you along the road to this exalted chamber where you may enact laws made necesary because of human weaknesses. May I respectfully urge hon. members to contemplate this humble admonition, as I so often have done when others have pointed with scorn at some horrible example of human dereliction: There but for the grace of God go I.
As I said earlier, it is not my intention in the few minutes at my disposal to argue the Unitarian aspect of this institution; rather I wish only to make two main points: First, the taking of human life is evil, degrading, unjustified and unnecessary; second, the right of all members to vote his own conscience.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It is my hope hon. members will have come to the conclusion that capital punishment by the state perpetuates the natural human instinct for revenge and devaluates the work of human existence to a point where greed, the other more powerful human passion, may lead to all-out war between nations. For this important matter of conscience every member must tear himself away from the political pressures of his decision. I believe a member's right to freedom of action in deciding this question can best be illustrated by reference to the oft-quoted Edmund Burke speaking to his constituents on the responsibility of a member of parliament. This quotation may be found in Beauchesne's third edition of rules and forms at page 12. Mr. Burke said in speaking about these responsibilites of hon. members:
It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs: and above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. But, his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, 
his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure: no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he berays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
My worthy colleague says-
He was speaking of his opposing colleague.
-his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent: If government were a matter of will upon my side, yours, without question ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide: and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps 300 miles distant from those who hear the arguments?
We may well say 3,000 miles distant from those who hear the arguments.
Hon. members, it is you who will be thoughtfully deliberating this vital question. It is you who will be carefully perusing all the evidence before you. It is you, not another, who must decide. I pray God that your decision at least will favour the principle of this motion.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, anyone who proposes to take part in this debate must necessarily do so with a very great sense of responsibility. It is true that only a relatively few people are likely to be directly affected by the abolition or retention of capital punishment. But, Mr. Speaker, because it is a matter of life or death, it goes to the root of our administration of justice. There is no responsibility which we in this house have to fulfil in all our law-making duties more significant than the decision which now faces us.
I believe that every one of us in this house regards as fundamental to our consideration of this question before us a deep conviction of the value and the sanctity of human life. Those who support the death penalty for murder do so, I believe, largely because they believe no crime is more shocking, more deserving of punishment and more necessary to be deterred than the wanton taking of the life of another human being.
But, Mr. Speaker, those who, like myself, believe that the great weight of evidence establishes that the death penalty is not the only, indeed is no the most effective deterrent, believe that the sanctity of human life requires that the state itself should not impose or sanction the deliberate killing of human beings.
March 23, 1966

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that the basic issue which we all have to consider and solve is whether or not the retention of the death penalty is necessary for the protection of society and in order to deter potential murderers. It is my conviction after consideration of all the evidence I have been able to find that the conclusion reached by Mr. W. T. McGrath, in his book "Should Canada Abolish the Gallows and the Lash", is a correct one. He states:
The conclusion to be reached after a thorough study of the statistics relating to murder in those countries that have abolished capital punishment is that they provide conclusive evidence that the death penalty does not deter potential murderers and has no effect on the murder rate.
I say quite frankly to you and this house, Mr. Speaker, that if I and others who take the same view I take were convinced that capital punishment was shown to be the most effective deterrent to murder, no matter how repulsive it might be to us we would be compelled to support the continuation of capital punishment; but all the evidence points in another direction.
Others in this debate will expand and develop this point. For myself, I am content to put my view on this aspect of the matter in the words of a very great man, the great spiritual leader Archbishop Temple, who wrote this:
I believe that the example of the state taking life, even when it does so in return for a life already taken, does more to lower the value of human life in the mind of its citizens than the deterrent influence of this penalty can do to protect the lives of its citizens. In this way, I believe that the main influence of the retention of the death penalty is rather to increase than diminish the number of murders.
If you agree with me and what Archbishop Temple has said then you can only resolve this problem in one way. But, the argument against the retention of capital punishment, to which I wish to direct the attention of this house, is on a different point and it is this. The administration of justice, being a human institution, is bound sometimes to make mistakes. Although these cases of error may be few, it is I think repulsive to our moral sense that the state should execute innocent people so as to make rectification of the mistakes impossible.
I do not make this argument to condemn our courts or our judiciary. I do, however, underline the fallibility of human judgment and human procedures, and I urge upon members of this house that it would be a monstrous injustice if, through the legal processes of the
Criminal Code
state, however well-intentioned, the life of an innocent person should be taken away. I assert that it is no figment of the imagination to say that even the most mature systems of the administration of justice can be mistaken, even in such solemn matters as capital cases.
Professor Borchard of Yale University, in a book called "Convicting the Innocent", has collected 68 cases from England and the United States in which innocent persons have been convicted of crimes, and 25 of these cases involved murder.
In Koestler's "Reflections on Hanging", the evidence of Sir Fitzroy Kelly to a royal commission in 1864, is summarized as follows-and I may say that Sir Fitzroy Kelly was the attorney general and solicitor general of the British government. The summary states:
After careful consideration and examination, he has come to the conclusion that it is not in any way reasonable to be doubted that in many instances innocent men have been capitally convicted, and in certain numbers of instances, few of course but yet formidable numbers have been actually executed. Well remembers that there were, between the years 1802 and 1840, 22 cases of capital convictions, seven of which resulted in the execution of the convicts, and in the rest of which the sentence was mitigated or a pardon granted. But in the whole of the 22 cases the innocence of these persons was established or at least established satisfactorily to those who investigated the matter, and in most of the cases to the satisfaction of the advisers of the Crown.
Mr. Speaker, I propose to confine myself to three more recent cases which have taken place in jurisdictions where, admittedly, the administration of justice has reached high levels of fairness and efficiency. I refer to England, the United States and Canada.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There is the well known case in England of Timothy Evans who was hanged in 1954 for the murder of his daughter known as Geraldine Evans. Lord Birkett, a very famous judge who may be known to some hon. members, said this in discussing the case in the Observer newspaper on January 15, 1961:
The case against Evans at his trial on the facts as they were then known was quite overwhelming. There was no failure in the administrative machinery of the criminal law. No human skill could have prevented the conviction and no human judicial system, whatever its checks and safeguards, can ever provide complete security against the exceedingly rare and utterly exceptional case such as that of Evans.
The accused Evans made what was said to be a free and voluntary confession. One of

March 23. 1966
Criminal Code
the main witnesses for the crown was a man named Christie, who occupied a flat in the same house, who said that he heard sounds that fitted in with the idea that Evans was guilty of the murder not only of his daughter but of his wife. After Evans had been executed a new tenant moved into Christie's flat and found hidden behind a wall, not one but three human bodies. All three had been strangled. Under the floor a fourth body was found, and out in the yard two more bodies were found. All these women had been strangled.
At the trial of Christie the defence that was set up was insanity. Christie went into the witness box and admitted that he had murdered not only his wife but all the other women whose bodies were found on the premises, including Beryl Evans. He denied that he had killed the child, but it was perfectly obvious that the person who had killed the wife had also killed the child. This, therefore, is a well-authenticated case in Great Britain, which some of us call the home of justice, wherein the administration of justice made an error; but it was too late to bring Evans back to life and make restitution to him.
As recently as 1965, Mr. Arthur Martin, who has already been mentioned in this debate and who, as most members know, is a very distinguished criminal lawyer, spoke at a panel discussion to some members of this house. He referred to a recent case in New York of a coloured boy of 19 who was accused of murder and from whom a confession was secured. Mr. Arthur Martin said:
Only this year in New York an innocent man by the name of George Whitmore narrowly escaped execution for the murder of two young women when the actual murderer was apprehended for another crime and confessed to the killing.
To show that even the most efficient prosecutors can be mistaken I wish to read what a member of the district attorney's staff said:
I was one of those who was absolutely sure that Whitmore had killed the girls. There was no shadow of doubt in my mind-reasonable, beyond a shadow or any other kind. Now I am satisfied Whitmore is innocent. If this had not been a celebrated case, if this case had not aroused the tremendous publicity it did, if this were what we call a run-of-the-mill murder, Whitmore might well have slipped into the electric chair for something he did not do.
Now I want to come to a case that is closer to home and indeed is on the minds and lips of many members of this house. I refer to the case of Steven Truscott. Many members in
{Mr. Brewin.]
this house will have read Mrs. LeBourdais' detailed and thoughtful analysis of this case and of the trial. Some of the members of the house have even visited Steven Truscott and have talked with him. Even at this moment the government and the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) have undertaken a review of this case to determine whether, as the book requests, a royal commission should be arranged to inquire into it.
Different minds will no doubt receive different impressions from the facts of this particular case. It would no doubt be premature to arrive at any final conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of Steven Truscott without a searching examination not only of the evidence at the hearing but of the facts and arguments outlined in Mrs. LeBourdais' excellent book, and other facts and circumstances that may now be available. Notwithstanding this-I say this in all seriousness -I and a good many others who have read the book, and some of whom have read the evidence at the trial and studied the case in detail, as well as Mrs. LeBourdais, have come to the conviction that a grave error was in fact made.
I do not want to review the facts of this case in great detail. Steven Truscott, for those who have not read the book, was a boy of 14 years of age who was convicted at Goderich in 1959 of a particularly horrible sexual murder of a small girl 12 years of age. There was no direct evidence of his being connected with or guilty of the murder. The chief evidence that purported to link him with the crime was medical evidence as to the hour of the girl's death, which was deducted from an analysis some days later of the contents of her stomach. By fixing through these deductions the time of death as being shortly after the boy was admittedly in the company of the girl, he was linked with the commission of the crime.
The jury appear to have overlooked damaging cross-examination as to the correctness of this medical evidence and very little attention seems to have been paid to the evidence of a medical expert for the defence who, although not as well known locally, had very considerable experience. His evidence pointed out the grave danger of making deductions as to the time of death from such an analysis made some time later. I may say that the evidence of this medical witness for the defence is fully supported by numerous medical authorities.
March 23, 1966

Criminal Code
There was the further evidence of this doctor for the defence that upon his deductions the girl died two or three hours later than the time fixed by the crown's medical evidence, at a time when Truscott had a clear and watertight alibi. Other medical evidence was introduced as to injuries on the body of Truscott himself. This evidence was at the very best equivocal, and indeed was contradicted by the medical testimony for the defence.
Other boys gave evidence which, if believed, clearly corroborated Truscott's own story that he had left the girl at a crossroad and returned alone. It was suggested by the Crown that these boys were lying. But if this is so, it is strange that they gave their story at once before Truscott was charged or any suspicion at all was attached to him. One is the striking features of this case is its psychological aspects. If the crown's view, and the view that prevailed, was correct and Truscott in fact committed this crime, he was a most abnormal and extraordinary youth. He not only committed, on a very hot summer's day, a sadistic, almost ritualistic crime but he was able to appear very shortly thereafter perfectly calm and collected, in no way disarranged in manner or dress, and carry on the normal activities of a boy, and then under persistent questioning and with remarkable consistency tell precisely the same story that he is telling to this day.
That story is of his having taken the girl to the crossroads in question, well away from the alleged scene of the crime, and having returned alone. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the boy must have been of an extremely abnormal type to have done these things if the crime was committed by him. But in all respects, both before and after the event he appears to have been a normal boy. There are many other aspects of the evidence which in my view would justify a conclusion that a mistake has been made. Some of you may ask, how could such a mistake be made? I think the answer lies in the atmosphere created by the fact of such a horrible crime and the publication of crown evidence given at the preliminary inquiry which certainly seemed to point in the direction of Truscott's guilt.
Mrs. LeBourdais in her book quotes the editor of the Goderich newspaper as saying in answer to a question as to whether everyone in Goderich thought the boy to be guilty before his trial, "I never met anyone who didn't". I should like to make it clear that I
do not refer to this case, or wish to refer to it, as indicating that the administration of justice in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada is either corrupt, inefficient or callous. It is not. I do believe however that this case indicates something that those familiar with the administration of justice well know from their own experience, namely that it is fallible and that mistakes can be made, particularly in the atmosphere created by the commission of horrible and detestable crimes.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I was myself involved in a case in which twice a jury returned a verdict and the third time a judge came to the same conclusion. It was not until the fourth trial that it was clearly proven and accepted by another judge that the whole evidence upon which those decisions had been based, the decisions of two judges and a jury, consisted of fabrication, perjury and was part of a deliberate plan of extortion. I have been through that experience and I know it is possible, in the best of good faith, for errors to be made.
The relevance of the Truscott case to this debate should be obvious. Truscott was condemned to death, and this boy of 14 years of age heard these fateful words:
That you be taken from here to the place from whence you came and kept in close confinement until Tuesday, the 8th day of December, 1959, and upon that day and date you be taken to the place of execution and that you shall be hanged by the neck until you are dead. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul. Remove the prisoner.


Mr. Winkler:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is it possible, under the law as it stands today, for such a person to be hanged?


Francis Andrew Brewin: No, I believe not. I think there was an amendment in 1961 that made it impossible to hang a youth of this age. However, I feel the hon. member will grasp my point when I go a little farther. Although it is quite true that a boy of this age could not have been condemned to death under the law as amended in 1961, nevertheless the point I am about to make remains.
By reason of his youth, Truscott's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Mrs. LeBourdais, and many others who have read her book, are doing their very best to have this case reviewed. But had Truscott been an older man, he would have been hanged by the neck until he was dead and there would be no way of reversing this irreversible verdict.
I think I am able to speak with some degree of experience about the fallibility of

March 23, 1966
Criminal Code
human justice because I have spent a great deal of my life working in the courts and engaged in the administration of justice. This experience has convinced me that the rules of the law and their application by an independent judiciary, is one of the greatest achievements of civilization and one of which we are justly proud. But, Mr. Speaker, it has equally convinced me that like other human institutions, it can go wrong and make serious errors.
Human beings are not free from blindness and prejudice-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been no request from the hon. member to continue.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I only have two or three minutes more, and I crave the indulgence of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Greenwood to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wanted to add a very few words to what I have already said.
Human beings are not free from blindness and prejudice merely because they are chosen to serve on juries, nor are lawyers, just because they are appointed judges, infallible. Should we not all shrink from any authorization of the retention of the death sentence or from any responsibility for authorizing it when, through the inevitable fallibility of all human justice, the sentence of death may be executed on innocent people? There may not be many of these cases, Mr. Speaker, but there should not be any.
So, amongst the other reasons I urge the house to consider for deciding in favour of this resolution, I urge this ground, the ground of the established fallibility of human justice. I urge the members of this house to take an important step forward by passing this resolution. I urge them to take this important step forward to what I believe is a more civilized, more humane approach. Many nations in the free world have abolished capital punishment without ill effects. They are among the leading, the most civilized countries in the world.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that many murders which are committed arouse natural instinctive horror and indignation. In those cases, capital punishment may appear to some to be the appropriate remedy. I suggest however that in these matters, perhaps as in all matters, a combination of compassion and cool and practical calculation of the evidence is the best guide, and not human indignation.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: At the outset, I should like to express my appreciation of the opportunity of participating in this debate on this very important subject. I should like to have it clearly understood that the opinions I express in this debate are my own and the responsibility for them is mine.
A few years ago I visited the Tower of London, that ancient institution, and came upon a huge black block, attached to which was a large axe. This instrument had been used on many occasions for execution. I was struck by another visitor to the tower, a young, attractive woman who had a small and very lovely daughter with her. The woman brought her daughter to the block and showed it to her. She spoke of it in awe-inspired tones and took particular pains to point out to the small girl that this was the axe. I wondered at the time whether the small girl would have nightmares. 1 watched her reaction and decided she was too young to understand what was being pointed out to her, so she would sleep well that night. Whether or not she was brought back to the tower to look again at that grisly instrument, I do not know.
However, I do know that when I left the Tower of London and stood outside once more, I felt I had returned to a different age, a different time. I do not know whether I was right because, here we are, four years later debating whether or not we should abolish capital punishment. I am sure that there would be a public outcry in Canada today if we put on public display the instruments we use now. I do not believe we would tolerate a museum for the instruments of capital punishment. Times are changing and the children who are coming along today are changing more rapidly than we did as children or our ancestors did.
I should like to read the words of a present-day prophet who happens to be a prophet from our own country and therefore may or may not be without honour. He is speaking of the rapidity of the change in the
March 23, 1S66

generation that is growing up today. The article appeared in the Canadian Forum of January, 1964 and is rather aptly titled, "Murder by Television". The prophet is Marshall McLuhan. He is speaking of the difference between children who learn by reading print and those who learn by seeing television. I quote:
Print does not permit the involvement that the T.V. image demands. The confusion of these forms is indicated .... more in the clash of attitudes toward the curriculum and the learning process. There is a great drop in motivation. The T.V. child cannot see ahead.
Then, there is a sentence here which I think is very important to the people who speak about the deterrence of capital punishment.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is meaningless to a deeply involved person to explain that he should look ahead as a means of orienting his behaviour. Involvement, whether of the artist, the saint, or the roue, forbids concern with the price of groceries, or the looking ahead to envision the consequences of present action.
I think I can interpolate along with the other catalogue, "the murderer", in the list of people for whom it is impossible to look ahead to envision the consequences of present action.
Then in concluding his essay he says something which I think is particularly significant to us in this chamber this afternoon:
The effect of T.V., therefore, psychically and socially, has been as little heeded or understood as the effects of phonetic literacy and typography. Today it is absolutely necessary to understand these effects since their consequences upon our traditional ways and perceptions do not occur gradually and mechanically, but develop at electric speeds. We have a huge stake in habits of civilized detachment and analytic objectivity. In short, our civilized values are by no means the same as the new habits of total involvement of all men in all men. Such total involvement may well seem utopian to conventional, literate people. In point of fact, it has actually happened to us. We are living far ahead of our thinking. As wakeful, rational beings, responsible for a vast heritage, it behoves us to note the dissolving pressures exerted on this heritage by electric technology. Having noted this, we can make a free choice about whether or not to persist in the present patterns of technology. To ignore these patterns and pressures, by merely reacting to them, puts us in the role of automata carrying out automated mandates.
We should think very seriously about that as we examine the question, which has a great deal to do with tradition. The arguments have a great deal to do with our being rational human beings, and the response can either be one of reaction, or it can be a
Criminal Code
logical response. We do not have to be automata in the present circumstance.
I should like to turn, Mr. Speaker, to another of the very many declarations on both sides which have dropped on my desk during these last few weeks. I turn to this one for several reasons. It contrasts, in some ways, with what I have just read, not in thought or idea but in time. It was a declaration made originally several hundred years ago and is a Christian declaration on capital punishment which was put out by the general conference of the Mennonite church. I think it speaks, for some of those people who would insist that if we take a Christian attitude toward capital punishment today there is only one attitude to take, and that is the one of very stern rebuke and retributive action, as laid out in the early chapters of the Old Testament.
The Mennonite church makes this statement of position:
Since Christ through His redemptive work has fulfilled the requirement of the death penalty, and has given the church a ministry of reconciliation, and in view of the injustice and ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a means for the achievement of the purpose of government we express our conviction that its use should be discontinued.
I have seen no other statement which has managed to combine the theological and the practical with such clarity and shortness. These people cannot be accused of being intellectuals who have no practical responsibility. They cannot be accused of being modem, because in the sixteenth century one of the charges laid against Felix Manz, the first Anabaptist martyr, was that he had rejected capital punishment. Menno Simons argued that if the transgressor should truly repent, for such a one to be hanged would look strange and unbecom'ing. If he remained impenitent and his life be taken, one would unmercifully rob him of the time of repentance.
Nor can these people be accused of having been soft, because the mere fact they have survived to this day and endured all sorts of persecutions is an indication that they were stern, practical and simple people.
Quite a bit more about their position has been said, but one thing they did which appealed to me was to go on beyond that statement and to include a resolution which was adopted by the 63rd session of the conference of Mennonites in Canada, held at Clearbrook, British Columbia, from July 2 to July 6, 1965. I hope that all statements emanating from those who live in that great

March 23, 1966
Criminal Code
province will always be as sincere as is this one.
The conference pointed out that things can be done to deter crime. These involve working in the home, working with the individual, working with the offender, encouraging and assisting qualified young people to train for vocations and services in which the offender can be helped, such as prison chaplaincy, social work, probation and parole positions, teaching and psychiatry. Not for the offender but for society as a whole we need to encourage our young people to move into the type of occupation which will have service to humanity as its main concern.
They also urged continuing-
-study of the problem of crime in our midst, the needs of the offender and his family, awakening our own consciences and those of the public with every means proper within our own power, including the printed page, sermons, radio and T.V. literature,
There we get the tie-in between the first of the quotations I cited and this one, because these people too have realized the significance of the technological age in which we live.
I think that one could suggest that we are ready for a sort of total response to the question of capital punishment; that perhaps we should make a crusade out of this, something like a holy year in which no murder would be committed. Perhaps the centennial year would be a good year for such a project. But, Mr. Speaker, you know why this will not be done and why we do not do it. It is because we now live in a period since the development of psychology as a science. We are living after people like Freud and Jung have spoken. While we may not always believe what they have said, we cannot deny that they have said it, and our response to the actions of human beings can never again be as primitive as it was a few years ago.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that if we direct that sort of attention to the question of capital punishment, one of the results might well be an increase in the number of murders which are committed. That is one of the most telling arguments against capital punishment-that it may in some ways even encourage the very thing it is supposed to deter.
When we have debated this resolution I hope the house will proceed to pass it in its present form unamended in any way. Let us not amend it to allow capital punishment for treason, because we know that one century's treason is another century's patriotism. How much easier the present history of Canada 
might have been had that great western radical, Louis Riel, not been hanged; had the government of that day been in the position of being unable to hang him. Let us not allow exceptions in the case of the murder of prison guards, because we all know that it will be inevitable within a year or two that someone will be slain and we will be back once more to this whole agonizing business. It is just as possible within the confines of a prison as anywhere else in our society to find extenuating circumstances.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The resolution or amendment before this house would solve that particular problem. And let us not provide for exceptions in cases where children are murdered. Surely these crimes are committed by those whose minds are not normal and, therefore, they fall outside the scope of capital punishment as set up at the present time.
Let us not amend the law for a trial period, either. If we close this episode in the history of Canada let us keep it closed. If we do not, then inevitably at the end of the trial period, five years or ten years, whatever it may be, we shall have in effect encouraged a group of particularly desperate murderers, because those who commit them as the trial period ends will bring themselves into the full glare of publicity. I believe the experience of other countries shows the question will come back to us with an almost overwhelming demand that we should return to something which we ought to abandon and forget forevermore.


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the state cannot be denied the punitive power-stripping that word of the disparaging meaning it has acquired through usage-that is the power to punish those who break the laws enacted for the good of society. That goes for any just law, and all the more for laws which are only stating the most fundamental requirements of natural law, such as respect for any innocent life.
If the problem is limited to the death penalty, it is necessary to make a distinction between the right of the state to impose that punishment, on the one hand, and the opportunity to exercise that right in concrete circumstances of time and place, on the other hand. Among those who advocate most strongly the abolition of the death penalty, many admit the right of the state, in theory, to inflict that punishment, but deny the existence today of the conditions which make it
March 23, 1966

legal or appropriate to exercise it, at least in some countries; conversely, among those who favour maintaining the death penalty, many admit that some day circumstances might make it possible to recommend its abolition but they feel that those conditions do not yet prevail.
The right itself is denied by some or, on the contrary, claimed under a concept of the state which makes it an end in itself and makes it independent from any higher authority, that is divine authority. In a theistic and Christian concept of the world, it must be possible to prove that right, if it exists, by theological and philosophical arguments, but the opportunity to exercise that right depends mostly on sociological factors and, in the last analysis, on political wisdom.
We will see to what extent the problem is complex and why, consequently, differences of opinion can exist even among Catholics who try to study the problem seriously, objectively.
There is no doubt that the application of the death penalty has led to many abuses which could be gathered under three headings:
First, the number of crimes punishable by death. Thus, in England, in 1770, 350 various offences were liable to bring about the death penalty. Around 1825, 220 offences; and children over 14 hanged regularly, whereas children over 7 were hanged also "if there was strong evidence of malice".
In France, 115 crimes were punishable by death under the ordinance of 1670; 36, under the penal code of 1810; 16, in 1848.
Second, the execution method, sometimes rather inhuman, without taking into account torture or ill-treatment which the condemned sometimes had to undergo before execution. Without taking into account also, in some cases, the long waiting period as experienced by Caryl Chessman, executed on May 2, 1960, after 12 years of legal battles, trials and reprieves, which stirred up indignation throughout the world.
Third, the feelings of those who pass sentence of death or who execute it. Very low motives based on hatred, vengeance, have often dictated acts which, to be legitimate, should always be inspired by justice and accompanied by love.
Yes, there has been much abuse. But that abuse does not necessarily prove the law should be abolished. The law must be studied first of all, and then if it is well grounded and
Criminal Code
if we feel it is expedient to apply it, let us do so with the utmost respect for human dignity, excluding all forms of subtle tortures, and in a true spirit of justice.
Now, Mr. Speaker, here is what Pope Pius XII thought about the matter.
In his numerous speeches to jurists, Pope Pius XII never discussed capital punishment officially. But in his speech to the members of the first international convention on the his-topathology of the nervous system, on September 14, 1952, pointing out that the state has no direct power over human life, Pope Pius XII spoke the following enlightening words:
Even when carrying out a capital sentence, the state does not hold a right over the individual's life. It then rests with the public powers to deprive the condemned person from the gift of life, in atonement for his sin, as his very crime already deprived him of the right to live.
Just like, by imprisoning a man guilty of robbery, the state does not deprive him of his right to freedom, but denies him the weal of freedom to which, because of his crime, he has lost his right.
In the principle thus laid down by Pius XII, G. Ermecke sees the only argument on which capital punishment can be philosophically based. One may wonder, however, whether in the mind of Pius XII, the loss of the right to live is consecutive to crime as such, or consecutive to crime inasmuch as it is expiable by the death penalty in some countries. But anyway, it is difficult not to see here an affirmation of the theoretical legitimacy of the death penalty, an affirmation of the right itself.
Rationality of the death penalty.
1.	The reasons that can be given in favour of the legitimacy of the death penalty, that is in order to prove the right itself, may be summarized as follows: compensation, redress or expiation, safety and exemplariness. The former directly concern the offence and the guilty person with a view to satisfying justice; the latter have to do with the commonweal and the protection of the state.
It is easy to raise objections against each of the reasons taken separately. If the death penalty is considered only as a compensation, then it can be said to be nothing but the application of the lex talionis.
If one wants to refer to redress within the strict meaning of the word, it is obvious that the death of the guilty redresses nothing, since it cannot bring the victim back to life.

March 23. 1966
Criminal Code
On the higher level of atonement, it must be said that punishment only has this moral value in so far as it is accepted; atonement must undoubtedly be reflected in an exterior act whenever possible. But it is above all a spiritual attitude. Why should such an expiation through capital punishment be necessary without another being sufficient?
Will it be suggested that the security of the state requires the dealth penalty as a protection against the murderer himself? Of course, this is not a decisive reason, since life imprisonment-in spite of possible escapes-still provides theoretically a protection just as effective.
Finally, the exemplarity motive raises problems when considered in itself. Were even the fear of capital punishment more effective than the fear of life imprisonment to dissuade possible criminals from their homicidal designs, what should we think about a procedure directed against someone in order to prevent others from doing wrong? A human being, even guilty, is not only a simple means to an end, however commendable it may be.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We feel that both aspects cannot be considered separately: punishment of the crime and security of the state. Of course, no innocent person should be sacrificed for the common weal, (or to put it more clearly, the true commonweal forbids us to put to death innocent people even though they are involuntarily harmful to the common weal); but, on the other hand, the punishment of any real crime must be based on the common weal. Referring to the principle laid down by Pope Pius XII, we would say that through his crime, the criminal has lost his right to live. But the state can only deprive him of the gift of life if this extreme form of punishment is necessary or at least very beneficial to the public weal.
This raises the question which seems actually most significant: is capital punishment more effective than life imprisonment to protect society by preventing murders? We will talk about it later.
2.	The opposite reasons, against the very principle of capital punishment are also open to major objections:
God, it is said, is sole master of life. True. And that is why any legitimation of the death penalty has to be related to God. But He who willed society also willed the requirements for the good of society. If then this good truly

requires the death penalty, then the will of God is to be seen in the right of life and death as a delegation from God to the state of the right to dispose of human life under specific conditions.
Man has a basic right to live. It is true. But how can it be established that the culprit does not, through his crime, jeopardize his right and that the state is not then empowered to deprive him of a right to which he is no longer entitled? Human dignity is an absolute value that must be respected, even in the culprit. But life is not an absolute good.
A penalty must be remedial. Capital punishment cannot be, since the culprit is eliminated. To this the defenders of legalized capital punishment reply: True, a penalty must generally be remedial, first for the culprit (it is the obvious meaning of the statement) but also in a wider sense, for society as a whole. Yet, when the importance of the crime and the requirement of the common weal agree on the need for capital punishment, how can injustice be proven by the single fact that the penalty cannot be remedial in the strictest sense of the word?
Because a miscarriage of justice is always possible, the state has no right to impose an irrevocable penalty. To this, one may reply: Emprisonment is also irrevocable, since no one can alter the fact that the time spent in jail has been an undeserved deprivation of freedom. And one may add: From this not unfounded objection it must be concluded that death penalty must be decreed unless the crime has been proven; and the few mistakes still possible are the ransom of all human justice which cannot have God's omniscience. Let us, however, admit that this may be at least another reason, if not against the right, at least against the advisability of preserving capital punishment.
Finally, some people deny any legitimate basis for capital punishment because, they maintain, all criminals obey some irresistable impulses or are even, for the most part, mentally ill. And of the crimes which public opinion finds most vile, sadistic murder is precisely the one in which the irrational impulse is strongest. To this one must answer: it may and should be admitted that many crimes are committed by psychopaths or people in whom an extremely strong impulse greatly diminishes or even suppresses responsibility. But it cannot be said that a criminal is not responsible for his crime. Again, this may be another reason for the
March 23, 1966

advisability of abolishing capital punishment. But one cannot accept the presumption which would deny the right: the irresponsibility of all criminals.
But, they say, society is the one that is responsible, for it did not know how to make the criminal avoid his crime. True, society is partly responsible when it does not give its members the means to fulfil themselves, which would deter them from committing crimes, but this cannot possibly suppress all individual responsibility.
Can we invoke universal consent, as all theologians have done, as an argument to show that the death penalty is legitimate? We believe that this consent is in itself less a proof than a certain indication or, if you prefer, a confirmation. In our view, it is rooted in the right itself recognized by the more or less spontaneous conscience of people since the beginning of time. But today, is it still possible to speak of universal consent? Surely not as regards the advisability of maintaining the death penalty; perhaps not even with respect to the right itself, although public opinion is not too concerned with this particular aspect.
As a matter of fact, the most controversial question is that of the death penalty's value as a deterrent. That is the point which ultimately determines the legislators' action. It surpasses all other means as a strong deterrent, according to Professor Bouzat, of Rennes, as quoted in Etudes, No. 315, 1962, page 204.
[English1
Statistical findings and case studies converge to disprove the claim that the death penalty has any special deterrent value.

Those who uphold the death penalty bring forth psychological reasons to prove its deterrent value: the instinct of preservation, the natural desire to live. And when statistics are quoted against that, they reply that if capital punishment does not always have the deterrent effect they say it has; this is due to the very conditions under which it is applied and which render it more or less efficient: the slowness of proceedings, the very small number of executions, etc.
On the other hand, those who are in favour of abolition emphasize the importance of statistics which, it must be admitted, seem to carry a lot of weight. Here are a few examples.
They always refer to British statistics compiled in 1910 and which revealed that out of
Criminal Code
250 persons who had gone to the gallows, 170 had been hanged in public.
In Germany: in 1947 and 1948, 68 crimes; abolition in 1949; in 1950 and 1951, 51 crimes.
If the death penalty was a real deterrent, there should be practically no murders in the 41 American states which electrocute their murderers-or which hang them, or put them to death in gas chambers-and the nine states which have abolished the death penalty should be hot-beds of murderers. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true.
A full and complete study of these statistics should no doubt take many factors into consideration. But it must be admitted that there is food for thought in this. Abolitionists conclude from that that for the protection of citizens in general, and of policemen in particular-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)

Perhaps before I call on the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) to take the floor, I might refer to the discussion which was initiated earlier this afternoon in respect of which I indicated later on I would give an opinion and judgment.

This afternoon, the hon. members for Sherbrooke and Lapointe (Messrs. Allard and Gregoire) suggested that I should take the initiative and divide the resolution which is under consideration now. Since then, I had the opportunity to study the suggestions made by the hon. members and to read attentively the remarks they made during their interventions.
I do not think that I can change the opinion I gave this afternoon, to the effect that this resolution is not of the kind which the Speaker would be justified to deal with in the way suggested by the hon. members. In my opinion, there is only one proposition before the house, which deals with the abolition of the death penalty, and the other aspects of the question are rather of a secondary nature and could not, in the circumstances, be separated from the initial proposition and made into separate resolutions. It is only in exceptional circumstances and when there is little doubt about it that the Speaker can intervene and, of his own initiative, amend the resolution proposed by an hon. member.

March 23. 1968
Criminal Code
In this case, as I said, I do not think that I would be justified to take this initiative.

The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house, could I finish my remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member might close his remarks? The house may allow the hon. member to go to six o'clock and allow the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Alcide Simard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For abolitionists, this seems to prove that for the protection of citizens in general and of policemen in particular, life inprisonment is just as effective, if not more. It seems that it is not the seriousness of the penalty which is the decisive factor on this point, but the likelihood of its application.
It is really too simple to brush aside any discussion on the death penalty by suggesting it is a primitive law of retaliation or a medieval institution, or by presuming that all those in favour of maintaining capital punishment are merely prompted by inconscious motives of aggressiveness or revenge. And let not be introduced as proof things which prove little to many a sincere and lucid mind not to allow emotions to overwhelm the reasoning process is not the exclusive privilege of one given group of thinkers. And it must be admitted that the two inquiries, in England and in Canada, have been seriously held, as were others elsewhere.
The question of capital punishment, as we said, must be studied with detachment under the dual considerations of legality and the expedient administration of the law in the present, concrete circumstances. This double-barreled problem is not without difficulties.
Is it true that there is apparently no Roman Catholic doctrine on capital punishment? Such an unqualified statement is rather surprising. The following statements seem much more balanced.
The Church declares that the state does not exceed its powers in wielding the temporal sword. It also asserts that this weapon should be used not only with justice, but also, and always, with prudence. The Church goes much further and proclaims its own abhorrence of blood, which does not permit acceptance of capital punishment in its own code.
Beyond this, the Church leaves to penal codes and political institutions their controversies and their fluctuations always subject to circumstances and to events.
It then seems that the Church cannot have a firm attitude on capital punishment since application of the penalty is mostly a question of policy on crime.
That the right itself is a legitimate one can be proved rather easily by theological arguments. Revelation leaves no doubt as to the licit nature, in principle, of the death penalty. The holy scriptures, the teachings of the church and the unanimous doctrine of Catholic theologians and most Protestant authors are quite clear on that.
On this question of fact, there is room for differences of opinion. The Church itself has taken no stand. But it may be felt that in present circumstances capital punishment is unnecessary. At any rate, the abolitionist idea is constantly gaining ground.
I should like to add two comments underlined by several thinkers who have medidat-ed on the various aspects of the abolition of the death penalty.
Abolition of the death penalty must not result in too lenient an application of penal justice. Since it is claimed that confinement can adequately protect society, let that penalty be applied in such a way that society will be adequately protected. That does not preclude, on the contrary, the use of every modern method of the rehabilitation of convicts.
While granting that many criminals may not be entirely responsible or even, in a few cases, not responsible at all, the campaign against capital punishment should not spread the conviction that all guilty people are robots or sick people. That would be casting on the greatness of man a reflection of the utmost gravity.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 24, 1966