1966-04-04

Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I wish to table the report, in English and French, of the special committee on hate propaganda in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford) moved: leave to introduce Bill No. C-164, to amend the Criminal Code (group defamatory libel).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to enlarge the definition of defamatory libel, as it appears in the Criminal Code, to include hate literature. Because such literature is in many cases the expression of a sick mind, the bill further proposes that any person charged or convicted of publishing such a libel shall be placed under mental observation to determine whether he is mentally ill.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure, to be known as the Canada Assistance Plan, to establish a program for sharing with the provinces in the cost of assistance, including health care and welfare services, provided to or in respect of persons in need, including mothers and children, older
persons, disabled persons and unemployed persons who are in need, and in the cost of developing and improving assistance and welfare services programs including child and youth welfare programs throughout Canada; to provide for the making of arrangements for extending provincial welfare programs, with the approval of Indian bands, to Indians with reserve status, and for the making of payments to the provinces with respect to the cost of so extending those programs; to provide for the making of payments to the provinces with respect to the cost of specialized projects for assisting and rehabilitating persons in need or likely to become persons in need who have unusual difficulty in obtaining or holding employment; to provide for amendments to the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act, and the Unemployment Assistance Act that are incidental to or consequential on the introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan; and to provide further for the extension of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act to the Canada Assistance Plan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Allard: During the fiscal years 1964-65 and 1965-66, excluding the amounts assigned to armament programs, what have been, by provinces, the expenses of the Department of National Defence, including salaries paid to the armed forces and civilian personnel, travelling expenses, food supplies, heating, clothing and other similar items?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Information is not now
available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


FEDERAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY PROVINCES
Mr. Davis: 1.	Taking into account, as between the federal government and the government of British Columbia, all the revenue received by the federal government (including direct taxes, indirect taxes

April 4, 1966
Questions
and other revenue) and all expenditures on British Columbia's behalf (including conditional and unconditional grants to institutions and to individuals and expenditures incurred for public works and other purposes and by crown corporations in that province), for the fiscal year 1963-64, how much more, or less, did the federal government spend than it collected in the said province?
2.	What are the comparative figures for each of the remaining provinces in Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2. Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many bankruptcies were registered during the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1966 in (a) Canada (b) Quebec, and (c) in the county of Chapleau?
2.	For the same years, what were (a) the total value, and (b) the average value of bankruptcies registered (i) in Canada (ii) in Quebec, and (iii) in the county of Chapleau?
3.	Did the government lose a considerable sum of money during these years, on account of loopholes in the Bankruptcy Act and, if so, how much in its opinion has it lost since 1960, and what action is it planning to take in order to remedy this situation?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1 and 2:


BANKRUPTCIES REPORTED CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Cases				Average
	Reported	Assets	Liabilities Deficiency		Deficiency
			Million $		$
1960	3,641	79	147	68	18,7001961	3,511	56	120	64	18,2001962	4,297	68	138	70	16,3001963	5,199	92	201	109	21,0001964	5,562	107	211	104	18,70022,210	402	817	415	18,7001965	5,003	Not yet available	27,213	BANKRUPTCIES REPORTED	QUEBEC	1960	2,305	30	66	36	15,7001961	2,044	23	52	29	14,2001962	2,360	34	81	47	19,9001963	2,716	44	93	49	18,0001964	2,832	53	106	53	18,70012,257	184	398	214	17,5001965	2,524	Not yet available	14,781	
Notes: (1) Amounts are shown in millions of dollars as reported by debtors. (2) No separate statistics are available for the electoral district of Chapleau.
3.	We have no information to indicate that any money was lost on account of loopholes in the Bankruptcy Act.

Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since 1960, how many fraudulent bankruptcies have been discovered annually in (a) Canada (b) Quebec, and (c) the county of Chapleau?
2.	What was the amount in dollars each year of these fraudulent bankruptcies in (a) Canada (b) Quebec, and (c) the county of Chapleau?
3.	On a per capita average at the national level, how much has each citizen theoretically lost every year since 1960 in connection with these fraudulent bankruptcies?
April 4, 1366

Questions


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1,	2 and 3. The investigation and the prosecution of offences of a criminal nature that have taken place prior to a bankruptcy are a provincial responsibility within the field of the administration of criminal justice. There are no federal statistics available as to the number of investigations or prosecutions initiated by the provincial authorities and connected with estates in bankruptcy or as to how these


CONTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS TO PORT FACILITIES COST
Mr. Keays: 1.	Since 1956, has the government built wharves or other port facilities at Dalhousie, N.B., Baie Comeau, P.Q., Mont-Louis, P.Q., Black Cape, P.Q., to which public or private corporations have contributed?
2.	If so, what were the total costs of the projects?
3.	When were the jobs completed and what were the amounts contributed by the corporations?
estates could have	: been affected	by the	Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
offences that might have been uncovered by the provincial authorities. Date			Works): 1, 2 and 3.
Project	Total final cost completed		Amount contributed by corporation
Dalhousie, N.B.			
Dredging	$ 20,240.55	1957	50 per cent of cost or $10,120.28 by New Brunswick International Paper Co.Dredging	14,638.87	1960	50 per cent of cost or $7,219.48 by New Brunswick International Paper Co.Dredging	25,455.03	1962	50 per cent of cost of dredging Area B, value $18,210.29. New Brunswick International Paper Co. share amounted to $9,105.95.Harbour facili-	ties	831,995.00	1960	International Paper Co. will pay $100,000 in ten annual payments commencing in 1958.Harbour im-	provements	464,711.36	1965)	The crown spent $464,711.36 on wharf im-Dredging	170,891.00	1963)	provements and $170,891 on dredging. The New Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corporation did not contribute toward the construction of the wharf or dredging. The corporation have advised that they expended on fill area, trackage, car dumper and ship loader an amount of $1,928,000.Baie Comeau, Que.	Dredging	$ 656,656.00	1957	The Canadian British Aluminum Co. Ltd. contributed $328,408.00.Dredging	621,088.00	1959	The Cargill Grain Company contributed $310,544.00.Dredging	324,864.00	1961	The Quebec Hydro Electric Commission contributed $143,375.00.(Breakwater } Extension	2,014,308.00 215,000.00	1963	The Quebec North Shore Paper Co. contributed $400,000 and the Quebec Department of Lands and Forests contributed $920,000.00.Mont Louis, Que.	Wharf	$ 839,619.00	1956-57	In 1957 Gaspe Copper paid the crown the sum of $115,021.22 and agreed to pay the crown the sum of $42,420.50 annually until 1995.Black Cape, Que.	Wharf	$ 807,679.25	1965	The Bathurst Pulp and Paper Co. agreed toExpenditure to date.	pay 50 per cent of the capital cost of the
extension portion of the improvement. An amount of $256,827.59 has been paid by the Bathurst Pulp and Paper Co. to date.

April 4. 1966
Questions


DELIVERY IN OTTAWA OF WESTERN NEWSPAPERS
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	Is the cancellation of the Canadian Pacific Railway Dominion responsible for the late arrival in Ottawa of western daily newspapers?
2. Can faster mail service for these western newspapers be provided?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. No. The postal service being provided for the delivery of western daily newspapers in Ottawa is at least the equal of that provided when mail was carried on the Dominion.
2.	The Post Office Department is now making the best possible use of the existing transportation services.


SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS AND MACHINERY
Mr. Madill: 1.	Would a contract signed June 10, 1963, be subject to the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and production machinery which was established on June 13, 1963?
2.	By what firms and individuals is this tax remitted to the Department of National Revenue?
3.	How does the Department of National Revenue make certain that this sales tax has been applied on building materials and that the tax has been remitted to the department?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): 1. Section 10 of the 1963 amendments to the Excise Tax Act makes provision for sales tax relief where a vendor in Canada of building materials and production machinery exempt from sales tax before June 14, 1963, has, prior to that date, entered into a fixed price contract that does not permit him to add the sales tax.
2.	Sales tax is remitted on taxable goods manufactured or produced in Canada by licensed manufacturers or licensed wholesalers.
3.	Licensed manufacturers and licensed wholesalers are subject to periodic audit by excise tax auditors at which time it is ascertained that the correct amount of sales tax has been remitted to the department on taxable sales of building materials, production machinery and all other taxable products.


ESCAPE OF PRISONERS FROM COLLINS' BAY PENITENTIARY
Mr. Alkenbrack: Has there been a special inquiry into the factors and/or persons contributing to the prison break of three dangerous prisoners from Collins' Bay
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
penitentiary on Wednesday, February 9, 1966, who were later captured near St. Catharines and, if so, will the government report to the house the findings resulting from this inquiry?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is: Pursuant to Section 13 of the Penitentiary Act, the commissioner of penitentiaries has appointed his Honour Judge Harry R. Deyman, county court judge of Peterborough, Ontario, to inquire into and report upon the circumstances surrounding the escape of four inmates from the Collin's Bay penitentiary, in the province of Ontario, on February 9, 1966.
The answer to part 2 is yes.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR FLEUR DE LIS DRIVE, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Has the atlantic development board discussed the question of financial assistance to the province of Nova Scotia in the construction of the Fleur de Lis drive and, if so, on what dates was this subject discussed?
2.	Has consideration been given by the atlantic development board to the granting of financial assistance to the construction of the Fleur de Lis drive?
3.	Has a decision been reached by the Atlantic Development Board to grant assistance for the construction of the Fleur de Lis drive and, if so, how much financial assistance is to be granted?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	Yes, July 5th-7th, 1965; September 30th, 1965.
2.	Yes, but only within the context of a possible program of tourist road development in the whole Atlantic region.
3.	No.


INCOME TAX DIRECTOR, ROUYN, QUE.
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Who has been director of the income tax office in Rouyn from 1960 to date?
2.	Has this person been transferred to another area and, if so, where?
3.	Who was appointed to replace him in Rouyn?
4.	Is French the mother tongue of the new director?
5.	Is he bilingual?
6.	Had the civil service among its ranks a French Canadian to head an income tax office covering an area with 9 per cent French speaking population?
April 4, 1966


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Mr. L. T. Merleau.
2.	Yes. Quebec city.
3.	Mr. T. E. Weldon.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	The position was filled through the competitive process open to all employees of the taxation division who could speak French.


CHINESE AMNESTY PROGRAM
Mr. Wahn: As at December 31, 1965, how many persons have lost their status as Canadian citizens as a result of filing adjustment statements pursuant to the Chinese amnesty program?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: None.
Persons who entered Canada as immigrants, who subsequently were granted citizenship and whose amended particulars were accepted under the adjustment statement program did not lose their status. They were simply issued with replacement citizenship certificates bearing the accepted particulars.
Persons who entered Canada claiming to have status under the Canadian Citizenship Act or previous naturalization acts, who had been issued proof of such status in the form of a certificate and who, by their own admission, were subsequently found not to have such status did not lose their status as Canadian citizens because they had none to lose. Their certificates have been withdrawn and, as a result of the acceptance of their adjustment statements, cancelled. Statistics have not been maintained on the number of persons in this position. They are entitled to apply for Canadian citizenship five years from the date of landing as established under the adjustment statement program.


TRAINING OF PRISON GUARDS
Mr. Thompson: What type of in-service training is given to guards at federal prisons, particularly in the fields of (a) self defence (b) weapons training and marksmanship (c) general academic education (d) psychology?


Lawrence T. Pennell: (a)	Self Defence: (i) At Staff Colleges: 32 hours of formal training consisting in theoretical and practical periods and exercises on the following: a. Breakfalls; b. Throws; c. Restraints; d. Come-alongs; e. Defences against
Questions
assault without weapons; f. Defences against assault with weapons, (ii) At Institutions: Approximately 10 hours a year of refresher training.
(b)	Weapons Training and Marksmanship:
(i)	At Staff Colleges: 35 hours of formal training consisting in theoretical and practical periods on the following: a. Rifle: 14 hours: Parts and handling; Care and cleaning; Loading and unloading; Positions; Aiming; Range procedure and grouping; Range practice; b. Revolver: 8 hours: Care and cleaning; Loading and unloading; Holding, aiming and firing; Range procedure and grouping; Range practice; c. Riot Gun: 4 hours: Care and cleaning; Loading and unloading; Holding and shooting; Shooting practice; d. Gas: 9 hours: Classification and use of gas; Tear agents; Protective measures; Gas chamber experience; Riot control drill.
NOTE: All of the above training is followed by a performance test.
(ii)	All Institutions: Range practice tests and annual classification.
(c)	General Academic Education: No formal academic education is provided on an inservice training basis for personnel of federal penitentiaries. However, D.V.A. correspondence courses are offered and other correspondence or evening courses are encouraged for personnel development.
(d)	Psychology: (i) At Staff Colleges: 20
hours of formal training in the fundamentals of human behavioural sciences, (ii) At Institutions:	Follow-up training conducted by
psychiatrists and psychologists according to the needs at each institution, (iii) University training is encouraged through the reimbursement of 50 per cent of tuition fees to the members of the Service who are employed in inmate guidance and counselling or who form part of the institutional inmate classification teams.


PARKING INSTRUCTIONS ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Rynard: Would the government give consideration to a request to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to post constables at all entrances to the grounds of parliament and particularly at the western exit at the foot of the hill in order to instruct drivers of cars and chartered buses where they may park, especially during the summer season?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that within the limits of manpower available to

April 4. 1366
Questions
the R.C.M. Police, every effort will be made to instruct drivers of cars and chartered buses where they may park.


R.C.M.P. REPORT ON CAR EXPLOSION
Mr. Choquette: Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police submitted a report giving information on the explosion which wrecked the car of the former member for Trois-Rivieres, Hon. Leon Balcer, in 1964?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. Reports were submitted to the R.C.M. P. headquarters, Ottawa, by members of the R.C.M.P. at Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, in connection with the burning of Mr. Balcer's car in the early morning of October 17, 1964.


R.C.M.P. INVESTIGATION INTO QUEBEC FIRE
Mr. Choquette: Are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police now investigating the fire which devastated the residence of the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Quebec, and have they any clues indicating that this fire was due to terrorist activities on the part of revolutionary separatists?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both part 1 and part 2 of this question is no.


FEDERAL PROPOSALS RESPECTING GARIBALDI PARK
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the federal government made any proposal to the government of British Columbia to establish Garibaldi Park in British Columbia as a national park?
2.	If so, when was such an offer made?
3.	Did the federal government make any proposals as to the amount of money the federal government would consider spending for development purposes if Garibaldi park became a national park?
4.	If so, what were those proposals?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Yes.
2,	3, 4. Formal and informal offers have been made by successive governments for at least the past 10 years. The present government first formally renewed the proposal on June 13, 1963. Subsequent proposals envisioned initial development expenditures of approximately $10,000,000. The most specific development proposals were contained in a statement of November 4, 1965, outlining plans to: (a) Negotiate suitable boundaries for the park which would exclude areas of resource conflicts, (b) Provide suitable low

elevation areas for public camping facilities and other visitor services, (c) Identify prime natural features and major scenic attractions, (d) Zone the park to ensure for preservation of key areas, (e) Prepare a master plan to guide long term development which would probably include: (i) Road access via a scenic alpine drive to the Diamond Head area, (ii) Campgrounds, picnic areas, trails, shelters, and a scenic view lodge, (iii) Park interpretive facilities, nature exhibits and nature trails, (iv) Improvement of the existing jeep road to provide bus access to the icefields, (v) A high level trail system connecting to the Whistler mountain ski area, (vi) The preservation of the alpine meadows in the Black Tusk area, (vii) Boating facilities on Garibaldi and Cheakamus lakes.


WAR VETERANS BENEFITS
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	What criteria are applicable for the granting of a pension of a war veteran?
2.	What criteria are applied to refuse a pension to a war veteran?
3.	Does a war veteran who has served overseas enjoy certain benefits which are denied to one who has stayed in Canada?
4.	What are these benefits?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1 and 2. War disability pensions are paid under the provisions of the Pension Act R.S.C. 1952, c. 207 as amended from time to time.
3.	Yes.
4.	(1) Eligibility for benefits for veterans who had active service during world war I or world war II, or who served in Korea, and where overseas service is one of the qualifying factors, is set forth in the relevant legislation as follows: (a) Civil Service Act: section 40, section 41. (b) Department of Veterans Affairs Act: (i) Veterans treatment regulations; section 2(1) (j); sections 12; 13; 29,
(ii)	Last Post fund regulations; section 2(e),
(iii)	Veterans Burial regulations; section 4(b). (c) Pension Act: sections 2(v); 13(l)(c); 4(g); 14(4); 15; 28(3)(a). (d) Soldier Settlement Act: section 2(s). (e) Veterans Benefit Act, 1954: section 2(c), and remaining sections applicable to other acts in world war II veterans charter, (f) Veterans' Land Act: sections 2(1) (d); 10; 46. (g) War Service Grants Act: sections 2(j) and 2(m); 3; 8. (h) War Veterans Allowance Act; sections 2(1)(k); 3; 5; 30. (i) Assistance fund (WVA) regulations: section 7.
April 4, 1966

Questions
(2) Persons who served overseas in certain non-military organizations were made eligible for a number of benefits under the following legislation:	(a) Civilian War Pensions and
Allowances Act. (b) Fire Fighters War Service Benefits Act. (c) Special Operators War Service Benefits Act. (d) Supervisors War Service Benefits Act. (e) Women's Royal Naval Services and the South African Military Nursing Service (Benefits) Act.


EXPENDITURES BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Caouelie: What was for each of the following departments, for the last three years (a) the total expenditure (b) the amounts spent in each province (c) the breakdown of these expenditures: Post Office Department, Department of Trade and Commerce, Department of National Health and Welfare, Department of Justice, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Department of Transport, Department of National Defence, Department of Labour, Department of Secretary of State, Department of Forestry, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Department of Industry and Defence Production, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Public Works, Department of Fisheries, Department of Agriculture, Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


REVISION OF STATUTES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Is the government revising the statutes of Canada at the present time?
2.	When approximately does the government expect to have the revision of the statutes of Canada completed?
3.	When approximately does the government expect the new revised statutes of Canada to be published, so as to be available to the public?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1.	Yes.
2.	An attempt is being made to include the 1967 legislation in the revision so that the new Revised Statutes of Canada can be related to Canada's centennial year.
3.	Publication of the revised statutes will follow the consolidation therein of 1967 legislation, which may require publication to be in 1968.


SUMMER EMPLOYEES, NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources (a) at the head office (b) elsewhere in Canada, 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?


Arthur Laing: 1. (a) 18; (b) 740.
2.	No records are maintained to indicate source of recommendation. The persons employed were selected by the Civil Service Commission or on the basis of applications to the department or on referral by the National Employment Service.
3.	This information is not available.


CONTRIBUTION TO SHIPYARD CONSTRUCTION, MARYSTOWN, NFLD.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the Atlantic Development Board contributed, or will the Atlantic Development Board be contributing, to the construction of a shipyard at Marystown, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what will be the amount of the contribution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	No.
2.	N/A.


CO-OPERATION IN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has the Atlantic Development Board ever cooperated with Nova Scotia's Industrial Estates in the development or establishment of industry in that province?
2.	If it has, on what projects?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) With financial assistance-general purpose building and extension of water system to serve the industrial park at Stellarton;
(b) With good offices-the heavy water plant in Glace Bay; the proposed C.M.I. automobile plant at Point Edward.

April 4. 1966
Questions


DIRECT DEVELOPMENT BOARD GRANTS TO INDUSTRY, N.S.
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has the Atlantic Development Board ever been asked by the province of Nova Scotia to make direct grants to industry in that province?
2.	If so, what was (a) the Atlantic Development Board's reply (b) the government's position?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The board informed the premier of Nova Scotia that it was prepared to indicate to the minister that it endorsed the principle of direct grants but the application of this principle should be subject to arrangements being made which would be acceptable to both the federal and provincial governments,
(b)	It would not be desirable for the Atlantic Development Board to enter the field of direct grants, since the federal government was considering the desirability of amending the Area Development Incentives Act to include direct grants, and to extend the geographical area of the program.


CAPITAL GRANTS TO INDUSTRY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has the Atlantic Development Board at any time recommended to the government the advisability of special forms of capital grants to industry through existing instruments of the provincial government of Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what was the government's reply?
3.	If so, when was such a request made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.


BUILDING COLLAPSE, NORTH VANCOUVER
Mr. Winch: 1.	Was there a partial roof collapse, caused by a heavy snowfall in January, 1965. on a building or buildings at the North Lynn Marine Properties (North Vancouver) ?
2.	Was the cause of the collapse alleged to have been lack of sufficient shear reinforcement in concrete beams?
3.	What firm originally held the contract for the construction of the buildings?
4.	What firms tendered on the roof reconstruction at the North Lynn Marine Properties and what were the respective tender bids?

5.	Was the bid of Fort Construction (1962) Ltd. higher than that of others who tendered and, if so, for what reason were they awarded the contract?
6.	Was it the National Harbours Board (Ottawa) that let this contract?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary io Minister of Transport):: The National Harbors Board advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	British Columbia Bridge and Dredging Co. Ltd.
4.	Tenderer and amount: Reynolds & Pigeon Holdings Ltd., Richmond, $380,000; Steel-Bilt Contractors Ltd., Port Coquitlam, $473,010; Humphrey Construction Ltd., North Vancouver, $488,768; Fort Construction (1962) Ltd., North Vancouver, $499,800; Burns & Dutton Construction (1962) Ltd., Richmond, $565,000; Western Building Limited, Richmond, $599,829.
5.	The three lower tenders were not submitted in accordance with the specifications and were therefore not acceptable. The fourth low tender, that of Fort Construction (1962) Ltd., was the lowest tender submitted in accordance with the requirements of the specifications and the contract was awarded to this company.
6.	Yes.


POTASH SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	During 1965, to which countries was potash exported and what was the volume in each case?
2.	Through which port was the potash shipped in each case?
3.	Has any potash been shipped through the port of Churchill and, if so, what was the destination and tonnage?
4.	Are there any plans for the extension of potash shipment through the port of Churchill?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows:
1 and 2. Information requested is not available as export statistics of potash are not recorded separately.
3.	No.
4.	Not to our knowledge, although inquiries have been received as to available facilities at Churchill harbour for the handling of potash.
April 4, 1966


ADVICE ON INCOME TAX FORMS
Mr. Howe (Hamillon: South):
1.	Is the Department of National Revenue offering free advice in the completing of income tax forms and, if so, is this offer being advertised?
2.	If there are such advertisements, in which cities and places in Canada do they appear, and in which communications media?
3.	What will be the total cost to the government of these advertisements?


Edgar John Benson: 1. As in former years, the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue is offering free advice to taxpayers on the completion of income tax forms. Each of the 29 district taxation offices across Canada contains an information counter where this service is made available during business hours. Temporary offices are opened during the filing season to serve taxpayers unable to visit the regular offices. Notice of these facilities is given in advertisements.
2.	Advertisements were placed with newspapers and radio stations in the following centres: St. John's, Charlottetown, Summer-side, Sydney, Halifax, Wolfville, Kentville, Truro, Antigonish, New Glasgow, St. John, Quebec City, Sherbrooke, Montreal, Rouyn, Ottawa, Kingston, Belleville, Penticton, Victoria, Courtenay, Campbell River, Peterborough, Toronto, Barrie, Brampton, Huntsville, Orillia, Oshawa, Midland, Collingwood, Hamilton, Oakville, Brantford, Simcoe, St. Catharines, Kitchener, Stratford, Guelph, Galt, Nanaimo, Duncan, Port Alberni, Owen Sound, Hanover, London, Sarnia, St. Thomas, Windsor, Sudbury, Fort William, Fort Francis, Kenora, Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Prince George, Whitehorse.
3.	The total cost to the government of these advertisements will be approximately $25,000.


INDUSTRIAL ESTATES LTD.-ASSISTANCE FROM ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Cashin: 1.	Has the Atlantic Development Board given any assistance, financial or otherwise, to Industrial Estates Limited of Nova Scotia or to any company to which Industrial Estates itself has given assistance?
2.	If so, who are the members of the board of directors of Industrial Estates Limited?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	Yes.
23033-239i
Questions
2.	Industrial Estates Limited reports that the following persons are now on the board of directors: J. C. MacKeen, Chairman of the board; F. H. Sobey, President of I.E.L.; S. W. Kenney, Vice President of I.E.L.; S. G. Allen, Director of I.E.L.; D. F. Archibald, Director of
I.E.L.; R. M. Black, Director of I.E.L.; H. J. Egan, Director of I.E.L.; J. W. Gillis, Director of I.E.L.; W. S. K. Jones, Director of I.E.L.; C. G. MacLennan, Director of I.E.L.; R. G. Urquhart, Director of I.E.L.; B. J. Waters, Director of I.E.L.


SHIP REPAIR SLIPWAY, MARYSTOWN, NFLD.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is a ship repair slipway under construction at Marystown, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, is there a financial contribution thereto by the federal government and in what amount?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Not yet.
2.	The federal government plans to provide haul-out facilities estimated to cost $1,600,000 as part of an over-all arrangement with the province which provides also for the development of shipyard facilities at this point. Because no haul-out facilities exist in that area and haul-out facilities are required for steamship hull inspections, the federal government is making a contribution for the haul-out only.


GRANT TO WESTERN CANADA RECLAMATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	Has the government received a request from the western Canada reclamation association for a grant to aid its educational work on water?
2.	Has any decision been made by the government to assist this association?
3.	If so, what is the decision?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. The request was declined.


HAY CUTTING, WIARTON AIRPORT
Mr. Loney: 1.	Who was the successful tenderer for the cutting and removal of 24 acres of hay, Wiarton airport, June 14, 1965?
2.	What was the amount of the tender bid?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No bids were received on department's call for public tenders.

April 4, 1966
Questions
2.	The airport manager was subsequently authorized to dispose of the hay crop by whatever means he considered practical. The hay crop was sold to Mr. Morgan Nixon for the sum of $20.


PROCEDURE FOR SUMMONING PARLIAMENT
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Is an instrument of advice now used as the technique of advising the Governor General in respect of the summoning of parliament?
2.	If so, when was this technique first used?
3.	Have all sessions of parliament since that time been summoned as a result of advice tendered by this technique to the Governor General?
4.	What was the technique or procedure previously used?
5.	Why was the change made?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Yes.
2.	October 7, 1953 for the summoning of parliament on November 12, 1953.
3.	Yes.
4.	Minute of council.
5.	The minute of council was considered inappropriate as a means of advising the Governor General on those matters on which the tendering of advice is the responsibility of the Prime Minister alone and not of the committee of the Privy Council.


PROCEDURE FOR DISSOLVING PARLIAMENT
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Is an instrument of advice now used as the technique of advising the Governor General to dissolve parliament?
2.	If so, when was this technique first used?
3.	In what dissolutions of parliament has the technique been used?
4.	What was the technique or procedure previously used?
5.	Why was the change made?


John Ross Matheson: 1. Yes.
2.	April 12, 1957.
3.	April 12, 1957, February 1, 1958, April 19, 1962, February 6, 1963, September 8, 1965.
4.	Minute of council.
5.	The minute of council was considered inappropriate as a means of advising the Governor General on those matters on which the tendering of advice is the responsibility of the Prime Minister alone and not of the Committee of the Privy Council.


REVISION IN BACON PACKAGES
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Has the Consumers' Association of Canada, since 1959, been asking for a package that will allow consumers to see one whole slice of bacon and the distribution of fat and lean at the time of purchase?
2.	Did the government in February, 1965, ask meat packers to revise their packages by January 1, 1966, to remove any element of deception and, if so, was the deadline extended to May 1, 1966 and for what reason?
3.	Will the government on May 1 insist on a paskage that will permit consumers to see one whole slice of bacon at the time of purchase?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. The deadline was extended when it was learned that it was not possible for the packaging industry to supply sufficient new bacon packages by January 1, 1966.
3.	On and after May 1, 1966, the Department of National Health and Welfare will insist that all bacon shipped by meat packers is contained in packages which are not deceptive. It is considered that the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act will be met if the window area is at least two thirds of the length of the package, permits the consumer to see the full width of a slice of bacon and the package is not deceptive in any other way.


MEMBERS OF EASTER ISLAND EXPEDITION
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What were the names and official positions of every person who comprised the Easter Island expedition, other than members of the Canadian forces?
2.	Did any person or persons join the expedition in South America and, if so, in what capacity and under whose authority?
3.	What was the cost, approximately, of this expedition?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Dr. Stanley C. Skoryna, Expedition leader; Dr. Morton E. Alpert, Epidemiology; Dr. Peter Beighton, Medical examinations; Dr. Armand Boudreault, Virology; Dr. Garry S. Brody, Medical examinations; Dr. John L. Cutler, Epidemiology; John A. Easton, Air Vice-Marshal (Retired), Deputy director in charge of physical plant; Mrs. Anna Maria Eccles, Interpretation; Dr. Ian E. Efford, Biology and ecology; Dr. Bjorn T. Ekblom, Physiology; Dr. Harold C. Gibbs, Parasitology;
April 4, 1966

Dr. Einer T. Gjessing, Physiology; Dr. T. Colin Gillingham, Catering; Mrs. Isabel Griffiths, Interpretation; Miss Carlotta Hacker, Research assistance; Dr. John Mathias, Biology; Dr. Robert J. Meier, Anthropology; Mrs. Cleopatra Montandon, Sociology; Dr. Denys Montandon, Medication examination; Dr. David A. Murphy, Medical examination, veterinary medicine; Mr. James H. Nielsen, Physiology; Dr. Georges Nogrady, Bacteriology; Dr. Helen E. Reid, Medical examination (paediatrics); Dr. Maureen Roberts, Medical examination (paediatrics); Mr. Archibald Wilkinson, Radiography; Mr. Carl Mydams, "Life" photographer; Mr. R. Williams, CBC Halifax; Mr. H. J. Lemieux, CBC New York.
2.	Six of the above members of the expedition joined it at San Juan. 1 Chilean scientist joined at Balboa and 2 Chilean medical students joined at Callao. A McGill University information officer joined it at Balboa on the return trip to assist in preparing the expedition's report.
3.	As this expedition was not sponsored by the Department of National Defence, the cost is not available to us.


PERMISSION TO TABLE CORRESPONDENCE ON HEALTH SERVICES CONFERENCE
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the government of Saskatchewan asked permission from the government of Canada to table in the Saskatchewan legislature all correspondence between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada since June 1, 1964, regarding a federal-provincial conference on health services?
2.	If so. on what date was the request made?
3.	Has approval for the tabling of this correspondence been granted by the federal government?
4.	If so, on what date was approval granted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes, for certain stated correspondence.
2.	February 22, 1965.
3.	Yes, except that permission was not granted for tabling of confidential notes and an interim report.
4.	March 1, 1965.


PERMISSION TO TABLE CORRESPONDENCE ON LIGNITE COAL STUDY
Mr. Douglas: 1. Has the government of Saskatchewan asked permission from the government of Canada to table in the Saskatchewan legislature all correspondence between the premier of Saskatchewan or any minister and the government of Canada since May 22, 1964, regarding a joint study of the utilization of Saskatchewan lignite coal?
Questions
2.	If so, on what date was the request made?
3.	Has approval for the tabling of this correspondence been granted by the federal government?
4.	If so, on what date was approval granted?


John Ross Matheson: 1. Permission was requested for the tabling of the following two letters:	(a) Letter of July 24th, 1964,
from the Prime Minister to the premier of Saskatchewan concerning a proposed meeting of federal and Saskatchewan officials to discuss the developing and marketing of electrical energy from lignite coal, (b) Letter of September 16th, 1964, from F. A. Milligan, assistant secretary to the cabinet, to Dr. J. J. Moore in the office of the premier of Saskatchewan, concerning a proposed deferment of the meeting of officials.
2.	February 7, 1966.
3.	Yes.
4.	February 9, 1966.


ACCESS ROADS PROGRAM, CHAPLEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since the start of the joint program for the construction of access roads to resources, what projects have been undertaken and completed in Chapleau county?
2.	What access roads to resources are being constructed at the present time and when will these projects be completed in each case?
3.	Are there any projects under study at the present time and if so, what are they?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. (a) Amos-Mata-gami road, 118 miles-commencing at the town of Amos and travelling in a northerly direction to Matagami lake and the New Hosco mine. 54 miles completed, (b) Lac Waconichi-Lac Albanel road, 97 miles-commencing at the southerly tip of Lac Waconichi to a point a few miles north of the 51st parallel on the eastern shore of Lac Albanel. 88 miles completed, (c) Chapais-Desmarais-ville road, 30 miles-commencing at a point 14.6 miles east of Desmaraisville to a point approximately 27 miles west of Chapais. 30 miles completed.
2.	Amos-Matagami road and Lac Waconichi-Lac Albanel road are being constructed at the present time. Completion date determined by provincial schedule. Roads to resources agreement with province expires March 31, 1966.
3.	There are no projects under study at the present time.

April 4, 1966
Questions


DISABILITY PENSION FOR WAR SERVICE INJURIES
Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given to increasing the current disability pensioners' compensation for war service injuries?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: This question refers to a matter of policy and cannot be answered until a decision has been taken.


FEDERAL GRANT IN LIEU OF TAXES, SOUTHAMPTON, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What amount of grant in lieu of taxes on federal property was paid to the municipality of Southampton, Ontario, for the year 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Town of Southampton, Ontario-1965: $3,044.


CHAMPLAIN MONUMENT, QUE.
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does the government of Canada have responsibility for the Champlain monument in Quebec city?
2.	Was it destroyed by separatist sabotage?
3.	Has it been restored?
4.	If so, were any changes made in (a) motif (b) wording?
5.	If changes were made, what were the reasons for the changes and who authorized them?


Arthur Laing: 1. No, the
city of Quebec owns and is responsible for the monument.
2.	No.
3,	4 and 5. N/A.


LOANS FOR RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTION, RYERSON INSTITUTE
Mr. Scott (Danforth): 1.	Has the government received representations from students and/or officials of the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in Toronto, with respect to making that institute eligible for N.H.A. loans for the construction of student residence buildings?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the representations, and what was the nature of the government's response?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes.
2. In the representations made on behalf of extending the facilities of the N.H.A. to 
cover the financing of residence for students attending Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, the following points were made:
(a)	it is becoming increasingly difficult to find suitable accommodation for students in the immediate area;
(b)	it is expected that the student body will more than double within the next five years and;
(c)	the courses offered by Ryerson play an important role in preparing young people to meet their responsibilities in our technical society and, therefore, similar financing should be available as in the case of universities.
The reply to these representations was that the financing could not be offered under present legislation, but that careful consideration would be given to the recommendations that the act be amended.


POTATO WAREHOUSE STORAGE ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Jorgenson: 1.	Has the potato warehouse storage assistance act been discontinued and, if so, when?
2.	Was the program reinstated and, if so (a) on what date (b) how many loans have been granted since its reinstatement (c) to whom were these loans made?


John James Greene: 1 and 2. The program of assistance in the construction of potato warehouses was discontinued in July, 1962 and has not been reinstated. Commitments made prior to that date have been honoured.


SALES TAX ON ELECTRIC FENCE CONTROLLERS
Mr. Godin: Are electric fence controllers manufactured in Canada subject to the 11 per cent sales tax?


Edgar John Benson: Yes.


TAX AND DUTY ON FARM ITEMS
Mr. Godin: 1.	Are the following items subject to the 11 per cent sales tax (a) galvanized trade wire (b) annealed trade wire (c) oiled and annealed trade wire (d) hay baling wire (e) electrical fence wire (f) barbed wire (g) welded mesh fencing (h) farm fencing (i) chain link netting (j) steel fence posts (k) steel farm gates?
2.	If the above items are imported, are they subject to the 22 per cent duty?
April 4, 1966

Orders for Returns


Edgar John Benson: 
CONSTRUCTION OF CUSTOMS OFFICE, VILLE SAINT-PAMPHILE, QUE.
Mr. Berger: Does the government intend to carry out, this summer, a project for the construction of a customs office at the Canada-U.S.A. border at Ville Saint-Pamphile, Quebec and, if so, when will tenders be called?


Edgar John Benson: Yes. It is anticipated that tenders for this project will be called within the next two months.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouette: 1.	Which crown corporations are not required to have their financial activities audited by the Auditor General of Canada?
2.	What are the names of private auditors, of each of the crown corporations since their creation?
3.	What was the remuneration of these auditors?
4.	Is it the government's intention to have the financial operations of all crown corporations audited by the Auditor General in the future and, if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.


SUBSIDIES TO ATLANTIC COAST SHIPS
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What, listed by official number, name and terminal and principal ports of call on its schedule of runs, and grouped by owner, managing owner and address, is each of the ships on the Atlantic coasts of Canada, including the St. Lawrence river system from and below the port of Montreal, for the operation of which subsidies are currently being paid through the Canadian Maritime Commission?
2.	What, shown as an annual rate, is the amount being paid to each owner or operator for each service or schedule of runs for which he is receiving a subsidy?
3.	On which of these ships are motor vehicles transported (a) by being hoisted on and off (b) by being driven on and off?
Return tabled.


BANKRUPTCY SUPERINTENDENT AND TRUSTEES
Mr. Nielsen: 1. (a) What is the name of the person appointed under the provisions of S.3 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act as the superintendent of bankruptcy and when was he appointed (b) what is the name of the previous superintendent of bankruptcy, and between what dates did he hold the office and why did he cease to hold office?

April 4. 1966
Orders for Returns
2.	(a) What are the names of those licensed as trustees under the provisions of S.3(3)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act in the following areas: Vancouver, B.C.; Edmonton, Alberta; Montreal, Quebec; Toronto, Ontario; Hamilton, Ontario; (b) when were the trustees appointed in the foregoing instances and, in each case, has a guaranty bond been deposited under the provisions of S.3(3)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act and in what amount?
3.	(a) What complaints and by whom have such been made with respect to estates in each of the areas in 2(a) above during the term of the license of each of the foregoing trustees (b) what was the nature of each such complaint (c) by and to whom was each such complaint made (d) when was each such complaint made (e) in each case what action, if any, was taken on such complaint?
4. (a) In the event investigations were conducted in any of the cases in 3 above, when was each investigation commenced and when was each concluded (b) in each case what was the result and the action taken, if any?
Return tabled.


C.N.R. PENSION PLANS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What contribution has the C.N.R. made every year to each of the C.N.R. pension plans since the plans began and what was the actual date that each contribution was made?
2.	What contributions have C.N.R. employees made every year to each of the C.N.R. pension plans since the plans began?
3.	What were the total benefits paid out by the C.N.R. pension plans by year and by plan?
4.	What amounts were borrowed from the C.N.R. pension plan funds by the company, what was the actual date of these loans, on what dates were these repaid, and what interest was paid on these loans in percentage figures and in actual dollars?
5.	Where are the pension funds invested, what amounts are invested, what dates were these investments made, what earnings have these investments made in each year as shown by percentage figures and actual dollars, and on what dates were these investments liquidated?
6.	How much money is in the C.N.R. pension fund and where is this money-in cash, investments, loans to the C.N.R., or elsewhere, specifically?
7.	Does the new C.N.R. pension plan provide a reduction in the contribution rate of C.N.R. employees and, if so, by how much?
8.	Does the new C.N.R. pension plan provide for reduced benefit rates for future C.N.R. pensioners and, if so, by how much?
9.	Will this new plan mean that a surplus will be generated in the C.N.R. pension fund when the plan stabilizes and if this happens, is it proposed to raise the rate of benefits at that time without a simultaneous increase in contributions?
Return tabled.


WHARFAGE CHARGES
Mr. Keays: 1.	What are the wharfage charges at present in force in Canada?
2.	What were they prior to the last increase?
Return tabled.


RADIO OPERATORS, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	How many radio operators of all categories are presently in the employ of the Department of Transport in field positions?
2.	Does this number meet establishment requirements and, if not, what have been the annual deficiencies in the years 1963, 1964, 1965 and at the present?
3.	What has been the annual turnover of radio operators in the years 1963, 1964, and 1965?
4.	What is the scale of pay for the various classifications of radio operators?
5.	What are some comparable positions in the public service in so far as pay scales are concerned?
6.	What efforts have been made in the last two years to upgrade the position of radio operator, and with what results?
Return tabled.


'EXPANSION OF PARK FACILITIES
Mr. Dinsdale: Since 1963, what programs have been launched by the government of Canada to expand park facilities to meet the urgent recreational needs of (a) the Canadian population in a day of increasing leisure time (b) a rapidly growing number of visitors to Canada who are making a vital contribution to our booming tourist industry (c) the influx of visitors for Canada's centennial?
Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house what attitude the government of Canada has taken regarding the Greek tanker which apparently intends to make oil available for transmission to Rhodesia? Has the government of Canada communicated with the Greek ambassador in this connection; is there any foundation for the suggestion that in mid ocean the registry of this ship was changed from Greek to Panamanian, and were any representations made to the Panamanian government?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there are aspects of this matter which we are now examining, and I prefer to wait until that examination is complete, perhaps some time tomorrow, before giving an answer.
April 4. 1966


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Press reports indicate that the cabinet has made a decision to go ahead with medicare next year regardless of how many provinces have accepted the federal government's offer. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the cabinet has made a decision to that effect, and is the Prime Minister able to announce it at this time?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at this time make an announcement of policy on this matter, nor give an answer in respect of the aspect referred to by my hon. friend, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly.


UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. In view of the increased sightings of unidentified flying objects which are now getting past the point of being funny

a young citizen in my riding is nursing a burn on his hand after touching the antenna of one of these objects, and there are dozens of other reports in southern Ontario-can the minister say whether his department is doing anything about investigating these reports; and would he be prepared to set up a special committee for this purpose in order to satisfy public curiosity?


Mr. Fairwealher:: Ralph Cowan should be the chairman.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In spite of the preamble to the question, I suggest it should be placed on the order paper.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the 23033-240

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. Has the government put into effect a new pay scale which provides increases of from $300 to $3,000 for defence department aircraft pilots?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that this is causing very unfavourable reaction among other flying personnel and servicemen generally, who believe it will decrease the effectiveness of the forces and further greatly decrease morale, thus accelerating the decline in the strength of the forces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe the question as posed can be considered at this time.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the substantial pay increases for pilots announced Friday last, is the minister considering similar increases for air crew navigators, radio operators and technical officers who will receive nothing extra according to that announcement?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the demand for skilled pilots in the civilian economy has so outstripped the demand for other trades that in order to compete and keep in the armed forces the number of skilled pilots we require we have to bring their emoluments closer in line with those of the civilian industry. Other categories referred to by my hon. friend will be considered in the cyclical pay increases which will come into effect on October 1.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he really expects that an increase in pay of $3 million accompanied by a decrease of $8 million will in fact keep pilots in the armed forces happy, or should we characterize this as one of the neatest tricks of the week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking an argumentative question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister aware of the violent reaction to the abandonment of the principle of equal pay for equal rank, and is anything being done to alleviate this abandonment of a long standing principle?
April 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it. It is a principle that had to be abandoned because it is no longer viable.


Mr. Churchill:: Your program has broken down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It would not help in the future, in any event. There have been certain exceptions in the past. We pay more to doctors and dentists than we do to others holding the same rank. This is because they can command larger remuneration in the civilian economy. The same thing is true of pilots. In making the decision to increase the pilots' pay at this time we reluctantly but knowingly abandoned the principle of equal pay for equal rank because in the technological age in which we live we realize that we have to do this.


Mr. G. L. Chatierton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether this action is intended to atone for the short-sighted action in letting 500 pilots go?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that a number of supplementary and further supplementary questions have been asked. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there are many ramifications in this change of policy, but this is the last supplementary question I shall ask at this time. Is any consideration being given by the minister to incorporating into their pensions the flying allowance paid to airmen who have not received the basic pay increase, so that despite all the other problems the flying crew will receive pension benefits which include the flying allowance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming in the nature of a debate and I suggest that no further supplementary questions should be allowed at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could I answer that question, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further question concerning our air force. Since there has been a change in basic pay policy, is the minister considering any change in flying allowances for air crew?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There have been considerable changes in policy. I could send the hon. member a copy of the press release which would give him a summation of the changes which have taken place. Some of the other questions he has raised are being considered throughout the summer months in conjunction with the cyclical pay review.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I think should be directed to the Minister of Finance, or possibly the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say whether, in the light of the unanimous resolution of the Prince Edward Island legislature, the government has decided to remove the Northumberland causeway from the list of public works projects which the Minister of Finance announced would be deferred, and whether in fact they will move toward acceleration of this important development?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was very clear in my statement that the Northumberland causeway was being rescheduled, not deferred.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, directed to the Prime Minister. On Thursday of last week the Prime Minister informed the house that he had received word on this matter from the leader of the opposition in Prince Edward Island. I wonder whether he has also been contacted by the leader of the opposition in New Brunswick on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but I received the resolution in question from the premier of Prince Edward Island about an hour ago.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to ask the
Minister of Public Works, in the light of the 10 per cent reduction in expenditure and the minimization of labour useage in the summer, by what magical formula he can predict that the Northumberland causeway will be completed in time.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Yes, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is argumentative.

April 4, 1966


HATE LITERATURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. He tabled the report of the commission on hate literature, which report has been before the government for some time, I understand. Is the Solicitor General now in a position to advise that legislation based upon whatever recommendations are in the report will in fact be brought in?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am
not in a position to give that undertaking, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the house that this matter is being given very serious study and I am hopeful that we shall be able to make an announcement in due course.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether he received, over the week-end, a request from 40 Montreal ecclesiasts that construction be started without delay on the C.B.C. building? Is the Prime Minister in a position to make a statement on the matter?
[English1


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to that question and a similar one raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and the hon. member for Saint-Jacques, who has been camping on my doorstep for some weeks on this matter.
I should like to say that the plans for consolidation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation offices in Montreal, by the erection of a building on Dorchester Boulevard East as approved in the C.B.C. capital budget last November will be proceeded with. These plans are not affected by last week's budget statement. It is expected that excavation work will begin this year, 1966, with construction following in 1967, in accordance with the plans.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say at this time whether the cabinet has decided to provide a sufficient sum of money for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to extend service to areas now unserviced, as recommended in the last annual report of the corporation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is another subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I suggest this is not a question which should be asked at this time.


WEARING OF HAT BY MEMBER FOR ATHABASKA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps at this time the hon. member for Athabaska would want me to bring to the attention of hon. members the hat he is now wearing. I think, according to tradition, possibly hon. members have the right to wear a hat, but I doubt whether that privilege extends to tuques.


An hon. Member:: Take your hat off.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabaska):: I hope that I have not offended the house by drawing to hon. members' attention the fact that this refers to a centennial project of St. Paul, the foremost town in Canada as far as centennial projects are concerned.


PROTECTIVE STAFF-REPORTED UNSATISFACTORY ACCOMMODATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister inform the house whether the provisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare Act or the provisions of the Public Works Health Act are utilized to protect the health of those persons employed in the centre block of the parliament buildings?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then may I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's reply, will he inspect the quarters now occupied by the protective services of this house?
April 4. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that I missed the first question. However, in view of the supplementary I gather that perhaps the question answered by the minister was out of order. I assume that the representations made by the hon. member will be considered by the officials responsible for the situation which he has just mentioned.


HARBOURS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe-Ba-got):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Following the meeting he had this morning with other members of the cabinet, representatives of the Harbours Board of Montreal and the president of the executive council of the city of Montreal, could the minister tell us if restrictions with regard to the handling of grain in the port of Montreal have been removed?
tEnglish1


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, I had the pleasure of presiding at a meeting this morning at which were present representatives from Montreal as well as some of my colleagues and the heads of government agencies. We had a very frank discussion of the complaints that had been made by the representatives of the port of Montreal. The chairman of the board of grain commissioners was present, and both the Minister of Agriculture, who has responsibility for the board of grain commissioners, and the chairman himself gave assurances that these representations would receive most careful consideration, looking ahead to the future.
My recollection is also that the chairman of the board promised there would be a further meeting at which these representations could be renewed before a decision was made affecting the restrictions.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Perhaps the minister will recall that last year the same assurance was given but subsequently no decision was taken. My question was whether these restrictions would be lifted, and whether the minister could assure us they will be lifted because they are not to the advantage of the port of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance?
At this morning's meeting was there any question of giving its autonomy back to the port of Montreal?


EXPO '67 USE BY EDMONTON OF &quot;KLONDIKE&quot; THEME
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister aware of the representations which have been made to the government of the province of Alberta by the Yukon legislative council? If so, does the minister intend to take any action on behalf of the government of the Yukon Territory to enforce the right of that government and the people of the Yukon to the exclusive use of the historical and present resources of the Klondike?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have received a very great number of wires from the Yukon, some in sulphurous language, concerning the accusation that a theft has been made of the use of the word "Klondike". I must say that I regret the fact that an attempt is being made in Edmonton to use the word "Klondike", but I am reminded that when the Klondike was settled they called part of it Monte Carlo, and that Dawson called itself the San Francisco of the north.
I do not know what we can do in this matter, but I think an appeal has been made by the city of Edmonton to Expo '67 to incorporate something with a Klondike character. I have had the assurance of the Expo '67 people that representations will be heard from the Yukon before any such application is accepted.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister responsible for resource development in the north, does the Minister and his department intend to take any action in support of the government of the Yukon territory in this regard?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we may be making certain representations to the city of Edmonton.
April 4, 1966


COMMONS DEBATES INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Last Monday, in this the nation's supposedly bicultural capital, British "pop" singer Petula Clark, appearing at the Capitol theatre, sang the first half of her program all in French, and a great many of her audience walked out in protest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Couldn't you get in?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Espousing bilingualism as he does, what punishment does the Prime Minister propose to teach these naughty English Canadians to mind their bicultural manners?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it more than coincidence that the increase in living costs has been referred to as a "Sharp" rise in prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr, Grafftey:: That is proof we need a holiday.


INVESTIGATION UNDER COMBINES ACT INTO PRICE INCREASE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister whether the government intended to take any action relative to what I described as steep increases in the price of bread. In certain parts of the country the first price increase was 2 cents to cover an allegedly additional cost, and there was a further 2 cents. The Prime Minister said that he would give a full report to the house at an early date. Is he now in a position to do so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my right hon. friend knows, a matter of this kind is submitted by the government, when a submission is required, to the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act. That official, as 'has been the case in the past, examines the matter, and if he feels that his investigation is required he takes the necessary steps. He is still examining the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: How recently was the matter placed before the commissioner of the combines branch, and when was the report made to the government that the matter is still being given consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was put
before the director after my right hon. friend, and I think others, raised the question in the first instance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister when he expects to get the report from the Economic Council regarding the matter of prices, which was referred to the council by the Prime Minister last year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not for some time, Mr. Speaker. I have had a report from the council itself as to the nature of the investigations which are being conducted, and I will be glad to send a copy of the information I have received to my hon. friend or to make a statement in the house about it.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the apparently deteriorating situation in South Viet Nam particularly in the Da Nang area, would the minister inform the house what progress, if any, is now being made in getting the control commission to start some negotiations aimed at bringing about peace in that part of the world?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. friend would look at the statement which I made this morning in the external affairs committee which dealt with this matter. I was reporting, to the extent to which under the circumstances I am able, on the future role of the commission.
The Canadian government feels very strongly that there is a role for the commission, and our discussions with the two other state members of the commission reveal a continuing interest on their part as well.


David Lewis: I appreciate there may be some things which the minister cannot say, but can he inform the house and the country whether
April 4. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry any progress at all is being made in getting either to the Prime Minister or to the the commission into a position where some Solicitor General. Has a decision yet been useful steps may be taken toward a confer- reached with respect to the request for an ence?	inquiry into the case of Steven Truscott?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My answer to that is, yes sir.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: I have a short question for the Minister of Fisheries on a matter of great importance in the Northumberland strait area, something of which the minister has knowledge. Has the hon. gentleman yet reached a decision on the possible limitation on the length of scallop rakes in the Northumberland strait area?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: No, Mr. Speaker, although this question is under very active study at the present time.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The minister advised me in correspondence that he hoped to be able to make an announcement in this regard early in March. Could he give us an idea when a decision on this question might now be expected?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There are still a few weeks left before the season opens. An announcement will be made before then.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: My question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is it true that Russian vessels are now prohibited from sailing up the St. Lawrence seaway for cargoes of grain and other commodities?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I know of no such prohibition, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question


Lawrence T. Pennell: No,
Mr. Speaker, but I expect to be reporting to the Prime Minister very shortly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. Did the minister receive a delegation from the National Safety League with respect to the founding of a national farm safety body in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question should not be submitted to the minister in its present form. Perhaps the hon. member would like to rephrase it.


Percy Verner Noble: I have given the minister notice, and I think he is prepared to make a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree, I am sure, that it is not in order for a member to ask whether a minister has received a delegation or has received representations about certain matters.


Percy Verner Noble: Perhaps I can rephrase my earlier question. Can the Minister of Agriculture make a statement to the house with respect to his attitude toward farm safety in Canada?


John James Greene: I am all in favour of farm safety, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Having received further representations from the residents of the area of Jasper, can the minister tell us whether the inquiry promised both by himself and by the Prime Minister will be set up to hear representations on national parks policy, and if so when?
April 4. 1968	COMMONS


Arthur Laing: I am sure the Prime Minister can speak for himself, but as far as I am concerned no inquiry was ever promised. I did say, and I think the Prime Minister said too, that the residents of Jasper and Banff would have every opportunity of placing their case before the government prior to the introduction of legislation.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: When will they get that opportunity?


Arthur Laing: As the house progresses with its work and we get along to the legislation, there will be an opportunity then.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Transport arising out of the exclusion of British Columbia vessels from the benefit of the shipbuilding subsidies. In view of the fact that the British Columbia legislature with, I understand, the vociferous support of the Liberal leader there, has unanimously passed a motion requesting that this decision be reversed, I should like to ask whether the minister's heart has been hardened or softened by this action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my heart continues to be soft.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then may I ask when the minister's head is likely to become hard enough to take a fair look at this question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope a fair look at this question will be taken soon.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious economic and employment problems resulting from the overnight announcement of the Studebaker Corporation that it was ceasing its motor car operation, without any consultation with any level of government-
DEBATES	3787
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
should not put his question in this form. I suggest the preamble he is now using is out of order.


John Gilbert: Then I will put the question. Would the minister give consideration to adding another point to his 12 point code of good corporation behaviour expected from Canadian subsidiaries which would read as follows: "To give all levels of government at least three months' notice-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question cannot be accepted.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received the Margeson report on a second New Eng-land-Nova Scotia ferry service? If so, what action is being taken to provide a more comprehensive service?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a question which I do not think I can answer effectively on the orders of the day.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Nor at any other time.



POSSIBLE FARE INCREASE ON N.B.-P.E.I. FERRY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us whether there is to be any increase, as I understand may be the case, in the fares charged by the C.N.R. on the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island ferry service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether he has taken note of the question I raised on March 31 concerning an inquiry into the procedure and organization of the Canada Pension Commission by Mr. Justice Wells. Can the hon.
April 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry gentleman now inform the house whether the inquiry has been completed and, if so, when the report will be available?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: First, a correction. I am sure the slip was not intended by the hon. member, but the chairman of the committee is Mr. Justice Wood. I do not have a recent report, but I believe the hearings are completed. However, I will inquire and inform the hon. member at a later date.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the soft hearted minister inform the house whether he has yet received a report of the unanimous vote of the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations to reject the recent narrowing of the north Atlantic air corridors from 120 to 90 nautical miles. If so, can he tell the house whether the government intends to take any action in support of this unanimous objection by all the pilots of the non-communist world?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am aware of the representations, but I am not in a position to make any announcement about the attitude of the government.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON CIVIL AVIATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister yet received the Wheatcroft report on civil aviation in Canada, and has this report been made public?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have received from Mr. Wheatcroft the advice which 1 asked him to give me some time ago. As to whether it would be desirable to make this document public, I shall have to think about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are the terms of this report playing any part in the thinking of the government regarding Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines flying on transcontinental routes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, that was the subject matter of the report.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government decided to appoint a royal commission on higher education?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question was for the minister of mines but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. May I ask whether, when the Donald report is received, it will be made public?


Arthur Laing: I will take that question as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question. A week or more ago I asked the hon. gentleman about a statement promised by his predecessor with regard to government policy on probation and changes in other such fields. In reply he told us this question would be answered during the course of the debate on capital punishment. Does this undertaking still hold, and will a statement be made?


Lawrence T. Pennell: recollect correctly I stated that the points raised during the debate would be met. The debate is continuing, and if these points are directed to my attention I will undertake to deal with them, to the best of my ability.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY NEWFOUNDLAND-REPORTED WORDING OF ROAD SIGNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Minister of
April 4. 1966

Public Works. Would the minister make inquiries to find out whether the well printed signs along the sides of the trans-Canada highway from one end of Newfoundland to the other reading "Thank you, Mr. Pearson, for this highway" were paid for by the rest of the taxpayers of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources which he promised to take as notice. I asked at that time whether any decision had been made with respect to supplying health services to the Indian native population of this country.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he would give us another day.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the Thompson inquiry with regard to the air base at Winnipeg and, if so, when the report will be tabled.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the report is being translated and printed, and it will not be presented formally to His Excellency until that procedure has been completed. I hope it will be quite soon.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stan-bury:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for 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.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Gauthier.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or some minister representing the government would have placed before the house and the country the views of the government regarding the abolition of capital punishment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not a government matter.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a responsibility of the government constitutionally even though the vote is to be a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am surprised that the Prime Minister takes such an attitude. Apparently he has not looked up the constitutional position which places upon the government of Canada now in office the responsibility of stating to parliament the views of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
right hon. gentleman a question on that point at the beginning of his remarks? Did he put the views of his government on record when the McGee capital punishment bill was being discussed?


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Prime Minister has not looked up the constitutional proprieties again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When did you speak on it?


John George Diefenbaker: His interruption seems to indicate that he can get along all right while he is making up his mind but where he gets into trouble is when he finally makes it up.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister says that it is not the responsibility of the government, so I begin at once by pointing out to him the fact that constitutionally it is required of the government to make clear its position even though the vote is a free vote. I can understand the difficulty of the Prime Minister because already we have had two

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
ministers participate, one taking one side and one taking the other, not an unusual circumstance in a government that apparently does not recognize the principle of cabinet solidarity.
I go back to 1956 when this question was before the United Kingdom parliament by means of a private member's bill, with the government allotting time for its discussion, and I point out that on July 9, 1956, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, stated:
Her Majesty's Government are clearly and unequivocally of the view that capital punishment must be retained. I endorse fully today what my right hon. and gallant friend the Home Secretary has said in another place about the dangers of this bill. However, I have said that this will be a free vote and I do not withdraw from that statement in any way. The government do not expect or wish that any noble lord should speak or vote against this bill out of a sense of loyalty to the government and least of all from party feeling. At the same time-
Here is the constitutional practice in the mother of parliaments, the constitutional practice which we follow here under the British North America Act:
-no government with any sense of responsibility could abstain from expressing their view on such an important matter.
Then also there is the reference to what was said in 1956, when the matter was before the House of Lords, by the Marquis of Salisbury:
Of course, the government have their own view and I think it is right they should have their own view. That view was stated to Your Lordships yesterday by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That was the position in another place and that is the position here.
In other words, there must be a declaration by the government as to its attitude regarding a bill of this importance even though there is a free vote. That was the course followed in the previous presentations in the British parliament.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the matter came up for the first time in recent years in 1948 when a British House of Commons which had a Labour majority passed through all its stages a bill to abolish capital punishment. At that time it was done against the advice of the government. The government made its stand very clear in 1948 in that even though there was going to be a free vote the Labour government of that day was opposed to abolition.
The same thing happened under the Conservative administration in 1956. A predominantly Conservative British House of

Commons passed through all its stages a bill to abolish capital punishment, and in the house at that time it was made clear by the government, through the intervention of the Home Secretary-who had the responsibility for considering the death penalty and recommending to the Crown whether or not there should be a reprieve-that the government's attitude was against abolition. That was the attitude of the Home Secretary in particular, who was responsible for the protection of the public.
We in the Canadian parliament are in a strange quandary in this matter. Constitutionally the government should make its view clear and it has not done so. It has put forward two ministers, each of whom has expressed diametrically opposing views, instead of following the constitutional practice whereby the government decides on its views collectively and then follow those views.
The Prime Minister may say, "Well, I have made my view very clear." In that connection one has only to go back to what happened on May 24, 1961. At that time, on third reading of the motion by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) for amendment of the Criminal Code on the question of capital and non-capital murder, the Prime Minister of today did not vote. The only time he voted was on an amendment proposed by one of the opposition members to the effect that the matter should be referred to a special committee for the purpose of further study and examination and that such select committee should have the power to send for persons, papers and things. On that occasion the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, voted in favour of the question being submitted to a committee, and when it came to third reading on June 6 he did not vote.
To begin with I point out there can be no question that constitutionally the government should have made its position clear on this matter.
Having said that, I now come to deal with the matter that has been before parliament on a number of occasions. I say to those who sponsored this resolution that they individually and collectively have made a worthy contribution to a problem that is of transcendent significance.
April 4, 1966

Criminal Code
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I recall my college days when we debated this question at the university. We had a mock parliament which dealt with the question. It had come before parliament eight or nine days earlier and in those days Hansard apparently was not produced within a matter of 15 hours. We dealt with this question because it was being dealt with in parliament. In every generation there are leaders in the thinking of a nation who take stands which are not always popular. I find that the greatest exponent of all throughout the years was a Liberal member from Montreal, the late Robert Bickerdike who represented Montreal-St. Lawrence. He brought bills before the House of Commons on three occasions, first in 1914, again in 1915 and finally in 1917.
In his day Mr. Bickerdike was a leader in support of a matter which to him was one of conscience. He did not receive widespread support. It is interesting in retrospect to review the attitude taken by the then leader of the opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who did not give support to Mr. Bickerdike's claim that capital punishment should not apply to women and children. It is also interesting to note that a man who was to become prime minister of Canada, Arthur Meighen, expressed himself as believing that even though a certain convicted murderer was only 16 years of age-and I now quote his words-"it might well be that the case would show there should be no restriction in its application merely on account of age". In other words, the thinking of the individuals and the thinking of the leaders in parliament has greatly changed in a period of 50 years.
The debate has been a worthy one. We are not here for the purpose of converting anyone. I speak not as Leader of the Conservative party; I speak here as an individual expressing conscientous views which have become intensified with the passing years in reference to this problem. It has been an excellent debate; there has been an expression of the feelings of individuals in respect of a problem which has exercised the minds of men for many generations.
I do not intend to speak in an emotional way. When I look over the law reports I find there are six reported cases in the Supreme Court and in the various appeal courts in which I appeared. I have appeared as counsel for the accused in twice that number and more. When I was prime minister about 62
cases came before the cabinet which were given consideration.
I wish to give the house and the country some indication of my reaction both in my capacity as a counsel in the courts and also as one who had the responsibility of administration. All of us realize the awful problem we face; all of us have reasons for making clear our individual views. Mine, in summary, were expressed many years ago by John Donne when he said, "Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind".
Every generation has looked forward to the day when the killing of mankind in war would be done away with. It is a strange commentary on man when it is realized there are only two species on the earth that wage organized war, men and ants. So far as the ants are concerned, anthropologists say they cannot be changed. Man always has hoped that the message of Nazareth would become the embodiment of principle for all mankind.
We have war. We also have the taking of human lives by individuals. I said that the thinking of people has changed. I have read every debate which has taken place in the British parliament from the days when Sir Samuel Romilly in 1810 introduced his motion on the subject of capital punishment. I have read the several reports of the various commissions. I have read the literature of the last ten or 12 years on this subject. I have seen the change in the thinking of men and women everywhere. Can you imagine in 1810 the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom or the Lord Chief Justice coming out for abolition of capital punishment? The Lord Chancellor spoke and said it was necessary to maintain capital punishment for the theft of five shillings or more to preserve property. He said: If we ever abolish executions for theft, we will have destroyed the right of human beings to acquire and add to their wealth. In 1965 the Lord High Chancellor of the United Kingdom, Lord Gardiner, came out unequivocally for abolition.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice and one of the great counsels of Britain, came out in favour of abolition with one proviso, that life imprisonment be in fact interpreted in its literal sense. The Lord Chancellor said:
-when Samuel Romilly started this he did not know what the result of abolishing capital punishment was going to be, here or elsewhere, because it had not been done, and he never used more than two arguments-namely, first, "You think crime

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
will increase if you abolish it, but it will not, because. you see, the great deterrent to crime is not severity of punishment but certainty of conviction, and you will find the conviction rate will go up". Second, he said, "We all underrate the effect of the example set by the State". I have always been convinced that he was right, and I have agreed with John Bright when he said, "A deep reverence for human life is worth more than a thousand executions in the prevention of murder. And it is in fact the great security of human life. The law of capital punishment, while pretending to support this reverence, does in fact tend to destroy it.
That quotation is taken from the Parliamentary Debates of the House of Lords, July 20, 1965.
When anyone says that he who expresses that view has not an appreciation of history, let me remind him that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, with his vast experience and having behind him the tradition of hundreds of years in the administration of justice, the cornerstone of which in the United Kingdom has been the capital sentence, has taken that view. One begins to realize the change that has taken place.
I start with certain basic principles. Society must be protected. From earliest history that has been the view, and I intend to review for a moment something of the awfulness of the punishments which have been exacted for generations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the right hon. Leader of the Opposition launches into the main part of his address, perhaps I should seek the agreement of the house to allow the right hon. gentleman to continue beyond his allotted time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: From earliest history
there has been an acceptance of the principle that the objective is to protect society, to which we have added in modern criminology the objective of rehabilitating offenders. I am not going to rely on statistics because statistics in relation to a subject such as this do not take into consideration the relative differences that exist between regions and individuals.
I am not going to bring out personal matters except to say this. I have followed the tradition of the British bar. In this tradition, in notorious and widely publicized cases great counsel have appeared in the United Kingdom. In this tradition Maxwell Fyffe, finally Lord Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor, appeared in a frightful, bloodthirsty murder case in the United Kingdom-the "Vampire Murders". The accused was Heath. The tradition in the United Kingdom is that no member of the

bar turns down a retainer, however poor the individual may be, provided he is not otherwise engaged.
Some quote Scripture and say it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. A cynic would ask whether a rich man, leaving aside the kingdom of heaven, is not virtually secured against a meeting with the hangman on the gallows? It is because of that fact that counsel have followed the course of appearing for the defence. There is no reward in a monetary sense. There is a feeling of satisfaction in the case of a person alone, facing death in the dock, the evidence mounting against him, when, as the evidence unfolds, justice is done.
I do not like personal references. I have followed the stand that poverty must not provide a one-way ticket to the gallows. I do not belong to the school that would permit that it should. No call was ever denied. In 1940, in the middle of an election, I undertook the defence of an Irish woman charged with the murder of her husband, allegedly the leader of a German-American bund. She was acquitted. An appeal was taken by the Crown. Her acquittal was reversed. Again she came back to trial and again she was acquitted.
Do not let anyone tell me that confessions are always to be believed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember once a
confession placed before me by counsel which I regarded as final and complete. This man confessed that he had killed a young girl after attacking her. I was called in and spoke with him and he said, "I never did it". I said, "There is your confession in detail. You admit attacking her and you admit killing her. You made the statement freely when you were arrested outside the province of Saskatchewan". He said, "I am not guilty". Everyone knows what one's answer would be in this set of circumstances. However, his picture appeared in the press. A farmer living between Regina and Saskatoon had employed him for several days prior to and several clays after the day in question. He got in touch with me and I in turn with the solicitor of record. This farmer said, "That man cannot be guilty. The crime took place 250 miles away and he could not have gone there and committed the crime. He was working for me not only on that day but for several days before and after."
April 4. 1966

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The crime was committed on a certain date after four in the afternoon when the youngster was returning from school. 1 saw the accused and he said, "You will not get me involved like this". He said, "You are going to get me in trouble". Do you know what he was afraid of? When he was picked up in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, he had admitted to this crime because he had stolen $10 from his employer when he left. He said, "If I get into this business I am going to go to jail for theft". I said, "If you don't, you are going elsewhere". The Crown immediately withdrew the charge. He had been committed for trial. He did not stand any chance of acquittal because there was a complete confession. I mention this because so many say there is certainty in confessions. We have an example of this in the United Kingdom. I refer to the Evans case which has been mentioned by one of my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party. I am not going into that case because it is now before a judge for consideration.
- From my experience at the bar I say that anyone who says an innocent man cannot go to the gallows is wrong, because I know differently. It is a frightful thing when a man you believe to be innocent and whose attitude
is,	Don't worry about me, God will not allow
it,	walks to the gallows and months later the truth comes out$* These are the things that exercise the mind and heart of those who from time to time without remuneration act for the defence.
Sir, it is said that the punishment must be in keeping with the offence. Let me go back over the years. Ordinarily I would not take advantage of the consideration of the house in allowing me extra time but I hope on this occasion I may be permitted to deal with these matters. They say we must follow the course of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Do they read the rest of Exodus, which made a variety of offences punishable by death? Read Exodus and you will find out. In my opinion horrible punishments do not deter. In Anglo-Saxon England the punishment was boiling in oil. They changed that because oil was costly. Under Alfred the Great they brought in hanging. Women were drowned because it was felt that hanging was indecent in exposing the feet and lower limbs.
The first great abolitionist was William the Conqueror. He was opposed to the death sentence. He said he did not believe in the death sentence and substituted maiming, the removal of arms, legs, eyes and ears. His
Criminal Code
reasoning was that the trunk must remain alive as a witness of its crimes. We think of Henry VIII and his multiplicity of conjugal murders but do not recall that 72,000 were hanged for stealing during his reign. This did not reduce the number of thefts. Elizabeth, in the name of humanity, said, "I have to bring about a change in the death sentence". There were two varieties of the death sentence in those days. You were either executed on the gibbet by being put in chains and hung up and left until your soul went to its Maker or you went to the scaffold. There you suffocated. Elizabeth said that in the name of humanity a change had to be made and people could not be hung in chains unless strangled beforehand. They said this was necessary. They quoted Scripture.
Sir, these are things that must be looked at in the light of events. They burned people at the stake for the commonest offences. Until the first ten years of the 19th century this was the penalty for treason and in 1812 seven people were sentenced in the following way:
That you and each of you, be taken to the place from whence you came, and from thence be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, where you shall be hanged by the neck, not till you are dead; that you be severally taken down, while yet alive, and your bowels be taken out and burnt before your faces-that your heads be then cut off, and your bodies cut into four quarters, to be at the King's disposal. And God have mercy on your souls.
Did that stop criminal offences? Were those who opposed this type of sentence and brought about a change soft-headed? The trend in history has been more and more to emphasize the punitive and retributive nature of punishment, aside from the question of reform. Now we think of reform. I am trying to cover what has not been dealt with specifically during this debate. How many of us realize that from 1838 to 1858 in Upper and Lower Canada the death penalty was not exacted? For 20 years there was no death penalty. The reason for that was Laurnt and Mathews were hanged in Upper Canada and many more were hanged in Lower Canada following the rebellion and what took place so shocked the public conscience that Queen Victoria refused for 20 years to allow any executions to take place.
Everything was done to get around the difficulty of harsh punishment. In earlier times there was the benefit of clergy. Anyone in holy orders or a clerk did not have to pay the ultimate penalty. It was surprising the number who said they were in holy orders or were clerks. They could not sort them out.

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
But they finally found a way. It was called the "neck verse" test. Anyone that claimed the benefit of clergy was asked whether they could read Psalm 51, verse 1. If they could not read it and did not have enough education, they were not accorded the benefit of clergy. It was surprising the number who learned how to memorize that verse in trying to get away from the harshness of the law. At one time they tried branding on the left cheek. In 1699 parliament had to decide on this question which was submitted to them:
The said punishment of burning on the cheek hath not had its desired effect, by deterring such offenders from the further committing such crimes and offences, but on the contrary, such offenders being rendered thereby unfit to be intrusted in any service or employment to get their livelihood in any honest and lawful way, become the more desperate.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
They decided branding was not the thing. There were 200 varieties of offences for which you could be executed up to 1810 or 1815. In 1688 there were 50; George II added 30 more; George III added 60 and by 1819 there were 223 capital crimes. Do you know why they did it, Mr. Speaker? They said, if we make the punishment hard enough there will be no offences committed. They had public executions. A gala day was had and everybody came. Everybody enjoyed the festivities.
In Ontario many years ago, they hanged a boy of 16 for picking pockets. While the hanging went on, four people in the audience had their pockets picked. The argument is that hanging is a deterrent, but history does not support that argument. Will anybody say that it was because of weakness that these horrible punishments were changed? The reason was that juries began to seek reasons to acquit. About 150 years ago the theft of five shillings was punishable by death. Many said this punishment was salutary, that it was punitive and above all a deterrent.
I come back to the various royal commissions and I only mention those which have not been placed in Hansard. The head of one royal commission, whose views have already been placed before the house, was Sir Ernest Gowers. He spent three years of hard work on this subject in the 1950's. He said that he was a retentionist when he started this study. Head what he says in, "A Life For A Life". He changed his mind. I quote:
Before serving on the royal commission I, like most other people, had given no great thought to this problem. If I had been asked for my opinion, I should probably have said I was in favour of the

death penalty, and disposed to regard abolitionists as people whose hearts were bigger than their heads. Four years of close study of this subject gradually dispelled that feeling and in the end I became convinced the abolitionists were right in their conclusions; though I could not agree with all their arguments, and that so far from the sentimental approach leading into their camp, and the rational one into that of the supporters, it was the other way about.
He changed his opinion. There were three Home Secretaries in a row who changed their opinions, two of whom had been strongly in favour of capital punishment. They changed their views between 1946 and 1956. I refer, of course, to Lord Chuter Ede and Heward Brooke, as well as the incumbent Home Secretary in 1965 these men have studied the problem not on the basis of emotion but on the basis of experience.
What are the arguments? I have read the speeches. One of those who indicated the attitude of many judges was the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in his description of what his father went through. I have known other judges who have had the same experience. If it is a deterrent, Mr. Speaker, why not have public executions? They used to have them. Read the descriptions of Dickens and Thackeray. These things were abolished about 1860. My great grandfather used to speak of attending executions held near Aurora north of Toronto. Everybody went.
Have you ever lived in a small town or a small city in which there has been an execution? Prince Albert today is a place of about 26,000 or 27,000 but for many years the population was around 9,000 or 10,000. On the day of an execution the people are silent. They are filled with awe and are relieved when they see the black flag go up. If execution is a deterrent, let us make it public. It has not deterred in the past.
The arguments for capital punishment as I read them are as follows: First, it is based on the Scriptures. Second, it operates as a deterrent. The third argument is that police forces and custodial workers require its continuance for their protection. The fourth is that some time in the future abolition will be appropriate but not now when crime is on the increase. The fifth is that murder having been committed there is no hope of rehabilitation or redemption for murderers. To me, to you, sir, and to all of us, the Christian religion is a religion of redemption, of compassion and of mercy. I have no sympathy for murder. I do not forget that an innocent person has been obliterated by the wrongful action of another.
April 4, 1966

Criminal Code
When they come to quote scripture to me I ask them, where do you begin and where do you end? A moment ago I mentioned the Judaic principle in Exodus where the following are capital crimes: striking or cursing one's parents, slave procurement, a fatal attack by an ox, witchcraft and sacrifice to any god other than Jahweh. Then Leviticus added adultery and Deuteronomy added criminal assault in a city, a rebellious son and an unchaste bride.
In the southern United States from 1830 to 1860 my religious denomination argued that slavery was necessary and that it had received the inspiration of divine scripture. In the argument in the book entitled "The Death Penalty" this appears:
The issue of slavery will serve as a clarifying illustration. By a proof text method, there is no direct Biblical warrant for the abolition of slavery. It is clear to us when we take the position that we are striking back at the spirit, and slavery is unjust and evil.
Canadians conceal their pride in their country. We do not boast about it. How many of us pridefully point out that it was here in Canada that slavery was abolished for the first time in all the western world in 1803? It is an amazing record. It was 40 years before it was abolished in the United Kingdom and many more years before it was abolished in the United States. The argument that slavery was divinely appointed was still used in the days of Webster, Choate, and the other giants of the 1830's and 1840's.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Let me deal now with these various arguments, Mr. Speaker. So far as the religious argument is concerned, I am not going to get into a theological discussion at all; I am not qualified to do that. I also realize what are the consequences of a lawyer trying to interpret the Scriptures. We lawyers recall very well some of the descriptions of us in the New Testament. But I say that the doctrine of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life, if carried out literally, would mean that nobody would have eyes to see with; and there would be nobody with teeth. That was the view expressed by one of the Lord Chancellors of the United Kingdom.
Is capital punishment a deterrent? There is a strong feeling widely held that it is, though there is no proof in any statistics I have ever read. It has been argued that if capital punishment is abolished there will be an increase in the number of murders. The United Nations report of 1962 came to the
conclusion that there has been no notable rise in the number of murders.
May I interpolate at this time that one of the best pieces of work ever produced on this subject since I have been in parliament is the recent White Paper on capital punishment. Whoever prepared it gave both sides in a way that could not but be beneficial to all of us.
If capital punishment is a deterrent, Mr. Speaker, then why is it that since 1956, when the United Kingdom divided homicide into capital and non-capital murder, there has not been a percentage increase in either category? Their system of dividing murder into capital and non-capital murder has produced some of the most extraordinary anomalies that could be imagined.
For example, if an old woman is criminally assaulted and during the course of the assault is killed, the assailant would be charged with non-capital murder. If a little girl is criminally attacked and she dies, that would be non-capital murder. But if her assailant picked up a sixpence which she had dropped the crime would then become capital murder. That is the danger of dividing.
We also introduced a division in 1961 when the hon. member for Kamloops as minister of justice introduced legislation to provide for a division between capital and non-capital murder. Some say that this division has not had a fair chance to work. It certainly brought about a decrease in the number of capital cases. But the other day I was amazed to read that a Supreme Court Justice in Ontario-his name I am not going to mention-trying a case of capital murder, when told the accused would like to plead guilty to non-capital murder, said he was not going to waste time trying him on a capital murder charge because he would be reprieved in any case by the present government.
When I asked at the beginning what was the stand of the government on this issue I did so in regard to the constitutional responsibility. I now say that the manner in which there has been a disregard of the law in the last three years by the executive has brought about the abolition of capital punishment in this country by executive order. There is no other conclusion. I say that Her Majesty's ministers ought not to break the law. They ought not to have authority to override it, except where the exercise of mercy becomes appropriate, any more than the Supreme Court of Canada or any of its judges have jurisdiction over what happens

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
in parliament or over discretion exercised by a government of Canada or any of the ministers of that government in their decisions.
I argued the only case ever argued, Mr. Speaker, on a question of mandamus against a minister of the crown in 1940 in order to compel a minister of the crown to carry out the law. The citation is Stewart and Swain and it is the only case on the point in the Commonwealth except for one in India. I went all the way, Mr. Speaker, in that case. You as a lawyer know that the time to win is the last time, and I lost in the Supreme Court of Canada on a division of the court. When I make the statement as to the power of a Supreme Court Justice or the Supreme Court over parliament, I make it advisedly from the constitutional standpoint.
The Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Gardiner, examined very carefully the question whether or not dividing murder into capital or non-capital murder made any difference. We know who commits murder-the insane, the emotionally disturbed, those filled with narcotics or alcohol.
There are two other classes. Those who want to be in the news are one. I have talked to them. "Am I in the papers", they ask. They have a strange complex which politicians understand possibly better than others; but frequently in the mind of the person who commits homicide is an abiding desire to have a status of his own.


Erik Nielsen: To be in the noose.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, to be in the noose. The second class is the professional criminal. With regard to those who are insane or emotionally disturbed through alcohol or narcotics, I cannot see any deterrence in capital punishment. As far as the other two categories are concerned-professional criminals and those seeking recognition-I have never acted for them but I am told that they believe they can win. And they have some reason to believe this because only one out of 16 murderers ever goes to the gallows. That is the experience in the United States and Canada over a period of 40 years.
I said a moment ago that if capital punishment is a deterrent the deterrent should be public. I am not going to read the words of the authors to whom I referred earlier, but I do intend to read what has been said in the United Kingdom in regard to the deterrent effect of the death penalty in respect of those offences which are still capital offences. This 
is the conclusion arrived at by one speaker in the House of Lords debate:
In the period from January 1, 1952 to March 20, 1957, when the Homicide Act came into force-
Up to that time the penalty for both capital and non-capital murder was death.
-the annual average percentage of murders that would have been non-capital if the Act had been in force was 85.6 per cent: the corresponding percentage for the period from March 21, 1957, up to the end of last year is 86.5 per cent.
So I ask, Mr. Speaker, where is the deterrence? Murder was divided into capital and non-capital murder, yet the percentage remains almost the same. That was the view taken not only by those to whom I have already made reference but also by the Gowers Commission. The Lord Chancellor summed it up in this way:
I do not see in those figures support for the argument that the death penalty operates as a deterrent.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Statistics do not prove it. Experience does not prove it. Because we accept ourselves as being rational persons, all of us would feel frightened. Nobody commits murder if he possesses the mentality which you and I have at the moment.
The next argument is that we must protect police officials and custodial officials. I believe this. Does the death sentence protect them? Let us look at the record. Professor SelUn has been quoted several times and was recognized as an authority by the Royal Commission in the United Kingdom. The only place where he was not recognized was here in Canada by a committee of this parliament on the question of lotteries and the like. He made a survey of a large number of states in the United States to ascertain whether the existence of the death penalty made any difference in the number of criminals prepared to use lethal weapons against the police. He took all the cities in the six abolitionist states, and the number of attacks was 1.2 fatal attacks per 100,000 of the population. In the 11 death penalty states the rate was 1.3 per 100,000. So there is nothing in that.
In the British Parliament these statistics were placed on the record by Lord Ray. Since 1919 slightly fewer municipal policemen were killed in the abolitionist states than in those states which retained the death penalty. In the case of all the states there was a high rate from the early 20's to the mid-30's and a lower one thereafter. In a recorded total of 77 killings of state policemen in 24 states only
April 4. 1966

six occurred in the six abolitionist states, and four of these latter states did not record a single killing.
If I felt there should be an exception, if anywhere there were statistics to support it, then much as I would regret doing so I would support an amendment to take into account the danger to police and custodians. In the United States they found out in the course of their examination that the municipal police of 240 cities, 75 per cent from the death penalty states, did not believe there was any connection between the death penalty and the use of lethal weapons by criminals. Finally, when this exception was moved in the United Kingdom it was turned down by both houses of parliament, as all hon. members know.
Let us examine the record. Who would you think would be able to give the best evidence in this connection? Who but the wardens of these institutions in which executions take place? I refer to page 242 of "The Death Penalty In America", reporting the results when the wardens are asked specifically to determine the effect of the death penalty so far as police or custodial officials are concerned. Would hon. members not think that these people who have the responsibility for executions and for the custody of individuals who have been reprieved would hold strong opinions? The official views presented and analysed were collected. The responses to inquiries mailed to all state prison wardens and four federal prison wardens in the United States-a total of 55-were analysed. What was the answer? The attitude was that the death penalty was not a deterrent, and this answer was an overwhelming one. The percentages clearly showed that those in the abolitionist states had gone as far as to contend that their police officers and custodial officers were in less danger than those in states where there was a death penalty.
This was the finding of the select committee of 1928. Those were the views which were expressed when they stated that no evidence had been received showing that the abolition of capital punishment in other countries had in fact led to the consequences apprehended by the police.
Certainly in the United Kingdom unarmed police officers have a reputation for fairness and integrity which our own have to the same extent, and they would not have abolished the death penalty if they or any of them, including outstanding leaders such as the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief
Criminal Code
Justice, had not concluded that there was no basis for the fears which had been expressed.
What does the Lord Chancellor say? At column 703 of the House of Lords' debates of July 20 last he is reported as stating:
It is said: Ought we not to protect the police and prison officers? Well, of course we should. Abolitionists are very used to being told they do not think of the police and they do not think of the victims. That is really quite untrue as I know from my own experience.
The Lord Chancellor went on to say that in his own opinion, based on his own experience at the bar and as Lord Chancellor, there was no basis in fact for this fear.
We come now to the next question, the tremendous increase in crimes of violence. The increase that is taking place in Britain, in Canada and in the United States is almost incredible. Everyone has an explanation. I do not say mine is any better than anyone else's. But I know that as a boy, if we got hold of a little paperback about Jesse James-it would not be looked at by a boy today-we would creep under the barn to read it. Today, hour after hour on television pictures of terror and murder, firearms and rapine are seen. No one wants censorship. But there should be a censorship of reason within those institutions. There can be no other embracing explanation for the tremendous increase in violent crime. Guns, weapons, terror-psychologists say they do not greatly influence the minds of the young. It may not influence the minds of the young but, to echo Lord Wellington's description of his troops, "they scare the hell out of me" when I see some of these things. I am using an expression of Wellington's and it is therefore appropriate for parliament.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
What is the increase in crime? The increase is so large that it seems almost incredible, some 70 per cent in the United States in a period of 13 years. What about our own country? I have not been able to secure the figures for 1964 and 1965. My staff endeavoured to get them today from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics but they are not prepared yet.
I do not want to read all this into Hansard, but I have a statement here compiled by D.B.S. and I am going to ask leave to put on the record the portions that are not in ink. The inked parts were placed on it by my office, but I shall give the figures in round numbers.
In 1945, not taking in Newfoundland where crime is always at a very low percentage and
37S8

April 4, 1968
Criminal Code
in any event it was not in Confederation at that time and therefore was not part of the picture, there were 41,965 convictions for indictable offences in Canada. That was the last year of the war. In 1946 they increased to 46,939. The next high point is 1954 when there were 47,981. The next high point is 1958 when there were 62,839. In 1961 there were 71,262, in 1962 there were 71,517 and in 1963 there were 78,518. Can you conceive of an increase in the rate of conviction per 100,000 population from 493 in 1945 to 647 in 1963?
Make allowance for the increase in population and what do we find? Each year, almost without exception, there was a tremendous increase. In 1963 the increase was 9.8 per cent over 1962. In 1961 the percentage increase was 10.1; in 1960 there was an increase of 10.2 per cent; in 1959 there was a decline of 6.6 per cent; in 1958 there was an increase of 14.5 per cent and in 1957 an increase of 19.6 per cent, a frightening increase in indictable offences.
Does that mean an increase in murders? This is an interesting fact. The Lord Chancellor in the United Kingdom stressed that he found, as a result of careful examination of all the statistics in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, that the increase in violent crime is not reflected in any increase in murder. Why? The situation in the United Kingdom has become so serious that more than a known 1,000,000 indictable offences are being committed annually compared with 500,000 ten years ago, but there is no percentage increase in murder. This is a particularly striking circumstance when you hear it argued that now is not the time to abolish capital punishment because we are in a crime wave. I repeat that the Lord Chancellor concluded that in no way did this vast increase in violent crimes translate itself into homicide increases.
I have reviewed the picture from a somewhat different angle from that used by other hon. members, all of whom, as I say, have made really worth-while contributions to this very difficult problem. The next question is, when should the House of Commons act? There will always be those who argue that the death penalty should be progressively abolished and ultimately completely abolished but the time is not now. That argument has been advanced over and over again against all changes or reforms in every generation. That was the argument that was used when the question arose whether the death penalty for the theft of five shillings should be abolished.

I have here a record of the debate that took place in May, 1810, when Romilly introduced his motion to abolish capital punishment in certain particulars, including the stealing of goods valued up to five shillings. Mr. Herbert, M.P., a very outstanding man, said:
We have got to stop people from stealing goods.
Then he used these words:
If punishments in use are not to be retained what will be substituted for them? Will they introduce the knout from Russia which is, according to the evidence of those who had witnessed its infliction, more horrible than death itself? Or will they revive the practice of nailing ears to the pillory?
Mr. Giddy, M.P., said that he thought sheep stealing was very properly punished with death because:
-considering the manner in which sheep are fed upon extensive downs, the exposure to depredation and the difficulty of detection, such a severe punishment is necessary for the sake of preserving a vast quantity of wholesome food and warm raiment for human use.
Those were the arguments that were used in 1810. It is well to get the Hansard in question because those arguments are being used today for another purpose. I think it was my hon. friend from York South who referred to Chief Justice Ellenborough, and I recall that Lord Eldon, the Lord Chancellor, had this to say:
I am proud that I left for execution a prisoner who was convicted before me of stealing a horse worth seven shillings as he had a prison record as a regular horse stealer.
Then this was said:
It was indispensably necessary that offences highly injurious to the community should be punished with forfeiture of life.
Those are some of the views that were held then and which are being advanced again today. When Queen Victoria came to the throne the number of hanging crimes dwindled from hundreds to 15, including wrecking, arson, serious sexual crimes, rioting and robbery with violence. It took 20 years for the remaining capital offences to be reduced to four, and again the argument is being advanced that this is not the time to abolish capital punishment. Let me answer it.
The basis of the argument is that crime is increasing, that we need to maintain capital punishment even though the increase in violent crime does not extend to an increase in murder. On the other hand, if crime were going down those who argue against abolition would say that the reason crime is decreasing is capital punishment and it is not appropriate to abolish it now. That is both sides of the
April 4. 1966

argument that has been advanced over the years.
As I said earlier, how terrible it is to realize the finality of execution when an innocent man goes to the gallows. It is a dreadful experience. It happens. There have been 73 known wrongful convictions for homicide in the United States since 1893.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Mention was made by one hon. member to my left of the Truscott case. I am not going to deal with that. Let me say at once that had he been 20 years of age he would have been executed. We did not give reprieves for that type of offence. There was not recommendation for mercy. It was a violent offence. It is not for me to say whether he is or is not innocent; I am unable to conclude that. However, I would point out that if perchance he had been 20 years of age and if he is now found innocent he would already have joined that group that marches from innocence to an appointment with the scaffold.
There have been cases in the United Kingdom. There was the James Hanratty case in 1961. I have read the book by Lord Russell on the strong case made in respect of this man's innocence. But he is gone. What about Lord Shawcross, a man with a tremendous capacity as counsel? He was at the Nuremberg trials and at that time, as I recall he was Attorney General. Speaking in the House of Lords he said that he knew of at least one case and possibly two in his experience where it was felt that a man was wrongfully executed.
What about mistakes? There was a mistake in the province of Quebec. I mention that because the matter now is before the people as a whole. I think of Bernard Chartier, a man who was earning $18,000 a year and a good citizen. Chartier was arrested. I have his wife's statement here. He was picked up at his office on September 2, 1965, and the alleged offence was committed in July. He was released after 30 hours of intensive questioning. He was handcuffed wherever he went. On October 22 the Montreal Star carried this item:
Chartier Charged in Death.
Bernard Chartier. 45-year old insurance agent, was arraigned in Criminal Court today on a charge ol manslaughter arising from the death of a St. Lambert man following a punch on the head last July.
He lost his job. He was as innocent as you or I. The coroner's jury found that he was
Criminal Code
not responsible. The Montreal Gazette of November 6, 1965 states:
Crown Admits Error In Manslaughter Case.
The Crown admitted yesterday that it had made a terrible mistake in wrongfully accusing south shore insurance man Bernard Chartier of manslaughter.
The manslaughter charge pending against the 45-year old Chartier was promptly dismissed at preliminary hearing before Judge John O'Mara. The Crown said it had no evidence to offer.
Had this been a capital offence and had he been tried and convicted, what would have happened? His job is gone. He has no recourse; he has no right of action.
By this time, Mr. Speaker, you will have suspected or concluded that I am opposed to capital punishment. It is not from sentiment. I hate murder but I oppose on the other hand the perpetuation of capital punishment unless it operates as a deterrent. The matter has been argued in every generation. If you ask me why I have this view I can do no better than quote the words of the religious denomination to which I belong. The American Baptist convention adopted the following resolution:
Because the Christian believes in the inherent worth of human personality and in the unceasing availability of God's mercy, forgiveness, and redemptive power, and
Because the Christian wholeheartedly supports the emphasis in modern penology upon the process of creative, redemptive rehabilitation rather than on punitive and primitive retribution, and
Because the deterrent effects of capital punishment are not supported by available evidence, and
Because the death penalty tends to brutalize the human spirit and the society which condones it, and
Because human agencies of legal justice are fallible, permitting the possibility of the executing of the innocent.
We, therefore, recommend the abolition of capital punishment and the re-evaluation of the parole system relative to such cases.
Similar resolutions have been passed in our own country by the United Church. In the United Kingdom the clergy in the Anglican Church regularly in the past supported capital punishment, but they have changed. Many outstanding Roman Catholic leaders have come out in opposition. I want to see this further step taken. We made changes when I was in office, as I have said already. Properly enforced I think those changes represented a tremendous step forward. The house has been generous to me today as always. If you say to me, have you any suggestions, I would reply: so far as the crime problem we now face is concerned, what we need is a national crusade. We need Canadians to be aroused. The

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
crime rate is increasing six times faster in the United States and very little less in Canada than the population growth.
We need improvement in the methods of crime detection and improved police training. We need a national royal commission on crime. I would like to see a national crime information centre such as has been established in the United States which would have computers to compile data. All the police would have to do would be to ask the machine. I would like to see a system such as has been established in Chicago, called the Citizen Stop Crime card system. More than half a million of these cards have been distributed, and if a citizen sees a crime being committed he calls a number. In two years a great number of crimes have been stopped.
Why are we not taking action? I am not pointing at the government in this regard. Why do Canadians and the parliament of Canada not control the deadly weapons which can be picked up with the greatest of ease? Why do we not take action to prevent these falling into the hands of potential delinquents and the mentally disturbed? How can we meet the upsurge in crime if our police officers are occupied with traffic violations and their time is taken up there? They are chasing parking tickets when they should be chasing criminals.
Sir, what is the alternative? I do not offer the course taken in the United Kingdom of having exceptions made. I already have mentioned those-except a person who murders a prison guard, except a person who murders in the course of furtherance of theft and except any person who murders by shooting or causing an explosion.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
All those exceptions were considered in the United Kingdom but were not accepted. I think we have been too lax in letting convicted murderers out of penitentiaries. Some say the average time spent in prison is nine years. I remember one individual who was convicted and spent 18 years behind bars and there certainly was not very much of a case against him. I came into that case after the man had been convicted. He had a low mentality and was not let out at the usual time.
We will have to build safeguards if we abolish capital punishment. Perhaps we should try it for a period of five years. At the same time, our judges should be empowered to recommend a minimum number of years

imprisonment at the time of a murder conviction. I know this is a harsh thing to say, but society must be protected. I think there have been about four cases in Canada in the last 20 years where murderers have repeated the crime of murder.
There was a Manitoba case in which a man was convicted of murder. He was finally released after ten years and then he murdered again. There was another case here in Ottawa involving a man by the name of Bertrand who allegedly killed one wife and then killed a second wife before his life came to an end. There was another case in Saskatchewan of a man by the name of Carter who was convicted of murder, released from prison and went to the United Kingdom and there committed another murder. Another case which has been drawn to my attention involved a strangler by the name of Nelson, from Winnipeg who allegedly committed a similar offence in the United States.
I believe that the government should consider providing that following a life imprisonment conviction for murder, a sentence must be at least 20 years. One might consider that as being a denial of reformation but no one can tell me there can be no reformation in a sentence of 20 years.
I once defended a man who was charged with killing his father. I will not mention his name because today he is one of Canada's good citizens. He ended up with a life sentence. He went into prison in 1929 with an I.Q. of about 81. He had only completed grade 3 but while he was in prison he completed grade 12 and became the main operator of the commissariat in a Saskatchewan penitentiary, thereby saving the Canadian Government many thousands of dollars.
After he had been in prison for about 13 years he expressed the desire to join the armed forces. One night during the time we used to sit in opposition indefinitely in this house I went across the chamber and spoke with Mr. St. Laurent about this case. Within a few days he came to me and said that he would have to explain the circumstances. He told me that this man was of low mentality. However, he was examined and he joined the army and rose to the rank of sergeant.
When the war was over he returned, and I will never forget his arrival home in 1946. I went to the doorway and he was standing there. We had some friends in that evening including a judge and a sheriff. This fine chap came in and helped to serve tea and so on and as he left he said, "You have always
April 4, 1966

treated me like a father". I said, "Do not carry that too far". In any event, he occupies a worth-while position in this country today.
Murderers are not the most dangerous people to custodial and police officers. The most dangerous so far as they are concerned are the mentally afflicted who have been imprisoned for life. We do not hang them even though they are of great and ever-increasing danger to the custodial officers.
I think a life sentence should be at least 20 years imprisonment and that no person should be pardoned or have his sentence commuted until he has served whatever term is believed to be appropriate. If we adopt that attitude I think we will meet with those who have, as honestly as I, expressed the contrary opinion. I am asking the house to give this suggestion a trial. The authorities in Britain do not act in the administration of justice without their eyes wide open. The method of abolishing capital punishment and setting a minimum time for a life sentence is becoming the trend.
In common with every member of the house, as I have already said, I hate the odious, contemptible and awful crime of murder. My feeling toward capital punishment, on the basis of many years' experience at the bar and as a result of having occupied the position as head of the government with the awful responsibility that rests on government in the exercise of mercy, compels me to the view that the bill introduced by these four hon. members deserves the support of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that if we think we are sitting in judgment on capital punishment we are deluding ourselves. Social and moral progress, symbolized by this resolution, are standing in judgment on each member of this twenty seventh parliament. As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has expressed so eloquently on March 28, the ultimate decision must be made by each one of us in the loneliness of his own conscience.
I deem it a privilege to follow the address we have just heard by the right hon. gentleman who expressed his views, the result of many years of keen, devoted interest to this important subject. He made reference to a quotation from John Donne:
Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
Criminal Code
We can currently pick up a book entitled "The Phenomenon of Man" written by Teilhard de Chardin, wherein he speaks of man's feeling for society and social equality. He says in his book:
For love to be possible there must be co-existence.
We belong to the caring generation. We cannot discuss capital punishment in the impersonal or abstract, for in the impersonal and abstract love dies.
That is why I cannot understand the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) who asks, "What is civilization?-I cannot find it in my heart to equate the abolition of capital punishment with such things as the discovery of America or the invention of the wheel". Nor can I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), who in the course of an address referred to capital punishment as "a lighthouse on a rock". Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this analogy will prove acceptable to our generation of young Canadians.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As the right hon. gentleman said when summarizing many of the points that were so ably presented in the course of this debate, society has gone a long way. In the past society tried to correct many of its ills by killing off certain of its members. This is the action of the animal kingdom, the natural reaction to a threat. It is a stage in evolution which we see, hopefully, drawing to a close. In the stage of evolution we are entering we attack root causes-I think this was the burden of the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman's address-not the victims of social ills. That, I think, is the real significance of this debate.
It is a fact that as late as 1786, in front of Newgate prison with 20,000 spectators, Phoebe Harris was burned. In 1777 a 14-year old girl was burned for hiding some whitewashed farthings at the instigation of her master. James Cook, a 24-year old bookbinder, was gibbeted in 1832 at Leicester with 32,000 people witnessing his execution. If you look at some of the paragraphs of Blackstone's Commentary you will find that the great Coke-and any lawyer in this chamber will respect his authority-at that time approved, with many appropriate Biblical quotations, the processes of execution for high treason, drawing to the gallows, hanging by the neck, cutting down alive, removal of the bowels, burning of the bowels in the live presence of

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
the convicted, cutting off the head and quartering the body.
We have moved so far and so rapidly since that time. Looking at the statistics of deaths by homicide in Canada for the period 1926 to 1962 we discover that in the 1930's we felt it necessary to execute a good many people. In 1931, 25 men were executed. This was at the height of the depression when we had a population of about 10 million. We have had no executions since 1962 but in that year, with a population of 18J million people, only two persons were executed. In 1965, with a population of 20 million people, there were no executions.
What do we find with respect to recent statistics? In my opinion this is significant, and I concur in the comments of the right hon. gentleman that his administration moved clearly and deliberately along a course which I believe is an inevitable one. I agree with the hon. member for Peace River when he said the other day:
Can anyone really doubt that the end result of these proceedings will be, as in other civilized states, the abolition of the death penalty? Why then should Canada be among the last to act in its abolition?
Those concluding words of the hon. member could well be the last words in this debate. I personally rejoice in the fact that this motion has been moved in the manner it has, attracting support from various parts of the house. I think it is important and imperative that the cabinet and the ministry be free individually to exercise their views on the basis of conscience, as many of them have. I cannot possibly understand the proposition that this should have been a government motion.
The right hon. gentleman during his administration gave leadership in the direction of reform. He points particularly to the year 1961 when murder was redefined. In that year there was no great outcry for a committee; it was a decision taken by the government. But I think, as the right hon. gentleman has said, that a further step forward is appropriate now as a result of our experience in the past.
I was somewhat disappointed by the address of the able and experienced hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the former minister of justice. One had the feeling that, having participated with enthusiasm in a first round of reforms, he was now holding back. I

believe his final sentence pretty well sets out the doubt in his own mind:
I shall vote against the motion, although with great reluctance and with a great deal of uncertainty-
The right hon. gentleman before me has spoken with clarity, conviction and emotion which is the result of certainty. In this connection I think one should look at the history of the previous administration in regard to commutations. In the period between June 21, 1957, and April 22, 1963, a step forward was taken in a certain, clear, positive direction. In that period of time there were actually 66 convictions for murder, with 52 commutations. In 24 of those cases there was no recommendation for mercy from either judge or jury.
During the current administration commencing June 22, 1963, to the present time there have been a total of 20 convictions for murder. In all these cases the death sentence has been commuted, and there was no recommendation for mercy in the case of six. It is true that in the past three years there have been no executions, but I make the comparison that there were six commutations with no recommendation for mercy whereas in the previous administration on 24 occasions there was commutation with no recommendation for mercy from either judge or jury. I do not criticize the previous administration. I say all power to them; they were moving in the direction of such people as La Fayette, Ro-milly, Koestler, Manz, Simons, Bouzot, Richard, Silverman, Gowers, Voltaire, Rousseau, Camus-


Mr. Monteiih:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member a question?


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to complete my remarks. I shall be glad to answer any questions at the end of my speech. The previous administration was moving in the direction of such outstanding American jurists as Clarence Darrow, such historical figures as Victor Hugo, Savigny and Kelsen of Germany, Hume and Bentham of England, Franklin and Payne of the United States.
In our own country there are former members of this house whose views we should respect-I spoke to one of them yesterday- Hon. Frank McGee, who has given positive leadership in this field, Arthur Maloney, Q.C.; G. Arthur Martin, Q.C., and John Robinette, Q.C. These are some of the outstanding experts in Canada. These people have unanimously, without any qualification, refuted the
April 4, 1966

Criminal Code
deterrent value of this ultimate penalty. Dr. Thorsten Sellin speaks of capital punishment in these terms:
It is an archaic custom of primitive origin that has disappeared in most civilized countries and is withering away in the rest.
Arthur Martin, who started out as a reten-tionist, adopts the views of Richard A. McGee of the United States when he says:
I believe that punishment for punishment's sake is and should be repugnant to modern civilized man. Punishment, whether it be the ultimate or the most minor penalty, should be a by-product of society's systems of control and not its central purpose. In this context capital punishment is both unnecessary and irrational.
In 1960 Maxwell Cohen, who has made so many great contributions to Canada and at the present time serves as Dean of McGill University Law School, told us that the arguments for the elimination of the death penalty are statistical, ethical, administrative and broadly human. He said:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is not enough to leave the matter to the burdened conscience of a cabinet, a jury or a judge. The law should and can speak for all of us with clarity and compulsion. We have a virtual suspension of the death penalty today in Canada. Let us legalize our convictions.
I am convinced of this nor can I agree with some of the comments I have heard during the course of the debate about how easy it is for some life prisoners to get out. Many serve 20, 30 or 40 years or die in prison. I have made a study of this during the past years, partly because I was fortunate enough to acquire three books of clippings of Robert Bickerdike, a former member of this house who was referred to by the right hon. gentleman. This subject was the preoccupation of Mr. Bickerdike's life in parliament. He was supported by Hon. George P. Graham, formerly of Brockville. These two men made a lifetime study of this matter and gathered together a great deal of valuable material that is only now being supported in a truly scientific way by the research of such people as Sellin, Savitz and Campion. These authorities, Savitz, a sociologist, and Campion and Sellin have produced material that is available to all of us here in parliament but is unfortunately not available to our constituents. Their research puts the case clearly and positively.
Dr. Savitz made a special study of the deterrent effect of capital punishment in Philadelphia. He writes in the Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science:
If capital punishment does indeed deter-deterrents should be most in evidence in the days immediately following the execution and in the locality where the crimes were committed and where the criminal is known.
And as a result of extensive study what does he find?
We must conclude from the data at hand that there was no significant decrease or increase in the murder rate following the imposition of the death penalty-
Therefore there emerges no pattern that would indicate deterrence.
Donald R. Campion particularly studied the question of danger to police officers throughout the United States with respect to the obolition of capital punishment. He came to this conclusion:
In summary, therefore, we conclude that the data available to us do not lend empirical support to the claim that the existence of the death penalty provides a greater protection to the police than exists in states where that penalty has been abolished.
I am heartened with the approach that the right hon. gentleman took in this debate. In my opinion it is consistent with some of the wisest comments we have heard in the course of the debate and with the historical approach of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), who made a serious and idealistic speech, and the scholarly contribution from the member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) as well as others. He ended up essentially on a moral or theological note. In my opinion this cannot be overstressed. Mr. Reinhold Niebuhr complains:
A community may believe, as it usually does, that reverence for life is a basic moral attitude, and yet rob a criminal of this life in order to deter others from taking life.
The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) speaking on March 28th said that there were some crimes, some kinds of murder which "cry out" for the ultimate penalty. The hon. lady was particularly concerned about the effect on children. I am a father and I have quite a few children. I can well picture my feelings if anything came to blight my Wendy or Jill. However, I believe, having spoken to several psychiatrists and psychologists on this subject, that if a man is convicted of some vicious crime against a child the most sensible, logical and reasonable thing we can do with that man is to send him to a penitentiary institution where he will remain under supervision, under close psychiatric study,

April 4, 1968
Criminal Code
where electro-encephalograms and drug therapy will be available. In this way, by fundamental research we will learn a little more about this kind of menace and we might save some other little girl.
I read in the Brockville Recorder and Times this heading: "Cowan Would Hang Marcotte In His Santa Suit". I quote from that article:
Ralph Cowan, Liberal member of parliament for the suburban Toronto riding of York-Humber, says he would have hanged "Santa Claus" murderer Georges Marcotte "on the anniversary of his murder and in his Santa Claus suit."
He speaks for the retentionists. I believe there is no recent case more deserving of hanging than that of this man Marcotte. One obvious fact is that the hon. member for York Humber (Mr. Cowan) does not mind speaking out strongly and forcefully in favour of vengeance. In my opinion this is just not adequate. I do not believe I am unduly squeamish about killing. I do not feel like my deskmate does about boxing or wrestling or violent sports. In fact, if there is a killing in the ring this is one of those things that may happen. I participated in a good deal of killing for a time in the First Division and I saw the victims of my own gunfire. I hated the idea and I have had moments since when, like some of my friends who were bomber pilots, there was a powerful sense of personal revulsion. I do not believe anybody can take pleasure in killing.
It is a cowardly picture I get, when I read the books of Robert Biekerdike, of society taking some creature, deliberately manacling him and bringing him up the stairs to his doom. This is an act which does not dignify our civilization. I think what characterizes the second half of the twentieth century is the universal search for human dignity. Mr. Biekerdike said that if it is wrong for an individual, during a period of mental aberration, to take away the life of a fellow being, what must be said of the state which in cold blood, in calm deliberation and with elaborate preparation, hangs a man on the gallows?
Hon. George P. Graham of Brockville was one of Mr. Bickerdike's keenest supporters. Rev. Mr. Benoit of Montreal put it this way:
If a man is not fit to live he is not ready to die, and we have no authority for continuing this relic of barbarism.
If we look back only 25 years we will find the finest exemplar of capital punishment

who ever lived in the world, and his name was Adolf Hitler. He not only killed people who murdered, raped and pillaged. He also used this convenient device to get rid of all sorts of troublesome people such as those who had from his viewpoint tainted blood and who were not politically acceptable. In my opinion, this is completely contrary to the spirit of religion in its broadest and best terms. I earnestly hope that we may follow the moving injunction of the right hon. gentleman who spoke so earnestly as we move into holy week. I hope we follow the course which I think is the unmistakable course of progress, and will say that this is not acceptable because we respect human life too much.
The degradation of this punishment, Mr. Speaker, is clear, I think, when we look at what it has done to a number of people who have participated-


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


Mr. Clermont:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was given permission to continue. He spoke for one hour and forty-five minutes. If the hon. member intends to continue for several minutes, I object to giving him the right to do so.
[English^


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Leeds requires time to complete his remarks I think he should make that request of the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


John Ross Matheson: I do not consider myself in any way an authority like the right hon. gentleman-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member requesting extra time to complete his remarks?


John Ross Matheson: If I may.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to grant the time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I object. Leave was refused the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). It has also been refused other
April 4. 1966

speakers. However, if the hon. member for Leeds wishes to speak for only a few more minutes 1 will withdraw my objection.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds.


John Ross Matheson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I put this on the record as a matter of interest. I discovered this extract on reading Robert Bickerdike's diary:
A warrant was sworn out today by Edith Grims-dale, wife of Arthur Ellis, Dominion hangman, who charges that Ellis committed an aggravated assault upon her by strangling and striking her upon the face. Ellis was also charged in the warrant with threatening to shoot her.
That report was contained in the Montreal Herald of July 13, 1922.
Another hangman, one Radcliffe, served as Dominion executioner for 21 years, officiating at 132 hangings. At last his nerves gave way and he became a person who was a menace to himself, his family and society.
According to some of the material which has recently been examined we find that the state of Delaware abolished the death penalty and on December 28, 1961, ten days after restoration of the death penalty, Detective Sergeant William J. Mulrine, white and 49 years of age, killed his wife with a single revolver shot. He was immediately charged with first degree murder. Detective Mulrine had had 20 years service in the police force, and in a discussion with a prominent local minister a few weeks before the murder had expounded at great length his reasons for favouring restoration of the death penalty. It was, he said, a real deterrent and murderers ought to be punished. He said that many members of the police force believed as he did, and he became the first candidate for hanging in that state. I think that substantiates precisely the conclusions of the right hon. gentleman and I must say I completely endorse his conclusion that capital punishment is no real deterrent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he not agree that the change in 1961, which made it obligatory for the presiding judge to ask the jury whether or not they wished to recommend mercy, puts in somewhat different light the figures which he put on the record earlier in his speech?


John Ross Matheson: I think it alters the question, and for the better. I quite agree with the point my hon. friend makes.
Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member who has just taken his seat will forgive me if instead of commenting on his speech I say a word or two about the speech which was made just before he took the floor.
As hon. members are aware, I have had frequent occasion to disagree with the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker). I have had occasion to speak critically of some of the things he has done. But I should like to give him my wholehearted commendation on the speech that he made in this House of Commons today. The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated leadership which I hope will have its effect in all parts of this house.
His clear statement that he is for the abolition of capital punishment is one that I believe the country will welcome. I also welcome his statement that if we are going to abolish capital punishment we should do so, and should not make for any exceptions. At the same time, I think there is merit to his suggestion that if there are some members who feel uncertain about taking this step as yet, it might be in order for the house to consider, perhaps on a unanimous basis, the provision that the abolition be for a five-year or ten-year trial period. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition and I hope it will be studied very carefully during the remaining hours of this debate.
I have had the feeling throughout this debate, Mr. Speaker, that in one sense it has been wrongly described. It has been referred to in the house and in the press as a debate on the abolition of capital punishment. It seems to me that the very opposite is the case. At the present time no hangings are taking place in this country. On a de facto basis capital punishment has been done away with. The previous government, the government under the direction of the present Leader of the Opposition, found itself, if I may put it in this way, commuting as many death sentences as it could, with the result that the number of hangings taking place during its term of office was greatly decreased.


Mr. Vincent:: What is the position now? There are none.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since that time the government which came into office in 1963 has commuted or deferred decision on all death sentences. The result is that we have not had

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
a hanging in Canada since the latter part of 1962. My point is that for about three and a half years capital punishment has on a de facto basis been abolished in Canada.
I offer no criticism of the previous administration in regard to the extent to which it used the royal prerogative of mercy, and I likewise offer no criticism of the present administration for having used that royal prerogative, if that is what it has done, in every case. The result has been that for all practical purposes capital punishment does not exist in Canada at the present time.
I know provision is still made for capital punishment in the Criminal Code. It is still part of the law. Technically what this debate may be about is whether or not we should take this provision out of the Criminal Code. But I suggest that in practical terms what this debate is about is whether or not Canada should return to the practice of capital punishment, and I earnestly hope that this will not be the decision of this House of Commons. I plead, and in doing so I think I am expressing the view of abolitionists generally in this house, that we not take a backward step.
I realize there are some who might think it is unfair for me to argue by the use of words that we should not take a backward step. But I call as my chief witnesses in support of the proposition that abolishing capital punishment is a forward step remarks which have been made in practically every speech delivered by the retentionists in this debate. Practically every person who has spoken against the abolition of capital punishment has said that perhaps some day we will abolish it. Perhaps this will some day be the ideal state to reach, but they say we have not yet reached that state. In other words, those who support the retention of capital punishment admit, indeed assert, that in the long run it is something we should get rid of.
As the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, every reform which is proposed is met with the argument that now is not the time. This seems to be the argument between the two sides in this debate-whether now is the time to abolish capital punishment or whether the time is at some date in the future.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I would urge upon this house the point that not only is now the time to take the death penalty out of the Criminal Code and out of the law of this country, but I press the point

that if the main resolution now before the house is voted down it will be a case of parliament saying to the government: We want you to go back to the use of the death penalty; We want you to go back to the proctice of capital punishment. In my view this would be a retrograde step. In my view Canadians can stand with their heads held higher if we are not among the nations of the world which are practising capital punishment. I hope the result of this debate will be to confirm the present position and not to go back to the position which was in effect a number of years ago.
I should like to say that in my view this is a question which has to be dealt with, when we come to the various votes, by every member on the basis of what he feels he must do in the light of his own conscience. I am glad that proper arrangements have been made so that the votes to be taken will be completely free. I have seen other attempts over the years to provide for free votes in parliament. Most of them have been unsuccessful, but I believe in this case we have managed to provide a situation in which the vote will be completely free and no member will be committed because of the position which his party may take.
At the same time I believe this issue is so important that it does call for leadership. In the few notes I have in my hand-obviously they were made earlier today-I have two names. I was about to call for leadership on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Die-fenbaker). As I have already said, I welcome the leadership which has been given today by the Leader of the Opposition and I feel, as he does, that the Prime Minister does have a responsibility to indicate to this house, not only by his vote when the end of the debate comes but during the course of the debate itself, where he stands on this issue as the responsible head of the government.
I can see this situation developing in a very unhappy way. If by chance the main resolution is defeated-I hope it will not be and I daresay that after the speech made today by the Leader of the Opposition its chances of success are even better-if by chance it is defeated I suspect that the majority of the members on the other side of the house will have voted for it and that the majority of the members of the cabinet will have voted for it.
Will not the government of this country be in a most invidious and difficult position if it finds it is faced with a decision of parliament
April 4, 1966

contrary to the point of view of the cabinet and of the majority of the party which supports the administration? I submit that before a situation of this kind is allowed to develop the government, through the Prime Minister, should indicate where it stands. Even after the Prime Minister had spoken I would defend the right of the members of his party to vote contrary to his position as I would defend the right of members of the Conservative party to vote contrary to the position taken by their leader. I welcome the fact that arrangements for a free vote are complete and satisfactory. But I suggest also that we do need leadership from those who normally give leadership in this house and I hope that before the first vote is taken tonight the Prime Minister will drop his vow of silence and make known his views on this important question.
With respect to the issue of capital punishment itself, it seems to me that while the statistics are interesting-they have been quoted at length and put on the record a good many times-they do not in themselves provide a basis for the decision which each member must make for himself in his own heart and mind. It seems to me one can argue either way and that the tendency is to use the figures to produce arguments springing from one's basic position. I feel the same about the argument that capital punishment is a method of prevention, that it prevents this kind of crime happening because you take out of the way the person who commits it. I do not think these arguments settle the issue one way or the other. By the same token I agree with the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) and others who have pointed out that you cannot solve this question by referring to Scriptural texts. You can open the Bible at various pages and get texts which contradict each other. In any case there are a great many of us in this country who have respect for the Bible but who feel it should be presented not in terms of literal texts but in terms of its basic message.
Again, the Leader of the Oposition expressed my view this afternoon when he said that if the religious view means anything it argues for the quality of mercy and for the redeemability of mankind. I think that in spirit and in essence religion has to be taken as being on the side of the abolition of capital punishment.
I feel too that we must give tremendous weight to the fact that mistakes have been made and can still be made. The only person 23033-241J
Criminal Code
convicted of murder with whom I have talked in recent times is a young man who, so far as I am concerned, could not have committed the crime for which he has been convicted. I welcome the fact that this young man was not hanged. But if a miscarriage of justice did take place, if a mistake was made, here is an example before my very eyes where this horrible mistake might have been made. So it seems to me that all the arguments about deterrence and so on can be used either way. After you have gone through them all you come down to the basic proposition: Is it right or is it wrong for the state

and that means you and me-to take a human life especially in the light of our belief that people can be rehabilitated?
I believe it is not our right to kill and I welcome the statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman) that every time a hanging takes place all of us are involved in that act. I contend that we have no such right, and because it is wrong I want the chance to vote against capital punishment.
I have one more argument I should like to press. I have a deep feeling that capital punishment, like some other forms of punishment which we mete out, represents a counsel of despair. It is a case of the human race saying: Here is a problem we cannot solve. We do not take this view in the face of certain other problems. When people suffer from illnesses we try to cure the illness by medication or surgery or some other action. When people lack training we train them. When people are ignorant we give them education. When people suffer from incapacities we try to rehabilitate them. But when we come to criminals we suddenly say: There is nothing we can do about this human problem; we shall lock these people up or put them out of the way by applying the death penalty.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a counsel of despair. It is an admission that we do not know what to do about the problem of criminal behaviour. I submit that because we have the wit and the ability to cope with other human problems we should also cope with the problem of crime and criminal tendencies, and think not in terms of putting people out of the way or in terms of vengeance but in terms of reform and rehabilitation.
Look at the tremendous things we are doing in our society today. We have split the atom. We have got hold of sources of energy

April A. 1866
Criminal Code
far beyond any imagination we had a few years ago. We are about to put a man on the moon, maybe quite a few of them. We are able to devise computers that can do our work for us and perhaps raise our standard of living. We are having a tremendous explosion of knowledge in the scientific field, in the humanities, in all areas of life.
This is a tremendous age. Sometimes it is pointed out that more is being discovered in our lifetime in terms of scientific knowledge and know-how than was achieved through all the eons of time since people came on this planet. Yet in the face of this explosion of knowledge, in the face of the tremendous capacity which the human race is developing, we say if we have a criminal in our midst all we can do is lock him up or if we have a murderer in our midst all we can do is get rid of him by the application of the death penalty.
I submit that this is not good enough for the human race in this day and age and this counsel of despair is a terrible indictment of our whole approach to the problem. So, Mr. Speaker, I take my stand with those who have come out unequivocally for the abolition of capital punishment. Like the Leader of the Opposition I feel there should be no exceptions but I am willing, and I suspect there are many who will agree with me, to try abolition for a five or ten-year period.
In actual practice we abolished capital punishment three and a half years ago and Canada's name is better because we have done so. If a trial period would make it a little easier I am sure there would be support for such an amendment. But if I may I should like to return to the statement I opened with by pointing out that for three and a half years we have had no hangings in Canada and in the years immediately prior to that we had very few.
The status quo in Canada is one in which capital punishment is just about abolished. This is not a debate to abolish capital punishment. This debate is on the question of whether or not we should go back to it. I submit that the onus of proof is not on the so-called abolitionists but on those who want us to go back to a barbaric practice. I hope in the light of all this we will realize that we have a chance to keep Canada moving forward, and it is for this reason I urge support for the motion for abolition.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the resolution

before us is very controversial. It has produced a long and heated discussion in which the participants have expressed divergent views.
When the time comes to put to a vote the resolution and the amendments, each hon. member will have to take his responsibilities, because the vote will be free. As for me, I want to start by saying that I am in favour of retaining the death penalty as prescribed by the Criminal Code.
Those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment bring forth various arguments, but I wish to consider only a few.
The first one is that the death penalty does not deter anybody from committing murder or has but a slight deterrent effect and that life imprisonment is just as effective.
In our society, Mr. Speaker, opinions are divided as to the deterrent value of capital punishment concerning murders. I do not think statistics can be used as an argument for or against.
Statistics lend themselves to various interpretations and cannot be depended upon. It is almost impossible to establish a useful comparison between countries because of differences in the legal definition of crimes, practices laid down in public administrations and the courts, methods for compiling criminal statistics, standards of morality and behaviour and finally political, economic and social conditions.
It is impossible to determine the number of people who are prevented from committing a crime by the fear of being hanged. They are careful not to admit it. In any case, such a confession would be suspect. Those are data which do not lend themselves to a valid evaluation. The severe application of the death penalty does not prevent of course the commission of all deliberate murders. That is because murderers count on their cleverness to escape either the police or a conviction because of insufficient evidence. That explains, Mr. Speaker, the trouble they go to not to be recognized. Caught red-handed, they kill the police officers who want to arrest them. In anticipation of criminal proceedings, they do not hesitate to murder witnesses who could have them convicted. That shows that they are terribly afraid of the death penalty.
The arguments which I found most conclusive come from the wishes expressed by most provincial attorneys general and by several authorities responsible for the enforcement of
April 4, 19S6

the law, by police officers and jail guards. They almost all agree that the death penalty is an important and very necessary means of deterring criminals and that it effectively deters from crime; imprisonment or other forms of punishment could not have the same result.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unrealistic to say that a sentence to life imprisonment or to a long period of confinement is a sufficient deterrent because, in practice, life imprisonment will not really exist. There will be a tenency to shorten the sentence; people do not remain angry long enough.
Mr. Speaker, we had evidence of that in the case of the prisoner Leopold Dion. I am told that the judge who presided at Dion's first trial had recommended that that prisoner never be paroled. But the authorities deemed it advisable to parole him and you know what happened; four young people and a guard lost their lives.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As I said, people do not remain angry long enough to insist on true life imprisonment or on very long sentences. When a murderer has served a sentence for, let us say 9 or 10 years, people begin to look at the other side of the question, that is the hardship such long confinement has been for the prisoner, and to admit more easily that that man is now a different person from a mental as well as a spiritual point of view and that he should be given the opportunity to return to society.
The second argument I would like to deal with is to the effect that the death penalty is irrevocable. There is no doubt that the hanged man will not recover the life he lost. By definition, any penal sanction is irreparable. Whoever is sentenced to imprisonment will not recover the freedom of which he will be deprived by that sentence. Should all punishments be abolished for that reason? What is meant probably is that the death penalty is too harsh and final. In that case, it is only a matter of degree. How can that degree be established? Is it the rule that the harshness of the penalty must not exceed the seriousness of the crime? Now, the greatest crime of all is to deny one's fellowman voluntarily, and I insist on the word voluntarily, of the priceless gift of life. He therefore deserves the ultimate penalty, death.
Third, that capital punishment might result from a judicial error and an innocent person might be executed. That is a possibility, Mr. Speaker, but very remote and doubtful. It is difficult to give conclusive cases, for it is not enough for someone to accuse himself of a
Criminal Code
crime for which another was punished to conclude that the latter was innocent. To wit, the Coffin case. Had Simpson been killed, either murdered or in an accident, before recanting his confession, it is easy to imagine what use abolitionists would have made of it. No one would have dared express any doubt about Coffin's innocence. And in spite of Simpson's recanting, are there not some who still believe Coffin innocent?
This is what the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital punishment had to say about the possibility of error, on June 27, 1965, as reported on page 63, article 60 of the White Paper on capital punishment:
Considerable emphasis was put on the risk of irrevocable error in capital convictions. The fact that there was no known Canadian instance of the execution of an innocent person indicated the effectiveness of present procedures by way of trial and executive review and this suggests that the risk of error does not present a reasonable argument for abolition in Canada.
And even when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out that there had been judicial error, he mentioned the United States and England, but did not point out a single case in Canada. The alleged mistake can only occur when society performs a duty made imperative by the common weal. Individuals and social groups are unable to perform this duty. Therefore, public authorities have no other alternative. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the manner in which the law is applied in Canada in murder cases provides the required safeguards to prevent an innocent person from being put to death.
In 1961, an amendment to the Criminal Code divided murder into capital and noncapital murder. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when the vote was taken on those amendments, I was one of the 17 members who voted against them.
And I too feel, like the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), that since 1961, nothing has been changed in the rehabilitation procedures and other methods used to reform prospective criminals to prompt me to change the opinion I had in 1961 about those amendments.
Capital murder is a planned and deliberate murder committed directly by the accused or on his advice during the perpetration of certain crimes with violence, directly by the accused or on his advice, and when the victim is a police officer or a jail guard in the

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
performance of his duties, otherwise, it is non-capital murder.
Mr. Speaker, even abolitionists say that only one out of seven persons accused of murder is sentenced to death.
Fourth, that capital punishment is an act of revenge. Mr. Speaker, capital punishment is a just and proper penalty for murder. More than any other penalty, it expresses the revulsion and horror society feels for the most odious of crimes. As retribution, capital punishment must not be based upon a thirst for revenge but it is reproof by society for the odious crime of murder. With time, as a result of capital punishment, a deep feeling of aversion has developed toward murder.
If imprisonment actually consisted of solitary confinement for life, it would be more cruel than death; life imprisonment leaves no hope to the criminal nor is it an inducement to repentance, as is the immediate prospect of the supreme penalty.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that no one is interested in a murderer as long as he is at large: it is a police matter. Only when he is brought to justice is sympathy or antipathy felt for him, according to individual dispositions. If an abolitionist were asked why the difference, I think his answer would be: obviously, one cannot feel anything for someone one does not know. I would say this is a good answer. In such a case, how can the lawmaker feel vengeful against future murderers he does not know and probably never will?
As a matter of fact, the question is much simpler. Faced with a wilful murderer, society is in the position of a surgeon before a gangrenous limb. Distressing, cruel though it may be, amputation is required. It would, however, be sheer insanity to claim that the surgeon is seeking revenge against the amputated limb. Society does not seek vengeance; it is simply performing a strict duty to protect its worthy members and to provide for its own security.
While it is true that many would like to do away with capital punishment, many more are in favour of it and accept it. This support reflect the aversion of the public for murder, the "crime of crimes". Likewise, the aversion of the public for murder admittedly reflects a traditional attitude resulting from the fact that this punishment is particularly reserved for this crime. The abolition of a punishment traditionally accepted as a just and effective deterrent could only be recommended if there was definite proof that the ordinary citizen

thinks this punishment decidedly ineffective. The experience of other authorities indicates that the abolition of capital punishment when the public is strongly in favour of its retention may lead to doubt and confusion, which is harmful to the administration of justice.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when the state has a long way to go in its fight against crime, more thought should be given to the protection of society than the criminal. There are reasons to think that capital punishment is a deterrent against armed robbery, and the abolition of capital punishment could be interpreted by those who despise the law as a signal for committing other criminal acts.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott), Housing-consideration of royal commission on urbanization; the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford), Shipbuilding-British Columbia-discussions respecting subsidies; the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), Agriculture-eggs-request for change in deficiency payments.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth), and Stanbury:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purposes of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
(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.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Gauthier.
April 4, 1966
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of serenity that I rise this afternoon, to take part in the discussion which is to end tomorrow night, not as a representative of the New Democratic party said a while ago, but by a vote for or against the abolition of capital punishment.
Right away, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am in favour of retaining the death penalty in our statutes and opposed to life imprisonment, that is, imprisonment until death, and I shall try to give my reasons in the next few minutes.
I do not want to take more than the time alloted me but I would like to say that since the beginning of this debate, and I was here all the time, only one member was refused more time and unfortunately he was in favour of retaining the death penalty.
For a great many years, a public debate has been going on in Canada on the possibility of removing from our statutes the death penalty imposed as punishment to people found guilty of capital murder. Since 1961, the criminal code provides for the death penalty in the case of people found guilty of qualified murder, that is premeditated murder. Since 1961, no one under 18 can be accused of capital murder under the law. Right away, we must eliminate from this discussion the case of young Truscott. Since 1961, any person convicted of capital murder can benefit from an appeal to the mercy of the jury or the judge; he can also benefit from the fact that his case is referred to a higher court and, finally, the accused found guilty can benefit from the fact that in the last resort the cabinet can exercise the royal prerogative and commute the sentence into a sentence of life imprisonment which, in fact, is a sentence of 15, 20 or 25 years.
Someone mentioned a little earlier the case of a man from Longueuil, Mr. Bernard Chartier; I found that case terrible, especially when it was discovered that a mistake had lbeen made. Well, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that capital punishment is at fault if a man in Montreal was falsely accused of a crime he did not commit. A mistake was made, I do not know by whom, but certainly not on account of capital punishment.
On one side, we have the abolitionists and on the other the retentionists or those who are in favor of retaining the death penalty, as it exists today. The abolitionists favour the
Criminal Code
abolition of the death penalty in the case of capital murder. When I talk of capital murder, I think of the tragedy at Sault-aux-Cochons.
On that occasion, Guay Ruest Pitre had premeditated the explosion of an airplane, killing 20 of 23 passengers.
There are those in favour of abolishing the death penalty even in the case of the murder of police officers on duty. It happened that police officers were murdered while on duty. The abolitionists tell us that they favour abolishing the death penalty in the case of murders of prison guards. I will not give any examples, because I want to be as brief as possible. And, there are those who favour abolishing the death penalty in the case of murders committed by the underworld or crime syndicates. Recently, we read in the newspapers that the bodies of people killed by the underworld were found in our region. They had been buried four feet underground and covered with quicklime.
There are also those who favour abolition of capital punishment and who, for several months now, have been carrying out a well organized campaign to ensure that their views prevail. Their intentions are good and, in the course of the debate, I have admired the arguments they raised in good faith. On the other hand, those same people accuse us of being barbarians with the poor victims who have to pay the consequences of their premeditated acts. They talk of barbarism and yet those same people who favour the abolition of capital punishment speak of life imprisonment, that is imprisonment till death.
Does that mean that life imprisonment is even more severe a penalty? I said I was against inflicting that punishment upon a human being: You will be imprisoned till death; we are denying you any hope of ever being a free citizen in this land.
When 30 or 40 years behind bars are involved, can you imagine the moral agony of the convict? In many cases, repentance will give way to a deep hatred for society, and anger will seize the convict, drive him to despair and even to suicide. Convicts have been known to commit suicide after being condemned to rather long confinements. When abolition of the death penalty is recommended, to be replaced by life imprisonment, is the condemned really being treated more humanely? Is his freedom not being denied him little by little?

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
Is that torture not worthy of the barbarians of the era of the Roman empire? I call it refined barbarism. There has been talk also of the immorality of the act perpetrated collectively by all the citizens of a country when the state, for its own security and the protection of law and order, not for the sake of vengeance but rather for the love of the heritage it will bequeath its children, decides to do away with a man found guilty of high treason.
The word "vengeance" was also used.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In the first place, the state, in general, practically ignores the individual it sentences. Any individual revenge is thus avoided. Moreover, the legislation providing for the death penalty is far from being dictated by vengefulness. The best evidence that we can give is this: Has not the state established systematic distinctions between the various types of murders? Has it not reserved capital punishment to only one class of murder?
No. This argument about revenge makes no sense. If someone can assert that the death penalty is obsolete, this argument can be considered as a residue of the last war when such phenomena appeared. Have these phenomena lasted? It is easy to answer. At any rate, if this instrument of the state had proved so superficial, the result of a collective revenge, materially, formally and historically speaking, it would never have survived throughout the ages and all the upheavals known since the first politically-known society.
We would be tempted to kill, still through vengefulness.
Besides we have the retentionists, those who have not made much noise till now, those who work for the retention and who sincerely believe in the protection of society.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of justice, it is said: Justice must be done. But justice must also appear as being done. Well, our society, our people want to be protected. But the people must also have the feeling that they are protected. In my opinion, if the penalty were removed from our statutes now, our society would not have this feeling of being adequately protected.
There are retentionists among all classes of society, all environments, all religions. It seems also that the great majority of the Canadian people is in favour of the retention of capital punishment for certain premeditated murders.

I want to point out now that, in my own riding, I met several persons who were in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, but the great majority is in favour of its retention as it exists since 1961. Thus, if the great majority of the people, as is evidenced by the surveys made in our ridings and throughout Canada, is in favour of the retention of the death penalty, society must have this feeling of being protected by the legislation in our statutes.
Before we come to a vote, which is serious, which is a matter of conscience, which will have a great effect on the social future of our environment, we must ask ourselves the following question: If we remove from our statutes the death penalty provided for those convicted of capital murder, will we have more or less of such premeditated crimes? The question here is not about crimes and their punishment in 1850, 1870 or 1925, when a man could be hanged for stealing a horse or stealing five gold pieces. We no longer have such things today. Capital punishment is exacted only from those convicted-the onus of the proof being on the Crown-in the case of premeditated murder, of high treason or of crime syndicate murders.
It is our duty, as legislators, to take the steps required to keep capital murder at a minimum.
As legislators, we must protect society, or rather society demands our protection. That is what I was asked in the personal letters I have received: to maintain for society this feeling of protection through a law which is written very clearly in the Criminal Code and which may be used in some cases. The members of our society ask us to protect them against those who made a choice and who are the only ones responsible for the application of capital punishment, the criminals.
I put the following question to myself before I vote: "Will the retention of capital punishment in our statute books result in a lower number of capital murders?" And I am convinced, in my conscience, that it will help us maintain the order established in our civilization.
I would go as far as saying I am convinced that by complying with this request to abolish the death penalty, we might be endangering the life in the future, not of the persons guilty of capital or premeditated murders, but of a great number of other persons. I am thinking especially about policemen, prison guards and certain witnesses who might prove embarrassing.
April 4, 1966

Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, shall we run the risk of exposing the life of hundreds of citizens in order to protect some people who are truly responsible for the death penalty in Canada?
It is said that the death penalty is no deterrent. Let us ask those who commit holdups whether they fear the death penalty. I should like to quote from an item published last week in a newspaper of my area about two thieves who broke into a private home and found a woman and a young girl. It reads as follows:
Armed with baseball bats, the two men wearing hoods, a cap and gloves, struck Mrs. Cournoyer in the face. Miss Cournoyer was severely beaten over the head, the arms, the back and the legs. And throughout the beating, they insisted to know where the money was hidden. Before leaving, the hooded bandits struck the women again warning them not to call police because their days would be numbered.
Did those thieves fear the death penalty? For instance, if one of the hoods had fallen off by accident and the man had feared one of the women could have identified him, would he not before leaving, have done away with such an incriminating witness?
We cannot see it through statistics. It is impossible to see from statistics whether capital punishment prevented someone from committing a crime.
Mr. Speaker, if fear is the beginning of wisdom, I am of the opinion that this deterrent measure or this punishment for a crime against society must remain in our statutes.
Mr. Speaker, today I should like to turn the tables and say this: Those who are really opposed to the death penalty will vote for its retention in our statutes. Personally, if I vote as I am going to vote for the retention of capital punishment, it is because I want to remove the penalty of death at the hands of criminals from my fellow citizens, my brothers and my children, and above all, because I want society to retain the feeling that it is protected by adequate laws.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
CEnglishI


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to say a few preliminary words on this question but because of the time I shall deal immediately with the subject of capital punishment. There are two questions I wish to deal with in this connection. First, is it fair to people in all walks of life? Second, through rehabilitation is there something to be gained by replacing capital punishment with life imprisonment?
Before dealing with these two questions may I say that when one speaks of a sentence of life imprisonment and uses the phrase "life imprisonment" it raises the argument, voiced by many, that it will cost too much to keep these people in prison. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to believe that Canadian people have become so dollar-minded and callous in their thinking that they could not care less and are willing to snuff out a life in order to save, so they think, a few paltry coppers in taxes. Actually this argument is totally unfounded. People who think this way forget or ignore the tremendous cost involved in capital trials and their aftermath of appeals, and they do not know the realities of prison life.
Certainly, there may be the odd lifer or prisoner who gives no adequate return to the state in terms of dollars and cents. Let me say here, Mr. Speaker, that most lifers work in prison. They work in the printing shop or in tailoring or clerical work. I should like to point out also that if the prisoners were paid a wage commensurate with their services they would be able to pay the cost of their own maintenance. Since they receive nothing, it is easy to forget that they are a source of financial profit to the institution in one way or another. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that practically any warden will testify to the fact it is from the group of lifers that he draws a considerable number of his most trusted workers.
I come back to the question, can something be gained by the convict and by society through life imprisonment rather than capital punishment? In order to illustrate my point I should like to cite a few cases in which prisoners have been given life imprisonment rather than the death sentence. Let me start with the case of Robert Stroud, a case of a truly life sentence. Robert Stroud, the celebrated bird man of Alcatraz, spent 54 years of his life behind prison bars. About 43 of those years were spent in solitary confinement during which time he was raising and studying birds. Robert Stroud was an impenitent killer who fought off despair through those 43 years in solitary confinement. He studied birds and started with two sparrows. At one time he had as many as 300 birds crammed into his little cell. His book, "Digest of Bird Diseases", made him a world authority on birds. This same man, who spent all of his life in prison, also became an authority on legal strategy and wrote a book on penology.

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
Surely the saving of the life of this man was worth something to the world at large.
Then there is the ease of the negro boy, Paul Crump. He was convicted in 1953 of a hold-up slaying. This was the act of an angry young person who went wrong in an environment where nobody found it easy to go right. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, He went wrong in an environment where nobody found it easy to go right. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to interpose the first question I asked: Is this penalty fair and just to people in all walks of life. Sing-Sing's Louis E. Laws, who escorted some 150 men and women to the death chamber, said that all were poor and most were friendless. This is a man who should know something about people and human nature. San Quentin's Clinton P. Duffy hated the death penalty because he said it hit the little man who is poor, poor not only in material possessions but in background, education and mental capacity.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to the statement- perhaps mine is worded a little differently- that a rich man may find it difficult to get into the kingdom of heaven. I do not know whether that is right. We do not want to say that they are not in the same class as the rest of us when it comes to getting into heaven. I do know, however, that it is not only most unlikely but most improbable that the rich man will ever enter the execution chamber. Whether we believe it or whether we do not, the fact remains that there are two laws, one for the rich and one for the poor. There is a law for those who have money and backing and one for the poor little man who has not got financial backing. I will deal with this later.
I return now to the case of Paul Crump, the negro boy. When he was only hours away from the electric chair the governor of Illinois finally yielded to mounting pressure and commuted Crump's sentence to life imprisonment. Why did he do that? In the course of this boy's imprisonment, he had become an entirely different personality. During his years in prison, he took an interest in writing and has written two novels, perhaps more by now. One of these was most successful.
Dealing still with life imprisonment for the individual rather than the death penalty, I cite the case of Nathan Leopold of Chicago who in 1924 as an 18-year-old youth was involved in one of the most bizarre murders of legal history. Perhaps there are many of us who will recall that time. The public demand

for his execution was incredibly strong. A courageous judge withstood the pressure and imposed a life sentence.
Leopold was released in the 1950's. In other words, he spent 30 years in prison. Where is he now and what is he doing? Of all things he is employed by the United States government in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico doing research work that is designed to overcome the great parasite menace which kills or lays low hundreds of Puerto Ricans annually. This youth who committed this bizarre murder, this man who should have been hanged according to our rules, may be responsible for producing a drug that will have the effect of eliminating this problem entirely, save much suffering and may save thousands of lives.
Lastly, there is the case of the man who was directly and indirectly responsible for not one, not a dozen but hundreds of murders of the most atrocious and vicious kind. I refer to the former leader of the fanatical Mau-Mau terrorists, Jomo Kenyatta. He is the man who was highlighted in Robert Ruark's book "Something of Value". Hon. members should read that book. The mere mention of this man's name was enough to induce apoplectic fury in most Kenya whites.
This man was jailed by the British. Today as head of Kenya's 9 million people we find him leading the country into its third year of independence under a black government and under the slogan "Harambee-all must pull together". These people were torn apart only a decade ago by apparently implacable hostility-


Mr. Winkler:: Do you support Hitler too?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: What is that?


Eric Alfred Winkler: I merely suggested that on the basis of the hon. member's present argument he would support a man like Hitler.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I still did not hear the hon. member. Let me continue. You may ask, how is it that Kenya, with its much more turbulent history of racial bitterness, has settled down in seeming harmony better than say Rhodesia? The answer is one that would have seemed inconceivable only a few years ago. It has all been brought about by the extraordinary forbearance and statesmanship of the once hated man who led Kenya to freedom, Jomo Kenyatta. These are a couple of illustrations of men who have been allowed to live because of their value to the world.
April 4, 1966

Before I conclude I should like to ask the hon. member who asked me a question whether he honestly feels that this penalty is fairly and equally applied to all people. I should like him to ask me that question, because regardless of the statements made in favour of retaining the death penalty I would stress strongly the fact that justice is not properly or fairly meted out to everybody. Even the professional killer has a far better chance of escaping the noose than the little man. The professional syndicates have money and can get their men acquitted in cases where the ordinary person would not have a chance at all. It goes every farther than this. In many cases the scales are weighted heavily in favour of the prosecution.
Let me take the case of Arthur Lucas, one of the last people to be hanged in Canada before the House of Commons began to ponder the abolition of capital punishment. I am not arguing whether Lucas was innocent or guilty but there was a real question about the processes of justice which resulted in his conviction. The Crown spent something like $40,000 on these processes whereas the accused's legal aid counsel had to get by on an allowance of $1,500. Surely anybody can see that all the strikes are against the little man, the man without any financial support, and I would defy anybody in this house to say that that is not a true statement.
The injustice of this penalty is further illustrated and illustrated more vividly in the case of two convicts who were both found guilty of murder. The one who had financial support received a life sentence. What happened to the other man, the little fellow who did not have the financial support? He was executed. Surely that it not justice. Could anything be more unjust when a life is at stake?
We have heard many good speeches on this subject with arguments pro and con, but I have just dealt with two topics because I feel that they are two matters which can be talked about without arguing whether they are right or wrong. I would ask the members of this house, especially those who have not made up their minds, to think deeply about this question before they make a decision, and I ask them to vote for abolition. In voting for abolition they will scratch this terrible penalty right out of the statute books of Canada.


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambion-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate 23033-242J
Criminal Code
will, I trust, be brief. In a debate such as this repetition is impossible to avoid. However, I hope I shall not inflict repetition upon the members of the house more than is necessary.
I have listened intently to the many eloquent presentations and those I have not heard I have read. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a new high in quality of debate has recently been achieved in this house. I believe the quality of the speeches which have been made and the thought which has been put into them are on the whole better than any series of debates to which I have listened since becoming a member of this house. There has certainly been much research in depth.
Having regard to the arguments presented in this house, and following the perusal of much material relating to the subject, I have formed three main conclusions. My first one is that capital punishment has not been proven to be a deterrent. I have uncovered no incontrovertible evidence pointing to the fact that it is. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, the lack of capital punishment has not clearly demonstrated or pointed up an increase in the murder rate per capita. There has not in my opinion been any irrefutable evidence pointing to an increase. Indeed, the evidence, as I see it, would seem to point up the fact that the punishment for the crime is not the deterrent; the actual deterrent is the fear of being caught.
Therefore I have concluded that the average criminal type has only one basic thought regarding punishment and that is the fear of being caught. The criminal mind seems to assume that the offender will remain undetected and therefore that punishment is of secondary consideration. In this regard he acts and reacts not unlike other members of society such as those whose most serious crime is, say, a parking violation.
We must bear in mind that for over three years, through the device of cabinet reprieve- I might add, automatic cabinet reprieve-we have in effect had abolition of capital punishment in this country. I do not blame individual cabinet members for the stand they have taken. Personally I would find dealing with the subject a most trying experience. But I submit that jointly and severally the members of the cabinet have not taken the proper stand.

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
I should like to refer to an article in the Toronto Telegram of March 23 which reads in part as follows:
Note of the government's policy toward capital cases was taken by Mr. Justice Eric G. Moorehouse, of the Ontario Supreme Court, when presiding at a murder trial in Bracebridge. He agreed there was no point in proceeding with the charge against a former milkman, because the penalty for murder had not been exacted for several years.
He accepted the plea of guilty on a charge of non-capital murder.
The crux of my speech this evening is based on one basic fundamental. Since, in effect, we have had abolition for three and a half years-and I am not arguing the pros or the cons to satisfy some members of this chamber who are concerned about statistics -which indicates to me that three and a half years is not a long enough period to establish trends or meaningful statistics, perhaps we should continue with abolition of capital punishment for a reasonable trial period in the future. Frankly, between Biblical quotations and so-called statistics it seems to me almost anything can be proven, either by quoting the Bible or citing a ream of statistics. I do not object either to quotations or statistics but they should be taken in their proper context and in their proper concept.
May I refer again to the article in the Toronto Telegram for March 23:
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Capital cases in Canada have increased by 120 per cent since the Conservative government amended the Criminal Code in 1961 to establish degrees of murder. This figure from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics refutes the suggestion that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.
I suggest it does no such thing. This is using so-called statistics to prove a point. I submit that by virtue of the changes made in the law in 1961 an increase might naturally have been expected, not necessarily because of an increase in the number of capital murders but because of a difference in reporting. In my humble opinion no statistics can prove so completely nebulous an item as this is when they are based on such a very short period of time. One multiple killing could throw these presentations all out of line.
I suggest we should take note of the speech made by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). If I understood the gist of his remarks correctly, he considered we might have to settle for a trial period of abolition. As I have mentioned, virtual abolition has been in effect now for three and a half years. I could support abolition for a period of the next five or seven years provided, and I think this is a
(Mr. McCuteheon.]
reasonable proviso, that the most minute records should be kept and the most searching examination made of all activity relating to murder, attempted murder and crimes of violence. This material having been accumulated and digested, parliament could then study it and reach a decision on the basis of fact and logic, not as at present I fear largely on the basis of emotion.
The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) made a most moving presentation. He painted a picture of rehabilitation rather than punishment or retribution. I think this aim is commendable and perhaps one day, we can advance to this great position in the evolution of our society. I hope we shall be able to do so. But I submit we have a long way to go.
This is not the problem of the criminal. This is the problem of society. When we have to put people in hallways and corridors due to overcrowding in our hospitals, remembering that those who are in these corridors have only committed the crime of being ill, then, desirable as the hon. member's suggestion is, I fear we have not yet advanced far enough to be able to put it into practice.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) brought out some statistics which were meaningful to me. He compared the state of Maine with the province of New Brunswick. He pointed out that Maine has had no capital punishment for 80 years. These statistics were meaningful to me because both these areas have the same culture and the same economic background. On the basis of his figures there appeared to be no difference between the rates of murder per capita.
However, this brought up a question in my mind. I often read in the press-and in the part of the country where I live I have access to many United States newspapers- that a suspect was shot during the course of arrest. What happens? Does the old rule of shoot first and ask questions afterwards apply?
I have no statistics from the state of Maine or the province of New Brunswick in this regard, but before the statistics given by the hon. member for Royal are completely meaningful to me they would need to cover both aspects of this question. To me this is another consideration which adds weight to my suggestion that we should introduce abolition for a stated period and keep meticulous records until that period is over. If, for example, we were to find that innocent people
April 4, 1966

Criminal Code
were in danger of paying with their lives as a result of a quick decision to shoot by a police officer under extreme stress in the performance of his duty, then, of course, something would have to be done.
I therefore suggest a trial period long enough to enable meaningful statistics to be compiled. This would give time to all those engaged in law enforcement, in the penal service, in medicine and in psychiatry to become better prepared to assume the new responsibilities which would be theirs. We must never forget that regardless of what happens the first and most important consideration is the protection of our society.


Mr.   G.-C. Lachance@Lafoniaine: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of repeating nor summarizing the speeches made by honourable members, since the introduction of this resolution for the abolition of capital punishment.
Besides, I already stated that I was in favour of the status quo in this respect, when I spoke on January 24 last during the Address in answer to the Speech of the Throne.
[DOT] (6:50 p.ra.)
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, as well as all my colleagues, that whatever the outcome of this debate, I shall not consider it as a defeat or a victory, because I am much less concerned with knowing if murderers will be hanged in the future than with the fate of all the prisoners in our jails and penitentiaries, as well as their future when they come back to civilian life.
You probably remember, Mr. Speaker, that the speech I made on January 24 last, dealt mainly with the rehabilitation of prisoners, with educational facilities that should be made available in order to fully prepare them to take their place within our Canadian community and thereby contribute to the development of our national economy, rather than being a burden and a useless charge for the state.
I repeat this appeal so that the state may take the required and adequate means to set up the control agencies that will enable those who pay their debt to society to have hopes of becoming full-fledged citizens and not failures or misfits always a burden for the state. Should we take as much time here to find solutions to the problems I mentioned as we are now taking to discuss the resolution before us we would perform a much more useful function. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) made an
excellent speech on March 28 last on these problems when he said:
If we want to prevent murders, we must grapple with the problem of prisoner rehabilitation and penitentiaries reforms.
I said at the beginning of these short remarks that it was not my intention to repeat or summarize the previous speeches, and I am going to keep my word.
Of course, I have read, heard, and even discussed the problem under all angles with my electors, my friends, my colleagues, with all those who have spoken to me and to whom I may have spoken of it. I am not an idealist but very optimistic. As a lawyer with some experience in criminology, I have tried to examine the problem in depth. Among the most serious objections I have heard on capital punishment are the following: if human life is held in due respect, it should then not be taken away from anyone. Right, but this principle should also apply to the murderer who should risk his own life if he is to gamble with the life of others. Other objection: I have also noted that among those who claim to be respectful of the life of others are mainly to be found those who have no hesitation to take their own life, thus not respecting their own. Other objection: Hanging is a barbaric custom unworthy of our advanced civilization; I agree. There would therefore be a change in the method of executing capital punishment; gas is assuredly more refined and efficient.
Miscarriages of justice must be avoided, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the sense of justice, the judicial rules and practices and the knowledge used during the hearing of murder cases in our trials and courts of justice, remove all risk of error.
Other objection: capital punishment is not a sufficient deterrent factor to justify maintaining it. I will easily agree, Mr. Speaker, that there are not any more murders in countries where capital punishment is nonexistent or where it has been abolished, but I do not believe there are any more murders after the abolition than there were before. But one thing is certain: no executed murderer has ever committed a second murder.
I could quote many more objections to capital punishment and easily refute them, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the white paper on capital punishment which was prepared and distributed by the Department of Justice in 1965 gives an excellent outline of the situation. I disagree with those who suggest a five-year trial, as was done in England for

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
example, because in five years' time murder will not be more or less serious than it is today. One must hold fast to one's opinions, especially on an issue as important as capital punishment and, as far as I am concerned, it is inconsequential to attach more significance to a second murder, or the murder of a jail guard or a police officer.
Capital punishment is the supreme penalty for the worst and the most odious crime: murder. I think it should be retained for the protection of society and justice; I do not think society has attained a high enough degree of civilization to abolish it now. When there are no more premeditated or deliberate murders, the battle will be won and we will then be able to amend the criminal code and pin a medal on our lapel.
[English1


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, like all other hon.
members I have gone through a very difficult period weighing the evidence in this matter and listening to the various arguments presented for and against the abolition of capital punishment. As a matter of fact, I believe I have either read or heard every speech that has been made in this debate and I have been greatly impressed with the calibre of parliament during the debate. As one of my colleagues said elsewhere during the course of the last few days, this debate has done a tremendous lot to permit parliament to recover from the cloud under which we were some time ago. The value of this debate has enhanced this institution and it is surely parliament at its best.
It has not been easy to get at all the truth in this matter and it is by no means certain that we are going to be able to get all the facts, but we must at this stage make a decision on the basis of the great deal of discussion we have had. I believe the time has come for a clear decision. I would not be in favour of seeing this thing hang on or go to a committee, and I do not believe we should clutter up this matter with a whole lot of other material. I think we should make a clear decision on the basis of abolition or retention.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
I would be very much in favour of our considering the proposal made both by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and more recently by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Mc-Cutcheon), to the effect that if we are

fearful of taking this step at this time, we should have a period of perhaps five years as a trial, as in Great Britain, during which period we could keep records to satisfy ourselves and everyone within the country that it is the wisest step to take. I do not think that would water down or clutter up the motion. I would be in favour of some such trial period, if the house decided that this would be a wise thing to do. However, I do think we should make a decision on this matter of abolishing or retaining the death penalty.
One of the members who spoke earlier this afternoon felt that he should be in favour of retention of the death penalty because in his view the people in his riding and indeed people all across Canada had the idea that capital punishment was protecting them, that it was very important to leave people with the feeling that capital punishment is a protection for society, and that therefore we should retain it. That is not the way my mind works. I think the people in our ridings sent us here for the purpose of representing them, and that it is our place here to get all the facts we can, weigh the evidence, make decisions, take a stand and interpret that stand for them back home in the ridings and across this country. I feel quite sure we have had access here to material, facts and information to which a great many people in our ridings have not been able to have access.
Were I not prepared to make up my mind as a private member on this matter, I do not think I would be doing my job here, whether or not the majority of the people in my riding are in favour of or against abolition of capital punishment. I have the obligation to make up my mind in the light of the evidence I get and then go back home and stand or fall by what the result will be. I have the obligation to explain to these people the stand I have taken, why I have taken it, and so on.
I wish to say right now that I am in favour of abolition. As a matter of fact I have been in favour of abolition for a good many years now. What I have heard in this debate has convinced me this is the proper stand to take, the correct stand at this time. I am going to adduce just a few of the facts which have impressed me in this debate, and the facts about which I shall tell my constituents when I go back home. I have no idea what a poll would show in my riding. I believe the majority of the people there, given access to the facts which we have had, would be in
April 4, 1966

favour of abolition, because they are reasonable and sensible people who I think will approach this matter without emotion and look straight at the facts.
What are the facts? Here are some of them. First of all, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition gave them very, very clearly this afternoon as did some later speakers. We have seen from the facts that whether or not a country or a state has seen fit to retain or abolish capital punishment the rate of murder has remained practically unchanged, has remained virtually the same. All right then; I would say to the member who spoke this afternoon, if the rate of murder is virtually the same whether you retain or do away with capital punishment, we have the right and the obligation to say to our constituents that capital punishment does not protect them any better than a method of keeping the criminal in custody safely away from society. We have the right and the obligation to take away from our constituents a false view; that is, that capital punishment somehow protects them just because we always have believed that. We should give them the facts and figures to support this.
I believe we have the right to let them know in respect of the policemen and the prison guards who have been killed, that in no over-whelming number of cases has that killing of policemen and prison guards been done by murderers. It has been done by a hard core of criminals, just as many of whom were non-murderers as were murderers. I think we have the obligation to tell that to Canadians. I believe that once the people realize these are the facts, we do not need fear their reaction. I am not afraid of any feeling on the part of Canadians. I believe they would want to have the truth in front of them and would want to know what it is.
There is one bit of scripture which I always have believed, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". If we can get the truth to the people, I am not afraid of the result.
Hanging does not bring the dead back to life, nor does it help the survivors. In my view-and I think I am saying something which nobody else has said yet in this debate, and this is hard to do

I cannot see why it would not be an excellent thing, while the murderer is retained in prison, to employ him at some useful work, the resit of such work being directed to help the family of his victim. In that way his rehabilitation can be
Criminal Code
a useful way of making a measure of restitution. There never could be complete restitution. However, I think he should be given an opportunity to make up to the family and relatives of the victim as much as he can. I believe this is in line with the thinking of modern penology.
In my view when a murderer commits a crime, if the state snuffs out his life the state compounds the crime and commits a second one. What happens when a boy kicks his younger brother and the father turns around and kicks the bigger boy? This does not help the little fellow and it implants in the bigger boy a feeling that he wants to get a little older so that he can get back at the fellow who kicks him. That is the type of thing we want to get away from.
We have been struggling through all this miasma of fear; I have seen this in the house. Of couse we are afraid, because we are on the frontier of evolution in this matter. This is the reason in many ways it is a thrilling debate-because it is new for Canadians. But it is not new for other people. The whole trend in the world today is towards the abolition of the death penalty. This has been brought out by one or two other members, but I wish to bring it out again, because I think it is important. The fact is that country after country-and Europe is the place where one finds it most frequently-has reached a point today where capital punishment has been done away with. Luxembourg began the process in 1822, Belgium in 1863, Portugal in 1867-100 years ago when we were beginning as a country-the Netherlands in 1870, Italy in 1890, Norway in 1905, Sweden in 1921, Denmark in 1930, Switzerland in 1942, and Great Britain in 1965. All the enlightened, forward looking countries, when at last they reached the stage where they got it through their minds that capital punishment was barbarism which belonged in the middle ages, did away with the death penalty.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
It is interesting to note that during the Mussolini regime Italy again brought in the death penalty and that during Hitler's regime Germany also brought back the death penalty. When Hitler and Mussolini brought barbarism back to these two countries the death penalty also returned. Italy and West Germany have subsequently abolished the death penalty. East Germany does not belong to that part of the world that we consider advanced in these matters.

April 4, 1366
Criminal Code
Britain, as hon. members realize, has abolished the death penalty for a five-year trial period. The veteran labour member who has led the fight in Britain for the abolition of capital punishment for years is Sidney Silverman. Last year he enjoyed the fruition of his campaign and capital punishment was abolished for a trial period of five years. It is interesting that during the recent election campaign Sidney Silverman was opposed by a close relative of a little girl who had been the victim of a horrible sex slaying. He rattled all the chains he could during the campaign but to the eternal credit of the British people they elected Silverman with a greatly increased majority.
That is the kind of thing that happens when people are prepared to make decisions with their eyes open on the basis of facts rather than emotion. Emotions should be considered and then put out of the way so that the facts can be deliberated and decisions made.
Over and over again during this debate hon. members have referred to the fact that in Canada we have in effect had no capital punishment, de facto, since December of 1962. Even before that time Canada's position on capital punishment has been weakening. When the former government divided the categories of murder into capital and noncapital it took a step in the direction of manifesting Canada's maturity in civilization and its ability to do away with capital punishment.
That was the first step toward the abolition of capital punishment. The second step has been the attitude of the government in not carrying out the sentence of death since the latter part of 1962. I suggest these steps are indications that this country has been readying itself for complete abolition of the death sentence. There would be a tremendous outcry by the people of Canada if pending executions were carried out as a result of a vote in this house to retain capital punishment. The people of this country in increasing numbers have become aware that capital punishment is not consonant with these times. In ever increasing numbers they are becoming prepared to do away with this form of barbarism.
Not long ago I received a letter, as did every British Columbia member, from the B.C. Corrections Association. This letter is dated March 18, 1966 and it states in part:
We felt that you, as a British Columbia member, might be interested to see an expression of opinion on this issue from the present membership of

our association. We represent all facets of correction, probation officers, parole officers, prison personnel, social workers, welfare workers and others.
In other words, this is representative of all types of people involved in criminal correction and rehabilitation in British Columbia. This association sent out a questionnaire in which they asked the recipients of the questionnaire to indicate whether they were in favour of complete abolition of capital punishment, abolition except in respect of capital murder of prison personnel and law enforcement officers, or retention of capital punishment. There were 64.3 per cent in favour of complete abolition, 25.7 per cent in favour of abolition except for the capital murder of prison personnel and law enforcement officers, and only 10 per cent in favour of retention.
It is my opinion that if 64.3 per cent of a representative group of people working closely with criminals are in favour of the complete abolition of capital punishment, the majority of Canadian people are ready for its abolition.
I was greatly impressed by the speech made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Byrne), as well as by those of others. I should like to quote and to endorse this observation of the parliamentary secretary:
A nation which debases the value of human life by its extinction cannot hope to lead in the area of preventative diplomacy.
That is my last reason for suggesting that Canada should abolish the death penalty. We hope to be among those nations of the world which believe in civilized values. In order to acquire a leading position among such nations we must advocate the sanctity of human life.
People throughout the world are watching carefully to see whether or not leaders of nations are acting as they are talking. If we act at home the way we talk abroad this nation will be a leader among nations, but only then.
In conclusion, I hope that we have the courage now to decide that Canada should be placed among the civilized countries which have, with their eyes wide open, done away with capital punishment. I hope we place ourselves in that position with the sure knowledge that this will help us at home and in our role among the nations of the world. I believe that if we abolish capital punishment on a trial basis, we shall never decide to reinstitute it. In order to satisfy some of the fears expressed by hon. members perhaps we
April 4, 1966

should adopt a trial period of abolition. Let us do so with our eyes open, feeling sure that we are doing the right thing in view of all the facts. Let us vote clearly and definitively to abolish the death penalty.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-P. Goyer@Dollard: Mr. Speaker, after hearing or reading the various speeches made in this house, one is inclined to believe that all arguments have been used. It is easy to repeat them and I willingly share the idea or at least the attitude of those who believe that it is good that the same arguments be taken up again from various angles.
For instance, we have been told often about the progress made by our society not only with regard to the death penalty but also in the field of mental health. We have heard philosophical and theological arguments which find their roots in documents which have come to us through the ages from the Bible to essays by Camus or Koestler.
The personal experiences that many of us have lived or witnessed in our midst, experiences which have influenced more or less deeply our attitude and which are reflected today in the stand which we will have to take soon. All of us, not to win, because this is not a marathon or a competition, but rather to look for a truth, if that is still possible, at the end of this debate.
Of course, a line of reasoning that leads to a decision cannot be followed in prejudice, when looking for sensationalism or exploiting an electoral advantage which would not be to the credit of those who elected us.
Throughout this debate, I was struck by the effect produced by the words: death penalty. For some, it is related to barbarism and anti-humanitarianism. For others, it looks like a valid and necessary, even essential, weapon for society. And yet, taken in itself, the death penalty is a means to sentence a criminal and as such it must have a punitive and a preventive value. Thus the necessity, in order to deal with that matter objectively, to forget any prejudice which subsists in us, to go beyond what hides the true problem and to dwell instead on the objectives to be attained by the death penalty, just like we would do when studying any other type of sentence. After reading a great deal of literature, especially articles by Marc Ancel, Paul Gornil et Giuliano Vassalli, I have a theory which seems to me worthwhile, that of an alternate penalty. The objection which
Criminal Code
I would then raise is as follows: Can death penalty be replaced by another penalty, which would retain the punitive aspect toward the convicted and the deterrent aspect toward society?
In fact, the alternate penalty is now accepted throughout the world, and is applied in Canada as elsewhere.
The latest amendments to the Criminal Code constitute a significant example of my argument. From now on, we differentiate between two kinds of murders: the capital murder and the non-capital murder, the first one involving hanging and the latter life inprisonment.
This theory of an alternate penalty is not new. Already, at the end of the 18th century, movement of penal reform brought about the abolition of corporal punishment to be replaced by loss of freedom only. In that respect, the loss of liberty was an alternate penalty to torture, since crime was punished by a different penalty.
Likewise, death penalty has this value of replacement when it ceases to have degrees, that is being accompanied by tortures more or less extended. For instance, in 1791, the French Criminal Code, decided that:
The death penalty will be a simple deprivation of life without any torture exerted against the convicted.
To use a well-known method, a proper death penalty is found and established. Going through the ages, we could multiply the examples proving the application of this theory, to reach the present situation where the death penalty has been completely replaced: it has been abolished or partially replaced.
In both cases, the substitute punishment took the form of a denial of freedom. In other words, we are all more or less abolitionists, for in some instances imprisonment is accepted as a substitute for the death penalty indeed, nobody can say that nowadays a killer must always be killed. Otherwise, one who commits a passionate crime would always be hanged, one who commits a political crime would be hanged and the mentally ill committing a crime would be hanged. Yet, it is readily accepted today that those three types of criminals should not be hanged, either because of the law or following the commutation of the penalty. Why? Because the death penalty is instinctively revolting, too severe and contrary to reason. The death penalty is thus being questioned as a punishment and a deterrent and we are

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
satisfied that life imprisonment has the same effect.
Basically, in the three examples given, the change takes place because of the personality of the offender. Consideration given not only to the crime committed but also to the offender and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. Why? Because the criminal is more sympathetic? Not necessarily, but it is felt that society must first of all consider him as an unbalanced or sick person or, as the case may be, merely deprive him of his freedom.
Are we aware that in those three cases we are relying, rightly or wrongly, on our penal system? In any case, unconsciously, we are. Unconsciously, because once again we concentrate on this one question: is it advisable to hang this particular criminal not? If the answer is no, then he goes to jail and we forget about him. We forget about him until special circumstances come up such as those which occurred in the past few years. Those past few years, it has dawned on the public that jails were actually schools for crime, which granted degrees in criminal science, instead of institutions devoted to the rehabilitation of the inmates. For too long-and such is the case even today-jails have been considered as places where murderers should be punished, when they are places where they should be rehabilitated.
Even today, much too few of our inmates are given rehabilitation courses. And what do they teach in our jails? Trades are still being taught that have just about vanished from our society. Handicrafts are taught, for instance shoemaking. I think such trades are things of the past. We should apply modern methods like they do in France, for example, where we find one out of five inmates taking courses that will lead him even to a diploma or a master's degree in law. Recent statistics show that inmates often are more successful than regular students.
At the present time, at St. Vincent de Paul, there are two psychologists for 1,700 inmates. That is asking two persons to perform miracles. It is putting them in an impossible situation where they cannot meet the needs and really achieve something lasting. There are still being built in our prisons maximum security cells, or holes, where a dog would not be sent to rot for fear it might become rabid.

[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been appropriated out of public funds to build such holes in St. Vincent de Paul.
In contrast with this amazing policy, a penitentiary meeting modern requirements is being built in Valleyfield.
What is the Canadian policy with regard to penitentiaries? The prisoner is no longer considered as an animal and subjected to conditions which society abhors today, but rather as a man who like any other, is entitled to respect in his sad plight. Guards are inadequately paid. It is acknowledged by our courts that guards connive at prisoners' rackets, supply them with goof balls and even help them to escape from the penitentiary. Is this acceptable?
There are outstanding experts today in the field of mental disease. Mental hospitals are staffed with all the required specialists; budgets have been increased. What is provided in our prisons? Less than nothing. As members of parliament, we are all responsible for this untenable situation. Academic speeches are in order, but the administration must also provide for required needs, so as to bring up to date our penitentiary system and explain to the people that Canada is lagging behind in this field more than any other country in the western world.
Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that we should wait until reforms are carried out before substituting life imprisonment for the death penalty? No, and here is why.
(1)	Abolition exists in fact or is recognized in practice for several types of crimes, whatever the present conditions of our penitentiaries, and the public accepts this.
(2)	It is true that the public does not feel secure under the present system of probation. And, here again, I question the qualifications of the people in charge of the system of probation. And what is more, and this is more serious, they are not given the staff required to develop a coherent policy to follow up the person sent back to society, after his sentence is commuted. But, on the other hand, this is corrected by the resolution now before the house, which operates a drastic change by giving the right of parole to the governor in council in last resort.
(3)	The conditions in our penitentiaries is not a danger for the safety of society, for once again, it is in all cases maximum security penitentiaries, but rather a serious barrier to the rehabilitation of the individual.
April 4. 1966

I call your attention on my last point. A penitentiary system must be administered in such a way as to enable the offender to leave jail a better man than when he came in.
The criminal or the offender is not sentenced to prison to be submitted to further punishment, that is, to be ill-treated. Sir Alexander Paterson, who once fulfilled the duties of chairman of the British Jail Commission, stated:

Offenders are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.

The fact that a person is sent to jail, that is to say deprived of freedom, constitutes the penalty in itself, not the kind of life such person is required to lead in the penitentiary. On the contrary, for the time must be foreseen when the prisoner will recover his freedom-if every thing has not been done during his imprisonment to rehabilitate him, a potential criminal is then being released.
To deny our social and humane responsibility for the rehabilitation of prisoners is to agree, in the long run, to multiply the number of criminals and consequently to seriously endanger public security.
This does not solely apply to a murderer-for this type makes up the smallest minority of prisoners-but to the majority of those who have been sentenced to penalties less than life imprisonment.
While other countries adopt systems of graduate detention, from total confinement through internment to half-detention, including even week-end or after business hours detention served outside the penitentiary, we are still discussing this antiquated question of capital punishment.
While parents and relatives of the victims of criminals are often burdened with economic and social problems, because for instance the victim was the head of a family which is henceforth left without means, instead of finding solutions to this situation, and of helping these people, through new legislation, we are concentrating our efforts in the search of a vendetta on the criminal. The criminal is involved in a human problem; those who are solely afflicted in economic and social problems. In 1966, these are the problems we, in parliament, should be concerned with.
In fact, the man who comes out of prison after serving a five-year sentence, even without having obtained a reduction of his term of prison, may present a greater danger to
Criminal Code
society if he has not been rehabilitated during this period of time. He is more apt to relapse into crime and thus presents a danger to society. A rehabilitated criminal whose sentence is reduced, on the other hand, is of course much less liable to disturb society.
The abolition of capital punishment is no innovation. It exists in several countries since half a century. To innovate would mean more than that. It would, rather, mean improving methods of rehabilitation, and studying ways of compensating in part the parents and close relatives of the victim, which would surely be more effective and healthy than the brute satisfaction of executing the criminal. This is the course of action of a progressive Parliament.
We will show Canada whether we will deal, not with out-of-date problems such as capital punishment, but with the problems of our time, those of rehabilitation and of compensation of victims; this is where our work lies and further discussion on capital punishment is a waste of time and it is outdated.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: I join in this debate this evening, Mr. Speaker, with reticence as I realize its meaning and consequences and its potential effect on the preservation of our nation and our society. I do so also with great respect for the history that has been mentioned by other hon. members here today. This respect for history is a quality that is not found in abolitionists alone but I am sure it is possessed by all members and particularly reten-tionists because we remember that our statutes are part of our history.
We are not back in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the ridiculous penalties for crimes other than capital crimes which have been related to us as applying in those years have nothing to do with the argument today. I claim that our functioning statutes, as they are now, are part of our history and society and should be respected and maintained as such.
I have listened with interest to the presentations of most hon. members. I have in fact read all the speeches to date. I congratulate my colleagues in all sections of the house upon the many cogent points that have been presented in this debate. I know that each one of us has and will put forward his or her argument without any personal acerbity to anyone, and according to his or her tenets of belief on this vital subject.

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
I heard five reasons put forward by one hon. member this afternoon, which he said retentionists use for the retention of capital punishment. These were good reasons. However, I did not hear him declare the most important reason, that of "government" itself, the protection of persons and property, the protection of the public. This reason must be present at all times and must be evident to all members, from private members to privy councillors.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I am one of those who believe that capital punishment should be retained in its present classified form. I am one of those who believe it is within the imperium of this parliament of Canada, the state and the Crown, to reserve at all times the right to demand the life of any of its citizens, or indeed, Mr. Speaker, the life of an enemy alien found guilty of crimes against Canada. I am surprised at this time, and shocked, to hear that some privy councillors, present and past, do not agree with this attitude. I refer to the fundamental right of jurisdiction and the authority to use the power of the state to enforce its laws. I would remind hon. members that Canada, as a corporate geographical and social entity and as a nation, does not exist and function in order to act as a stamping ground or a free range for, or as an agent of appeasement to, outlaws and perpetrators of capital crime.
I am also one of those who realize that my constituents did not send me to Ottawa to sit in this parliament in order to weaken or to tear down the statutes of Canada by doing away with any of these laws. On the contrary, in these times of contention, trouble and lawlessness those constituents are more apt rightfully to expect me to assist in placing more restraining measures of a deterring nature on the statute books.
This afternoon I heard hon. members say that it is an awful thing to realize the finality of the death of a condemned criminal, one who has been duly sentenced by the courts. I say it is an awful thing to realize the finality of the death of an innocent victim at the vicious and unmerciful hands of a rapist or a murderer or an armed robber-and we all know how merciless they can be.
The abolitionists contend there is a chance that an innocent man may be executed. I say that there is no record and there is no proof that an innocent man has ever been executed

for murder. There may be hearsay, but there is no proof.
Another point, Mr. Speaker, is that if abolition is adopted by this house as a result of this debate, one other measure will immediately be required in country-wide form so as to be consistent with the argument of the abolitionists. This would be a measure to disarm all policemen in Canada. I would remind abolitionists that when an escaping criminal happens to be fatally injured in battle with our courageous policemen this in itself is a form of capital punishment. Therefore I would ask all abolitionists to be consistent, and to see that this action is taken, for it is just as ridiculous as their argument.
From the abolitionists I have heard nothing but a policy of appeasement of capital murderers, those guilty of treason and other capital crimes. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) very definitely tried in his argument to associate the retentionists in this debate with Adolf Hitler, who persecuted and murdered millions and millions of innocent people. The hon. member for Leeds, by arguing thus and supporting abolition, implies that Hitler should not have been executed; or I deduce from his argument that that is tantamount to what he said. The Allies did not capture Hitler while he was still alive, so the privilege of administering the death penalty to him was lost to them. Had he been captured he should certainly have been executed.
In this regard I was very much interested in the fine address made by the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), who pointed out that capital punishment was reinstated in Italy during the time of Mussolini. It was a good thing it was reinstated, and just in time for it to be administered to Mussolini himself. Although it was administered by a mob, in my opinion, he got his just dues.
Since the resolution which we are debating is contrary to any fundamental beliefs which I have, and since it does not as I have said, strengthen the protection of persons and property by the state, I cannot and I will not support it. Let us just look at the terms of the resolution. I had hoped that since it is the product of four authors from three political parties it would portray the wisdom I know these hon. members possess. But it does not
April 4, 1966

do so. May I just put the resolution on record again:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purposes of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that Act;
(b)	substituting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in these 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.
In clause (a) this resolution advocates abolition of the death penalty in respect of all offences under the code. Mr. Speaker, I wish firmly to point out that it is not the wish of the majority of the Canadian people that the death penalty be abolished for treason. It is not the wish of the majority of the Canadian people that the death penalty be abolished for premeditated murder. It is not the wish of the majority of the Canadian people that the death penalty be abolished for murders committed by armed robbers who have, of course, premeditated these crimes that terminate in fatal results. I point out that there is a rash of these crimes, especially bank robberies, of an intensity in our cities and metropolitan areas the like of which we have never witnessed before. My constituents did not send me here to make it easier for armed robbers to murder bank clerks and their public clientele by lightening the penalty for crimes of this kind already provided for in the statutes.


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


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: After I have finished. Neither did my constituents send me here to make things easier for the contract killer, the mercenary journeyman killer who goes from place to place, the hired tool of the underworld who kills for a price. These men are the servants of a Mafia narcotics racket of the underworld, and of the perpetrators of planned bankruptcies and arson. It is evident that these contract killings are increasing in number. I would think that of late this government has had enough experience with the underworld, to warrant the preservation of capital punishment to use against the underworld whenever needed.
Neither do the people of Canada wish us to abolish capital punishment to make it easier for the cop killer, another special class of murderer, the one who hates our policemen. Our police forces at all levels across the country have requested by letter and by
Criminal Code
petition that this parliament maintain capital punishment. I have had several telegrams, as I am sure have all hon. members, the latest of which comes from a Quebec police force totalling 6,000 men.
What about the protection of our prison guards who will be in a very precarious and vulnerable position at the hands of murderers in our penitentiaries, who would then have nothing to lose if they murdered their guards? I have statistics here regarding this particular matter, but I do not think it is necessary to put them on record. Surely hon. members will not act here in such a way as to jeopardize the lives of the policemen and prison guards of Canada.
I remind hon. members that just retribution is already provided for in the statutes for these other types of murders, often perpetrated by armed robbers robbing defenceless neighbourhood shopkeepers in our urban areas, for those who attack and murder elderly people in our urban areas, and elderly farmers on our rural back concessions,-pillaging and murdering because they think these people have money and valuables hidden in their homes. No, Mr. Speaker; for these reasons do not ask me to support clause
(a)	as it is presently worded.
Now, what about clause (b)? It asks that we substitute a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for those cases where the death penalty is now mandatory. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this covers and applies to the remarks that I have just made, because clause
(b)	is asking for a reduction in the severity of the retribution. Yes, we can actually say that clause (b) is asking that a generous measure of impunity be granted the perpetrators of the crimes that I have just generally outlined under clause (a). No, Mr. Speaker, for the above reasons I cannot support clause (b).
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Now let us turn to clause (c). It provides that none of these murderers, or no person upon whom a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is imposed, shall be released without the prior approval of the governor in council. Now, Mr. Speaker, you would expect this final clause, if it had any regard for the safety of persons and property in Canada, to read that no person upon whom the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is imposed for these capital types of crime would ever be released from prison. But no. In spite of the fact that we have a good, astute, firm, yet conciliatory National Parole Board, here we

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
have clause (c) handing the keys to the convicted capital criminal's cell to the governor in council, which is actually the cabinet of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since this cabinet presently sitting on your right, has such a poor record in regard to facing up to its duties in dealing with capital convictions, I say to you that if this resolution carries, and if the leniency shown in the past projects itself into the future, then the firm administration of justice as it ought to be performed has a poor chance in the years to come. In other words, since those hon. gentlemen opposite have commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment, or to a term which is, actually, less than life imprisonment, the Canadian people fear that they will also commute future sentences to something increasingly less.
There is one further point, and it is this: To vote for clause (c) of this resolution, and for this resolution in its entirety, is to make the freedom of a convicted criminal a political question, since any parole he might try to obtain he would need to obtain from the cabinet. Our parole board is above and apart from all political ilk or association. The cabinet is not. This clause brings politics to bear to control and govern what amounts to, or can amount to, the civil liberties of the citizens of this country. No, sir. Do not ask me to vote for clause (c).
What about the deterrent? Time and again, one hears the catch phrase used by the abolitionists: It has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Mr. Speaker, this catch phrase is not true. I wonder if these people ever stop to consider the stupidity of such a statement and what its ultimate application implies? In the first place, on what experience or evidence do they base their conclusion? On what index do they base their statistics? One has only to go to the historical fact that in many cases where capital punishment had been abolished by act of government in other countries and states, it has been re-imposed within a short time to combat the homicide which continued and increased and finally incensed the population to the point at which its return was demanded. No. In denying the deterrent value of a penalty in this, as in any other division of criminal activity, one can make such a claim only on the basis of evidence- and we have heard no such evidence.
Has anyone heard a potential murderer say: "I would not take a life because capital

punishment is not in effect"? If such a statement sounds stupid, it is certainly not more so than the glib, parrot-like repetition of the phrase one hears so often-"We know that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder". I submit that we know no such thing. Nor can we even conjecture reasonably what a deterrent capital punishment is to this ultimate and most horrible of all crimes against humanity. Probably not even the most expert and skilled analysts of the human mind would dare to give more than an approximation on such a subject, so qualified that it would tell us nothing. Yet the most amateur practitioner in human behaviour glibly tosses the now familiar phrases about in support of abolition as if the human mind could be fathomed, measured, calibrated and predicted-and, in particular, the mind of a potential murderer.
And now one is inescapably drawn to the most staggering conclusion of all. Given, for one moment, that the theory of the abolitionists is true; let us presume, for argument's sake, that they are right, what is the only conclusion? I say it is this: If capital punishment is no deterrent to wilful premeditated murder, then no punishment whatever is a deterrent to any crime. If this is so, why have any law?
If the prospect of paying for murder with his own life is not deterrent to a calculating, would-be killer, then what a mere bagatelle lesser punishment would be all the way down the line of lesser crime to thieves, embezzlers, reckless drivers and junior perpetrators of petty crimes. And yet, hon. members will agree, thieves do run, many reckless drivers do leave the scenes of accidents, and embezzlers deny the forged signatures, all in a desperate effort to escape the penalty laid down in the statutes.
Does anyone with even the most elementary powers of reasoning think for one moment that the knowledge and prospect of retribution does not deter-does not give at least some acute practical mental consideration to the minds of all sane people, at all ages of accountability, in every moral exigency with which they may be faced? The only possible exception to this is the complete and utter maniac, a man so deranged that he is incapable of thought. And this man is effectively protected from the death penalty by the statutes. Certainly, the insane are so well protected that it is a fact that the sane killer often seeks that defensive haven, the plea of insanity-a somewhat ironical fact if we for
April 4, 1966

one moment believed the abolitionists' contention that a killer does not fear the death penalty.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
To return to the resolution as a whole. It might be supportable were we entering a millenium of Utopia. But this is not Utopia. Neither our political nor our social system is perfect. This is Canada 1966; if we grant too much leniency and liberty within the social system our political system will suffer, and possibly perish. I will not be a party to this. Let the statutes stand as they are, without amendment and as they have been since the amendment of 1961, with provision made for capital and non-capital murder. Let the cabinet do its duty as the people of Canada expect duty to be done in each capital case according to its merits.
From the time of Cain capital crime has been a characteristic of this thinking animal, man. The old testament of the Holy Bible speaks in clear, understandable terms of God's law regarding murder. In the fifth chapter of Genesis, the sixth verse-and I am not afraid to quote it-it is stated: "Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being eight o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to special order of Thursday, March 31, 1966, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.
Motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
(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.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), is as follows:
That the motion be amended as follows:
First, by adding after paragraph (a), the following words: 'except for capital murders, as currently defined, committed while a sentence of life imprisonment is served'.
Second, by adding, after paragraph (b), the following words: 'except in the case of a capital murder committed while a person is serving a sentence of life imprisonment'.
Criminal Code
Third, by inserting in paragraph (c) immediately after the word 'imposed', the words 'or with regard to whom a death sentence was commuted'.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Before we call on hon. members to vote perhaps I should indicate the procedure we propose to follow. I intend to call upon the mover and seconder of the amendment to rise if they wish to vote and then-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would read the amendment in English, since I did not catch the translation completely.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair should also read the main motion in French.

Messrs. Byrne, Nugent and Scott (Danforth) moved:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
(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 and on the amendment moved by Mr. Gauthier.

The amendment moved by Mr. Gauthier, seconded by Mr. Caouette is as follows:
That the motion be amended as follows:
First, by adding after paragraph (a), the following words: 'except for capital murders, as currently defined, committed while a sentence of life imprisonment is served'.
Second, by adding after paragraph (b), the following words: 'except in the case of a capital murder committed while a person is serving a sentence of life imprisonment'.
Third, by inserting in paragraph (c) immediately after the word 'imposed' the words 'or with regard to whom a death sentence was commuted'.
I shall first call upon the mover and seconder to vote for the amendment if they wish, after which I will ask hon. members beginning with the first row to my right who wish to vote in favour of the amendment to rise, and then, as we do in committee, I will call upon the members in the second, third, fourth, and fifth rows in favour to rise. I will then call on those in favour in the first row to my left, to be followed by the second, third, fourth and fifth rows to my

April 4, 1966
Division
left. We will repeat this process in respect of those voting against the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether we could have some clarification with regard to what will happen with regard to other amendments, if any are moved, from now until tomorrow prior to the final vote?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that question could be directed to the government house leader, but I might refer hon. members to the consent order adopted by the house on Thursday,
April 4, 1966

March 31, which specifies at what time further amendments are to be disposed of by the house tomorrow.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to indicate to the house that it is my intention to support the abolition of the death penalty when that question is voted upon tomorrow evening. We are now completing the fourth day of debate on this question and it seems to me that at this time there is relatively little that is new that can be added in the way of propositions either for or against the measure upon which we shall be voting tomorrow night. But there does seem to me to be one fresh consideration which I believe is relevant to this debate, and therefore I should like to move an amendment at this time in order to bring before the house the basic question that the British House of Commons had before it in its most recent legislative action with regard to capital punishment.
As most hon. members will know, the abolition of capital punishment for murder under the criminal law of England has not been made absolute and for all time. Rather, the legislative action they have taken has abolished the capital penalty for a period of five years only and at the end of that five year period, dating from the enactment of the law, in the event of the failure of the British parliament to enact any further amendments in order to dispose of the death penalty once and for all time, this penalty shall once again be enforced under the English criminal law.
I propose to put before this house by way of an amendment the suggestion that the motion which is before us this evening and will be voted on tomorrow night be amended so the house will declare itself in favour of amending the Criminal Code on a trial basis for five years, so that in effect what is in the British law shall be incorporated in the Criminal Code of Canada.
I shall not take up any more time of the house. I think the purpose of the amendment will be well understood. It certainly will be understood by members who have been following this debate. Therefore Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "Criminal Code" the following words:
"on a trial basis for a period of five years."


Edmund Davie Fulton: Licence to murder?
Criminal Code


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prolong this debate any more than is necessary for me to state my views as simply and as concisely as possible on the question whether capital punishment should or should not be retained; nor is it my intention to try to refute any of the personal views expressed by any hon. member during this debate. Statistics have been used and the Bible has been quoted to prove the arguments of those who support either side of this question. But it seems to me that statistics are of little value in trying to chart human behaviour at any given time under many different environments and cricumstances. It is because of this that society has had to lay down certain rules of individual behaviour without which society itself would cease to exist. Without these rules and the ability to collectively enforce them, there would be chaos. It is necessary, then, that crimes against society must of necessity be punished in order to maintain the rule of law and the right of human beings to form a society and live together in that society.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The fact that people can live together is the result of the majority of the people respecting the law and the rights of the individual as set out in our rules of behaviour. It is an accepted fact that those who commit crimes against society should be punished for the protection of society itself, and that the punishment should fit the crime. This principle applies to a petty thief who may receive a nominal prison term as well as to the murderer who, by taking a human life, must expect the greatest punishment.
Organized crime, established almost on the basis of a military operation and just as effective, is now reaching into Canada in its war against society. Human life means nothing to the crime syndicates. Unless effective methods are used to combat these vicious operations our society could become enslaved, just as other societies have, by this sinister underworld.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I should like to ask the hon. member for Lisgar if he is aware of the fact an Ontario Provincial Police officer was killed this afternoon on the grounds of the Royal Ottawa Sanatorium, according to a Canadian press dispatch? I refer to a member of the provincial force, not the municipal force.


George Robson Muir: This only illustrates, Mr. Speaker, that the trial period we now have

April 4, 1986
Criminal Code
tor abolition has not worked. Many sincere men and women have argued that society should not, under any circumstances, take a human life and, in any case, the death penalty was not a deterrent to murder. Is it not reasonable to suppose that society is concerned for those who help make it work by obeying these rules and without whom it could not exist? It can be argued that the death penalty is or is not a deterrent, although I must admit that I am far from convinced it is not a deterrent. One irrefutable fact is that it is a deterrent to the one who has already committed a murder.
One of the strongest arguments for abolition that occurs to me is that there is always the danger of an innocent man being convicted. It was this very argument that persuaded the government under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Die-fenbaker) to amend the Criminal Code by dividing murder into two categories, capital and non-capital. Those convicted of non-capital murder, and this included minors, were subject to life imprisonment. This meant incarceration for a period of from eight to 20 years. Those convicted of capital murder, which included premeditated crimes, were subject to the death penalty. Under those conditions any judge or jury would be hesitant about convicting a man of capital murder upon circumstancial evidence. The risk of imposing the death penalty on an innocent man, particularly when one considers the appeals to which a convicted man is entitled, has been as far as is humanly possible eliminated.
Unfortunately, these amendments have never been given an opportunity to work since this government has commuted all sentences, no matter how heinous the crime. We have had, in effect, at a time when crime was on the increase, total abolition since this government took office.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while expressing the greatest sympathy for the views of many good and sincere citizens who for various reasons would abolish the death penalty, I find that as a legislator the important issue is the protection of society from these criminal elements. As I see it, my duty as a legislator is to support legislation that would achieve the ultimate degree of protection for our citizens. I therefore intend to vote for the retention of the law as it now stands.


Mr. Keith Hymmen (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of 
interest as my hon. colleagues in all parts of the house have discussed both sides of the important motion before us, and the vital issue concerning the abolition or retention of capital punishment. A great deal has been said. Eloquent presentations have been made, and further discussion might appear to be redundant. However, because I feel that all opinions are important, and in order to provide an opportunity for all members to express themselves in the time which has been allotted, I will make my remarks very brief.
As the members who favour abolition present their case, I notice that a recurring theme in their argument is that capital punishment does not effectively deter homicide. This theory is immediately challenged by the retentionist, and the argument goes on with each side summoning impressive documentation for their respective positions. In my own studies, Mr. Speaker, and I have tried to consider this matter objectively, I have become convinced that there is no proof that capital punishment is an effective deterrent or the only deterrent force.
I believe that many statements and much evidence supporting this fact are typified by the rather concise statement, which might be considered a ready or available reference for the average Canadian, as found in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is as follows:
Regarding deterence, it is well established by statistical studies that (1) when comparisons are made between contiguous states with similar populations and similar social, economic and political conditions-some of these states lacking and others retaining capital punishment-homicide rates are the same and follow the same trend over a long period of time regardless of the use or nonuse of capital punishment; (2)-the abolition, introduction or reintroduction of this penalty is not accompanied by the effect on homicide rates that is postulated by the advocates of capital punishment; (3) - even in communities where the deterrent effect should be greatest because the offender and his victim lived there and trial and execution were well publicized, homicide rates are not affected by the execution; (4) the rate of policemen killed by criminals is no higher in abolition states than in comparable death-penalty states. Capital punishment, then, does not appear to have a specific influence on the amount or trend of the kind of crime it is supposed to deter people from committing.
Mr. Speaker, the point is certainly not that the Encyclopedia Britannica is a particular or ultimate authority in this matter, although I have been in touch with their editorial board who inform me that their statement is the result of many hours of study and research the world over. The point is rather that a
April 4, 1966

reasonable doubt exists as to the basic value of capital punishment. There is reasonable doubt that this nation gains any great benefit from the use of the gallows. It is my understanding that in their wisdom the courts of this great land caution the many Canadians who are asked as jurors to judge their peers to remember that, if a reasonable doubt exists, that doubt must free the accused and the condemned. Mr. Speaker, in this case, that doubt is present, and as a member of the jury judging capital punishment, I must, in all human conscience, cast my vote for abolition.
I have mentioned reasonable doubt as to the effective value of the ultimate penalty. There is another area of reasonable doubt which is in my opinion of prior importance and could well be the prime consideration in regard to the whole issue before us.
In this twentieth century, in spite of all the knowledge and experience at our disposal, there is possibility of error whereby an innocent person has, and under our present Criminal Code can be put to death for a crime which he or she did not commit. In this debate actual cases have already been mentioned in this connection. I am sure that there are and must be many more.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Professor Borchard, of Yale University, in his book "Convicting the Innocent", has collected 68 cases from England and the United States in which innocent persons have been convicted of crime. Twenty five of these cases involve murder. No doubt error is not discovered as often in murder cases as in others, With the execution of the supposed offender further investigation usually ceases, whereas in other kinds of offences investigation by the family, friends and legal advisers of the convicted person frequently continues.
I could refer to the royal commission in England appointed by Queen Victoria in 1864 and the summary report which quotes evidence by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, a former attorney general and solicitor general as follows:
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 . . .
He 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
Criminal Code
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.
It took the British parliament, which is the mother of this parliament, 100 years to recognize gross injustice and take steps to correct this injustice. This matter has been under consideration here, in this very place, off and on, for half a century.
Even the strongest proponents of retention, Mr. Speaker, if they will examine their own consciences, must have at least one reservation. This could be predicated on the possibility of an innocent person paying with his life for the crime of another. This possibility is usually minimized as insignificant statistically when viewed in the interest of the public and the nation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must insist that while any shadow of doubt exists, while an alternative exists, no matter how imperfect that alternative may be we dare not use the prerogative which is ours to exercise the supreme penalty. If hon. members will consider this one point and this point only, I am sure that they will come to only one possible conclusion namely that capital punishment should be abolished.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much this opportunity to put on the record for the benefit of the people who sent me here to represent them the reasons why I am going to vote as I will vote on the matter now before us. I have found it, as many others have confessed to finding it, a very difficult decision to reach. For many months there has been a deluge of literature and of arguments both for and against the abolition of capital punishment in Canada. Arguments have been drawn from many sources to support the opposite conclusions so strongly held by responsible individuals and highly respected organizations. In the end, each member of this house is left with the responsibility to weigh the evidence and to judge for himself or herself how his or her vote should be cast.
The purpose of capital punishment is to serve as a deterrent to crime. If capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime, then there is no reason to retain it as a penalty in our Criminal Code. This debate, then boils down to whether or not capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime. I believe that it does, and holding this belief I cannot support the resolution for abolition.

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
Capital punishment is part and parcel of the over-all public discipline which builds respect, which maintains respect and which forces respect for law and order across the land. I am persuaded that it still has an important part to play in the maintenance of respect for law. Society seeks to protect itself co-operatively through the imposition of rules and laws. Individuals have very little power. It is through associations and organizations that they become strong. The rights and privileges of each is based on the rights and privileges of all. Protection of persons, protection of property, protection of all the freedoms that we enjoy is bound up in the maintenance of the rules and laws that have been established. Without law and order we have chaos. No organization of any kind can continue to exist without the enforcement of laws.
Laws are maintained by penalties. When no penalty is provided for infraction of the laws, there is little or no respect for that law. How far would we get in teaching people to respect the red and green lights on the corners of our streets if there were no penalties attached to violations of the rules? It is true that all those who violate the rules are not punished. Many people walk across the street -I have done this myself-when the light is not in their favour. But when doing this they realize they are breaking the law, and were it not for the penalties involved, and occasionally applied, there would be no respect at all for law.
The severity of the penalty indicates the importance of the law. Minor offences are punishable by fines. The more serious the offence, the greater the fine. Other offences are punishable by imprisonment or by both fine and imprisonment. Torture at one time was used as well, but that has been dropped. The ultimate penalty is capital punishment. It is presently reserved for capital murder and indicates the attitude of the Canadian people toward deliberate killing.
No child can grow up in this country knowing that capital punishment is a part of our Criminal Code and not realize that murder is a serious offence. No newcomer or visitor can doubt our national attitude toward murder while capital punishment is included in our statutes. This is one of the reasons I support its retention.
Arguments have been offered that we should abolish capital punishment because it is barbarous, uncivilized and unbecoming of a progressive nation in this enlightened age. I

cannot agree that this age is sufficiently enlightened that it is beyond the need for penalties in law enforcement. True, we have made great progress in the field of scientific achievement and in the science of government, but has human nature changed to the same extent? I think not.
Criminals have moved ahead with the times. They are more sophisticated, they are more scientific and they are more legalistic. They go for the quick "buck" through modern methods which they seek to operate within the law. They have a fuller understanding of legal procedure and are better able to cover their tracks. I do not believe that human nature has changed to the point where it is unimpressed by penalties for wrongdoing, and this being so I believe it is unwise to stop at any penalty short of the ultimate one.
This country is now disturbed about a rape-murder case which arose some years ago at Clinton, Ontario. This country is suffering pangs of regret about a similar case at Aylmer within recent weeks. That case is still unresolved. Within recent days this country was horrified by the confessed rape murder of a five year old girl by a man in his thirties.
Where is the civilization, the purification, the improvement in human nature that can now justify the removal of penalties from our law? We need penalties, penalties to suit the crimes; and for the ultimate crime we need the ultimate penalty.
Across this country there are children playing in school yards, in playgrounds and in the streets. Some of our women and girls have to find their way home from their employment after nightfall. Are we to relax the protection which has been devised for the protection of the weak? I say that we should not.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The use of capital punishment is said to be unbecoming to civilized people. Is not crime unbecoming to civilized people? When civilization succeeds in eliminating crime, then penalties can be eliminated. Can we convince people that elimination of penalties will result in the elimination of crime? I think not.
I agree with those who contend that penalties should not be used as retaliation against criminals. Penalties should not be imposed by society for revenge. Penalties should be imposed to protect society by restraining criminals, by discouraging crime and by inspiring respect for law and order. Punishment adds
April 4. 1966

Criminal Code
substance to the promise of punishment. The ultimate protection therefore comes from the ultimate promise.
One of the arguments used for promoting the abolition of the death penalty is that mistakes have occurred in assessing guilt, and there is danger of an innocent person being executed. The weakness of this argument lies in the fact that if we accept it in connection with capital punishment we should be consistent and accept it in relation to all punishment. All punishments carry the same risk or error. Danger of error applies all across the board. Are we to withhold punishment for all wrong-doing because an innocent person may suffer?
The possibility of error in assessing guilt is a matter for the courts. Every person under our law is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The possibility of error in assessing guilt calling for capital punishment is no more valid as an argument in favour of abolition than is the possibility of error in assessing guilt for any other kind of crime, a reason for outlawing all punishment.
I believe that our present laws concerning capital punishment are as close as we can get to a fair balance between the exercise of mercy and the imposition of a penalty severe enough to discourage the crime of murder. In July, 1961, parliament revised the Criminal Code with regard to the crime of murder. Murders were divided into two classes, capital murder and non-capital murder. The list of killings coming under the heading of capital murder, for which judges are compelled to impose the death sentence, is very limited. It includes planned and deliberate murder and encompasses the murder of police officers and prison guards. All other killings are classed as non-capital murder and carry a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
Every death sentence must be reviewed by an appeal court and by the cabinet. The cabinet has the power to commute any sentence of death. Very few executions have taken place since this change in the Criminal Code was made.
I have no criticism to offer in this respect. I hope that governments can frequently find sufficient reason for commuting the death sentences that are imposed by our courts. I hope that some redeeming features and some hope for rehabilitation can be found in all murderers, but I remain convinced that the ultimate penalty should remain on our statute books to be used in the discretion of the
government when necessary to stay the hand of those who would deliberately kill their fellow men.
Penalty is the price for wrong-doing. The ultimate penalty is the price for the ultimate crime. Everybody pays. The guilty one, the family of the guilty one, the friends and neighbours of the guilty one, the police, the judge, the court officials, the sympathetic people of the nation. Everybody pays.
Our laws are a legacy from all the generations of mankind that have preceded us. Our laws are designed to promote the happiness and well-being of our generation and generations yet to come. They are the product of experience, of trial and error. They are made to fit human nature-not to fit human nature as we hope it might be, but to fit human nature as it is, as it has proved to be.
I wish to support the capital punishment law as revised in 1961. I believe it is good law and should be continued for a much longer period before further change is considered.
There is one matter I should like to place before this house, and I do so in all humility. I have not had the advantage of legal training but it does seem to me that a situation has developed which should be given serious consideration. An editorial in the Globe and Mail of Friday, March 25, outlines the attitude of a court dealing with a charge of murder. It states:
Mr. Justice Eric G. Moorhouse (the judge in the case) agreed to a reduction of the charge to one of non-capital murder after this had been requested by counsel for the defence and concurred in by the Crown. The accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offence.
This particular case involved the man charged with the rape murder of a five-year-old girl. The editorial continued:
There is nothing particularly unusual about this course until one considers the factors by which Judge Moorhouse apparently allowed himself to be guided. He commented: "I think this court is bound to take notice of the fact that the penalty for capital murder has not been exacted for some time, and in view of this I can see no useful purpose in proceeding with this case in the hope of obtaining a verdict of capital murder."
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I quote this in order to indicate that there is uncertainty in Canada today concerning the policy of applying our laws in this area of capital punishment. The death penalty is provided for in our Criminal Code, but there is doubt in the public mind about the extent to which it is being used. The judge's statement at Bracebridge indicates this. This debate and this decision by parliament is being

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
closely watched. If abolition is recommended by the house in the forthcoming vote there will be no problem, but if abolition does not carry, then there may be a measure of discrimination in the treatment of those now under sentence of death.
To allay any doubts about this I would recommend to the government that consideration be given to the commutation of all death sentences presently imposed. It is unjust that some death sentences should be considered under a set of conditions prior to a decision by this house and that other sentences should be considered after a decision is taken by the house, when in both cases the sentences have been imposed under the same set of laws and under the same set of circumstances. It would be much better if all sentences heretofore imposed be commuted before a decision is taken by the house, and then a new start could be made after that decision is made. I commend this to the consideration of the government.


Mr. Antonio Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my maiden speech in this house, I must admit quite frankly that I do so with deep sadness, due to the disgraceful events of the past weeks, and having to speak on such a serious, burning and controversial subject. I realize that everyone of us is entitled to his own opinion, keeping in mind that, as members of parliament, we are also spokesmen for our constituents.
Therefore, I wish to thank those who have helped me in taking what I believe is the best course by making their views known to me, even though I may disappoint those who do not share my views. But in a sound democracy, the minority must yield to the majority, and if the rules of the game are followed, there is less chance of coming to a deadlock or of causing misunderstanding. Starting from that principle, I am in favour of maintaining the death penalty for capital murder and my decision is based more on reason than on feelings.
Capital punishment must be applied to protect society and, in my opinion, it is not out of revenge but for the common weal. To abolish this penalty would result in depriving society of security and encourage contempt of the law.
If a criminal knows, when committing a crime, that the only punishment awaiting him

is detention in a penal institution, then society is actually looking for trouble. To oppose capital punishment is not necessarily an indication of great moral strength or of social progress; it could rather be a sign of decadence.
It is not so much a matter of knowing what is good for the criminal, than what is necessary to maintain order within society and to protect lives and also ensure the safety of the citizens. In fact, it is easier to pardon than to condemn in our times, when no personal prejudice is involved.
Man has a tendency to self-delusion, and deems himself wiser and kinder than God. Let us not forget either that man-made justice is only an earthly decision, willed by God; I am considering only the case where the guilty party is truly guilty. God withholds his heavenly judgment. It cannot be denied that earthly justice is not perfect as divine justice is.
Should we believe that all murders should be liable to capital punishment? Obviously not. We must not ask that capital punishment be applied to all cases. Judges and juries must then take everything into account to determine the degree of the murderer's responsibility.
Psychology, psychiatry, criminology, sociology must help them to differentiate between a fully conscious action and the deed committed by a murderer temporarily blinded by anger, jealousy, despair, circumstances, etc.
Consideration must also be given to the influences exerted, to family and community responsibilities, to the age of the culprit, whether it is a first murder or a relapse, and alway remember that, except in cases of utter degradation, man always maintains some freedom, hence some moral sense.
It can be deemed probable that certain tendencies to eliminate the concept of sin and repentance will be harshly judged in the future. Such an attitude makes it too easy to release a prisoner, giving him the opportunity to commit further crimes; furthermore, early release reduces the benefits.
To conclude, capital punishment cannot be rejected under the claim that man may not pass judgment on his neighbour. The judge, of course, must never seek to make a final decision on the culprit, since only God can do it, and has the right to do so, but he must weight the deeds and seek to determine the degree of responsibility.
April 4, 1966

II this responsibility is clearly established, and if extenuating circumstances are definitely inadequate, the judge may have to condemn the accused, but never in a vindictive spirit or according to the "eye for an eye" philosophy.
On the contrary, he must do it only to protect society and with a feeling of suffering and humiliation, for the whole of society must also feel partly responsible for the wrongdoings of the accused and if the state is denied the right to take the life of one of its members, it should, by the same token, be denied the right to deprive a man of his freedom forever, leaving him without hope of freedom or rehabilitation. The argument for the substitution of life imprisonment to capital punishment is thus deceptive. However, I would favour a less inhuman means of execution than hanging.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I have tried to present my personal views, freely and according to my own conscience. Before resuming my seat, may I take this opportunity, since I could not do so earlier, which explains my lateness, to congratulate you on your appointment, which I do as warmly and sincerely as those who spoke before me.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do so with a full realization of the fact that the matter of the abolition or the retention of capital punishment can be the subject of much emotional sentimentality and argument which in the final analysis will contribute very little to the final determination of the question. This, of course, is a very controversial issue in respect of which attitudes in many cases are deeply rooted and highly motivated in the minds of the respective advocates. They are capable of arousing powerful emotions. We must, therefore, be careful not to stigmatize the abolitionist as necessarily being on the side of crime and castigate him for wasting his sympathy on cold-blooded killers by the same token, those who favour retention must not be stigmatized necessarily as being heartless and lacking in mercy.
This, as I said, is a very controversial issue in respect of which good people honestly are divided, all having high motives in their respective convictions and each advocating that which he thinks is best for society. You
Criminal Code
might ask yourself why anybody from the province of Prince Edward Island would even interest himself in the question of capital punishment, because in the four year period from 1961 to 1964 inclusive we have had only one murder in that province, resulting in one victim. As a matter of fact, statistics will indicate that we have the lowest incidence of crime of any province of Canada. In the last year for which Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures are available we had only 81 persons charged with indictable offences, resulting in only 75 convictions-one in every 1,440 people, the lowest by far of any province in Canada.
We are justifiably proud of the law-abiding tendencies of the people of our small province, of the very effective work done by our police forces in suppressing serious crime, and the very efficient work done by our social agencies in diverting in some other direction those who may have a possible propensity to crime. We have approximately 21,000 young people in our province between the ages of 10 and 19 years and of that number, during 1965, we had only 35 brought before the juvenile court. This represents only one in every 600 between the ages of 10 and 19. I suggest this is a remarkable record and a very clear indication that fathers and mothers are giving more than mere lip service to respect for the law, and are instilling this same respect in their children. I am sure that had we more of this, the retention or abolition of capital punishment might not loom so large on the Canadian horizon today.
I am very interested in an article which appeared recently in an issue of The Christian Science Monitor, entitled "Are you a delinquent citizen?" It asks the question "Where does crime start?" and continues to state that the answers are almost unanimous.
Whether couched in psychiatric terms, in the scholarly language of the educator, or in the hard vernacular of the professional policemen, all point in one direction: the home.
Another major institution that can and does help prevent delinquency is the church.
These factors, as I say, are important; if we had more direction from the home base, we might not be so concerned about the abolition or retention of capital punishment. I am convinced, however, that we in this house have an almost inescapable obligation, irrespective of where we come from, to speak out on any social problem of such magnitude and importance as this. I think the government is to be congratulated for bringing the question before us in such a manner that we are able to vote on it without regard to party lines.

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
In Canada, for the past three years, we have been abolishing capital punishment by commutation of the death sentence, by cabinet order. This, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, is a quite dangerous practice and one which is very unsatisfactory, unless the jury which has tried the case has recommended mercy for the accused.
After having made a rather careful study of what purpose capital punishment is intended to serve, and after having given careful thought to how it has achieved that purpose, I cannot but conclude that complete abolition would endanger the lives of our citizens and would do away with the greatest safeguard the police have in dealing with dangerous criminals. Complete abolition would, I maintain, endanger the lives of our citizens, because I do not think there is anything which will achieve the degree of deterrence so much as punishment by possible loss of life. It is true that it has failed as a deterrent after the murder is committed, but that does not mean that it may not have deterred many other people, and we will never know how many people have abandoned the idea of murder because of the fear of execution if they are caught and convicted. We are not able to examine the mental processes and attitudes of the potential murderer. We cannot look into his heart to see what actually goes on there.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Human nature being what it is, it is very difficult for me to be convinced that somewhere along the line-and I speak now of course only of deliberate planned murder-the person planning the murder did not think of the penalty. After all, it is only common sense to assume that what will happen if you are caught forms a part of your thinking. When murder is premeditated, I maintain that the consequences in the event of detection must certainly be taken into consideration. It has been very correctly said that no value is stronger than that attached to the preservation of life, and I submit that proof of this lies in the fact that every accused murderer fights for his life at his trial and will not give up until he has carried his case to the highest courts available to him, and has exhausted every means at his disposal to maintain and prove his innocence.
Abolitionists will argue that there is always the danger of an innocent person being convicted and put to death. That is possible, Mr. Speaker, because we do not have a perfect system; but it is not I suggest ever a practical argument because our system of law adminis-

tration in dealing with murder cases provides the necessary safeguards to protect the really innocent.
First of all, we have an inquest into a death. Then we have a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. Then, in those provinces which still maintain the grand jury system, we have an inquiry by the grand jury to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence against an accused to warrant putting him on trial, or to warrant bringing in a true bill against him. Should a grand jury determine that a true bill is warranted, then we have the trial itself before an impartial judge and 12 independent and impartial jurors-peers of the accused. A verdict is rendered not by the judge but by the 12 impartial men.
After all this, when an accused is convicted by a petty jury he then has the right to appeal, and this right is provided whether he requests it or not. During all these steps the accused is represented by competent counsel and if he cannot afford his own, one is provided for him at no expense. No man is allowed to plead guilty under our law to a charge of capital murder. I am satisfied that no accused is discriminated against by reason of wealth, race, colour or creed in so far as the application of the death penalty is concerned.
Justice is a relative concept which changes with the type of crime. This principle is recognized throughout all our codified law. I think it was the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) who pointed out during his speech that a minor traffic violation, for example, is not subject to as severe a penalty as is a conviction for breaking and entering. A conviction for breaking and entering is not subject to as severe a penalty as a conviction for armed robbery, and so on down the line. The punishment inflicted should, and I submit it does, reflect our abhorrence of the crime. Planned and deliberate murder is one of the most abhorred and, therefore, the punishment inflicted should be a mark of our revulsion for it.
Having established, at least to my own satisfaction, that the death penalty has a specific deterrent, that it has a deterring effect which would not result from any other form of punishment, I must assume the position that it should be retained in respect of all cases of capital murder. I am therefore obliged to vote against the present resolution.
April 4, 1966


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resiigouche-Mada-waska):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to unduly prolong the debate but I want just the same to make a few remarks in order to explain how I will vote.
I think that I owe it to my constituents and to those who got in touch with me to give the reason for my decision.
As a former crown prosecutor, it was given to me to fight crime and my natural tendency is certainly not to pamper criminals. However, on the occasion of this debate, like all hon. members in this house, I had to study a number of documents favouring abolition or retention of the death penalty. I felt I had to do some research, to listen to several excellent speeches made in this house and most of all, to give that matter some thought.
I must admit that I was in favour of retaining the death penalty. I accepted as a matter of fact the proposition that the death penalty was an efficient deterrent, that it was a protection for the society, that it was a just punishment, and that in any case, our sympathy should go to the parents of the victim rather than to the criminal himself. I realized that hanging was a barbaric act, but I accepted it as being without any alternative and necessary to protect society.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have now changed my mind and I do not hesitate to say that I will vote for the abolition of the death penalty.
I do not intend to mention in this brief speech all the arguments which influenced my decision. Besides, I would only be repeating what others have said better.
Allow me to add that I was greatly inspired by the debate in this house, by the writings of Thorsten Sellin, Arthur Maloney and Arthur Martin, also by comments made by Father Ambroise on a radio program called 'Chez Miville", and by three articles by Father Jean-Paul Regimbald which were published quite recently in Le Devoir.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the first question which arises is whether the death penalty really protects society.
As pointed out by Father Regimbald, whose name I just mentioned, and who is a former prison chaplain, there are three types of murderers:
(1)	The calculating murderer who plans his crimes before hand.
(2)	The emotional murderer who commits his crime under stress;
Criminal Code
(3)	The hired murderer, a mercenary who kills for money.
The first one, the calculating murderer, only acts when he is convinced that all his preparations are so perfect that he will not even be arrested.
The second one, the murderer carried away by passion, does not even think of the death penalty.
As for the hired killer, he is not afraid of anything, not even of dying.
Therefore, it seems that capital punishment is not too effective to deter the three kinds of murderers from committing their crimes.
As a matter of fact, there is no indication that abolition of the death penalty, in certain countries or some American states, resulted in an increase of murders.
Statistics referring to American states or other countries that have abolished or retained capital punishment were quoted several times in the house. Tonight, I wish to give but a few examples.
Wisconsin, Maine and Michigan, three states which abolished capital punishment, have the following rates of murder per 100,000 population: 0.9, 1.4 and 3.3 respectively. On the other hand, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia show rates of 7.7, 10.1 and 10.3 respectively. And yet those last three states have retained the death penalty.
It is true that those six states are not located in the same region, so that comparisons are imperfect. But, even when you compare American states in the same area and with similar population distributions, statistics do not reveal any increase in the number of murders in those where capital punishment was abolished.
In New England and Massachusetts, where capital punishment has been retained, the incidence is 1.8 for every 100,000 people, while in Maine, as I said a moment ago, where capital punishment has been abolished, the incidence is 1.4.
Therefore, it is far from being proven that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.
If the death penalty is not an efficient deterrent, should it nevertheless be retained as a punishment? Is it conceivable that, in 1966, our civilization has not made sufficient progress to rid itself of the law of retaliation?
Can we really find support in the Holy Scripture to maintain that the state should kill murderers?

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord said: "Ye have heard that it hath been said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also . . and, in Mathew 5:17: "I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it."
The first murderer was Cain. Did God take his life for having killed his brother? He cursed and banished him, but he marked him so that no one would hit him.
Is it not a basic principle of Christianity that God does not want the death of the sinner but his conversion?
The human being slowly progressed from the cave to the tribe and to society. It also progressed from the club to the stake to hanging. Must it now stop at the rope or the electric chair? Or must it not find a civilized solution in keeping with its level of civilization?
Of course, the abolition of capital punishment must not mean that society will no longer be protected.
In general terms, life imprisonment will have to be substituted for capital punishment.
Our penitentiaries will also have to be completely reformed to give prisoners modern and adequate psychiatric and psychological care in order to rehabilitate them.
It will be necessary to find ways of making prisoners useful and productive so that their work may compensate the state for its expenditure.
Perhaps we should study the possibility of prisoners working outside penitentiaries and contributing to the development of our natural resources in certain parts of the country such as the North, where escape is practically impossible.
If our system of rehabilitation and discharge is sufficiently improved, the day may come when some definitely rehabilitated and repentant criminals will be able to resume normal life and pay their debt to society by their contribution.
I think that a decision in favour of the abolition of capital punishment would be a positive gesture worthy of the high reputation of this house and would provide a magnificent ending to a memorable debate of which we may justly be proud.

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
[English1


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to enter into the debate on whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, beyond pointing out the fact that those in this house who have advanced the idea that capital punishment is no deterrent have been able to bring forward statistical proof, or statistical evidence, shall I say, and sociological studies that appear to bear out their position, while those who are convinced that capital punishment is a deterrent have been completely unable to advance any statistical or sociological studies that would bear out their position.
I think one of our problems in a case like this is the question of what lies at the back of our thinking and attitudes. This is one of the most difficult things for human beings to discover. We have to, as it were, sneak up on ourselves to find out just what makes us behave as we do, just what makes us take the positions that we take; and all of us, of course, have a tendency to rationalize our position and assure ourselves and others that we take this position from at least a logical point of view, and perhaps from considerations of nobility.
I suggest that our attitude toward murder is based on terror and fear, because murder is a fearful and a terrible thing. It drives home to us suddenly the very thin shell of civilization that protects us from violence and a relapse into savagery. As a consequence we have very strong emotional reactions against murder. But I would suggest that fear and terror are poor counsellors.
I have also noticed in the course of this debate a strange confusion between personal, individual indignation and rage and outrage, and public policy. I do not suggest there is anyone here-I would hope there is not-who coming across a murderer in the process of committing his crime would not do his best perhaps to kill that murderer with his bare hands. In some circumstances he certainly would, without any consideration of what led the man to take this step, without any consideration of the various factors involved, but merely immediately to try and destroy that man in rage and fury. However, Mr. Speaker, I submit that is a very different thing from agreeing to have somebody else later, many months later, destroy this life, on our behalf, in cold blood.
April 4, 1966

Criminal Code
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I would expect that most of us would do this because it is a generous impulse that provokes this rage and indignation. But it is not a generous impulse that suggest, "Let us get the hangman. Let him go and hang this man for us." I say this because I think we should realize that in no murder trial is it possible for all the facts to come out. The facts go far behind the actual crime of murder. I have heard a great deal in this debate about protecting society from those aberrant individuals, but I have heard practically nothing in this debate about protecting the individual from what society does to him. Unless we can go along the strange, dark, twisted road that a human being has to go before he finally commits the crime of murder, we are in no position whatever to judge him. We are judging not a man who has suddenly become a murderer, we are judging a man who, through force of circumstances or how society has treated him, has been twisted and brought to the point where he is able to commit this crime.
I think the proof of our real attitude toward this fellow, Mr. Speaker, is how we go about it. We do not take the murderer and hang him in the market place. We do it in the dead of night. We do it in secret and in private. Whenever we do something on those terms, it is something we are ashamed of doing, otherwise we would not do it this way. We are ashamed of it even though we will not admit it.
Usually we are ashamed of evil things. I know there are many who are not convinced by this argument. I know there are many who still have fears and apprehensions they have been unable to overcome. They have been unable to overcome their quite natural fear of murder. To those I would say the amendment produced this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) putting forth the idea of a five-year trial period, should be the answer. Last year in November in Great Britain the British House of Commons passed the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act. It was passed on November 9, 1965 and is to expire on July 31, 1970, unless the British parliament by affirmative resolution of both houses otherwise determines. The abolition of the death penalty for murder was for offences corresponding to murder, murder under the Army Act and under the Naval Discipline Act, and substitutes instead a sentence of imprisonment for 23033-2431
life, except in the case of a person under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence, who is to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.
On sentencing a person to imprisonment for life, as above, the court may declare the period which it recommends as the minimum period which should elapse before release on licence; and no person convicted of murder is to be released on licence unless the secretary of state has had prior consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, together with the trial judge if available.
The act reads as follows, Mr. Speaker:
No person shall suffer death for murder, and a person convicted of murder shall, subject to subsection 5 below, be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
On sentencing any person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life the court may at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the secretary of state as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the secretary of state orders the release of that person on licence under section-
For the purpose of a proceeding on or subsequent to a person's trial on a charge of capital murder, that charge and any plea or finding of guilt of capital murder shall be treated as being or having been a charge, or a plea or finding of guilty, of murder only: and if at the commencement of this act a person is under sentence for murder, the sentence shall have effect as a sentence of imprisonment for life.
I would plead with those who, after giving serious consideration to this, feel they cannot support the abolition of capital punishment without some provisos, to give this five-year trial period a chance. Let us see what comes out of it. Five years should be sufficient to settle this argument as to whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent.


Clément Vincent: We have had a three-and-a-half year trial now.


Colin Cameron: Yes, we have had a three and a half year trial. If we want to take that into consideration, then there is your proof that capital punishment is no deterrent and that the abolition of capital punishment does not promote homicide.
I am suggesting that unless you are prepared to accept that, and any rational person would be, then we now have a chance to have a certain set period from the date of the passage of the amendment to the Criminal Code, in which to see if the statistics which we have had to date are borne out during that five-year period. As I said, I am not going to enter into any argument as to

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
whether it is a deterrent. Nor am I going to enter into the argument on religious grounds because I do not feel qualified to do so. I suggest to those who have been quoting biblical authorities for the taking of human life by capital punishment, that there is more than one portion of the Bible. Perhaps closer attention to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth rather than to some of the more blood thirsty prophets of the Old Testament might produce religious arguments more in keeping with the spirit of today.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment will carry and that the resolution as amended will carry. I say that all those who feel that capital punishment is a blot on our present civilization, and all those who fear its abolition, will have at least part of their point of view represented for five years, to see which has the right of it in this serious moral question of taking human life.
May I call it ten o'clock.


George James McIlraith: Before ten o'clock is called, may I ask that we continue the sitting to debate this issue? I suggest that we sit for another hour and a half and I also suggest that there be an understanding that there will be no vote taken tonight. We would provide for hon. members to make speeches for another hour and a half if that is agreeable.


Mr. Siarr:: First, of all, may I say this is agreeable to us. I should like to ask for clarification of one point. We now have an amendment before us, and there is the likelihood another amendment will be introduced. Will all these amendments be voted upon at 5.45 tomorrow, or is there a possibility of voting prior to that time?


George James McIlraith: The order of the house is so drafted that there is a possibility of a vote on any amendment being taken at any time during the debate. The order provides that tomorrow at 5.45 the proceedings shall be interrupted and any amendments then before the house must be voted upon at that point. This order is to permit further amendments; but an amendment could be voted upon at any time before that.
My suggestion is that we agree that there will be no vote taken tonight in view of the hour, but that hon. members be permitted to speak for another hour and a half.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is just one problem with regard to sitting late, and I think we can resolve it. I refer to the debate on the

adjournment motion. I remind the house leader that we deferred these questions from last Tuesday night, so there is a backlog of them. I wonder if we could agree to having the adjournment debate right now, so we do not keep the ministers and others here too late. Then we could return to this capital punishment debate until 11.30.
[DOT] (10:00 n.m.)


George James McIlraith: No; since there is a limited time for this debate on the abolition of capital punishment, I should like to feel that all hon. members who wish will have an opportunity to speak. Surely we could make some other arrangement regarding proceedings on the adjournment motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the minister suggest?


George James McIlraith: That we have the questions retain their order of precedence and that we take them tomorrow night on the adjournment motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that this house will sit until 11.30 p.m., on the understanding that there will be no division tonight?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be clear that included in the order is the understanding that the questions which were to be taken tonight on adjournment will retain their present status and be taken tomorrow night.


George James McIlraith: They will retain their present order of precedence and will be taken tomorrow night after ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house agree with the observations made by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), in addition to what I said previously, that we sit until 11.30 p.m. and that no division will take place tonight?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Nanimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I was just standing up to say that I have finished my argument, and I would like somebody else to carry on now.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, our attention has been focused on the subject of capital punishment for some months now in view of the promise of this debate. It has
April 4, 1966

been our duty to look into the subject carefully, and probably all of us have done so. We have read statistics and claims regarding both sides of the question, as well as considered views pro and con from any interested sources. I have been wrestling, even writhing, with my thoughts on this question for some time now. Many of my constituents from Spadina have endeavoured to be, and have been, of assistance to me with their letters and articles. Recently 1 circulated a questionnaire throughout my riding which included the capital punishment question. Many replied to the question, but their answers showed that opinion was divided about 50-50.
Several weeks ago I thought I could resolve my quandary by being in favour of the abolition of capital punishment except for certain types of particularly heinous murders, such as those which result from the exploding of a bomb on an aircraft or the premeditated poisoning of a testator. But the manner in which the resolution is framed leaves me no escape. To vote no would be to turn back the clock to the days when it was essential summarily and crudely to dispose of antisocial human beings; to the day when there was no other practical way to deal with them and with the menace they constituted; to the day of the sadistic guillotine, of garrotting and the gallows. To vote no would be to continue to sanction the crudity and the obsenity of hanging, the human species out of hate, not out of necessity.
The state undoubtedly has the right, a right it no longer exercises, to take an eye for an eye or a limb for a limb. So why should it insist any longer on a life for a life, taken in such revolting and vindictive fashion, as was the case in Canada up until three years ago? To vote no would be to continue the risk, even with the safeguards of our advanced society, of sending an innocent or even an insane person to the gallows. For the law is certainly not an exact science, something for which the lawyer is prepared to vouch. Medicine cannot always detect a man's aberrations in advance of trouble, or afterwards. We just do not know how many brain complications have altered a man's personality or impaired his tolerance for alcohol. As Oscar Wilde well put it:
No man can tell to what red hell His sightless soul may stray.
To vote an absolute no would be to fail our advancing civilization and its increasing respect for the sanctity of human life. But to vote "yes" means asking some very serious
Criminal Code
questions: Is capital punishment more of a deterrent than life imprisonment, and will its enforcement save innocent lives? It means sparing from the gallows all murderers, traitors and pirates without exception and substituting for the death penalty a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
I am not sure whether capital punishment is more of a deterrent, or much of a deterrent at all, or whether it does or does not save innocent lives. This is my uncertain conclusion after examining the statistics available in the material with which we have been suppled. To give an example. In the decade of the 20's, when times were good, and in the 30's when times were bad there were many more capital crimes committed in Canada than in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. In the United States, the states which do not have the death penalty are mostly northern states, and these states have a low murder rate anyway. In 1953 the murder rate in Georgia was 14 times as high as in North Dakota and Minnesota, though the state of Georgia had capital punishment and the latter two states had not. I could pick out illustrations which might tend to show the reverse and prove that capital punishment is more of a deterrent than life imprisonment. But I find nothing that is really convincing. I feel I could maintain equally well the thesis that when the state takes a life by violence it encourages individuals to feelings of a similar kind.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
For these reasons, subject to the questions of proper punishment and prevention, I can only conclude that the abolition of capital punishment in this country for the entire future makes sense, and somewhat to my own surprise I find my investigations have led me to support the whole principle and not just a part of it. This is why I did not vote for the amendment which was put earlier this day. The sanctity of human life must, it seems to me, be the deciding factor, and having taken this view it is indivisible. I recall the famous words of Sir Marshall Hall, the great English barrister, who shook many a jury with these words in capital cases:
How can you teach your children mercy and reverence for life when by your actions, your verdicts and your speech you contradict the very things you teach?
Unlike one hon. member who spoke earlier in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I feel with Marshall Hall that there is an element of inconsistency and contrariness in the state's taking life in the hope of deterring the taking of like. I have considered advocating the dispatching

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
of certain traitors and murderers by more humane methods, but consideration of the principle involved prevents me from picking and choosing. Despite animal-like behaviour I am not prepared to admit that man is an animal, even when he is dangling at the end of a rope, or burning in a chair, or being boiled in oil as used to be the case in the old days.
We cannot hope to instil reverence for life in those who kill when they are insane; but they are not executed. We can hope to make progress with the ignorant and the underprivileged, and in Canada we have already done so and can continue to do so. Our capital crime rate is about one third of that in the United States. Some southern states have ten times as much trouble as we do in this respect.
In the United States in 1935 there were 199 persons executed. By 1964, due to the abolition of capital punishment, and commutations, only 15 persons were executed in the whole of the United States. This shows that our neighbouring society is either recognizing the preciousness of human life or the utter futility of exacting a life for a life.
There were many who were not unhappy with the distinction between capital and noncapital murder as defined by the last Conservative regime. Many thought that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), as the then minister of justice, had affected some admirable amendments to the Criminal Code, but now it is plain that they have been scuppered by the age old prerogative of commutation, an executive act.
This was a likelihood that no one foresaw or admitted as likely at the time. The power of commutation was originally intended to be exercised only in cases of grave political import, cases peculiarly involving the interest and security of the state. Gradually this power became the "rule of no law" in the hands of the cabinet, and particularly so after capital murder was defined. This power to pick and choose a victim with an uneven hand was soon so obviously unfair and reprehensible that this government has been led to the position where all death sentences to date have been commuted.
I say to hon. members that I am not blaming either the former government or this government for this evolutionary and conditioning development, but I would like to make it clear that after sparing 20 or more murderers by commutation over the last

three years, to be absolutely fair, just and consistent this country is almost committed to abolish capital punishment for all crimes for all time.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that sure detection, swift apprehension and proper punishment are the real deterrents to crime. In my own mind there only remain the questions of proper punishment and proper prevention. These are all that remain to be considered in respect to this resolution. In this connection I strongly feel that a mandatory life sentence for offences, that by definition in our Criminal Code presently bear the death sentence, is a proper punishment if it is carried out or is substantially carried out.
Our practice in Canada has been to consider a life sentence as a sentence of 21 years only and that lifers be released after serving about 12 years, or even the minimum requirement of 10 years for good behaviour. This practice is so common that a 25 year sentence is more feared than a life sentence by a hardened criminal. Mr. Speaker, the Parole Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1958, chapter 38, provided that certain regulations could be passed in respect of time of parole. Regulations were passed on two occasions subsequent to the passage of the act. The most recent regulations were brought into effect by order in council, 1827 on December 3, 1964. By these amended regulations, section 2 of the Parole Regulations, as it then existed, was revoked and the following substituted therefor-and I will read only part of it:
(3)	A person who Is serving a sentence of imprisonment to which a sentence of death has been commuted, shall serve the entire term of the sentence of imprisonment unless, upon the recommendation of the board, the governor in council otherwise directs.
(4)	The board shall not recommend a parole, in a case coming within subsection (3). until at least ten years of the term of the imprisonment have been served.
So the floor is now ten years. After that a prisoner can apply for parole even though he is sentenced to life. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I maintain the punishment is insufficient; there is not sufficient protection against repetition, and the house should therefore, I submit, amend the Parole Act and its regulations to put in a floor of at least 21 years on paroles in respect of a mandatory life sentence. I would settle for 20.
If a person be convicted of non-capital murder, as we presently understand it, then I would have no objection to part (c) of the resolution, save that these cases probably
April 4, 1966

should not go to the governor in council at all; but if a person be convicted of treason, piracy or capital murder as we presently understand them, then the application of part
(c)	with its open door feature should be of grave concern to all hon. members. I suggest to all hon. members that there should be a guarantee in the public interest that a person guilty of murder in one of the worst categories that we already have catalogued, and know as capital murder, should not be paroled or pardoned for at least 21 years.
I submit this is necessary in order that this resolution may have the confidence of more members of this house and the confidence of the public.
So that there would be no possibility of any tampering with the carrying out of a life imprisonment sentence in what are regarded as capital murder cases or the equivalent, I was going to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh), but I was anticipated by another amendment; however, that amendment would have been that the resolution be amended by adding to paragraph (c) of the said resolution the following words:
Provided that no such release shall take place in a case where the death penalty is now mandatory before such person has served at least 21 complete years of such life imprisonment sentence in prison.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible for me to move that amendment to the main motion tomorrow.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by pointing out something that this house and the country seems to have completely overlooked. There seems to be a general feeling that the final vote tomorrow night will settle something about the question of capital punishment in Canada. That vote will settle nothing and the outcome will make absolutely no difference in the law of this country concerning capital punishment.
What we are discussing is a motion made by four hon. members suggesting that legislation ought to be introduced. What we are voting on tomorrow night, including any amendment, is a sort of a straw vote in order to ascertain how members feel about the question of capital punishment. It is nothing more than that. We will be voting on a motion proposed by private members which suggests certain things to the government. If that motion passes the government may or may not bring in legislation and it is entirely
Criminal Code
up to the government to decide how to act after the motion has been debated and voted upon.
After our vote, the government may bring in legislation which is entirely different from the wording or general intent of the motion. Although the government must give some general consideration to the result of the vote, it is not obliged to do anything that is suggested by the motion. If the motion fails, the government may still bring in legislation. Whichever way the vote goes, the government must make its own decision.
Even more difficult is the fact that if the vote is close, and it has been suggested it may well be, the whole question will be as unsettled as it is now. The real decision, if one is to be made, will be made at the second reading stage of any bill which is brought in.
I point out that fact for this reason. If the vote is close, either for abolition or retention of the death penalty, it is merely a straw vote which does not settle anything. If the vote tomorrow night is in favour of abolishing the death penalty it will not mean that a bill abolishing the death penalty would be carried on second reading.
The decisions of this house are made by the majority of those present and voting on a question before the house. If we have a close vote tomorrow, a vote on another occasion in respect of another question might easily produce another result. I merely point out that the vote tomorrow is not going to settle the question of capital punishment, unless there is a substantial majority on one side or the other. If there is a substantial majority, I think the government is safe in assuming that if it brings in a bill in accordance with that expressed substantial opinion of the house, it will carry.
I point this out at the beginning of my remarks because I read in the newspapers and keep hearing members of the house say that we are going to settle the matter on a vote, and thank goodness the vote is coming tomorrow night. But we are not voting on the question of capital punishment tomorrow night at all. We are not going to change the law. We are not voting on legislation. We are just taking a sort of general opinion on how members feel about this question. We will have to start the whole procedure over again and the government will in the end have to take responsibility in regard to legislation, whether the vote does one way or the other. I believe that a vote at this point is desirable and we should have it quickly. I support the

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
intention to have a vote tomorrow night because I believe we should obtain the feeling of members of the house on this question.
I also believe we should not adopt the amendments. I should like to see a straight vote on this question. If members of the house agree to abolish capital punishment, and there is a substantial feeling in this regard, then let that be done. If members of the house are not of this opinion, let us know that also. But the question should be settled in this way and we hope for a majority opinion so there will be a clear indication with regard to a bill to be brought in by the government that would meet the wishes of the house.
I would indicate that I shall vote against the motion in its present form because I do not believe in the absolute and final abolition of the death penalty, and I shall vote against any amendments that are brought in unless they go toward bringing about a clean vote on this subject, so that we know where we stand.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, if it appears to be the majority, and the substantial majority, will of the house that we abolish capital punishment, this will not make me feel badly. I shall go along with the result, but will vote against the motion in any event.
I should like to say just a few words on the main subject. The hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) spoke earlier this evening and expressed my own views very well. For this reason I shall cut down my own remarks. My neighbour in the house, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse), advised me that if he did not have a chance to speak in the debate, he also agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex West.
When the debate was opened by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), he took a backward look to 1810 when the penalty of death could be imposed for theft from a shop. It does seem strange to us now, but it was not considered at all outrageous then in the context of the social conditions under which people lived. As social conditions changed and the concepts of property, legal and moral rights and obligations developed, the offence of burglary became less serious and human life more sacred. I have no doubt that 100 years from now this debate will seem strange to those who may look back on it. It will not seem strange because of the result, but because we had to have the debate at all.

I predict that with the changes and advances in medical, social and legal knowledge, the surprise of these people will be that we had not sufficiently advanced to the point where we could by medical science and sociological approaches do something more realistic toward criminals than we are now able to do. However, Mr. Speaker, we are not living 100 years from now; we are living in 1966, and our duty is first to those among whom we live and their best interests and protection in the world of today. We have a duty to the future. We have a duty to bring about a society where no one will commit murder and no one will have to be punished. In the meantime, however, the unpleasant duties of society must be met, as they always have been, in a direct way. We cannot look at other countries, at other societies, at other times.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
So far as I am concerned, I will welcome the day when the penalty of death can be abolished. That day will come when medical science has delved into the human mind, and can straighten out the warped, vicious and antisocial behaviour of those who are a menace to society, whether in or out of custody. That day will come when a sentence of life imprisonment can do something more for the soul, mind and spirit of the convict than to let him rot in the hopelessness of despair or become a human vegetable. That day will come when our concern for human welfare goes beyond that very small segment of our people who have purposely set out to contravene the fundamental law: Thou shalt not kill. That day has not yet come.
Society cannot take a timid approach to the unpleasant things of life. Neither can parliament nor the government. We must constantly search for more humane, more realistic, more enlightened methods of achieving the protection of society from those among us who acknowledge no moral, human or devine laws. Such change is not necessarily an improvement because it is easier, more pleasant or less abrasive on the sensitivities of those who abhor violence. It is only an improvement if it achieves its objective in an easier way. Statistics are quoted on both sides of the question as to whether the possibility of losing his own life deters a person with murder in his heart. Until it is proven otherwise, it is normal to assume that it does. But being in doubt, if I must choose between the protection of society and the protection of the convicted murderer, I choose society.
April 4. 1966

In 1961 we took the step of holding forfeit with their own lives only those who deliberately planned and carried out the death of another. We divided murder into capital and non-capital. The usefulness of this legislation has never been tested, because in 1963 the present government abrogated the law by commuting all sentences. The 1961 act has never been given a reasonable trial before we are asked to take the next step of complete and final abolition. If the House decides to take this step now, then so be it. But as I stated at the beginning, I am not personally convinced that we in Canada are ready for it, nor willing to accept it; nor am I so convinced myself. I will vote against the motion for abolition.
As I indicated in the beginning, I will vote against the motion. As for any amendments, my feeling is that you cannot abolish the death penalty and still retain it in some cases. If it is morally wrong to take a person's life in punishment, then the crime itself is not relevant at all. This I think is logic, but I cannot go along with this premise. I cannot believe, therefore, there is a half way measure. If we are going to change the law this time, we should either go the whole way or leave it as it is, with the division between capital and non-capital murder.
I should like to see a vote on the main motion without any amendments. I conclude with the obvious remark that many of my constituents, many of my friends, have come to a different conclusion than I. However at this point the responsibility is mine, and I intend to vote against final and absolute abolition of the death penalty.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):: I should like to intervene, Mr. Speaker, to explain as briefly as I can to my constituents and to hon. members why I am voting for the motion before the house to abolish the death penalty in respect of all offences under the criminal code. Quite a number of years ago I sat on the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which was set up to consider and study, amongst other things, the subject of capital punishment. When I was appointed to that committee I must say that I was strongly in favour of the retention of capital punishment. After listening to the evidence presented to the committee, however, I was persuaded beyond a doubt that capital punishment should be abolished.
Criminal Code
The evidence presented to that committee was overwhelmingly in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. No significant evidence worth serious consideration was to my mind brought before the committee to support the retention of capital punishment, and I can recall the surprise of many, as the voting took place at the conclusion of the committee's hearings, when I voted for the abolition of capital punishment.
The entire subject of capital punishment was dealt with very fully at that time by the joint committee. The result of its findings was a tie vote which was broken only, as I recall, by the votes of the joint chairmen of the committee in favour of retention of capital punishment.
I am of the opinion that at the present time in my constituency, as far as I can ascertain, the majority of the people are in favour of the retention of capital punishment. But I believe that as their representative in parliament I would not be doing my duty if I voted otherwise than what I intend to do in connection with the resolution now before us. I believe that my constitutents would expect me to take advantage of all that I had the opportunity to learn and study when this subject was thoroughly discussed by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons some 10 or 11 years ago. With all the information funished me and others who sat on the committee at the time I came to the sure conclusion that, according to the best evidence available to parliament, capital punishment should be abolished, I am sure that the people I represent in this house would expect me to follow my own findings as a result of the studies made available to me and others at the time, and to parliament as a whole.
As I said Mr. Speaker, at that time we heard the best evidence available; and I am satisfied from what I have since read and from any work I have done on the subject that this same evidence is the best available to us at the present time.
The overwhelming opinion of the experts is that the death penalty should be abolished. In addition, capital punishment is gradually being abolished all over the world in one country after another, particularly in the advanced nations, as we regard them, which are forward-looking and which have made a very detailed study of the subject. In many of these countries capital punishment as been abolished for years, as hon. members know.
Criminal Code

April 4, 1966
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
The scholarly address of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) influenced me very much in this debate. He was most convincing. And the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoken earlier today were, as usual, of great force and effect.
I do not need to review the reasons which nave been given to the house in support of the necessity for abolishing capital punishment. I believe these are abundantly clear. At least it is clear to myself, after study and upon careful consideration, that I must support the motion before the house to abolish capital punishment, as set forth in the terms of that proposal. I do not think I need take up any more time tonight on this matter, since the subject has been so fully dealt with by other hon. members.


Mr. Eric Siefanson (Selkirk):: I do not
intend to take up the time of the house for very long. However I do wish to make a few comments on the private members notice of motion which is now before the house. This motion in the name of several private members in effect recommends the abolition of capital punishment. 1 have listened with interest to all those I have heard speak, and I have read in Hansard the speeches of those who have spoken while I was absent from the chamber. The calibre of debate has been high and many excellent speeches have been made both for the abolition and for the retention of capital punishment.
I had intended to go into detail to give the reasons I am voting against the motion before the house, but similar reasons have been advanced by other speakers so I do not think there is need to repeat them. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) who has just resumed his seat said that though he had been against it in the past he was now supporting the motion. Yet he did not advance any substantial evidence to explain why he had changed his mind.
When the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) addressed the house a few minutes ago, he too, spoke in favour of this motion. He talked about advancing civilization and sparing from the gallows all those who have been convicted of murder. I do not feel these are arguments to advance in favour of changing the present law.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) gave an excellent address and one with which I agree very much.

He is a member of the legal profession, as is the hon. member for Spadina, yet these two hon. members have different ideas on this subject. I certainly support wholeheartedly the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka; I think they were very well documented. I am not a lawyer; I am only a layman and perhaps I do not understand the niceties of this particular problem. However I have spent a lot of time studying this question and I have given a lot of thought to it. I have arrived at my own decision with sincerity and to the best ability of my judgment and my conscience.
Like other members of the house, I have received many letters from constituents, some advocating abolition and some retention. Likewise I have received letters from people outside my constituency, and briefs from organizations expressing support for one side or the other and, in so doing, soliciting my support for their side. I am sure all those who have communicated with me and have come out for one side or the other, realize that, whatever decision I arrive at, I shall do so according to my own conscience. I am not maintaining that the decision which I have arrived at is right and that those who hold different views are wrong. I could be wrong; nevertheless I have arrived at this decision with sincerity and according to my own conscience.
I do not want to be told by those who advocate abolition that their stand is progressive, and that those of us who hold different views are barbarians or are uncivilized. They have a right to their own views and I, likewise, am entitled to mine.
I am certain all hon. members have given a great deal of thought to this subject, and that those who favour retention are no less Christian than those who favour abolition. The rule of law is for the protection of society. I am sure all of us are concerned with finding the best method for the protection of society. We as individuals have arrived at different viewpoints on how society can best be protected. I, as an individual, am saying I am personally of the opinion that the present law, as it is defined into non-capital and capital murder, with the penalties as outlined in the Criminal Code, is the best way to afford protection to society.
There has been nothing advanced during this debate, or in discussion elsewhere by those who advocate abolition, which would lead me to believe that they have hit on a
April 4. 1966

better plan for the protection of society. Again, I may be wrong and others may be right, or vice-versa. The argument which has been put forth that capital punishment is a deterrent, or that it is not a deterrent, is difficult to prove.
During this debate good cases have been advanced for both sides, giving statistics and information to support both sides. However, there are so many factors which have to be taken into consideration, such as location, environment and circumstances, that they make it impossible to achieve any true comparison, and therefore practically impossible to prove either side. I cannot help but believe that many a would-be murderer did not murder just because we have capital punishment. I know, however, that this is hypothetical and no proof can be advanced.
I do not intend to go into the various types of murders, but it does seem to me from reports during the past several months that crime is on the increase. Syndicate or contract murders are on the increase in Canada, and this is one reason that I would say it is not desirable at this time to make a change, and that the law should remain as it is. The law is not perfect. It is always susceptible to improvement. I have great faith in our laws and in our form of justice. No doubt errors have been made in the past, and no doubt errors will be committed in the future, no matter how the law is changed.
When speaking on this matter the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) outlined in detail the amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1961 when he was minister of justice. These amendments divided killings into two types, non-capital and capital, and also brought about several other changes. Since those amendments were introduced very few of those who have been convicted of murder have been hanged. When the amendments were introduced they removed the risk of an innocent man being executed. This was one of the most bothersome features of the previous law.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
I am sure none of us would like to see a life taken, whether it be that of a murder victim or of a murderer. It seems to me that many overlook the terrible tragedy that a family, which has lost someone who has been murdered, must suffer. The argument always is that you cannot bring a life back. No, you
Criminal Code
cannot bring a life back, but one must endeavour to have the best means to prevent a murder taking place and also endeavour to protect society. There are those who say that humans are not capable of making certain decisions or certain judgments, that the human race is not infallible, and that we are dealing with human frailties. That may be true, but nevertheless we are going to have to depend upon human decisions and judgment in most instances for a long time to come. The time may come when humans will treat one another in such a manner and with such respect that society may not require the same protection as it needs at present.
I believe the law as it is now is in the best interests of Canadians generally, and provides the needed protection for society. When the vote is taken I will vote against the motion.


Mr.   Jean-L. Rochon@Laval: Mr. Speaker, the debate which is going on now will certainly prove to be one of the most interesting of this session, one of the most facinating also, because it will have enabled hon. members of the house to express their views on one of the most controversial subjects of our times: the abolition or the retention of the death penalty.
It has long been discussed by workers, industrialists or university people, on radio, television, in the newspapers. In several countries, authorized voices have been heard, some favouring the retention and others the abolition of the death penalty.
Canada did not escape that pressure of public opinion. And last year, in view of everything that had been said and heard, the Department of Justice felt it was its duty to publish a White Paper and present that serious problem objectively, so that we might study it under all its angles and get a good idea of its social scope.
Since then, a number of booklets have reached us and our constituents, in our respective ridings, have told us what they thought. That is the reason why such a bill is now under consideration. That is the reason for the free vote which each of us will be called upon to cast according to his own conscience at the end of this debate.
Here is why I accepted to take part in this debate at this late hour, Mr. Speaker. After thinking seriously about it, I have reached a definite and well-documented opinion on that matter, an opinion which I feel is so much better that I would consider that my intervention is not only useful but of benefit to

April 4. 1966
Criminal Code
society if I succeed, not in convincing those who are still undecided, I will not go that far, but in making them think.
I said, a while ago, that Canada had felt the tides of public opinion, either for or against abolition of capital punishment. For over 25 years now, one government after another as well as the present government, for lack of precise instructions from parliament has felt that the better thing to do was to commute all death penalties, even though they were passed by courts of law.
The time has come, Mr. Speaker, and our government is well aware of it, to regularize the situation, to put an end to that uncertainty; the time has come to realize that the exercise of discretionary powers in such a serious matter gives rise to qualms of conscience and that we, the members of parliament, can no longer shirk our responsibilities.
Must we be for or against capital punishment? It is a matter for our consciences, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, and you will appreciate that before we vote, we had to get information, we had to listen, we had to think of the safety of the population in face of the rising wave of crime and murder, we had to remember that our authority comes from God and that God Himself said in the Genesis:	"Who so
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed".
Therefore, you will realize, Mr. Speaker, that after all those numerous reasons heard, listened to and thought over, my conscience indicated that my strict duty is to say here tonight, in this house, that I must vote for the retention of the death penalty.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
There are two sorts of arguments in favour of the retention of capital punishment. First, so to speak, there is the doctrinal or philosophical point of view, which may be summarized as follows: "Human life is so sacred that every means must be used to protect it. He who takes away life deserves death." There is also the argument of deterrence: "If, in taking away life, a man knows he is risking his own, he will not kill."
On the other hand, there are also two sorts of arguments put forward by the enemies of capital punishment. The first is also based on the sacred character of human life: "If life is sacred, we have no right to take it away from anyone." The second concerns the deterrent aspect of capital punishment. It may be summarized as follows: Apart from any moral

consideration, we might be in favour of the death penalty if only there was evidence that it reduces the number of murders. Such is not the case. Statistics prove nothing, either in favour or against. Therefore, capital punishment must be abolished.
I shall not attempt to develop the first argument based on the sacred nature of human life. I readily realize that from the same premises can be drawn diametrically opposed conclusions and that such an abstruse reasoning will convince nobody. The second argument, as well as the second objection, are more valid and deserve more consideration. However, before dealing with capital punishment as a repressive measure, I should like to attempt to answer an argument often put forward toy those who oppose it.
For these people, capital punishment would simply be, basically, some sort of a community revenge complex; a modern form of the old lex talionis: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. What formerly held for relatively primitive communities, for some eras infinitely remote from ours, no longer holds for our infinitely more progressive and modern society. To this I would reply that what is contemptuously referred to as the lex talionis is no more than a perfectly legitimate attempt to make the punishment fit the crime. To serious crime, serious punishment. But it will be objected that this is an obsolete notion and that in this day, there can be no question of making punishment fit the crime when what we need, on the contrary, is to make the punishment fit the criminal.
Modern penal science no longer seeks to suppress or punish, but to rehabilitate, and capital punishment, because it is past recall-by its very definition, if I may say-has obviously no corrective value.
While this argument makes some sense, it should not, I feel, be developed to its utter limit, because it is ridiculous to claim that in deciding upon penalties, the seriousness of the crime should never be taken into account and that the criminal should be the only consideration.
Besides, those who are not forcibly against severity, the most inclined to leniency towards criminals, are not always logical with themselves. They want to protect society; yet, in their concept of individual protection, they want us to believe that criminals are rather victims of this society, instead guilty people; they forget that murder or homicide are
April 4, 1966

direct infringements on the freedom of individuals, and hence are crimes against society.
In my opinion, society is the association of all individuals making up the society; and when I say that it must be protected, I think, for instance, of my right to stroll quietly about the streets without being attacked. And this is the right of millions of law-abiding Canadians who have the right to insist for the protection of public powers.
Someone will say that I go a little too far, that my freedom is not threatened that much, neither my life, and what proves that they would be better protected by the retention of the death penalty?
That the freedom of individuals to attend quietly to their business, without fear of evil-doers, is nowadays more threatened than it was before the Second World War, is a truth unanimously admitted and confirmed by statistics. The present debate deals with the death penalty; otherwise, I could dwell at great length on the continual increase of the number of crimes with violence, which often end in murder. I am convinced that this state of things is due to lack of vigorous reactions of society in the face of this threat. But instead of imputing this phenomenon, as it should, to the fact that public opinion does not support energetically enough the police forces or the courts in their fight against criminals, some people prefer to blame our penal system.
It is not to a member in whose riding is located one of the largest penitentiaries of the country, that of St. Vincent de Paul, that you have to prove that our present system is not perfect. But there is one consideration that is never kept in mind. The more we pity the criminal, the more we criticize the courts for being too severe, the more we condemn our prison system in general, the more the number of crime increases. Why not try an experiment for once? Why not stop our criticism? From now on, why do we not encourage our courts to be more severe, instead of feeling sorry, as we do, for the criminals. How do we know that the figures on crime would not diminish?
It is said that statistics on the number of murderers, as compared with that on the number of executions, does not prove any deterrent value at all of the death penalty. It is concluded therefrom that fear of the gallows never caused any murderer to hesitate. But there seems to be one thing forgotten, that is in our times, in this country-and the
Criminal Code
present debate is evidence of this-the death penalty is rejected by a good part of public opinion. Those who stand against it, surely in good faith, are often influenced in their great devotion for what they believe is a good cause. In the end, they have created so much confusion in the minds of the people that every time the question of an execution comes up, thousands of citizens immediately have pity on that poor criminal. There is so much criticism against capital punishment that people are trying to find all sorts of excuses for the offender. In this way, an atmosphere which is almost favourable to murder is created. Young people who grow up in a society where they are sure to find defenders everywhere, whatever they do, in the end have a complete disregard for the law. Laws do not so much prevent crime as the moral climate of society. We can retain capital punishment but as long as there are people who disparage it, who cry injustice and inhumanity every time there is talk of its application, there will be less and less hesitation before killing. But if it were certain that society as a whole abhors murder, do you really think one would so easily risk being an accessory? Those who know criminals will tell you that a great many of them have a great capacity for self-pity and for finding all sorts of excuses for themselves.
As long as people here and elsewhere find them more deserving of mercy than strictness, as long as people, every time a criminal is executed, rise and say along with I forget which movie director: "We are all murderers", murderers will find themselves interesting. What is more, they will feel all the more innocent if they find here and there people ready to weep on their sad plight.
I do not want to be cynical or merciless toward the unfortunate people who must be removed for the benefit of society, but I want us to consider not only the murderers but the victims also. If the death penalty could prevent only one murder, it should be maintained.
I am convinced that if the critics of capital punishment were silenced and if, for once, we were to think of the fate of the victims instead of that of the murderers, we would go a long way toward cleaning up the moral atmosphere of our community.
Today, parliament has the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to show clearly the revulsion murder should create. In maintaining capital punishment, we will demonstrate that we have

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
no intention of allowing human life to be scorned.
In view of the lateness of the hour, may I be allowed to close these few remarks I wanted to make in my own name, because my conscience had shown me where my duty lies. My constituents of Laval told me: "Look at St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, at Bordeaux jail, at the women's jail, all institutions within Laval constituency, and you shall know where your duty lies".
My duty I said it a minute ago, is to favour the maintenance of capital punishment, for the good of the community.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
fEnglish]


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: murder-whether his life should be taken in reprisal for what he has done. I do not look at it that way. I do not think I am a hardhearted man, but I believe in justice. If a man has committed a crime and a jury has decided that he should be hanged, it does not bother my conscience; I have no qualms about justice being carried out in this way. One class of people we have not heard about are the innocent victims, the people who have been murdered, though I think this is one point about which the general public is very much concerned. These are the people we are responsible for looking after, as men and women who have been elected to govern and look after society in Canada.
When I was young, I recall, we used to hear about the gangsters of Chicago, New York and places like that. At that time Canada was relatively free from syndicated crime. I can recall A1 Capone, when I was young. I could go to the fair, and the motor cars these fellows used were on show. They were the gangsters who were against American society. Today we have the same thing creeping into Canada. We have heard about those murderers in Montreal just as late as this winter. We have heard about the Santa Claus murderer, and crimes like that. As members of parliament we have an obligation to society.
Like all other hon. members I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate. I have read with great interest most of the material that has come to my office. I have received many petitions, both for and against the abolition of capital punishment, from various groups in my constituency. I have received many letters from my constituents, and over the past week end more people have come up to me and spoken of their feelings and what they thought my stand should be on this subject.
This is one of the major decisions I have had to make since coming to this house three years ago, but my conscience dictates that I support the retention of capital punishment and that is how I intend to vote when the issue comes to a vote tomorrow evening.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the motion to abolish capital punishment, but I shall speak only briefly and shall refer to only a few of the arguments. I am supporting this resolution because I believe it is wrong to kill, wrong to take human
Criminal Code
life, whether the killing is done by an individual or by society. This belief is based on the rational recognition of the sacredness of human life and on the commandment of the Judaeo-Christian tradition which says, "Thou shalt not kill." According to my interpretation this commandment is very clear, and if there is to be any exception to it, those who wish to raise the exception must prove it.
So far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, there is only one exception to that rule, namely selfdefence; but even with self-defence I do not believe an individual can deliberately kill his attacker. His intention must be to deter his attacker and not to kill him. He may only kill his attacker if there is no other possible way to defend himself. In other words, killing in self-defence must take place as a last resort.
This is not the case where the state executes a condemned murderer. The execution is not a justified killing in self-defence because, (1) there are other more direct and effective ways of preventing murder, and (2) there is no proof that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent to murder than life imprisonment.
Other hon. members have discussed in detail the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent, and they have shown that according to statistics countries without capital punishment have no more murder than states which retain capital punishment. Many hon. members have referred to these statistics but in their own judgment have chosen to ignore them. I do not want to go into all the statistics, but they clearly show the rate of murder has not gone up in abolitionist states.
If capital punishment is to be an exception to the rule "Thou shalt not kill", then I submit it is up to the proposers of this exception to prove it is the only method to prevent murders. It is no proof to say that it has been done for years, that we have had capital punishment and therefore it should be retained. Many things were done for years. Men were sold as slaves for years until slavery was abolished. Kings ruled as despots for years until ordinary citizens changed the situation.
We are here dealing with a very strict rule regarding the sacredness of human life. I think we should consider that very seriously. Some hon. members are saying that capital punishment may not be a deterrent for all potential murderers, but that it is certainly a deterrent for some potential murderers. They would say that if it is a deterrent for

April 4, 1966
Criminal Code
some, then it must be retained even if it would deter one potential murderer. This is a very serious argument, but it fails to consider that the abolition of capital punishment also has a positive effect. It is my belief that when the state abolishes the death penalty, it creates an atmosphere of greater respect for human life and that this respect has a diffusive and educational effect on society. As a result, when you ask the question, how many innocent victims could have been saved if capital punishment still existed, you also would have to ask the question, how many would have hesitated from violence due to the influence of a state order which will in no circumstance directly take human life. Of course we can give no specific answers to these questions; we can look only at averages, and the averages seem to indicate that in those countries where the death penalty has been abolished the rate of murder does not increase and is often lower.
Mr. Speaker, I have said that capital punishment is not justified as self-defence, because there are other more direct means of preventing murder. There are some people, and some hon. members, who have said that if we abolish the death penalty, we will be left unprotected, that there will be no safeguard for society; but I maintain that there is little real relationship between the existence or non-existence of capital punishment and the rate of murder. Nobody has indicated the real cause or effect between the incidence of capital punishment and the diminution or increase in murder.
There are real causes of murder; it is these causes which have to be dealt with, if we are to have protection and safeguards. Sociologists and criminologists will point out that the causes of crime and murder are inadequate housing, inadequate slum clearance, inadequate recreation, and inadequacies in education, moral guidance, economic and social stability, police protection, crime detection, weapons and arms control, as well as
inadequate prison and parole reform. These are some of the causes. It is these causes which must be attacked if we are to protect society and create safeguards.
To discuss the protection of society against crime solely in terms of capital punishment is to becloud the real issue. Several hon. members, including the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) have referred to referendums or surveys in their ridings; they have indicated that this should be some criteria for our decision here. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest, when we are sent here as members of parliament, we have to make our decision not on referendums in our ridings, not on the total yes's or no's, but rather on the weight of the arguments given on either side of the question. When we are elected they count up the votes, but once we are here we study the weight of the arguments.
Many hon. members have indicated that those of us who speak for abolition are more concerned for the murderer than for the victim. This is not true. I think we all care very much for the victim, and that is why I think we should act toward the elimination of the real causes which would do more to eliminate crime.
I support abolition and am ready to vote for it tomorrow. I have not heard any arguments which would convince me that we should retain capital punishment. I suggest the burden of proof is on the retentionists, because they are proposing the exception to the rule: Thou shalt not kill.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty-two minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 5, 1966