1966-03-24

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the house that a report has been received from the committee of both houses on the library of parliament with regard to certain revisions of rates of pay of employees of the library of parliament.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-154, to implement an agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation on certain classes of income and to implement a supplementary income tax agreement between Canada and Sweden.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this bill will approve the tax agreements which have been negotiated between Canada and the United Kingdom.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



JUDGES ACT


Hon. L. T. Pennell (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Judges Act to provide salaries for two additional judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, three additional judges of the Superior Court of Quebec, one additional judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, one additional judge of the county court of Ontario, and one additional judge of the district court of Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Lawrence T. Pennell: that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Admiralty Act to authorize the appointment of not more than three deputy judges for each admiralty district and to provide for a certain change in the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction of a line of railway in the province of Ontario by Canadian National Railway Company from the vicinity of Amesdale on the Redditt subdivision of the Canadian National Railway in a north northwesterly direction for a distance of approximately 68 miles to a point in the vicinity of Bruce Lake, in the district of Kenora, at a total estimated expenditure of $11,100,000, not to be exceeded by more than 15 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to two departments, so I presume I should address it to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the report that the government plans to approve an increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway from 90 cents to $1 per net ton on manufactured goods, and from 40 cents to 45 cents per net ton on bulk cargo, and that there is also to be an increase in the Welland canal tolls. If that is so, has any

March 24, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry consideration been given by the government to the potentially adverse additional effect this will have on our exports?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to a question a day or two ago, and as is required under the agreement with the United States, the St. Lawrence Seaway authority has been carrying on discussions with the St. Lawrence Corporation, the United States entity, with regard to a possible revision of the existing tolls. I understand that the parties to this discussion now feel they are fairly close to agreement as to what they will be prepared to recommend to the two governments. So far no agreed recommendation has been made. If an agreed recommendation is made there will be public hearings in both countries before any final decision is made; and at those public hearings, of course, I expect that all considerations, including the ones referred to by the right hon. gentleman, will be gone into.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the urgency of which will be apparent when I point out that I have in my hand a letter from the solicitor representing the native population who are concerned about the decision of the Saskatchewan appeal court on the medicine chest case.
The problem is that they must make an appeal within a given number of days, and in view of the answer the minister gave on March 18 to my colleague the hon. member for Skeena, as to whether the government would be prepared to supply medical and hospital services to the Indians and thereby make the appeal unnecessary, it is fairly important that an answer be given fairly soon so the native population and their representatives will know whether to proceed with an appeal or whether they can safely drop the matter.
I want to ask the minister whether he can give the house his decision in respect of this matter at this time.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this matter has not been completed, but I hope to be able to give an answer to my hon. friend tomorrow or Monday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether, if it is not possible to make an affirmative decision, he will give some thought to supplying the necessary funds to cover the appeal against the decision of the court?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare which is related to the one asked earlier in regard to the Indian medicine chest case.
In view of the serious nature of the charges, which involve allegations of bad faith against the government and people of Canada, will the minister consider discussing this matter with his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources so that before the Indian claims commission legislation is brought down, adequate remedies may be provided in that legislation and this matter may be settled by legislation rather than litigation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider that suggestion.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Yesterday I asked him questions concerning a certain Mr. Ramsey, a professional revolutionary, who has entered Canada.
Today I should like the minister to tell me if his department is now conducting or has asked the R.C.M.P. to conduct an inquiry into the case of Mr. Ramsey, who is seeking political asylum in our country, and what action the minister intends to take concerning that man?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday I have received some information concerning Mr. Ramsey that was addressed to the Prime Minister.
Should Mr. Ramsey make a regular immigrant application, we shall examine it on its merits and determine what action to take.
March 24, 1966	COMMONS
Now, if Mr. Ramsey remains in Canada we shall attempt to ascertain whether he is here merely as a visitor or has other interests. We would then ask him certain questions.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us whether it is normal for an immigrant to come to Canada first and then request immigrant status or whether he should not, under the regulations, request immigrant status while still in his own country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is out of order. The hon. member is asking for an interpretation of the departmental regulations or of the act. This type of question cannot be answered.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I asked the Prime Minister if he had yet made inquiry of the province of Quebec whether that government would indicate the changes they felt should be made before reconvening a constitutional amendment conference. The right hon. gentleman assured me that he had made inquiries but he wanted to be precise in his recollection-which I understand-before answering.
Could I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has received an answer to those inquiries, and if so what the answer is?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to my hon. friend's request, made first I think on March 4, I should first tell him that I received a reply from the Premier of Quebec on this matter of constitutional amendment procedure dated February 17. With the leave of the house I should be glad to table that particular communication with the Premier of Quebec.
In further reply to the question I would say that since the date of this letter views have been exchanged informally with the government of Quebec, and the federal and provincial governments are reviewing recent 23033-195
DEBATES	3087
Inquiries of the Ministry developments in this field of constitutional amendment in order to be in a position to resume consideration of the question at a future meeting of the federal-provincial conference of the Prime Minister and premiers.
I have been informed that the government of Quebec is not yet ready to indicate any definitive position in this matter of procedure regarding constitutional amendment. While I regret that I cannot be more specific on this aspect of the matter at this stage, I want to assure the house that it remains an immediate objective of the policy of the federal government to provide that the constitution of Canada may be amended in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, in view of his reply may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is able to throw any light on the statement made by the premier of Quebec yesterday when, in response to a question asked in that legislature, he said:

Mr. Jean Lesage replied that there was no correspondence other than that which he had tabled on the question.


Mr. Johnson:: Should we draw the conclusion that Mr. Pearson was referring to the last letter?


Mr. Lesage:: I have no conclusion to draw, I have seen nothing, I am aware of nothing, I am saying nothing.
[English1
Can the Prime Minister comment upon that statement which appears quite extraordinary in the light of the reply he has just made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I shall have to look into that statement, which I had not heard until my hon. friend brought it to my attention.

Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house the correspondence to which I referred in answering a previous question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is agreeable, may I request approval of the house that this correspondence be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be quite agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter referred to above, see appendix.]
March 24, 1366

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



NATO-REPORTED INTENTION OF PORTUGAL TO WITHDRAW

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister or our representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Paris received any communication concerning the reported withdrawal of Portugal from NATO?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question the the Minister of Finance as one who is intellectually opposed to discrimination on the basis of sex. Has the minister's attention been drawn to press reports to the effect that loans to women have been refused by the Industrial Development Bank and other banks, simply on the grounds that they were women? Would the minister make inquiries of the Industrial Development Bank and other banks to determine their practice in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the hon. member to place his question on the order paper.



U.S. GUIDE LINES-EFFECT ON BALANCE OF PAYMENTS DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monfeith (Perth):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the sharp increase in the deficit balance of payments from $433 million in 1964 to $1,136 million in 1965, largely attributed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to an increased deficit with the United States, does the Canadian government plan to take further steps to counteract the effect of the United States guide lines in so far as direct investment is concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: I doubt very much whether United States guide lines have anything to do with this particular problem. I do share the concern of the hon. member about a deficit in our balance of payments, particularly if it showed

signs of becoming excessive. It is related directly, of course, to the prosperity in our country because Canada has a tendency to import, particularly machinery, in a period of very rapid expansion such as the one through which we are proceeding.
In my budget I intend to have something to say about this matter. I think the measures I will be proposing then will do something to improve our balance of payments situation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say what was the reason for the sharply diminished merchandise trade balance with other countries, down to $101 million from $700 million in 1964?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member is inviting a debate now, and that is a question which cannot be considered.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. A few moments ago, in reply to a question, he referred to the great prosperity in this country. May I ask him whether he has read the recent report on poverty in Canada in general, and in particular with reference to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.



GOVERNMENT ACTION FOLLOWING PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on February 14 I directed the following question to the Prime Minister:
In view of the very steep increases in the price of bread, what does the government intend to do in that connection? Has there been any investigation made by the appropriate department as to whether the concerted increases are justified, and does the government consider that the explanation given in today's press, to the effect that the pension plan and minimum wage plan are costing money and that the result of those increases in taxation is an exaction, together with the increases in the costs of fats and powdered milk, justifies this very heavy, further imposition on the people?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
Without accepting the reasons given for the increase, I shall be glad to make inquiries and make a statement in due course.
The events of the last few days again emphasize the need for a statement. I wonder if, after more than a month, the Prime
March 24. 1966

Minister is in a position to say what the government is doing in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have been so long in dealing with this question. I ask my right hon. friend if he will give me a few more hours. I may be able to make a statement about it tomorrow. It was my impression that I had said something about this since that time, but I should like to look into it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which relates to Canada's reputation as a reliable grain exporter. I believe the minister said they had set up a Pacific grain transportation committee to investigate why grain was not moving off the prairies to Vancouver. I wonder if he can now give us the report on what that committee ascertained.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This committee was not conducting an inquest into what had or had not happened, but was to expedite the movement of grain through Vancouver. The figures for the last two months show they have been extraordinarily successful in doing that. I have a report on my desk upstairs, and I will be glad to give more details to the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's statement would he now have the committee look into the question of the export of coal? Are we losing our coal markets as we lost our grain markets?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this supplementary question. Will this committee look into the question of the transportation and export of coal from Alberta?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker, but the minister will.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question 23033-1951
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Prime Minister. Will any legislation which the government proposes to place before parliament regarding pensions, the Canada Assistance Plan and medicare be on the order paper before Easter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question specifically at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that would be the case, but I cannot give any more specific answer than that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister try to give an answer within the next few days?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will do my very best. [Translation]



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Further to his meeting with representatives of federal civil servants yesterday with respect to a bonus for bilingualism, is the Prime Minister in a position to make a statement this afternoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's description of the meeting was somewhat inaccurate. It was a meeting with the representatives of the civil service organizations to discuss with them the question of bilingualism in the civil service. All I can say in regard to that meeting is that we had a most useful, and I thought constructive, exchange of views which will help the government in the policies which it will be putting forward to the house shortly in regard to this matter.


Maurice Allard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister consider that there will also be an opportunity to offer the bonus to leaders of political parties, to members of this house and of the other place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister

March 24, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry of Labour. In view of the pressing need is he preparing legislation which will be placed on the order paper prior to Easter to amend the National Housing Act in order to allow technical institutions to borrow money under that act for residence buildings in the same way as universities, which already have that privilege?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The short answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I might say, however, that a number of proposed amendments to the National Housing Act are under consideration by the government. We have had preliminary discussions with some of the provincial governments which are also interested in the problems, but it is not likely that there will be any such legislation on the parliamentary timetable before Easter.


Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforfh):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether during this session of parliament we can expect legislation to carry out the election promise of the Liberal party that N.H.A. lending would be extended to older homes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
As the unemployment rate is still very high in the so-called designated areas, is the minister considering the extension of the winter works program beyond the deadline in order to help our unemployed?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the winter works program is constantly being studied and revised but, unfortunately, I am not in a position to say whether the present deadline will be changed.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to put a supplementary question to the hon. minister.
Would he at least agree to study the matter and give us an answer later?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I agree to study the whole winter works program, and if the hon. member wants to ask other questions about it, I shall be pleased to answer them in due course.
IMr. Starr.]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Have representations been made to the minister by certain municipalities requesting an extension of the period of time allowed, in view of the fact that they would be unable to complete their winter works due to a severe winter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I remember that some municipalities have asked for an extension of the winter works program, but I do not recall whether it was for the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Lapointe. However, I shall check and advise him.
1English]



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he has completed the second round of discussions with representatives of the government of Ontario on the problem of pollution of the waters of the great lakes, and if so whether he would be in a position to make a brief statement to the house reporting on this conference, perhaps tomorrow.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his constant interest in my activities. We had a meeting on Monday last with officials of the government of Ontario on this subject. They presented us with a report of their activities in this field of pollution, particularly in the great lakes, which was most impressive. We agreed that a statement on this subject should be made jointly by the government of Canada and the government of Ontario, and this is presently in preparation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, if I might say a word or two here, might I ask the minister as a supplementary question whether he has received any request from the government of British Columbia for discussion of the increasing pollution of the Columbia and Kootenay rivers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not as of now, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I should like to ask the minister whether any thought is
March 24, 196$

being given to extending to the International Joint Commission a mandatory power so that sewage disposal plants could be built under this mandate of the commission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this is the type of question which can be asked. This is of a very general nature, not seeking information, which can be sought at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare of which I have given him notice. I want to congratulate him on the efficiency of his food and drug directorate in picking up 1,000 capsules of a dangerously mislabelled antibiotic in a Vancouver pharmacy. I refer to capsules of chlarmaphericol imported from Hong Kong and incorrectly labelled and coloured to represent the antibiotic tetrecylin.
My question is this. Is the minister satisfied that adequate steps are taken by customs authorities to stop the importation of dangerously mislabelled foreign drugs? Also, is it a fact that the importer of those drugs has been approved by the government as a supplier to Canada's armed forces?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, officials of the food and drug directorate have taken every possible step to take into possession any known quantities of the particular drug referred to by my hon. friend. As I understand it, the difficulty arose in the importing factory in Canada. It was only because of careful inspection by officials of the food and drug directorate that it was possible to detect the mislabelling at an early date.
With respect to the second part of the question, it is very likely that this particular importer is so listed. We are checking further into this, and if any steps are necessary to bring about a delisting, they will be taken.



REPORTED INCREASE IN INCIDENCE OF TUBERCULOSIS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the increased incidence
Inquiries of the Ministry of tuberculosis over the last two years, as announced a few days ago by Dr. Gregoire when speaking to the College of General Practitioners, has his department any plans for re-establishing effective control over this disease?


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



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the responsible member of the administration and ask him whether in view of the judgment in the formal investigation into a collision between two ships in British Columbia, one owned by Shell Oil and the other by Island Tug and Barge, which found that the collision resulted from the undermanning of the ships, this will provoke the government into early action in developing regulations with respect to ship manning requirements in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, due and full note will be taken of the report.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question to ask of the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that this report was made last October?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, the hon. member for Regina and I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport the threatened termination of air services in various parts of Saskatchewan, including Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, and so on. At that time the minister said the matter was under consideration, as to keeping up these services or providing alternative service. I would ask him now whether he is in a position to say what is the present position of this question, as it is of great importance to those several places I have mentioned in addition to others unmentioned.

March 24, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question. There does seem to be some misunderstanding about the situation.
TransAir have asked to be allowed to discontinue certain services in the prairie provinces. In the case of one service, from Yorkton to Saskatoon, that appeared to the Air Transport Board to be so clear cut that they permitted the service to be discontinued. I think perhaps it has already been discontinued, although I have not checked.
With respect to the rest, the board has prescribed that there shall be public hearings and that all the other services must continue until these public hearings have been held and the board has given a decision on the application. Therefore, in so far as any of the services of TransAir now being performed are concerned, they will go on indefinitely until the public hearings have been held and the board has made a decision. Of course what that decision will be it would be wrong for me to attempt at this stage to forecast.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you. I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister knowledge as to when these sittings will begin? Is there any definiteness at this time, so that the people in those places, particularly the chambers of commerce and the interested travel community may have some information about this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking from recollection but I think my recollection is right, and I understand that the board has invited any persons who wish to appear at the hearing to inform the Board before April 1. The hearings are scheduled, I think, for April 16 or thereabouts. I presume they will take some days.
It may be that this information is not too widely known. 1 imagine that the board would feel, if there were a number of people who would want to make representations but who would not have had time to do so by April 1, it would be open to people in such a position to ask the board for a small extension of time.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Transport if hearings will be held in Regina?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not absolutely sure whether the hearings are to be in Regina or Winnipeg, though I think they are to be in Regina. I could find out definitely.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
To follow up a request I made in the house the other day, has the minister talked with officials of the Quebec Department of Mines about subsidies granted to gold mines in northwestern Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was asked the other day to call an important official in Quebec city. I did, but unfortunately the man I was calling was out. He is supposed to call me back any time now.
IEnglish]



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he can now advise what his government proposes to do to assist some 1,400 people, mostly natives, who are severely affected by the closing of the Masset cannery on the Queen Charlotte islands in British Columbia?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take notice of that question. I believe it has been brought up in the house already this week, but I shall look into it.


George Louis Chatterton: As a supplementary question, when the matter is being looked into would the government consider using some part of the $112 million program announced by the minister last Thursday to assist the Haida Indians on those islands?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall discuss that matter with the minister although I do believe the program referred to by the hon. member is for another purpose.
March 24, 1966	COMMONS



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader and take this opportunity to state a grievance.
In view of the fact that yesterday in the debate on capital punishment we heard abolitionists, would it not be possible to come to an agreement so that the order of speakers will take into account the distribution of those in favour and those against, rather than the parties in the house?

Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the recognition of hon. members who wish to speak is a matter for the Chair, and I do not believe it would be proper for the house leader to interfere in that matter. I would feel very reluctant to do so.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS AT HALIFAX CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I want to ask him if at the coming coal conference in Halifax, which is also going to cover the subject of steel, it is his intention to invite both the coal union, the steel union, and management.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair to judge about this question, but I am wondering whether it is asked of the minister in his capacity as Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Well, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect maybe I can assist. These questions have been ruled out of order before, but I wish to quote the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if need be on a question of privilege, as recorded at page 2146 of Hansard for March 3:
It has been an accepted tradition in the past that the Nova Scotian minister involves himself very deeply in coal policy. That, of course, was characteristic of my immediate predecessors, the late Hon. George Nowlan and Hon. R. H. Winters.
DEBATES	3093
Inquiries of the Ministry
That is a practice that has been going on here for the last decade, but we are being denied the right to ask these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member cares to read the rules and precedents he will see it has not been recognized practice to ask questions of ministers other than in their capacities as ministers of the crown.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would call attention to the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: -that when this statement was made the minister wasn't called out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will please resume his seat.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he intends to attend the coal conference in Nova Scotia next week, along with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise earlier on a question of privilege in connection with the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
In so far as I am personally concerned I have no objection whatsoever to reporting to the house on any meetings or conferences that I may attend with respect to public matters in the province of Nova Scotia, but at the same time there has been a ruling by the Chair that it is improper for a minister to answer in the house for matters outside his immediate administrative responsibilities as a minister.
I simply wish to declare that I intend to abide by the ruling of the Chair, but I refuse to be placed in the false position in which I have been placed in recent days by questions that have been asked with the suggestion that there has been a fear or a refusal to answer. The reason for my not answering is that I wish to abide by the ruling made by the Chair, and so long as that ruling is maintained I do not intend to go beyond my responsibilities.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a reasonable question. I wish to ask the minister whether he intends to attend this conference in Nova Scotia next week along with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.

March 24, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question transgresses the ruling.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: On
the point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to refer hon. members to May's seventeenth edition, page 350:
Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected-
This, of course, is only one of many citations, and I suggest to the hon. member that the question he is asking at this time is out of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Howard Russell MacEwan: Then on a supplementary question may I ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if the Minister of National Health and Welfare will accompany him to the conference next week.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will have this tremendous honour.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the point of privilege that was raised, Mr. Speaker, it may be observed as well that if ministers are not to acknowledge responsibility for matters outside their ministries, then they should not make announcements with regard to their provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And may I also say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I can remember under my predecessor, and during my own tenure of the honourable office you hold-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A lot of the juniors may not remember.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -it was a recognized principle that ministers could make announcements with regard to their particular regions, and they were questioned in this regard. The late hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was regularly questioned in this manner by hon. members of the present ministry who were then in opposition, and this was quite readily accepted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to this point, in view of the ruling you have

made I would point out this fact; that an announcement having to do only with the Department of Transport was put out in a press release under the title of the Department of Transport, and it stated that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Transport made the announcement. Certainly, sir, although the rule ordinarily applies, if ministers are going to play that game then they have to answer in the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Kootenay West is addressing the Chair on the same question of privilege.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Your Honour. On a point of order, as a member who has been in the house for a considerable number of years I want to support, somewhat reluctantly, the Leader of the Opposition. In British Columbia ministers holding certain portfolios have made announcements on questions that related to other ministers' responsiblities. This has been a practice throughout the years here, and I do think the hon. member was quite correct in asking this question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I just make a point on the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South on the same point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Further on the question of privilege, I have referred to precedents here, and I will once again quote the minister's own words when he referred to the fact that this was a practice followed by the late Hon. George Nowlan, and by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce.
He himself referred to this as a practice. He himself was not called out of order at the time, and the Leader of the Opposition has already referred to the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in the Cape Breton and Nova Scotia area, has been putting out press releases concerning departments other than his own.
I would call again on a precedent established here when the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was absent from the house
March 24, 1966

through an arrangement with the house leader, and the house leader can substantiate this statement. He came behind the curtains to inform me that he had arranged to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare answer questions on the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or else they would not go through.
Despite the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is going to recognize the ruling of the Chair, he completely ignored it on that occasion when we forced him to do so through the arrangement with the house leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has heard-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important point. The arrangement made in a previous sitting of the committee of the house was that in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who was absent from Canada in Washington, I agreed to deal with matters affecting the coal industry of Nova Scotia. That was an arrangement made informally and it has nothing to do with rulings in the house.
What we are talking about here is a ruling made by the Chair with regard to the entitlement of ministers to answer questions, but Your Honour has ruled that a minister is not entitled to answer beyond his own administrative responsibilities. Had the Chair ruled otherwise, I would have welcomed an opportunity to answer these questions. There would be a great publicity advantage in Nova Scotia.
However, while I accept the rulings of the Chair in these matters I do not intend to have the rulings of the Chair interpreted by the Leader of the Opposition to include what proper public relations the minister ought to follow outside the house. That is a ridiculous proposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since my name was brought in, I wonder whether I might assist Your Honour by a couple of references-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to be given an opportunity to once again state the position taken by the Chair which is based on long precedent, in spite of what may have been said in the course of this short debate. I quoted a moment ago from May's seventeenth edition. I should like now to quote 23033-196
Criminal Code
from the Journals of the House of Commons, volume, 105, 1959, page 336
In citation 178 in his fourth edition, Beauchesne comments on this rule as follows:	"Questions
addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament, or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible."
In other words, there is no doubt whatever in my mind that questions can be asked of ministers only in their official capacity. I appreciate that it may cause difficulty if ministers take the liberty of issuing press statements in a capacity other than their official capacity, but that does not change the rule.
I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period has now expired.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 23, 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 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.
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
Following the answer I was given by the government house leader, I would like to submit to you a grievance which constitutes at the same time a question of privilege.
Up to now, only the abolitionists seem to have had the opportunity to express their views. However, I wonder if it could not be arranged by you-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member to listen first to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh). If he still thinks that he has a question of privilege afterwards, he can raise it.


Auguste Choquette: That does not answer my question of privilege.

March 24. 1966
Criminal Code


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has no question of privilege.

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, as this debate is to be conducted on a non-partisan basis I trust the house will not accuse me of putting in a plug for the Young Progressive Conservative organization of Canada when I say that I agree wholeheartedly with the resolution they passed at their recent meeting in Ottawa. The resolution reads:
Be it resolved that capital punishment be retained for the following crimes:
(i)	Treason.
(ii)	The murder of law enforcement officer (s).
(iii)	Premeditated murder.
(iv)	Murder committed by a person already convicted of murder.
Because I support that resolution, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the resolution before us today. Although I should like to comment on some of the parts of the resolution I am prohibited from doing so because of paragraph (a) which reads:
(a) abolishing the death penalty is respect of all offences under that Act;
Before I go into my reasons for supporting the Young Progressive Conservatives' resolution I want to say that I was very impressed yesterday by the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). As I say, I was very impressed, but I was not convinced by his remarks. I should like to refer to a few of his remarks and say to him that I do not believe he is an abolitionist at all but a qualified retentionist because he said, as found on page 3096 of Hansard:
I, as a citizen for this country, feel that the only excuse society has for taking the life of any person is if it is proven necessary to do so for the protection of our society and our way of life.
I hope we can prove that it is so. I will go further and quote a few more of his remarks. The reason I am taking the retentionists' side is that I do not believe the premise he laid down. He said:
I cannot follow the logic of reasoning that if it is wrong for one person to take a life then it is right for a group of us to take a life.
I would say that our responsibility-and I include all members of the house-is on a little different basis from that of the individual in Canada. I say that because we are part of the parliament of Canada, part of the government of Canada. I will have more to say on this point in a few moments.

While I am dealing with this subject I should like to refer to another remark he made, and I should like to emphasize this. He said:
I do not think any of us who ask for the abolition of capital punishment deny it is a deterrent.
He also said near the end of his speech:
... I do not see how hanging a man is going to bring someone back to life.
I would say in respect of that last remark that it will prevent the criminal from repeating the offence he has committed. I should like to refer also to a press article which appeared in today's Globe and Mail. It refers to the remarks of the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona and goes on to say:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Capital punishment can be justified only if it can be shown to be the only effective deterrent to the crime of murder, and thus necessary for the protection of society, Mr. Nugent declared.
I hope that we are able to show that it is justified. However, the hon. member contradicted himself when he stated, later, as reported in the same article:
-It is perfectly true that capital punishment is a deterrent-
That statement was made by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
The article refers to the hon. member as having made reference to the history of capital punishment in Great Britain and reports him as having said:
The fears have proven groundless every single time, he said, "Not in one case has there been an increase in the numbers of those offences so direly predicted."


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


Mr. McIntosh:: Yes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I noticed that the hon. member began by quoting words from Hansard and then switched to a newspaper article to find an apparent contradiction. I certainly cannot remember saying what has been attributed to me according to the hon. member. Perhaps the hon. member will refer to Hansard to straighten out what is said in the newspaper article.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the words I referred to are contained in Hansard. I read the words I had marked in the newspaper article and I head the hon. member's speech in Hansard and I have the impression
March 24, 1966

that the hon. member is correctly reported. In dealing with this matter he referred to the situation in Great Britain.
Not long ago I wrote to the British press and asked them if they had any recent articles on the situation in regard to crime and particularly in regard to murder. I received a reply from the Daily Express of London. They sent me a copy of an article that appeared in their December 30, 1965 edition. I do not intend to read it all but I should like to say that this article indicates that the hon. member is not correct. In part the article reads as follows:
Crime figures for 1965 will shock those who supported the abolition of capital punishment in Britain. Murders have soared over the 200 mark, according to Home Office returns now nearing completion. A Daily Express count puts the figure as high as 235-53 more than last year.
That is the highest total ever recorded in Britain. Last year there were 182 murders; in 1963 there were 159.
Later the article states:
More and more M.P.'s are becoming convinced that the removal of the fear of hanging has led to a free and easy attitude toward killing among the
professional criminal classes.
It is my understanding that hon. members will make some reference to the House of Lords during this debate.


Mr. Lewis:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to put this quotation on the record. My time is limited and I have quite a bit to say on this subject so I will ask the hon. member to defer his questions until I have finished, at which time I will be glad to answer them. I wish to say something on another subject about which I am sure you will have some questions.
Lord Dilhorne had this to say, and I will only read a portion of it:
You cannot abolish the death sentence without running serious risks and innocent lives being lost. I have always been in favour of abolishing hanging if it could be done without risking lives. These figures confirm that this is not possible.
Lord Kilmuir the former Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary, is reported as having said:
I have always believed that fear of a death sentence is a deterrent. I think we took an enormous risk by abolishing hanging.
I said that the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona was a qualified retentionist. I make the same statement about the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), particularly if the quotation of his remarks 23033-1961
Criminal Code
appearing in the newspaper is correct. He is reported in the Globe and Mail oj March 24 as follows:
The Liberal M.P. declared himself unalterably opposed to the taking of life of any living creature unless done in self-defence or because of need.
That qualification means that he is a qualified retentionist.
The hon. member is reported as having made another statement with which I agree. He is reported in the same article as follows:
The Liberal abolitionist said that execution of murderers by the state only indicates the failure of society to determine the causes of murder.
I think we must admit that, and until we can determine the cause or the reason for the compulsion, if you wish to call it that, to murder we must retain capital punishment. I think that is the issue in this debate. If we could determine the cause or what lies behind the compulsion of certain people to commit murder, then perhaps we would not have to discuss this matter at all.
I have been very impressed by the number of letters I have received about this subject from individuals and church groups. I have been impressed with them all except one which I received this morning in the form of a brief from the Communist party of Canada. I shall not read from it but I want to say that the Communist party is opposed to capital punishment. That party is opposed also to our way of life and to the divine law. I have a good idea of what would happen to a person committing the crime of treason in any country with a Communist government. I am certain they would not be sentenced to life imprisonment.
The first decision I had to make on this issue was whether capital punishment was contrary to the divine law because, as I say, I have received a great many letters and briefs from church groups. I have been concerned mainly with the opinions expressed by young people belonging to these church groups. They have been told by their pastors, ministers and priests that capital punishment is contrary to the teachings of either the divine law, Jesus Christ or God. I had to decide whether that was a false premise and I feel that such a decision on my part is necessary in view of the many letters and briefs I have received.
The conclusion I have reached is that the divine authority has laid down two sets of laws, one for the individual and one for the state. That is why I said earlier that I

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
cannot agree with the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona. We have one duty as individuals and, because we are members of parliament, we have another duty so far as the state and its laws are concerned for we are members of that state. If such an interpretation is not correct, then in my view there is no Christian justification for pride in being a member of the armed services and no Christian justification for asking anyone to join the armed services. As an individual you cannot kill, but if you are a member of the armed forces of the government you must repel an aggressor.
If my premise is not correct, then I cannot find any Christian justification for the words many of us heard during 1939 to 1945 from the padres of our services before we went into action. Many of us have heard the words of padres of all denominations, Catholic, Jewish and Protestant, who told us that what we were doing we were doing on behalf of our government and not as individuals. If we do not believe in the two bases I have suggested there can be no Christian justification for supporting any of the defence expenditures of the government. We must believe as I do in this case and we must as members of this house consider this issue in the light of what is government responsibility rather than what is the responsibility of the individual.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The whole function of government is to protect and advance the common good, in other words, the welfare of the community. The government has a right and a duty to define the law and defend the civil community from aggression in time of war. Likewise the government has a right and duty to define the law and defend the civil community from treason and murder within our land. In my view a murder is an unjust aggression against the community because a murderer in taking into his own hands the unlawful execution or murder of another human being and is thereby attacking the life of the community itself. Our responsibility as members of this house in such circumstances is to protect the community to the greatest possible degree against the crime of murder.
I agree with the writer who stated that in his opinion the case for or against capital punishment stands or falls on its being or not being an adequate deterrent against the crime of murder. We in this parliament must decide whether we are more concerned with the welfare of the country as a whole than

the possible reformation of a person who may have been found guilty of murder. I would suggest that we must be strong defensively as a country to deter those who commit aggressions against us. Our laws must be strong to prevent a murderer taking the life of any one of our citizens.
I do not believe it is of much value to appeal to statistics to try to show the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the death penalty. There are too many variables involved. A great deal has been said by both the abolitionists and by those who favour capital punishment about the death sentence as a deterrent to murder. In arguments or debates on any situation there is one factor that has often been cited in regard to statistics. Depending upon where you start and how you use statistics you can make them favour almost any position you want to hold. On this subject authorities have produced statistics to prove that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Other people take exactly the same statistics and set them up in such a way that they prove conclusively that capital punishment is a strong deterrent to crime.
The increase or decrease in the murder rate is influenced by a great many factors entirely apart from the existence or nonexistence of capital punishment. For example, it is affected by the period of history that is under observation. It is also affected by economic conditions which have a great deal to do with the murder rate. Depression or prosperity will change the rate. The effectiveness of the police force will change the rate. The ultimate proof that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime is one that it would be impossible to bring forth unless you could induce those who had been deterred from crime by the thought of death to come forward and so testify.
I suggest to hon. members that we should consider this point in the light of something that we understand. If we have a fear of the law it is understood that we will be afraid to commit a crime. I would give hon. members an example in this connection. If you drive down the highway and a police car passes you, your eyes automatically look at your speedometer to see whether you are exceeding the speed limit, or if you see a police car coming and you are exceeding the speed limit, you automatically drop down to the speed limit. I suggest that if we consider this question in that light we will have a better appreciation of it.
March 24, 1966

Life is the sweetest thing we have and it is the hardest thing to lose. If we are to consider the death sentence as a deterrent at all, we must look at this question as individuals. If we can prove that taking one convicted murderer's life has prevented one innocent person from being murdered, then of course capital punishment is a sufficient deterrent to murder to warrant sustaining it in any country. If it saves one innocent girl, if it saves one guard or policeman, the maintenance of capital punishment is warranted.
Murder by the state is one charge that is brought forth by those who oppose capital punishment. Far from being murder, I contend that the exaction of the death penalty is simply the legitimate exercise of civil authority by the government in the interests of the defence of the community. Arguments are put forward about the miscarriage of justice because the accused cannot afford the services of a highly qualified and experienced lawyer. This terrific moral burden affects other professions as well, as we all know. There are still those who die because they cannot afford the best medical specialist, nor can they afford transportation to the hospital with the best equipment in case of surgery.
I suggest that such people are more worthy of consideration by this house because they have not committed a crime against society. I suggest that we should be more concerned about a person who is losing his life because of illness than a murderer who is losing his life because he has committed a crime.
Some contend that murder is a social disease, that it is a result of maladjustment because of circumstances for which our society is responsible. If the view were accepted that a murderer is automatically ill, the medical profession would so diagnose and the person could then be treated and a cure achieved. However, history reveals that specialists in the medical profession have testified on many occasions, as we all know, that the murderer was not ill as they interpret the term "illness". I admit that some people who are mentally ill commit serious crimes, even murder. Such people are not criminals in my interpretation of the meaning of "criminal". But those who are not mentally deficient and knowingly commit murder are criminals according to the laws of our society.
It has been said that whatever treatment or punishment is given to the criminal the ultimate goal should be rehabilitation. I would like it to be that way. However, in my opinion there are insurmountable obstacles
Criminal Code
in the case of convicted murderers. I ask: Who is qualified to state at what time a convicted murderer is ready to go back into society again? Second, I ask: Who has the knowledge to say that a person who has murdered will never kill again? Third: Who could give the assurance to society that the convicted murderer would not repeat his crime, regardless of how remote the area to which the authorities agreed to banish him? Even if the area was not densely populated the people in the area would run the risk of being murdered. No one could give such an assurance. If at this time our society cannot successfully integrate men-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time allotted for the speech of the hon. member has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I shall be only a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If at this time our society cannot successfully integrate men of different races, what hope is there at present for integrating a man who has proved to society that he cannot and will not subscribe to the laws of society? In addition to the assumption that crime is a disease that can be treated and cured, the abolitionists usually argue that crime is a disease which is a result of poor environment. In other words, they say that when a person murders someone else it is not the one who has taken the live who is at fault but society is the criminal.
In defence of the murderer the abolitionist states that such a man has lived in the slums or is now living in the slums, that he is suffering from a broken home, poverty, divorce, lack of opportunity and lack of education. They say he is not really responsible for his actions because these things have been foisted upon him, and because of this the end result can be nothing but the creation of a murderer.
They state that because our society permits these slum conditions we are responsible for the murder. I cannot accept this argument because facts reveal that a very small percentage of murderers come from slum areas or have ever lived in slum areas. Another fact is that an overwhelming percentage of

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
people who have lived in slums have become useful citizens and professional people. They have become leaders in the social field, they have even become leaders in politics, they have become leaders in commerce.
In my opinion environment is not the basic cause or the answer but rather there is something in the heart or mind of man that influences his actions and makes the basic difference in a person choosing the right or wrong way of life. Heredity is the other element that is usually linked with bad environment and blamed for criminal activity. It has been suggested that some murderers coming from a slum environment also come from an undesirable family. It is said they have criminal blood in their veins and this combination of environment and heredity produces the criminal.
If we accept this premise, Mr. Speaker, have we not also the right to ask why it is that on a number of occasions two brothers from exactly the same home, raised under the same conditions, go in two absolutely different directions. Two brothers can have the same blood flowing through their veins, the same mother and father, can have lived in the same home, eaten the same meals, lived in the same atmosphere, associated with the same people, attended the same schools, had the same teachers, and yet go in completely different directions. The solution to our problem could possibly be achieved if we had the answer to what makes two brothers go different ways, one right and the other wrong, in spite of the same environment, the same conditions, the same blood and the same background. I therefore cannot support the claim that it is environment or heredity that produces murderers.
* (3:50 p.m.)
I do not believe that any two people really have the same environment. No two people have exactly the same kind of heredity, nor can it be acquired. Brothers have different faces, different physiques and other important personal characteristics in spite of having many common factors. I do not believe that the two factors of environment and heredity have any part in the compulsion or unknown cause which makes a person commit murder. Until this unknown cause is found and a treatment is devised I feel it is our duty as members of this house to support the retention of capital punishment, at least for a second offender.

Finally, I wish to say that the execution of a murderer must be a horrible spectacle. However, we must not forget that murder is more horrid. The supreme penalty should be exacted only after guilt is established beyond the shadow of a doubt and only for wanton, wilful, premeditated murder.


Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I think that we are all fully conscious in this house of the exceptional importance and seriousness of the matter under consideration today.
That is why I would like to point out at the outset of my intervention the need to enter the debate in the right frame of mind. By that I mean that it is our duty to consider the question of the death penalty with all the coolness we can; we must avoid using too many emotional arguments; we must give up using alarmist pleas, building on the fear of the citizens to inspire to the latter thoughts of vengeance against murderers; we must also forgo any gruesome retelling of executions meant to exploit the sensibility of people in favour of those sentenced to die and against the death penalty.
What is most important in such a debate, and in the vote which will follow, is that the parliament of this country should prove up to the task, that each one of us should base his choice between abolition and retention, whatever that choice may be, not on prejudice, not on fear, not on hate, not on vengefulness, even less on easy emotionalism or on the taste for novelty, but rather on reason, on the teachings of history and on the data which science places at our disposal in this field.
Another mistake which could be very serious would be to approach that problem in a perspective which is too narrow, to treat it as if it were a simple police matter when it is in fact a problem of civilization.
Finally, just as parliament has understood the need to remove all party considerations from this debate, so each one of us must understand that emotivity cannot be a reliable guide in such a matter and that only the arguments based on reason have their place here if we want to reach a fair decision.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that some politicians outside this house felt it necessary, during the last months, to multiply the public interventions against the very idea of this debate, turning beforehand the citizens against the results of the work we had not yet undertaken. I also deplore the
March 24, 1S66

iact that those men chose to speak so loud and to inform so little. I finally deplore the fact that they worked to raise doubts about the authority of the federal parliament in this regard.
I feel it is important, Mr. Speaker, to stress the fact that, in matters of criminal law, the federal authority is beyond question and that only complete ignorance of the constitution could explain any doubt about that. I find it passing strange, therefore, to see a provincial minister who is jealous, and rightly so, of provincial prerogatives, take it upon himself to question publicly the power held by this house to amend the criminal code.
That power certainly entails one of the most awesome responsibilities we have to bear as members of the House of Commons. In my opinion, that responsibility is the second most important among all those that are handed to us, since I do not believe it is surpassed by any other except the even more awe-inspiring power to declare war and make peace. But it is obvious, even beyond question, that this is our responsibility and I find the time quite ill-chosen to question it just when the house is getting ready to assume all the risks of a difficult choice.
Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to question anyone's right to voice his opinion on capital punishment. In passing, I wish to thank all those who took the trouble to inform me of their position during the weeks preceding this debate.
But I consider it improper for a provincial minister to forget the limitations of the duties assigned to him and state publicly his own opinions without making the necessary distinctions. Indeed, in this field as in any other, we are doing a disservice to the citizens of this country each time one of us, whether he be a private member or a minister, at the provincial or at the federal level, goes beyond his jurisdiction to encroach upon that of another authority.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to examine two aspects of the question: first of all, and briefly, I would like to review some of the most widespread opinions on the problem of capital punishment; then, and mainly, I would like to develop what I feel is a fundamental argument in favour of abolition, that is social progress.
I will admit right now, Mr. Speaker, that most of the traditional arguments in favour of capital punishment seem obsolete to me
Criminal Code
today. The exemplary value of that punishment and its alleged effectiveness as a deterrent for the eventual murderers are reasons- and other speakers will prove this better than I can-which do not bear up under scrutiny. In fact, if statistics prove anything, they prove precisely that maintaining or abolishing the death penalty has very little influence on the number of murders, so little in fact that it cannot be clearly established whether it increases or decreases the frequency of such crimes.
And it will take more than the statistics given by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) to change my mind, because I think that covering such a short period of the world's history, they cannot lead to any valid conclusion.
It is not a matter of believing or disbelieving the effectiveness of the punishment; it is not a matter of faith or impressions. If the deterrent effect existed, it could be measured and proved, which is something no one has succeeded in doing satisfactorily so far. Claiming that one believes in the deterrent effect of the rope does not make sense, unless one can prove with figures what one is saying.
I also find it strange that some are still trying hard today to convince us that the victims' blood is crying for vengeance and that society, by putting the murderer to death, is doing its duty with regard to the survivors of the victim.
We know very well, Mr. Speaker, that such revenge is useless, that the wrong committed by a murderer is irreparable and that the execution of the murderer will never bring the victim back to life. Recently, a Quebec labourer whose young daughter was the victim, several years ago, of the most odious crime we have ever witnessed, said simply in reply to some newspapermen who, after the trial, asked him if he wanted his child's murderer to hang: "That will not bring my little girl back." And this comment, to me, is more eloquent than all the speeches in the world.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that even today the Christian doctrine is called upon in the defence of capital punishment. Yet, it is common knowledge that most religious authorities have expressed views favouring abolition, while the rest were satisfied to say that the matter was a political problem about which Christians remained

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
free to take the stand they deemed most reasonable.
Furthermore, it is not true that the church, as is so often claimed, has always favoured capital punishment, nor that this punishment was an integral part of the Christian tradition. St. Augustine stated, as early as the 5th century, when addressing the imperial commissary: I appeal to your faith in Jesus Christ; in the name of his divine mercy, we do not want the sufferings of God's servants to be avenged by the lex talionis-On the contrary, we want the men, without losing their life, to be brought back to their senses.
Of course, it is not enough to show the weakness of arguments brought forward to favour retention. I favour abolition of the death penalty for positive reasons, of which the most outstanding is related to the notion of social progress.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
To my mind, it is beyond dispute, Mr. Speaker-and I see few members in this house prepared to question it-that abolition of the death penalty constitutes in itself social progress. Indeed, the way of civilization has always been marked by a progressive abandonment of killing one's fellow-man.
Most primitive men, living as wandering tribes, killed without any distinction unproductive aged, madmen and violent criminals alike.
There was no alternative as long as the old people were jeopardizing the precarious economy of the tribe by consuming without producing; the mentally ill as well as the criminals were a constant menace to everyone, since the tribes' continuous treks made it impossible to incarcerate them. Of necessity, these people had to be gotten rid of; their elimination was required for the common safety.
But there is no doubt that giving up killing has always been considered a progress by the majority of men, since every society generally developed along these lines as it gradually emerged from its savage state.
Once it settled down on richer land, the tribe stopped killing the aged. Then, as the means became available, what would be called today the required social capital, the society abandoned the killing of the mentally ill, even the most dangerous of them. Originally, they were put away in asylums where they died a slow death; later, much later, they were taken care of and cured.

As for the death penalty, society gave it up by degree. We all know that barely 150 years ago, hanging was the penalty for shop-lifting, for the slightest burglary, for things we consider today as minor crimes or simple misdemeanours. This, Mr. Speaker, is nothing new. The evolution toward final abolition was initiated centuries ago. We are not being asked, today, to break new ground, but quite the opposite, only to terminate what our fathers, our grandfathers and our greatgrandfathers started a long, long time ago.
I submit that we are all ready for this last stage, psychologically as well as from a material viewpoint.
Let us admit first of all that, consciously or not, we are all ashamed of putting such a responsibility into the hands of some of our fellow-countrymen who are thereby compelled to kill their neighbour, this time not in the heat of battle or moved by passion, but deliberately and in cold blood. It is not by accident that we now hide from all eyes this capital punishment that we used to display on the public square. Better still, we hide the name of the executioner. We keep it as an official secret, and no wonder. Indeed, which one of us would like his son to take on that job? Which one of us would even be willing to admit that his father or brother performed that task? Is there but one member in this house who would be proud to have a hangman among his relatives? And when, to justify it, we compare the death penalty to war, we generally forget to note that military feats of valour inspire the greatest of pride, not to mention the most intolerable boasting, whereas the occupation of executioner is as shameful as a vice.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the point is this: have we reached that degree of civilization which enables a community to protect itself against murderers by other means than the death penalty? Is capital punishment really the one and only possible method of prevention? For it is obvious that the community must defend itself against criminals, just like it must protect itself against mentally ill persons that are dangerous. Nobody is suggesting that either of them should be left free when they threaten people's lives. But once revenge is discarded, once the scant effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to potential murderers is understood, one realizes that capital punishment is no longer an indispensible protection against murderers, no more than it is against dangerous psychopaths.
March 24, 1966

Is it not possible to take the last step in this direction and, just as we do not kill madmen in spite of the equal danger which they represent, likewise stop sentencing murderers to death? I am not, you will note, speaking of sparing criminals; I am only speaking of sparing ourselves an action which we are all ashamed of and which, moreover, contradicts all our convictions and all our feelings about the sanctity of human life. I am simply speaking of completing this last stage on the road to progress in a field which can truly be called vital.
Do we have the means to do it? I say yes, Mr. Speaker. If we can protect ourselves from the mentally ill without doing away with them, we can also, through modern penitentiaries, protect ourselves from all criminals. If we are rich enough to feed and care for dangerous psychopaths, we are also rich enough to respect the life of murderers and try to rehabilitate them.
[English1
Some might say that we could not abolish capital punishment without running a risk. But what progress, social or otherwise, what evolution or advancement has ever been achieved without any risk involved? In 1810-this fact was mentioned in the house yesterday-when it was proposed that the death penalty be abolished for shoplifting to the value of five shillings, the Lord Chief Justice of England expressed the view that such an experiment was pregnant with danger to the security of property. He went on in these words:
Such will be the consequences of the repeal of this statute that I am certain that depredations to an unlimited extent would immediately be committed.
Such was the view of that enlightened gentleman on that matter, and the abolition of the death penalty is no exception in this regard. Social progress under all forms has always met with that kind of resistance.
When European parliaments were faced with the problem of child labour, for instance, toward the middle of the nineteenth century, and legislation was debated in order to bar children under 12 from the coal mines, many a noble lord and many a French bourgeois politician of the time fought the measure to the end, deeply convinced that such an initiative would inevitably bring about the collapse of the coal industry.
When the right to strike was being discussed, hundreds of politicians voted against
Criminal Code
it because in their view, and their most sincere view, I should think, it meant the very end of law and order, and the reign of chaos in modern societies.
Again, when universal suffrage or schooling for the working class came up for debate, innumerable politicians were frightened to death. And it was quite normal for them to be afraid because those measures, which to us after more than a century appear as harmless as bread and butter, were incomparably more consequential and far reaching than the one we are considering today. Of course there is a risk involved, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that it is a normal and calculated risk, the kind of risk which can only be avoided by doing nothing at all.
Finally, although I am not a lawyer or a jurist by any means, I should like to put forward one argument dealing with the juridical aspect of capital punishment, an argument which I borrow from Professor Andre Richard, former dean of the free law faculty in Paris, who had this to say in concluding a lecture delivered in Toulouse a year ago:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We can define as follows the positive aspect of abolition: do away with capital punishment and you strengthen justice in its war on crime.
A judicial system without the death penalty does not mean that there no longer exists a form of capita] punishment. It only means that a penal system is established based on a gradual scale of sanctions leading up to a maximum penalty. But the latter no longer differs in nature from the other sanctions; it only differs in degree of intensity and duration.
The immeasurable abyss which presently separates penalties imposed on the living from that extreme punishment of destroying a man's life, would no longer be there to create anguish in jurors and judges. They could therefore make their decisions more calmly in the light of their conscience and reason.
He concludes:
The death penalty is the neurosis of our judicial system.
The case now is whether we want to cure it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker-


Auguste Choquette: May I ask a question of the hon. member who has just spoken?


Mr. Fairweaiher:: I should be only too glad to allow the hon. member to ask his question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have just listened to one of the most moving speeches we have had for a long time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allotted to the hon. member who has just finished his remarks has expired. The hon. member for Royal.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute to deal with something said by an hon. member. In fact, it is the hon. gentleman who sits in front of me, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I am going to comment on only one aspect of his remarks. He quoted the London Daily Express for some statistics to bolster his reten-tionist point of view. I think any of us who are interested in the abolition of capital punishment know that one of the severest advocates of retention is the London Daily Express, a very powerful newspaper whose opinions, very often not backed by anything but prejudice, spread all over England.
My hon. friend should have checked the London Daily Express a little farther, because there was a subsequent correction of the London Daily Express's comments on the murder statistics of England. I am quoting from a despatch from London by Martin Dewey of the Victoria Times of January 17, 1966, in which he says among many other things:
The newspaper errors occurred when the editors ol the Daily Express and the Sunday Times failed to distinguish between the first murder totals released by the Home Office each year, listing deaths "provisionally" recorded as murder, and the much smaller subsequent list of deaths "finally" recorded as murder after police investigations have been completed.
Mistakenly equating last year's provisional total, tentatively set at 235 murders, with the previous year's final total, 158 murders, both papers proclaimed in black headlines that the murder rate had soared by more than 40 per cent since hanging was suspended.
The hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) very eloquently put it to the house a minute or two ago when he said that it is futile to take statistics for a short period of time. In other words, if we only use one or two years to bolster a case it really is not very helpful to any case, be it the case of retention or abolition.
I have one other comment to make with respect to the quotation by my hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek from the Daily Express. May I read a telegram addressed to Mr. Arthur Maloney, president of the Canadian society for the abolition of the

death penalty, from Mr. Sydney Silverman, M.P., dated February 1, 1966.1 quote:
Actual figures for 1965 not yet known. Provisional figures slightly but not significantly above 1964. Since no discrimination between capital and noncapital cases figures meaningless anyhow. Variation in annual murder rate over 30 years never more than between 3.2 and 3.3 per million inhabitants whether death penalty for all some or no murders.
This, of course, is of interest to this country too. In Canada from 1926 to 1962, when there was a change in the system of reporting, there has been a very slight variation in the ratio of murders per hundred thousand of population. The poignant statistic in the middle of this long sweep of years is that the murder ratio was highest in the years 1930 and 1931 when this country was in the middle of a very serious economic crisis.
I have another comment to make about misleading information, and I refer to that contained in a Toronto newspaper, the Telegram, in an editorial last evening. The editorial surprised me because the newspaper had not taken the trouble to check its statistics. There has really been no significant change in Canada or no measurable change in Canada, the ratio being 1.4 murders per hundred thousand of population. New Zealand has also abolished capital punishment. It was abolished, then re-instituted and then abolished again in 1962. However, I am not here to debate the Toronto Telegram, fortunately for the house, and for everybody else concerned.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am here to comment upon what to me is really one of the most serious matters I have had anything to do with since entering parliament.
Albert Camus asks this question in "Reflections On The Guillotine":
. When the extreme penalty simply causes vomiting on the part of the respectable citizen it is supposed to protect, how can anyone maintain that it is likely, as it ought to be, to bring more peace and order into the community?
He answers thus:
Rather, it is obviously more repulsive than the crime, and this new murder, far from making amends for harm done to the social body, adds a new blot to the first one. Indeed no one does speak directly of the ceremony.
May I add that this is borne out in this country because hangings are done at night and in private. I do not have the imagination nor the power of speech which would enable me to shock the house, even if I wanted to, with the lurid details of hangings. Neither do
March 24, 1966

I think that such an approach would be in any way helpful to a dispassionate consideration of this issue.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It often embarrasses me to use personal experience-I mean this-to attempt to rationalize my position as one who without equivocation or reservation is a committed abolitionist. It even embarrasses me somewhat to attempt to rationalize my position as a totally committed abolitionist, without equivocation or reservation. It happens that I am the son of a Supreme Court judge who, during his years on the bench, presided over several murder trials. He became a judge in 1935 at the depths of the depression when despair and despondency easily gave way to violence for the solution of man's problems.
Each member of my family shared in his or her own way our father's mounting distress during the course of a murder trial and when guilt was found and the inexorable result had to be given effect to, we shared his agony. Many wise people have told me since that my father was not cut out to be a judge, that he was a man of transcending sympathy and compassion, that trials took too much out of him, and so on. I have never agreed with this assessment, first of all because it would have meant he was somewhat different from the other people of his time and generation, and I mean that in the broadest sense of the word.
He happened to be very much part of the milieu in which we lived-tough and competitive in sport, courageous in war, reasonably firm as a parent and, like so many of his generation, one who feared God and honoured the King. In other words, he was very similar in his attitudes and outlook to many others of his time. He did, however, abhor capital punishment. He was repelled by the inherent defeat of society in its attempts to balance its accounts by a life for a life.
But one cannot simply rely on one's childhood memories and experience for considered opinion many years later and I, I hope like many others, began to study what others had to say about the subject. I read Koestler and Camus, and now Pelletier, in the philosophical area, Sellin and Gowers on the sociological aspects of the problem, Martin and Gardiner-that is J. Arthur Martin Q.C., although perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) may also be added to the list of abolitionists-devastating in their legal analysis.
Criminal Code
Camus wrote:
-the survival of such a primitive rite has been made possible among us only by the thoughtlessness or ignorance of the public, which reacts only with the ceremonial phrases that have been drilled into it. When the imagination sleeps, words are emptied of their meaning: a deaf population absentmindedly registers the condemnation of a man.
It is our duty, Mr. Speaker, to dispel the public ignorance about this subject. Here indeed is the place for this consideration to be given because we, with our opportunities for careful study and attention to the subject *-I mean no discourtesy to the public at large-we, because of the avenues available to us for a study of this subject, are surely the ones who have the ultimate responsibility to make this decision for our country whether or not our constituents are retentionists or abolitionists.
I am grateful to the newspapers and other media for their publicspirited contribution to our knowledge of the subject of capital punishment. Many churches in Canada, the Anglican, United Church, Lutherans, Men-nonites, Unitarians and the Society of Friends, have added well documented statements in support of abolition. Many thoughtful Catholics, including Rev. Father Kelly, President of St. Michael's College, Toronto, who gave one of the most important speeches I have ever heard on this subject, have made their revulsion for hanging clear and unequivocal. But those who take refuge for their prejudices in finding Biblical quotations to fit their, I think, restricted point of view ignore other equally persuasive admonitions gratifying to the point of view to which I subscribe.
I do not know whether one is allowed to anticipate debate in the house. Presumably I should not refer to hon. members but I shall make a calculated guess that the Bible will be pulled out at convenient times when it suits particular prejudices, and I do the same.
As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.
That is Ezekiel, chapter 33, verse 11.
I presume we will hear excerpts from other chapters that express other points of view, but if those who look to Deuteronomy for the eye for an eye business would also read on in that chapter and list those things for which Deuteronomy gave an injunction that the death penalty be continued, including-but perhaps I had better not go into that.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, I shall let somebody else do it with more authority that I have.
St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica wrote:
In this life punishment ought to be medicinal rather than retributive.
This exhausts my store of doctrinal statements to support my point of view but I am sure there are many other hon. members who have a much more lengthy catalogue than I.
We must not, to paraphrase Arthur Koes-tler "allow ourselves to be commanded by blind belief, or to instinctively recoil from any new departure as a blind experiment...".
My hon. friend from Hochelaga gave a much more eloquent exposition of this than I can.
Until 1955, in Canada the offence of rape was punishable by death. The repeal of the death penalty for rape has not led to any increase in this offence, that is, in the ratio by population, which is the only way in which we can consider any of these issues. G. Arthur Martin Q.C. put it this way in the February 1966, edition of Chitty's Law Journal:
One would think that the death penalty would be less likely to operate as a deterrent to murder than to other offences. If the death penalty does not deter a man from stealing, is it more likely to deter a man from commiting murder?
Those who favour the retention of the death penalty accuse those who favour its abolition of making society the subject of reckless experiment and thereby endangering the lives of its members. The short answer to this is that the death penalty has been abolished for murder in some 40 jurisdictions.
I say "40" in the sense of jurisdiction meaning country. There is a much wider abolition if one considers the individual states of the United States, but this particularizing does not interest me although it might interest some other members. In any event, there are 40 jurisdictions which have abolished the death penalty. I continue the quotation:
Some of those countries are thinly populated; some thickly populated; some are agricultural; some industrial; some consist of a homogeneous population; some of a heterogeneous population; some are composed of Scandinavian people, some of Latin people; some of Slavic people; some have a culture similar to our own, as for example, New Zealand, Michigan, Wisconsin, Rhode Island.
In the United Kingdom the report of the royal commission on capital punishment, which commission sat from 1949 to 1953 and was presided over by Sir Ernest Gowers who entered upon his responsibility as a retention-ist and after sifting the evidence became a

convinced and eloquent abolitionist, had this to say:
We agree with Professor Thorsten Sellin that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the figures is that there is no clear evidence of any influence of the death penalty on the homicide rates of these states and that "whether the death penalty is used or not and whether executions are frequent or not both death penalty states and abolition states show rates which suggest that these rates are conditioned by other factors than the death penalty-
Again, the royal commission report said:
The general conclusion we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its re-introduction has led to a fall.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This is the crux of the case, Mr. Speaker. Although there are other areas which I am sure other hon. members will be pursuing, this is the basis upon which our arguments are advanced. Hanging does not prevent killing.
Let me offer another example close to my own home. The state of Maine abolished capital punishment in 1887. As a matter of fact it did so because an innocent man was hanged in that state. Maine and my province of New Brunswick share a common border for many miles. In every respect we are the same people, a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and French stock. We have common economic problems largely because of location within our respective countries. There is a healthy flow of people back and forth across the border, to which the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean), I am sure, can agree; at least, I am sure he can agree in respect of the healthy flow back and forth across the border.
The murder ratio per unit of population as between Maine and New Brunswick is not appreciably different; yet one jurisdiction has not had a hanging in 80 years and the other jurisdiction clings to the myth, based largely on emotion, that the retention of hanging will have a measurable effect on the murder rate. The state of Maine last had a hanging in 1883. In New Brunswick there were one or two, I think, in the late 1950's. I might tell you right now about the one in 1957. It occurred just before I became attorney general of the province. It disturbed me very greatly because of the situation in the jail where the hanging occurred.
The jailer who had been responsible-he and his wife, as often is the case in small
March 24, 1966

communities in this country-for the incarceration of this prisoner from the time he was accused of the murder, throughout the trial and throughout the appeal, had to participate in the supervision of the erection of a scaffold because of the way we do things in this country. After having been really very close to this prisoner, in the best sense of the word, this jailer then had to be a witness to the execution. It became my responsibility to see that this person had very extensive-I was going to say compassionate leave but people do not like the word "compassion" in this debate-sick leave because of the strain to which this particular jailer had been subjected.
As I said, my imagination does not allow me to go into what happened at that particular hanging and I do not intend to be drawn into it. All I can say is that the job, if that is the word, was not conducted efficiently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave of the house to continue beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the house. As one who prefers to make short speeches I will hasten along. I repeat that the foundation upon which I build my case is that statistics do not prove that capital punishment is a deterrent.
The Canadian society for the abolition of the death penalty has worked hard to promote public understanding of the problem by means of panel discussions, talks and debates. For the most part its members are hardhearted realists although not bereft of idealism entirely. The society includes among its numbers, senators, members of parliament, university professors, lawyers, clergymen and many others. The society is not content merely to be in favour of abolition of the death penalty. It has a genuine and compassionate understanding for the families of murder victims. I am sure that as the debate develops we will hear a great deal more about this factor, that is, that we should pay a great deal more attention to the victims. Of course we should, but this really is not part of the argument about abolition.
Many members of the society favour state assistance or survivors' compensation for
Criminal Code
murder victims, but the society knows that to have sympathy for the victim does not in any way exclude its need to understand the reasons which lie behind the murder having taken place at all. This parliament must study the motivation for murder. This parliament has a duty to ameliorate the problems facing the poor and those either on the fringe of society or in the underworld, for it is from this group that most men come who kill.
I must take exception to what my hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek said, because unquestionably from the disadvantaged, to use the newest sociological term for the poor, comes by far the highest ratio of murderers per population. This need not be commented upon further.
This parliament must seek excellence in the administration of justice and in an improved and expanded parole system. I know that the Solicitor General is working on this now and that we are about to have a committee which will go into this aspect of prison reform and prisoner rehabilitation. Parliament must see to it that every accused has access to an adequate defence. Earlier I spoke of how capital punishment affected a certain judge, but this agony is not confined to him alone. When the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) asked me about hanging in New Brunswick I spoke about the effect it had on the jailer. I know that this applies not only to the jailer but to a great many of the jurymen and so on.
Nothing in the particular episode I mentioned earlier helped the victim or helped the victim's family. Society, I suppose, felt better because a debt had been paid, an account had been balanced. As put by Caesar in "Caesar and Cleopatra": "So, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right, honour and peace until the gods are tired of blood and create a race which can understand".
What gives me tremendous satisfaction about this matter of abolition is that my 15 year old son told me that when his class had been polled about abolition of capital punishment 30 out of the 31 boys were for abolition. This is a wonderful thing to think of for the future.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I can recall the days of prohibition, in 1917, where all the good people, the devout and the religious, in an attempt to check the spread of alcoholism, took it upon themselves to

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
make alcoholic beverages disappear off the face of the earth. They achieved only one thing: they helped the underworld by encouraging the bootleggers. As a result of that attitude, alcoholism grew, bootleggers became rich, women took to liquor through the "hip flask" carried in one's pocket, and since that time women have grown used to liquor. We have witnessed the development of a "caponian" spirit with the murders and everything it entails. Still, the prohibitionists were seeking the welfare of the population. They were honest people, intent on helping the whole population; instead, those good people helped the gangsters in their activities.
Today, we have the same thing. Good people, gentlefolk, religious people, devout people, well-meaning and well-thinking, like in 1917, are asking for abolition of capital punishment. They are, in this, asking the same thing as the underworld, abolition of the death penalty. And yet, communists also request it. Indeed, the communist party in Canada sent me messages requesting the abolition of capital punishment. They are using the same ideas, the same arguments, that will lead them to do exactly what Karl Marx advocated in the past. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that requesting the abolition of capital punishment is not something new. In fact, it was requested in the 15th century, the 16th century, just like today.
In France, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau advocated the same thing as our abolitionists do today. In Italy, Vico and Beccaria, in Germany, Savigny, Karl Marx and Kelsen, in England, Hume and Bentam, in the United States, Franklin and Payne, were all abolitionists who spent their lives campaigning in favour of abolition. Fortunately, they were not successful everywhere. On the other hand, twenty American states abolished the death penalty, but eleven restored it, because of the large increase in the number of crimes.
The same arguments are put forward everywhere. It is suggested first of all that it is a matter of conscience. Yet, as stated by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the Bible distinguishes clearly between the individual and society. The individual is told: Thou shalt not kill. But society is told to put to death any person guilty of killing another. Chapter IX, verse 6, of Genesis, as well as the King James' version, provide that:
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
[Mr. Caron.l
And looking through the Bible, one finds several references to the effect that if someone strikes any man a fatal blow, he will be put to death himself.
I do not wish to delay the house, but in nine or ten instances, the Bible says that a killer is liable to the death penalty. It does not say that an individual has the right to kill; on the contrary, it admits that he does not have that right. On the other hand, it states that society not only has the right but also the duty to put a murderer to death.
If, for one, it is a question of conscience, one should rely on the Bible. Yet, certain verses are quoted from the Bible about the individual but not about society. Still, society has a responsibility in this field.
Mr. Speaker, as a second argument, it is said that this is barbaric. Well, what about the murderers who kill through sentiment? What about those who do not give their victims a chance to defend themselves? They are attacked without warning and shot through the head. The man is dead, his family suffers but the poor murderer is pitied. How unfortunate to kill another man. That, I say, is barbaric. I feel that claims of barbarism are not justified. It is also said that this is vengeance. Vengeance is an act by which evil is returned for evil. Now, there is no question of vengeance in the case of society. Society is responsible for punishment and does not commit murder in such case. It punishes and castigates the one who has committed murder. It is a responsibility of society which cannot be reneged nor avoided. It is its own responsibility. It is not something that can be called vengeance, but just retribution.
Fourth, it is claimed that it is not a
deterrent. But will life imprisonment be a deterrent? Will it deter the criminal to know that he will be permitted to live freely after committing a murder? Not at all. I claim that the only sentence appropriate in the case of a murderer is the death sentence. In England, capital punishment was abolished in 1964 and the very next year, in 1965, there was a 30 per cent increase in the murder rate.


David Lewis: That is not so.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is what English newspapers reported.


David Lewis: That is not so.


Alexis Pierre Caron: You can say it is not true as much as you like, but I will tell you that
March 24, 1966

your arguments are false. It is the same thing in our country. You speak of hangings in England where a judicial error was found to have been committed. Well, I claim that this is false too.


David Lewis: That is a statement of fact, not of an argument.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I say that in England there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of murders committed. In Canada, a substantial rise has been noted since our Prime Ministers and cabinet members have decided to commute death sentences to life imprisonment. Crime has increased in Ontario and everywhere. You will say that our population is increasing and that could be the reason. But I maintain that, since they do not have to fear the gallows, they have no hesitation in killing people. If they were sure to be hanged, they would be much more careful.
The death penalty, capital punishment, has a terrific effect-especially hanging-as was found in the case of Napoleon's armies, for instance. At a certain time, there was a wave of suicides. Officers everywhere were taking their own lives. Well, Napoleon decreed that anyone doing so would be hanged. That wave of suicides stopped because of the shame one's family would have suffered if one were to be hanged. And when I hear the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) talk about the executioner, well, I say that I would rather be the executioner than the murderer. The executioner has nothing to be ashamed of, because he does justice in the name of the state, while the murderer kills for his own satisfaction.
Mr. Speaker, if crime has increased in the last few years it is because we have become soft. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), when he was Prime Minister, commuted the death penalty a number of times. In some cases, there was not even a recommendation for mercy, neither from the judge nor the jury, but the sentence was reduced to life imprisonment just the same. The Prime Minister said yesterday that was the queen's prerogative. One knows that the queen reigns but does not rule, and that the ministers decide not the queen.
Therefore, I say that the Prime Minister and the ministers must not intervene, especially when there is no recommendation for mercy from the court.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, it is said that this is madness. It might be to a certain extent. I will admit with Alexis Carrel that whoever gets angry commits an act of madness. But is it madness which would prevent someone from recognizing the fact that those criminals were brought into court, were examined by experts and found able to stand trial. Any madness there might be here is their own because they did not want to get an education, they did not have the will power to check their passions when they were young. Today they give free rein to all their passions because they can no longer resist. But they know just the same that they are doing wrong, that they are hurting society. And what do they do? They keep on going the wrong way until they commit a murder. I say that those who walk into a bank with a gun in their hands, genuine or not, intend to commit a crime. They should be hanged also, not only sentenced to life imprisonment, but hanged because they intend to do wrong.
I claim that we do not have the right to change that system and that most people today want the death penalty retained. I have received hundreds of letters; a few were in favour of abolition but most of them were in favour of retention. I feel that is the dicision we should take. In the United States, of the 20 states who abolished the death penalty, 11 put it back into force. Why? Because they noticed that crime had increased since its abolition. I am given statistics for the state of Maine and other states that have abolished the death penalty. I suggest that statistics can be made to prove just about anything. But one thing is sure and that is that we have no right to do away rashly with this legislation.
In Montreal recently, three men were charged with murder. One of them was found guilty of manslaughter. Immediately after, the other two asked the judge, through their counsel, to have their plea changed to that of manslaughter and the crown accepted.
That shows that people are afraid of the death penalty. They are not afraid just before committing murder, because they think they are not going to be hanged. They think they can fool the community, the police and everybody else. But once they are caught though, they are afraid of the death penalty. That is why those two were glad to plead guilty of manslaughter, since it only meant life imprisonment for them.
In Montreal, there was the notorious "Santa Claus", Marcotte, who went into a

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
bank and then shot down two policemen as he came out. He escaped and then was captured. After a preliminary inquiry, he was brought to trial first before the court of the Queen's bench and then before the court of appeal. He was granted two appeals before the supreme court and not once was clemency recommended on his behalf. In spite of that, the cabinet commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment. That was a grave mistake and the cabinet had no right to intervene like that. No, the cabinet has no right, especially in a case where there is no recommendation for clemency on the part of the jury, to change the sentence, unless a reasonable doubt exists.
The same thing happened in Quebec. A murderer was freed. Doctors, psychiatrists considered him to be cured and he was allowed back in society. What happened? Well, he came back to society and murdered four more. He was then sentenced to death, but he probably will not be hanged.
Mr. Speaker, the matter must be studied seriously. There has been too much noisy publicity about it. The greatest evil is not capital punishment, but the banning of religious instruction in our schools. And now that we have ecumenism, it seems to me Protestants and Catholics should join in giving such religious teaching as might be acceptable to both groups, in all Catholic and Protestant schools across Canada. The existence of God and the fundamental laws to be observed by man could be taught. In my opinion, provincial authorities should agree with the religious authorities, Catholic and Protestant alike, in an effort to give all our schools across Canada acceptable religious instruction.
Indeed, as I once said in Toronto a few years ago, a bishop of the Anglican church deplores the fact that there is no longer any religious instruction in our schools. Religion is no longer taught in the schools, and Sunday school is no longer attended. What is not taught in school is not taught at all elsewhere. Without religious principles, nothing really matters; there is a willingness to abolish and destroy everything.
Mr. Speaker, I could produce innumerable documents to prove I am right, but time does not allow me to do so.
Mr. Speaker, we should stipulate that nobody be allowed to alter the sentence of any person sentenced to life imprisonment. In my opinion, this convicted murderer should work

to earn money to provide for the needs of the family stricken by the murder which he committed. We could lock him up for life, not give him his freedom, and thus the stricken family would receive something. We should also sentence to life imprisonment the man who rapes a young girl of 12 or 13 years of age or less. That man should get the rope. I do not understand how this can be struck off our statute books. The same should apply to armed bandits, as I said a moment ago, and to narcotics distributors in high places who are responsible for many murders. The poor soul who makes use of those narcotics may be ill, but the man who sold them to him gets off easy.
Mr. Speaker, I gave you the main arguments. I do not wish to go further at this time because I would need at least fifteen minutes more and I know other hon. members want to speak. Mr. Speaker, we have to give serious consideration to this matter. We must not fall for the sentimentality of those who ignore the victim and the stricken family and who think only about this poor murderer before whom we should kneel down and beg forgiveness.
I say we should retain capital punishment in the best interests of society, for it is society that we must protect. We are here to protect society and it is our absolute duty to continue protecting it through the retention of capital punishment.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
[English!


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken has made it very clear that he favours the retention of capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: Oh, you did understand that?


Harold Edward Winch: At least, that was the impression I gathered. I listened most attentively to his interesting and emotional remarks. I, sir, favour the abolition of capital punishment and undoubtedly can, and perhaps will, become just as emotional. But I want to make it clear at the outset that I base my position in support of abolition not too much on emotion but on the facts which are in front of us if we have the intelligence to look at them and understand them.
I could not help noting that both the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) began their remarks by pointing
March 24, 1966

out, thereby giving it priority, that one reason they were in favour of the retention of capital punishment was that this morning they received a letter from the Communist congress supporting abolition. I received that same letter this morning. But over the weeks I have been receiving communications from major church organizations across Canada and only this morning I received letters from priests in Montreal asking me to support the abolition of capital punishment. Am I to deny the hundreds of thousands of true Christians in Canada, am I to deny the religious organizations in Canada supporting abolition, because the Communists also support abolition? How nonsensical can those two members become in putting that forward as an argument for the retention of capital punishment?
I also could not help noting that those who have spoken in favour of retention of the death sentence have quoted from the Bible the Mosaic law, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and those that live by the sword shall die by the sword. Yes, that is in the Bible. But the Bible also says "Thou shalt not kill", and to me this applies to society collectively as well as to members of the human race individually.
I truly appreciate the fact that as a member of the House of Commons I am present when for the first time there is to be a full debate and a free vote on this most important question of the retention or abolition of capital punishment. I first became interested in this matter approximately 30 years ago when I was a member of the British Columbia legislature.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The guards at the provincial jail got in touch with me because the week before three Indians had been hung in Oakalla. They were dropped through the trap-door at the same time. Two of the Indians were husky men and one was small. The guards told me that the small man got jammed between the other two in the drop and strangled to death. His neck was not broken. I raised this matter in the British Columbia legislature I was told by the then attorney general that in order to speak on capital punishment one must have seen a man hung. What relationship there is between the retention or abolition of capital punishment and whether or not you have seen a man hung, I do not know. However, if that was important, I would see a man hung. A few weeks later I saw a young man die by hanging.
Criminal Code
He did not commit the actual homicide but since he was the driver of the getaway car he was guilty by association. In British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, they hang people by dropping them through a disused elevator shaft. It is something to stand four feet away when a man is dropped to his death by order of society. I was about four feet away. It is something to see that rope and hear it whanging back and forth across the trapdoor, and to hear the gurglings and sighings coming up from below. This was my second introduction to the meaning of capital punishment.
When I first came to the House of Commons I had the privilege of being named to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which dealt with corporal and capital punishment. This committee met from 1953 to 1955. I know, because I have seen press reports, that it is now being stressed that the finding of the joint committee favoured the retention of capital punishment. I was a member of that committee. I am not too greatly influenced by its decision. My reason is that the decision was made when all the members who had been sitting for two years on that committee were not present. The vote was a close one. The decision was made not on the basis of those who were there but on the basis of telephone calls to those who were not there.
I have on my desk, sir, the two volume report of that committee. There is something you will not see in these volumes because it was too grisly. I refer to a meeting of the joint committee with the official hangman of Canada. Even some of the members of the committee could not stay at the meeting all had to head for the women's and boys' rooms fast. The official hangman said he was skilful and was proud of his skill. However, he told us what had occurred at previous hangings. There was a woman from Quebec who had put on a lot of weight while she was waiting for the day of execution. When she was dropped her head was torn off. Another case was referred to in which a man was strangling to death, so when the hangman was down below with the coroner's jury he got up on a chair, put his arms around the man's waist and pulled him down so he would die more quickly. None of these things are in the report. These are some of the things we heard from the official hangman.
Yes, "thou shall not kill", but society in Canada kills. We can understand and we can speak emotionally whether we are speaking

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
for retention or abolition. We can understand the emotions of people who are concerned. All of us in this house understand the anguish, the misery, the tears of loved ones, relatives and friends of the victim of a homicidal maniac. Yes, we all understand that the immediate reaction is perhaps retribution and revenge.
There are also the emotions of the loved ones, relatives and friends, all innocent, of the man society kills. They too have feelings. They too are innocent victims. Should we not consider them also? They have an additional anguish in that, society being what it is, human nature being what it is, although they are absolutely innocent the finger of scorn is pointed at them because of the actions of someone related to them who has committed a murder. Yes, there are emotions whether one dies as the victim of a murderer or whether one dies by the hangman's noose.
I said I could get emotional about this subject, and I am. I want to add now that I am fundamentally opposed to capital punishment on the basis of facts. What are the facts? We, sir, maintain that capital punishment is not a deterrent to homicide, that capital punishment is not a further protection to our police forces, that capital punishment is not an added protection to the officials in our institutions, jails or penitentiaries. This morning I asked the Parliamentary Library if I could have the latest figures on the ratio of homicides throughout the world as between retentionist and abolitionist countries.
I was told that the latest figures were those contained in the pamphlet which we got last year on capital punishment, issued by the Department of Justice. These figures are found on page 11 of that pamphlet and I note they are exactly the same as the figures which we received during the meetings of the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate. These are figures compiled by the United Nations and they are the latest that can be obtained.
What do they show? They definitely show without any fear of contradiction, unless you want to say that the United Nations is wrong, that of the 11 countries that had the death penalty England and Wales had the lowest ratio, 0.5 homicides per 100,000 of population, and El Salvador had the highest with 44.3 per
100,000	of population. Of the 15 abolitionist countries the lowest ratio was that of the Netherlands, 0.4 per 100,000 of population, and the highest was the State of Colombia
[Mr. Winch.1
with 15.9 per 100,000 of population. Some of these countries have abolished capital punishment for almost a century. There is no major difference in the ratio of homicides as between abolishment and retentionist countries. We have heard a previous speaker refer to the evidence in the United States and the statistics with regard to abolitionist and retentionist states.
In so far as the protection of police forces is concerned, I know that the association of police chiefs has been bombarding us for the retention of capital punishment. I do not believe they have any evidence to back up their stand because only one survey has ever been made in relation to retention or abolition as it affects policemen. This survey was made under the direction of Professor Thorstein Sellin.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
He sent a letter to every town and city in the United States with a population of 10,000 people or more, and then numerous graduate students analysed the information received. What did they find in the only study of the problem made in the history of the world? They found that there was no difference in the rate of killing of policemen per 100,000 population in states which had retained capital punishment and states which had abolished it. The final results of that study are to be found in this report and they show that an abolitionist state does not pose any greater danger to policemen than a retentionist state.
The same holds true in the case of guards. If there is a danger of guards being killed in the event capital punishment is abolished, then will somebody please tell me why the ratio of guards killed in countries which have abolished capital punishment has not increased? Surely we are not going to say that it can only happen in Canada that guards will be killed if we abolish capital punishment, that it will not happen in the other countries of the world which have not.
We who favour abolition ask those who favour retention to meet these facts. We ask not for emotional or wishful thinking but for facts which refute the facts I have given, if they can find any. In 30 years' study of this matter I have not been able to find any facts to refute the doctrine that the right, modern, Christian and civilized thing to do is to abolish the death penalty. Surely we are now at a time in our history when we no longer believe in retribution for the sake of revenge.
Some say that these people cannot be rehabilitated. There are those who should
March 24, 1966

never be let out of jail because they have committed the type of murder which indicates they are sick. Society has to be protected and if this means that these people must be kept in jail for the rest of their lives then that must be so. But the record in Canada proves that the majority of homicides are committed in the heat of passion, through fear, emotion or in trying to escape.
Many people in Canada would be amazed to know how many criminals, having served 12 or 20 years, have had their sentence commuted and are now living as responsible citizens of Canada. They have never been in trouble again and they do not get into trouble again because they are on life parole. One slip puts them back in jail until they die.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a most important matter. I know I have spoken with emotion, as I am sure will others. But I hope that when it comes to the final analysis we will deal with the problem as a Christian and civilized country. I hope we will deal with it on the basis of modern penology and on the basis of facts and the experience, going back in some cases almost a century, of other countries which have abolished the death penalty. I sincerely hope, sir, that intelligence will guide our thinking and our vote when the debate is finished.


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Quebec South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this matter. I simply wish to express my views briefly, because I am one of those who believe that the old rule "To fit the punishment to the crime" has long been abandoned in favour of more modern methods providing that a sentence should fit the accused, while considering the protection of society.
It is undeniable that the theory concerning sentences has evolved. One only has to read the discussions held during conferences on criminology, such as the one held in Sweden last summer and the other held in Montreal last September, to realize the efficient work done by criminology societies, social and rehabilitation services.
After taking part in those conferences, I became aware of the rapid development indicating that some progress is being made in this field compared to the great civilizations of the past which, in other respects, could be envied by our own civilization.
Criminal Code
The present federal program on penal and correctional reform is more advanced than in many other countries and, no doubt, the recommendations of the committee set up by the government to investigate this entire field will provide the Department of Justice with valuable information about the standards which will help to effect a more thorough reform.
However, the question of abolishing or maintaining capital punishment is a difficult one, the white paper made available to the members provides as many reasons for the retention as for the abolition of the death penalty.
When the scales are equally balanced by two sets of arguments, the member responsible for weighing them may express either his own feelings or those of his electors. In casting this vote entrusted to him by his electors, the member remains free to express a personal opinion when his electors leave him free to do so or when his conscience is deeply involved to the point where he prefers to ignore their wish.
In my case, Mr. Speaker, and without my requesting it, the voters in my riding, according to a reasonable sampling, are 97J per cent in favor of retention of capital punishment, all the more so since this penalty no longer applies save in exceptional cases.
Consequently, I feel it is my duty to vote for the retention of capital punishment. In so doing, I shall cast my vote conscious of fulfilling my mandate in accordance with the wishes of my electors, all the more so since this vote in no way goes against my own conscience. On the whole, I am giving full play to the democratic rules I respect and under which I was elected. I should add that this expression of common sense by my electors did not fail to counterbalance the arguments of the proponents of abolition who have set up their headquarters here in Ottawa in order to influence the present debate, having failed to enlighten public opinion according to their own views.
Public opinion still feels that excessive clemency would tend to make us forget those who suffer the disastrous consequences due to the conduct of those criminals who choose their own penalty, for in Canada, those whose crime is not premeditated are already protected by law.
Social progress is not necessarily the result of excessive weakness.

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
lEnglishl


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, today we have heard some arguments by the abolitionists and also some strong arguments by the retentionists.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: What arguments?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody asks, "What arguments?" This perhaps brings me straight away to the meat of what I am about to say. All arguments or points in reference to the abolition of capital punishment have for more than 100 years been brought out, studied and repeated. Hence it is very likely that nothing new will come from this debate. However, it is best to review the situation.
The question of the abolition or the retention of capital punishment, as we have seen this afternoon, is a highly emotional and controversial subject and one on which well informed and objective thinking persons disagree. If we look at the picture presented we can see how some hon. members got into the realm of emotion by simply thinking of accused awaiting trial, the time of the trial, the time spent awaiting the death penalty and so on. Men and women in society can go into an emotional frenzy when talking about this subject and we saw some of that emotion this afternoon.
No matter how monstrous a crime the accused may have committed, when some people look at the consequences of that crime they go into an emotional frenzy. When questions are asked in public about these things, these people then go into the same emotional frenzy and become as disturbed as if they were witnessing a deed which had been planned and premeditated.
Marullus referred to mass emotional psychology in the Shakespearean play, "Julius Caesar". When the people of Rome one day rejoiced over the victories of Pompey and a short time later rejoiced over the defeat of Pompey by Caesar, Shakespeare, through his character in the play, said:
You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things! Oh, you hard hearts, you cruel men of Home, knew you not Pompey?
This analogy emphasizes how quickly the reactions of people change. I am not sure that the reactions of members of parliament have not changed. One day society cries out for the death penalty and another day it demands abolition. I suppose this is not unusual but is just human behaviour.

At the outset I cannot say, as some hon. members have this afternoon, that in the past I have been a crusader for the complete abolition or retention of capital punishment. It may be that in this debate I shall become convinced that society will be as safe, as moral, and as good a place in which to live if capital punishment is abolished. It is hoped that crimes that are monstrous, that are planned and deliberate murders, will be dealt with effectively by substituting life imprisonment for the death penalty. But when we talk about life imprisonment do we mean imprisonment for life until death? I point out that life imprisonment in Canada does not mean that now. Life imprisonment in Canada may mean a term of eight, 12 15 or 20 years.
Those who are strong advocates of abolition may have to answer that question. Up to the present I am far from satisfied that the abolitionists have answered it, but I still have a searching and open mind and it may be before this debate ends I shall be able to reach some compromise. I am not suggesting that the subject is one with regard to which it is proper that there should be compromise as between those people who favour the retention of capital punishment in some form and those people who support complete abolition. It may be that there are some kinds of monstrous crimes for which capital punishment should be retained.
I listened to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), I listened to the very emotional speech preceding his and I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) for whom I have great respect. I know that he has been studying this question for some years and looking into its problems. He dealt with methods. I do not think that this is a debate to deal with methods. I should also like to say that I am not going to quote from writers because we all have the opportunity to read them and each member has only 20 minutes at his disposal.
I should like to say, however, that I have acted as senior counsel in murder cases and have had personal experience. When one does act in that regard, one is alone. When one is senior counsel defending an accused before the bar of justice and the only penalty for the crime is the death penalty unless it is commuted, then counsel is alone. Counsel must weigh any evidence that may be given by the defence. One of the most important responsibilities he has to weigh is whether in the kind of crime he is defending the accused should be called as a witness at his own trial.
March 24, 1966

It is not unusual, Mr. Speaker, for people whom I have met socially or otherwise not to understand the real principles of jurisprudence, the underlying principle of which in criminal law is that a man is innocent until proven guilty. The onus throughout is on the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt-I emphasize the word "reasonable"-the guilt of the accused. Nor according to the law of the land, must it be mentioned to the jury that the accused has not testified, although courts of appeal may take cognizance of that fact. I just mention that to show how one is very much alone and has the worry of determining whether or not the accused person should give evidence at his own trial.
Over the years the great counsel of Great Britain, the United States and Canada-and we have produced them-have advised very strongly against calling the accused because, although the accused on trial may be as innocent of murder as anyone now in the House of Commons, the twisting of a phrase elicited by the art of cross-examination conducted by a highly skilled or intellectual counsel may result in the accused being convicted.
You have only to read the trial of the Seddon case, in which Marshall Hall, Q.C., of Great Britain begged Mr. Seddon not to go on the stand to give evidence, to appreciate the situation to which I refer. There is no doubt that the reason was the possibility to which I have alluded.
I am not one of those members of parliament who, as in the Truscott case, would upset the jury's verdict, the decision of the court of appeal of Ontario and the decision in respect of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of a 20 or 30 minute interview. I am not one of those members of parliament. I have not their capabilities or their wisdom. Counsel who defended Truscott, had to decide whether or not to call him as a witness. May I just ask this question: If he had called him, thus making him subject to cross-examination by a very skilled agent of the Attorney General, might a phrase have been twisted against him?
The modern trend in Great Britain and even in Canada seems to be that in some cases the accused should be called. As I say, courts of appeal take cognizance of this fact. When the crown has completed its case against the accused the decision whether to call the accused rests on counsel for the defence. In making that decision counsel is
Criminal Code
very much alone. My heart is with the advocates of complete abolition. As a defence counsel this is natural. Defence counsel, just as prosecutors for the crown acquire a crown mentality, develop some kind of built-in defence mechanism as a result of their training and experience.
Though I am not convinced at the moment that complete abolition is the answer, I am glad to have had the opportunity to state my case. I, as I am sure any lawyer would, would defend a person charged with capital or non-capital murder and as in the past I would use every resource and ability at my command. However, I must measure up to my responsibility in this debate as a member of parliament. This is a separate and distinct responsibility that I share with the rest of you. We are responsible for and ought to assure the safety of society and the rule of law. This is most important. Otherwise I shall vote as my conscience and therefore my head dictates.
This is not a subject on which to play politics. The responsibility, I suggest, is as great as that devolving on the western leaders who instigated the Nuremberg trials. In my mind as a lawyer I do not think there was any justification for the action taken by the bar of international justice. However, that action was taken because of the deliberate and planned barbaric slaughter of millions of good-hearted human beings and the culprits were executed. As a lawyer I ask, was it right to put Eichmann and the nazi leaders on trial? Perhaps that is a legal question.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
One thing has occurred to me, and I am very serious about this. I am convinced that today in Canada there are those living in our society, unfortunately, who have all the capacity displayed by the nazis. My own experience and personal knowledge prompt me to ask this question about the many who have been murdered. What about the women and children who have been abused and misused, first by rape and then by slaughter? It may be-this is the emotional side of the argument-your neighbour. Still worse, when you cope with your own conscience you must consider that it could be your child, your wife or you yourself.
Then there are those who may still live in our society and plot the destruction of Canada by selling secrets to our enemies. The western world spends billions of dollars

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
building up defences against the Communists. We train people to kill and spend billions of dollars doing it. Why? It is to protect Canada and the western world. You must always remember that society is organized for the benefit and the good of the greatest number. Laws must be made to carry out that purpose.
I was very happy today to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who has so much responsibility, spend so many hours in the chamber. I am glad he brought this question before the House of Commons but I would point out to the country through you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had abolition already. We have had de facto abolition if not de jure abolition because all death sentences have been commuted in recent times.
Today in Canada, as in the United States, we are dealing with a new type of criminal, a new type of murderer who has syndicated his evil. Here I come to grips with my argument because this is what bothers me. Gangsters today are syndicated. Murder is their business. They plan, they plot, they premeditate. As a result we get the murder of Francois Payette and the murder of seven others, murders which are still unsolved, murders by syndicated gangsters. Maybe I am wrong, but I think this is no time to mollycoddle those vicious, corrupt, evil men whose sole purpose is to destroy Canada and society.
When we talk about a deterrent against crime I have a few things to say. The only deterrent against crime is what every police officer knows. First of all, you must have quick detection. Second, you must have swift apprehension and, third, you must have proper punishment. Having those three things in mind, let me ask these questions of the abolitionists and retentionists. Should we abolish capital punishment for treason? What about the sale of scientific information on the atomic bomb? Should we abolish capital punishment for repeaters? I am not suggesting that the Dionne case was one which was a repetition of murder but as I understand the facts the man was incarcerated for certain sex crimes and paroled. Picture those three young boys before him-someone says four -begging for their lives, but he destroyed their lives. Should we abolish capital punishment for repeaters and, if we do, when we say there must be life imprisonment does it mean imprisonment until death? What parole board or what executive can say that a man will not repeat a crime?

I am against a statement made by the Prime Minister that we should put the matter of parole in the hands of the executive. I am not critical of that statement because he is a Liberal Prime Minister, but I have wondered about it. Some on this side of the house may agree with him, but I say it would be a very dangerous course because it would put parole in the field of politics. It puts too much responsibility on the executive because, if the Prime Minister lets somebody out on parole and that person duplicates his crime, one can see the political implications.
Should we abolish capital punishment for those who are syndicated gangsters? I know that in the place where I used to practise law before I went to Calgary and even in Calgary that kind of crime may not occur. It may not occur in smaller places, possibly because of climatic and sociological factors, but in the great metropolitan centres of this continent and Europe syndicated gangsters operate in places like Vancouver, Montreal, Chicago, New York-


Mr. Winkler:: Contracted crime.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says "contracted crime". Their business is murder. Their business is evil. Their business is corruption. Their business is crime for material gain.
Should we abolish capital punishment for murder which is planned, which is deliberate? We have had cases where murderers have placed bombs on aircraft. Some 50 people in an aircraft have been blown up, people unconnected with the hate which the murderer felt for one person. We have had cases of the gradual but effective poisoning of a person over a period of time.
The hon. member for Vancouver East dealt with police officers. He quoted statistics. Can life imprisonment, meaning imprisonment until death, be a satisfactory substitute for the death penalty? I am sure there will be amendments to this motion. Must we when we make our decision make a statutory declaration according to our consciences that we have done the right thing and left out all political considerations?
There are political considerations because the government finds itself in the position where it has commuted a certain number of sentences and there are at present 10 or 14 people under sentence of death waiting for appeals or commutation. Are the men who have been dealt with in the last two years to get a different deal from those who are now
March 24, 1986

waiting in the death cells? That is the political implication, and that is the responsibility which the government must face.
Capital punishment was partly abolished in 1960 and 1961. All murder, except planned and deliberate murder, was made non-capital and anyone under 18 years of age could only be found guilty of non-capital murder. If the Truscott boy had been tried under that amendment to the Criminal Code no death sentence would have been passed, but it had to be passed according to the law at the time he was tried even though the sentence was commuted, and properly so, because of his age.
I believe the Criminal Code should always provide for commutation of sentences for all types of murder at all times. I do not go along with newspaper editorials which say that commutation is wrong because it is not part of our law. It is part of our law, part of our Code. Every case must stand on its own feet. Every case, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is always judged on its own circumstances. You never have two identical murderers any more than you every have two identical sets of fingerprints. It is the same thing when dealing with human behavior.
What are the arguments in favour of complete abolition? There are two main arguments. One is the possibility of judicial error, which is a serious one, and the other, which was dealt with this afternoon, is the question of the death penalty being a deterrent.
Dealing with judicial error, may I say it is easy to be a reformer. It is easy to get up and spell out the ways in which you are going to reform the world but is difficult to change and reform human behavior. Over the history of mankind man has not changed. Circumstances have changed but man's psychological behavior under those changed circumstances has not.
What about judicial mistakes? This is again very difficult to prove or disprove. During the 22 years I have been a lawyer and the 25 years I have been a student of the law -one must always be a student because if one stops one is no longer a capable lawyer-I have gained a tremendous respect for our judiciary. Judicial error, I repeat, is difficult to prove or disprove but I think that the British system of jurisprudence, which we have adopted in Canada is one of the finest in the world.
Criminal Code
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If it does not work or is not working, we are the ones who are spoiling it. It is not the rule of law which is at fault. Laws must operate for the good of the greatest number, but this is no excuse for errors. How can we minimize or eradicate errors? Let me name a few things I think we should do with regard to which we have been lax in our responsibility. We must appoint the best men to the bench. I know what the law societies have said. We must appoint men not only of intelligence and learned in the law but with patience and human understanding. The laying on of hands may make a bishop but it does not create one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.


An hon. Member:: Let him continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the hon. member have unanimous agreement to conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very short. The best lawyers, with their skills at their intellectual fingertips, should be the men who defend those who are charged with murder or other heinous crimes. We have men like Marshall Hall of Great Britain and Clarence Darrow of the United States, and I think the Liberals might forgive me if I mention also our leader who is a very capable member of the bar.
These men were prepared to defend persons irrespective of consideration. This is not always true today. Some men are appointed by the law society who do not always have the proper experience. Courts of appeal must be prepared to declare new trials not on flimsy excuses but where there appears to be any real miscarriage of justice. Law is in the court's jurisdiction but where there has been a perverse finding of fact that in itself means that verdicts must be changed. There must be no lessening of responsibility. Proper financial assistance must come from the state so that the penniless accused can obtain as good a defence as the case against him financed by the state. Most persons charged with murder do not have the financial resources necessary to hire a good lawyer and above all to retain detectives to go out and obtain the necessary evidence to meet the crown's case. In the five murders with which I have been involved there have been few cases where the accused has had this financial ability.

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
If lawyers fail society legal care will creep forward as a reform, and God help us then because lawyers are the main bulwark against the encroachment of the state upon individual rights. The rules should be amended. The M'Naghten rule in respect of insanity, which is more than 100 years old, should be re-examined immediately. The test is, did the accused know the nature and quality of his act or did he know the act was wrong? That test is totally inadequate. Today we have new scientific developments and we have not kept pace with science. We know that surgeons can operate today on persons who are suffering from schizophrenia or paranoia. The rules should be changed or modernized.
Although the Criminal Code has been amended in reference to 18 year olds in so far as murder is concerned, juveniles should not be subject to the same procedure as mature people. Visualize a boy of 12 or 13 who is subjected to cross-examination. What would happen?
In dealing with this subject I say we need legal reform. Professor Jacques Barzun says in one of the books which have been referred to us:
The failure to see that this Is the great task reflects the sentimentality I spoke of earlier, that which responds chiefly to the excitement of the unusual. A writer on death and the Supreme Court is at pains to point out that when that tribunal reviews a capital case, the judges are particularly anxious and careful. What a left-handed compliment to the highest judicial conscience of the country.
We must cure judicial error. What about deterrence? I will be brief on this. I say that no one can produce an irrefutable argument to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent nor can they prove it is not. The only simple illustration I can give is that of a lighthouse on a rock. We read about the ships which ran into the rock but we do not hear about the ships which passed by safely.
We could use figures and analogies from states in the United States where there are different groups of people in different states, different climates and other different factors. You can find figures to prove any point. I do not know whether capital punishment is a deterrent. I do not think anybody in this house can prove it is or is not.
What about life imprisonment? The abolitionists now are asking for life imprisonment meaning life except at the discretion of the executive. Parole would then become a political football. You only have to read Oscar Wilde to realize that life imprisonment until death is a pretty horrible thing to face. The

man who is incarcerated today for life believes there is great hope for parole and re-entry into society, but take that specific hope away from him and he is then confronted with a life with no hope. Let us not think about capital punishment in the sense in which we have heard about it today. I am not going to go into the mode of murder. Some writers have said that if men were given a choice some would answer that rather than remain in the penitentiary for life until death they would prefer death now.
Reform is always necessary. Dickens said, "The law is an ass". Shakespeare said, through Hamlet, "Long delay drives me insane". We must always have a strong and vigorous police force. Remember that the trained and skilled R.C.M.P., and the local police are the only people who stand between us and a criminal jungle.
Remember too that the rule of reasonable doubt operates more strongly and more favourably for the accused charged with capital murder, with a death penalty, than for any other offence. There will be less chance of judicial error in such cases. I should like to make this point more strongly. When a man is charged with capital murder today the jury knows-and they know it through the medium of communication-that the penalty will be death. This is an important thing. If a jury knew that person would only get imprisonment, would they exercise the kind of care and reasonable doubt which I should like to see a man have when he is faced with that particular crime?
I thought the house might appreciate some of my remarks as a lawyer but I will not go on very much longer because I know everybody wants to have a chance to speak. I would like to make two or three more points. Crown prosecutors must be trained not to be protagonists but men who know their duty is to set out the facts and not try to win cases. There are many people whom I could call as witnesses to strengthen my argument, but I do make this appeal. I hope there will be some compromise between our ideas.
This problem bothers me. No other problem has bothered me as much. I have listened to the retentionists and I have listened to the abolitionists. It is a very serious problem. A newspaperman said to me that he had not made up his mind but another man had tried to get him to make up his mind. I say it is a greater responsibility for a lawyer who has seen and felt these things. Maybe the time
March 24, 1966

will come when by education and rehabilitation we can improve the individual wherever he lives. Maybe Victor Hugo had the right idea and maybe it is now. He said this in setting forth a challenging principle:
In the twentieth century war will be dead, the scaffold will be dead, hatred will be dead, frontier boundaries will be dead, dogmas will be dead; man will live.
That means not only the man who may have committed a crime but also all men, all children, all women.
He will possess something higher than all these- a greater country, the whole earth and a great hope, the whole heaven.
I am very grateful to the house, Mr. Speaker, for giving me these few extra minutes to finish my speech.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: 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 Danforth (Mr. Scott): Housing -Reported shortage of mortgage money; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman): Harbours-Vancouver-Proposed wharf development; the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates): Labour conditions -Atlantic region-Steps to improve unemployment situation.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury.
[English1
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for entering this debate is that the question is a humanitarian one of great interest to the people of Canada. In addition, I have taken part in every discussion on the subject of capital punishment since the former member for York-Scar-borough introduced a bill in the house in 1959 and successive bills in 1960 and 1961.
Criminal Code
I spoke on those occasions, as I propose to speak to you now, in support of the principle of abolition of capital punishment. After each of those occasions, having expressed my views against the retention of capital punishment, I invited comments from my constituents and as a result I received a great number of letters for and against the retention of the death penalty, with the number favouring abolition on the increase every successive year.
From this experience I found that clergymen in general are against the death penalty. Most judges and policemen are for it. Women are divided, some favouring abolition on moral grounds and some favouring retention as a protection against sex crimes. But in all I discovered that people who were once for the retention of the death sentence were gradually becoming converts to the idea that the death penalty is no longer considered an effective deterrent to murder.
Undoubtedly the general feeling swinging toward abolition had the effect of influencing the previous Conservative government to introduce Bill C-92 in May, 1961, the passing of which divided murder into capital and noncapital categories. It was a step in the right direction but it did not go far enough.
The Globe and Mail devoted an editorial to the passage of Bill C-92 of 1961, concluding with these words:
The new amendment will reduce the number of cases in which the government is required to exact the extreme penalty or to interfere with law, but they do not answer the moral question: Should society kill any man whatever his or her crime?
The last debate on the subject, both in this house, in the press and at public meetings, indicated quite clearly that public opinion in Canada is moving faster toward abolition than at any time in the past. A growing number of Canadians regard hanging as a barbarous relic of the past no longer necessary in the administration of justice. At this point I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for facilitating a free vote on the issue enabling every member of this house to vote according to the dictates of his or her conscience in the beginning of this session and letting parliament come to an early decision.
It seems to me that the issue is between two schools of thought, one thirsting after justice, which reminds one of the persecution of Jean Val Jean in Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", and the other urging not forgiveness but rather the rehabilitation of the criminal.

March 24. 1966
Criminal Code
Last May I received a letter from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association containing a resolution urging the retention of capital punishment. Chief constables at one of their conventions recently have gone on record favouring the retention of the death penalty. The president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in a letter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), copies of which were received by all members of parliament, complained that death sentences imposed on three convicted murderers were commuted to life imprisonment.
In his submission the chief of the metropolitan Toronto police, who is the president of the association, pointed out that if the death penalty is not retained he expects to see a greater influx of international criminals who kill for pay. I do not wish to minimize either the danger or the effect on policemen, enforcement officers or jail guards in the discharge of their onerous duty of protecting the life and property of citizens, but I cannot sympathize with their view that only the execution of the death sentence is a deterrent to murder. I realize, of course, that by virtue of their training their attitude on this question is, not surprisingly, negative. However, I do agree that the penal code should be amended so that there will be an extension of detention to a specific number of years to give no hope of release, this being the best deterrent to murder.
Religious leaders of various denominations have gone on record as being opposed to the death penalty. As an example, the Canadian section of the Lutheran Church at one of their recent convocations passed a resolution urging the Canadian government to abolish capital punishment. The 19th general council of the United Church of Canada held in Edmonton expressed similar views, contending that the arguments advanced by those who support capital punishment as a deterrent are inconclusive. I received a petition signed by the parishioners of Broadway United Church, Fort William, expressing opposition to capital punishment and requesting my support for the abolition of the death sentence.
While I respect the views of those who hold the opinion that the death sentence is a restraining force against murder, the experience of other nations is such that it does not bear out their contention. For example, Luxembourg has had no death penalty since 1822, Belgium since 1863, Portugal since 1867, the Netherlands since 1870, and Italy since

1890. Although it was restored in Italy during the Fascist regime it was again abolished in 1948. Norway has had no death penalty since 1905, Sweden since 1921, Denmark since 1930 and Switzerland since 1942. Eleven states of the United States have abolished capital punishment and one more, Texas, is currently taking positive action to abolish it. Why? Because suddenly public opinion has swung behind abolition.
Then there is a strong horror of executing innocent persons. Representative J. Charles Whitfield of Houston, Texas, an abolitionist, has recently pointed out that six men were executed in Texas who were not guilty. Last year the Senate and Assembly of the state of New York passed a bill abolishing capital punishment for most offences, reserving the extreme penalty for a person killing a person on duty or when a life convict commits a killing in prison or while trying to escape.
Centuries ago the death penalty was imposed for many different crimes which had nothing to do with murder. We have come a long way from the days when people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. Following those days the death penalty as a punishment was imposed for treason, rape, murder and a few other special crimes.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
In recent years we have come to adopt a more civilized attitude. I was particularly interested in reading of the stand taken for the first time against the death penalty by the United States Department of Justice, under which the F.B.I. operates. In a letter to Congress last year the deputy attorney general declared himself against the death penalty. He said:
Modern penology with its correctional and re-habilitational skills affords tar greater benefits to society than the death penalty which is inconsistent with its goals.
One other reason for a change of heart of those who once believed in capital punishment but who are being converted to the belief that capital punishment should be abolished is the tremendous influence of television programs such as "The Defenders" which has done much to educate the public as to the human errors that can occur in a trial. People are beginning to realize that an execution can occur before all the facts are known.
In 1949 a man by the name of Evans was hanged in London for the murder of his wife and child. Five years later a fellow by the name of Christie, living in an apartment in
March 24, 1966

the same house, was arrested and convicted of having murdered several women, including Mrs. Evans, for whose murder her husband was hanged five years before. This particular case was the subject of an analysis by judges and members of the bar, which was presented on a C.B.C. television program known as "Background" on April 23, 1962.
A royal commission on capital punishment was appointed by the government of Great Britain in 1949 and after four years of study it made its report to parliament in May, 1953. I wish to quote a brief extract from its report:
Capital punishment has obviously failed as a deterrent when a murder is committed. We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes. No one can ever know how many people have refrained from murder because of the fear of being hanged. For that we have to rely on indirect and inconclusive evidence. We have been told that the first thing a murderer says when he is arrested is often: "Shall I be hanged?" or "I did it and I am ready to swing for it", or something of that kind. What is the inference to be drawn from this? Clearly not that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, for he has not been deterred; nor that he consciously considered the risk of the death penalty and accepted; still less that the death penalty was not so effective a deterrent as some other punishment might have been. The true inference seems to us to be that there is a strong association between murder and the death penalty in the popular imagination.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the questions to be considered are these. First, do hangings offer protection to society? This appears to be the sole reason advanced by those opposed to abolition. Second, do hangings deter other murders? This is the only logical reason for retaining the death penalty. Third, do hangings give the families of victims satisfaction? I honestly believe the answer to all these questions is no. Eminent criminologists, prominent lawyers and people dealing with rehabilitation also say no.
I am convinced now more than ever that by advocating the abolition of capital punishment I am serving the best interest of justice and the interest of humanity, and if it were possible for me to plead with greater force at this moment I would gladly do so.
This question is being treated on non-party lines and above politics, as indeed any measure of humanitarianism should be, without any partisan bickering. Last June, at a special dinner meeting in Confederation Hall attended by Members of Parliament and Senators, I heard a member of the British House of Commons conclude an eloquent 23033-197a
Criminal Code
address on capital punishment with a quotation from one of Bernard Shaw's plays:
And so to the end of history murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honour and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.
The United Nations report of 1962 on capital punishment indicates that the great majority of criminologists, sociologists, penologists and psychologists favour abolition. The death penalty not only brutalizes society but actually promotes a disregard for human life and thereby helps create an environment which encourages further violence and crime. As someone once said, "Capital punishment, while pretending to support a reverence for life, does in fact tend to destroy it".
I cannot think of a more fitting conclusion to my remarks than to quote a paragraph from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of June 28, 1965:
The Citizen stands for abolition because it does not believe capital punishment deters murder, and because it believes that executions degrade society, whereas abolition would to that extent enoble it and thereby enoble every individual member of society.
And again from the editorial page of the Citizen dated March 7, 1966:
The trend in the western world is to abolish the death penalty as a barbaric relic of the past. Studies carried out in those countries where abolition has taken place show that the hangman's rope cannot be regarded as an effective deterrent to murder. A private member's bill was recently the vehicle for getting rid of capital punishment in Britain. It is to be hoped that this action is repeated in Canada.
I express the hope that after the division bells have ceased to ring next Monday night in this house a majority of members will place Canada on the list of enlightened nations by outlawing the death penalty.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before us is a delicate matter since every member has received from all over Canada petitions, letters from organizations, personal letters, in short, letters of all kinds, some advocating or suggesting the abolition of the death penalty, others arguing that the retention of capital punishment is absolutely essential.
That resolution, in my opinion and in the opinion of many members who have spoken since yesterday, contains some very delicate aspects. Are we for or against the abolition of the death penalty?

March 24. 1966
Criminal Code
I referred to organizations. There are some like the Canadian Students' Union, for instance, which on March 18 sent us a petition for the abolition of capital punishment. It said on page 2:
Of recent date, abolition In Great Britain seems to be the example which best shows an enlightened public attitude toward those offenders.
Mr. Speaker, the students' union doubtless knows, as pointed out by some hon. members since yesterday, that in England, where capital punishment was abolished in 1964, there is a strong movement, and increasing pressure on the government in favour of the re-establishment of capital punishment.
The resolution that is submitted to us reads as follows:
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-
Mr, Speaker, I repeat the words "mandatory sentence".
I go on:
-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.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that paragraph (b) and (c) are conflicting. On the one hand, that life imprisonment is substituted for the death penalty and, on the other hand, in paragraph (c), that the Governor in Council can change this life imprisonment and release a murderer when he so decides for one reason or another.
Mr. Speaker, I organized a referendum in my riding last year, to find out whether the people favoured the abolition of capital punishment. In all, there were 1,300 to 1,400 replies; 736 favoured retention, 595 were opposed to the death penalty and 95 had doubts and told us: Judge for yourselves.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that opinions vary greatly on this subject, at the present time.
As several members pointed out yesterday, capital murder calls for the death penalty. In the other cases, there is often commutation. Indeed, there has even been of recent date, commutation in cases of capital murder, not to say of very capital murder.
For instance, in the infamous Santa Claus case, where two Montreal policemen were

killed, there was certainly murder of the very first degree.
In addition, there is the Dion case, in Quebec, where the man first raped a young girl who was crippled for life. Mr. Dion was set free under the Parole Act. As soon as he came out of jail, he killed four youths. He was arrested and condemned to be hanged. While in detention, he managed to escape and even to stab the governor of the Quebec jail.
With examples such as these, Mr. Speaker, I ask the member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), who this afternoon, praised social evolution and the progress of the society in which we live, whether he feels he could possibly educate a fellow like Dion or again a fellow like Marcotte?
And there are millions of cases like those throughout the world.
In the light of the resolution under consideration, I wonder if we should not be satisfied with the present law which stipulates that the death penalty is to be imposed in the case of a qualified murder, because we do not believe that it will ever be possible to educate people of ill will who constitute a danger for society, for our own children, for our wives, for all classes of society.
It is not a matter here of one person's revenge upon another. Not at all. As pointed out by an hon. member this afternoon, it is rather a matter of protecting the society against elements which want to destroy it. There are not only cases like the Dion case.
I read recently in a newspaper an open letter signed by Mr. G. Monet, 621 rue des Cedres, Shawinigan, Quebec. Here is what Mr. Monet said:
The widespread campaign to abolish the death penalty has reached its peak and the members of Parliament will soon vote for or against that measure in the House of Commons.
I read many articles filling a lot of space in newspapers, where considerations ranging all the way from religion to race, from pseudo-religious sects to so-called philanthropic associations, from political parties to individuals-with a lot of statistics thrown in-were invoked in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.
May I state the hidden reason why people want to abolish the death penalty, and no one today has dared to mention it publicly.
Mr. Speaker, I do it more than publicly, as I am reading Mr. Monet's letter in the house so that it will be published in the official record and all the Canadian people can take note of it.
March 24, 1966

I continue:
The true reason for abolishing it is that at this time, more than ever, revolutionaries are getting ready to overthrow the rule of law and order by resorting to murder, assassination and bombings. As it is possible-and it has happened-that some of those professional killers, agents of the international revolutionaries, will be caught after a crime some people want them to get as the supreme punishment detention in so-called humane conditions where the prisoners will enjoy all the privileges, comforts and amenities of home.
So, if the revolutionary group for which this murderer is working succeeds in assuming power through another coup d'etat, not only this murderer is freed, but he is decorated, honoured, rewarded and finally he is offered a key position. Now, this is only possible if capital punishment is abolished.
Let us take an actual case of rather recent date:
When Fidel Castro was arrested in Bogota- several years before the revolution in Cuba-during a revolutionary demonstration, he said at the police station ... "I had a full day, I killed two priests"
. . . Well, if capital punishment had been applied, he would never have returned to Cuba to slaughter people like he did. A very significant fact must be kept in mind: these revolutionaries who kill and murder-applying capital punishment as they see fit-say or have other simple-minded parrots say that the death penalty should be abolished. But if they come into power immediately, they execute those they consider as their enemies even though they are not guilty of any murder.
Another instance: At 31, Robespierre was a judge in France in the Pas-de-Calais department. Being of a sensitive nature, he resigned as a judge, because he was against capital punishment. But once in power, he established the Terror, had tens of thousands of patriots guillotined, and even said once: "I shall destroy 80 per cent of the population, if necessary, so that the remaining 20 per cent will make up a true revolutionary people."
To my knowledge, the campaign against capital punishment is nothing new. Over 30 years ago, such a campaign made quite a stir in Europe.
And our public prevaricator, Jacques Hebert, brings nothing new in the field; he uses the same tactics as the European propagandists, he has nothing to teach us.
If one or two innocent persons have been eliminated by capital punishment within two centuries, what does it amount to compared to the thousands of victims, also innocent, these professional killers and murderers in the revolutionary international brigades have assassinated, after sham trials.
These patented and imported revolutionaries who come here to rouse our youth and incite them to terrorism should be deported unmercifully and we want order to be maintained here. You can be sure that those people have no mercy when they kill those they consider a hindrance to their devilish plans.
Anyone with his eyes open cannot fail to see these basic truths. There are some truths that must courageously be stated.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
And the letter is signed G. Monet, Shawinigan.
Mr. Speaker, there are certainly miscarriages of justice and, in the past, innocent
Criminal Code
people surely have been sentenced to hang, people who had not killed. But today, or rather since 1960, 1961, it seems to me legislation concerning commutation is clear enough. If the resolution clearly stated that the ensuing legislation would enable us to determine that generally, the abolition of capital punishment would be accepted and that, in special cases, the death penalty would still be resorted to in Canada, then, I feel, we could support the resolution. But in view of the fact that we do not have this assurance, I for one-and my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste are completely free to vote according to their conscience, since the vote is a free one-will have to vote according to my own conscience, which means I will have to vote for the protection of the Canadian society, that is against resolution No. 66 as long as we do not have the assurance that capital punishment will be retained in some cases.
Mr. Speaker, there have undoubtedly been miscarriage of justice in the past. For instance, I am convinced that there was a miscarriage of justice in the case of Donald Perrault, who came from my own area. He had taken part in a break-and-entry theft or an armed robbery. He had accompanied a certain Cloutier, who shot at policemen and people.
I think he killed one or two persons. Perrault was sitting in his car outside the bank. He was waiting for his accomplice. Once in the car, after one or two persons had been killed, the two escaped. The police caught up with them and eventually Cloutier was sentenced to the gallows. Perrault was also sentenced to hang, it being alleged that the man who held the bag was as guilty as the one who filled it up. I suggest that such a conviction was entirely unjustified, for in this case there had been no slaughter nor murder committed by the man.
Let us consider another case, that of Wilbert Coffin, which raised much interest, not only in the province of Quebec but throughout the country. It was never clearly or precisely established that Coffin was a murderer. Then, I suggest, if there is a shadow of a doubt, capital punishment should not be imposed.
In the past our judicial system was defective. I hope we will be able to improve it. We will necessarily remain human and, during this debate, we will certainly hear people who may see this question of the murderer or the man who is harmful to society in a different light. However, in the interest of

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
Canadian society, I believe that we should retain capital punishment for people like Dion or Marcotte, or for cases where there is no possibility of rehabilitation.
Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) say that society has evolved and is so much better when these days, in 1964, in 1965, young people 17, 18 and 19 years old put bombs in garbage cans, endangering the lives of children, women and innocent people?
I ask myself then whether the present civilization is so much ahead of that of 500 or 600 years ago?
Has society really evolved when, during the last war, a democratic country, in the name of civilization and Christianity, threw two atomic bombs and exterminated the population of two Japanese cities, Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Men, women, children, elderly people were wiped out by two atomic bombs. Do you think it does the United States credit to have dropped two atomic bombs in the world?
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe the United States will always bear a stigma for having used the atomic bomb, for having killed innocent people.
Has society so evolved, when we consider what is now going on in Indonesia and in Viet Nam, when we see people who want to kill women, children, in short, to wipe out the population in those places? Has civilization evolved so much? Are the murderers in those countries better than those in Canada?
Let us be logical and consider the facts.
I understand that people may have their opinion and I respect it, but when we receive petitions from police forces as, for instance, the metropolitan Toronto police, in favour of the retention of capital punishment, we must think it over seriously.
I have before me the text of a lecture delivered by the Reverend Father Kelly where he said:
St. Thomas said that in this life, punishment must be remedial rather than punitive.
Mr. Speaker, it is also for a remedial purpose that we say that capital punishment should be retained, in certain cases to prevent those people from repeating their crimes or else from committing crimes and murders as soon as they get out of jail or are released under the Parole Act.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the punitive aspect. A person who dies by hanging is not

punished for a long time since right after the hanging his punishment is over. He is no longer a danger to society, to our people.
Last night, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer) told us that society had evolved in the sense that the member for Hochelaga outlined this afternoon. On the other hand, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) stated also last night that capital punishment should be retained.
Mr. Speaker, we will have to reconsider this, even if the resolution carries today or Monday. We will have to come back on this matter because, eventually, the government will have to reconsider abolition if ever it takes place, next week or next month.
Mr. Speaker, we must protect the Canadian society and not legislate without due reflection, and it is in that sense and for those reasons that we will vote against the resolution.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, what can a representative of la belle province say about the death penalty, if not once again to claim a special status?
In our confederation, the premier of Quebec and his Minister of Justice, Mr. Wagner, were the only provincial leaders, I believe, to proclaim their opinions loudly on this controversial subject.
Mr. Wagner even went as far as to ask for a national referendum, a preposterous idea that was quickly drowned in the stormy waters of public opinion.
Do the strong views of those public men have any influence on the population as a whole and especially the people of Quebec? Will they affect the stand to be taken by members here from that province, including this one, when the house is called upon to vote for the abolition or retention of the death penalty?
I rather believe that the utterances of the Quebec authorities merely reflect the general opinion of the citizens of that province, whose representatives in this house seem to favour-I would say the majority of them, perhaps a small majority-the retention of capital punishment.
I would even be so bold, Mr. Speaker, as to tell you about my optimism concerning the vote to be taken. I feel that the house will maintain the status quo and if, by any chance, it should pass the resolution as it appears on the order paper, my impression is that it would not be passed by the Senate.
March 24, 1966

For my part, I have put before the house a bill to transfer to the provinces the jurisdiction as regards the execution of the death penalty, which is in no way incompatible with the provisions of our Canadian constitution where authority concerning the administration of justice is assigned to the provinces.
The question is not to break the uniformity of the criminal law in the country, but merely to give the lieutenant governor in council instead of the governor in council the power to commute the sentences.
Why? First, in the U.S.A. there is a great difference between one state and the other; in Canada, in the field of divorce, there are special systems for Newfoundland and Quebec; the concept of punitive justice may very well vary from one province to another; it may well be also that in the present social context of our country, the retention of the capital punishment would have a deterrent effect more powerful on the Latin temperament of the French speaking than on the impassivity of the Anglo-Saxons.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
With reference to what took place in the United Kingdom, it is proper to point out that a petition was signed by thousands of citizens anxious to see capital punishment reinstated in the statutes.
Mr. Speaker, by transferring to the provinces the power of commutation, this would allow Mr. Wagner to hang, if he feels like it, and other provincial authorities who do not enjoy the pleasure of hanging as much to allow commutations.
However, Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of this debate to deny-I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) in front of me and he will probably give a gasp-the government and the cabinet the jurisdiction in the field of commutation. I believe and I feel that the federal cabinet does not have jurisdiction, the necessary knowledge and the time to consider every case and decide whether or not to commute a penalty.
I suggest the creation of a special committee and if commutations came under the lieutenant governor in council instead of the governor in council, I think it would be imperative to establish in each province of the country a special committee made up of criminologists, sociologists and psychologists who could act under the chairmanship of the chief justice or a judge of the superior court, and whose specific duties would be to advise
Criminal Code
the lieutenant governor in council in the field
of commutations.
In the Quebec Department of Justice, the alarm cry uttered in favour of retention of the death penalty was accompanied by the publication of interesting statistics, which I think are worthy of the attention of the house.
These figures point out a recurrence of murders in the province of Quebec.
I do not want to make any difference between the various provinces because I am convinced that there must exist in the other provinces statistics which could be similar to those I will give and which deal only with the province of Quebec.
Here is the picture which the Quebec Minister of Justice made public:
For the period between 1951 and 1955 inclusive, there was an average of 38 murders a year, that is an increase of 19 per cent compared to the previous period and running parallel to a population increase of 14.1 per cent.
For the period between 1955 and 1960 inclusive, there was an average of 47 murders a year, that is an increase of 12 per cent compared to the previous period and running parallel to a population increase of 13.6 per cent.
For the period between 1961 and 1965 inclusive, there was an average of 57 murders a year, that is an increase of 38 per cent compared to the previous period and running parallel to a population increase of 11.4 per cent. During that last period, an alarming increase, a truly frightening upsurge in murders was registered. This last period coincides with the systematic application of the commutation system.
I am quoting those statistics, Mr. Speaker, without giving them any intrinsic value or any possible interpretative role; in my opinion, they have only an informative value. But just the same they can be used to refute the arguments of those who call on statistics to prove that the abolishment of the punishment often coincides with a decrease in crime.
Therefore, how is it possible to reach a definite opinion on the subject, if the statistical studies neutralize the positions?
First of all, I want to state solemnly that I am not in favour of the death penalty as such, but that I am in favour of maximum security for our society made up of good citizens.
I am aroused by the brutalities inflicted on innocent victims by wicked people; I am aroused by the serious damage against private property by unscrupulous bandits; I am aroused by the sordidness of criminals who

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
have no respect for the life and security of others.
Today the current of compassion for criminals is so deep that people are forgetting the odious lot of the victims.
To those who invoke social progress and the level of our civilization to ask for abolition of the death penalty, I say that a truly civilized country, an era truly characterized by social progress can be recognized by its low crime level; the surest way to abolish the death penalty is to abolish crime and murder. This reminds me of a sophism by the late Mr. Duplessis, who used to say that the best health insurance was health itself.
On the technological, medical and scientific levels, our modern world has made enormous advances, but on the moral and social levels, crucial problems interfere with the progress of our civilization.
A lot has been written and said on the subject of capital punishment.
It seems that when we try and refer to those texts and speeches, we only remain at the stage of ratiocination.
For example, abolitionists will say: "The Lord is the only master of our life" and they will put forward the "Thou shall not kill" that the retentionists interpret as "Thou shall do no murder", and who maintain that the Lord exerts his control over the destiny of man through the use of human contingencies; the Lord, first cause, acts through secondary causes.
As for me, I prefer to leave aside these confrontations between biblical justice and legal justice, between the world of theology and the world of human relations.
Too many of those jeremiahs with a shade of religion, against capital punishment do not mention the eternal punishment as a retribution for a temporal life of sin. It is a bewildering disproportion for whoever considers this reality in terms of our human context only.
Abolitionists emphasize the holy nature of the human life; the retentionists reply that the abolition of freedom takes away the dignity of the individual and that the sacrifice of a man's freedom is often equal to the sacrifice of his life.
Is it better to take away a man's life than to reduce him to the condition of an animal?
Abolitionists contend that the murderer, when committing his crime, does not consider at all the punishment that could ensue from it, but retentionists reply that punishment

looms over potential murderers and therefore deters many of them from committing murder.
Abolitionists claim that a judicial error is possible; retentionists contend that incarceration alone of murderers endangers greatly the life of the prison guards.
Abolitionists contend that repeated commutations make a mockery of official sentences handed down by our courts; retentionists, on the other hand, contend that there is nothing of the sort, since our penal system provides this legal mechanism by which any death sentence is subject to commutation by the executive.
And we could go on indefinitely with this parallel of pro and con arguments.
Apart from this subtle reasoning, an intuitive knowledge of human nature will clearly establish the deterrent power of capital punishment.
I feel it would be to take leave of one's senses to deny the deterrent effect of the prospect of such penalty.
We can philosophize ad nauseam in support of the opposite trend. This is a conviction intimately felt by the whole being, this is a deep feeling possessed by any healthy soul; let us beware of quibbling, by abstract reasoning, philosophers have come to prove that one does not exist.
The abolitionists remind me of the unfaithful husband. He often succeeds, by charming eloquence and argumentation endowed with the most rigid logic, to intellectually convince his wife of his faithfulness; however, she in her heart of hearts feels by intuition that she has been sadly taken in.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)

May I quote the royal commission:
It is reasonable to suppose that the deterrent force of capital punishment operates not only by affecting the conscious thoughts of individuals tempted to commit murder, but also by building up in the community, over a long period of time, a deep feeling of peculiar abhorrence for the crime of murder.

It is an erroneous belief that life imprisonment, if it does exist, serves the same purpose.
There are some pariahs with no ambition or purpose other than to take life easy, who could easily become instruments of organized crime; for them, it does not make any difference whether they live in jail or elsewhere; why not take a chance to get on easy street
March 24, 1966

even if murder is necessary. If the deed fails, they live at the expense of the state; if they succeed, they live in the lap of luxury. Only the rope can put the fear of the Lord in these parasites and deter them.
The abolitionists yearn after a level of civilization we have yet to reach. As I said a moment ago, in the light of the developments of human sciences, I do not believe we can do away so quickly with the death penalty as the abolitionists would wish.
Our penitentiary institutions have not reached the required degree of development, our criminal rehabilitation methods are far from adequate; sociology, criminology and psychiatry have not reached the point where capital punishment can be abolished.
To realize how vulnerable our punitive system is, let us consider that from March 31,
1963	to March 31, 1964, there have been 58 escapes from jails in Canada, from March 31,
1964	to March 31, 1965, 67 escapes have taken place; in spite of many recaptures, there are still 11 criminals at large.
If our penitentiaries, our penal institutions are still unable to offer the maximum security society is entitled to, I fail to see why we should lose our time in studying this resolution, at the present time.
We should, first of all, ensure that maximum security and adequate operation of the Parole Board, before going to extremes, that is abolishing the form of social protection capital punishment constitutes.
Those, then, are the arguments I wished to put forward. Before closing my observations, I might say to the hon. member for Ho-chelaga (Mr. Pelletier), who pointed out a while ago that the official hangman's role was so hateful that the name of the man is not divulged, that while admitting the task is far from interesting, I feel that it requires much courage and allows the law to function to its very limits.
In fact, it might be well to bear in mind that if the name of the official hangman is not revealed, it is far more for his own protection than because his work is infamous as such.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is most interesting; I believe its fundamental object is the most efficient protection of society.
So long as human sciences are what they are, that our knowledge, in the present context, does not reach more deeply, in short, that the maximum security our penitentiaries should guarantee is not a fact, time will not 23033-198
Criminal Code
be ripe for us to legislate and reach a decision on such a resolution. I think it might be wise to wait, in order to better protect honest citizens.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time I have spoken on the subject of capital punishment in this house and I do so with some hesitation because the side I favour is sometimes called barbaric brutality. It is very easy to speak as an abolitionist, to try and project across the world that one has a big heart and is willing to help everybody, particularly the down-and-outers, but I think the first duty of all of us in this house is to society in general.
I have listened to arguments presented in this debate and in a previous debate on the same subject when members referred to the nineteenth century and the sixteenth century to show how justice and the question of capital punishment evolved into the position they occupy today. But I think the house should confront itself with the picture of this country in 1966 and not concern itself with conditions in Sweden, Norway and Great Britain back in the 1800's. We should consider the point to which our law has evolved today and how the abolition of capital punishment would affect our Canadian society in 1966.
I accept the fact that justice is continually evolving but sometimes I am of the opinion that it is not evolving in the right way. Sometimes I am of the opinion that it evolves in the direction which offers least resistance. I have felt for a long time that one should remain innocent until proven guilty, but over recent years I have been led to believe, and am slowly becoming convinced that one must maintain his innocence and be prepared to prove his innocence at all times. I do not like the way justice is evolving in this regard.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
It is all very well for lawyers and members of the house to concern themselves with this question but I would much prefer if they would concern themselves with the basic principle which we must regard in a democracy, that we are innocent until we are proven guilty. Time and time again, particularly in murder cases, we see the courts spend thousands of dollars, taxpayers' dollars, to prove that some Joe Blow is guilty of a crime of which he may or may not be guilty. Joe Blow, on the other hand, must dig into

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
his pockets, his relative's pockets and maybe rely on the good heart of some legal counsel in order to defend himself and to prove to all in the land that he in fact is innocent. I have pointed this out at the beginning of my remarks because I do think the house could serve the country better in the field of justice if it directed itself to efforts to maintain the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. Certainly this is a very very important point when one is being tried for murder or even when the question of murder is involved.
When one talks about capital punishment it is interesting to note how many lawyers are for abolition. It is an interesting thing to note the evolution that has taken place in this country in this regard in the past number of years. Going back six or seven years when the Conservative party was in power and under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition, I can remember newspaper after newspaper condemning them for commutations which at that time I thought were just and still do.
Today we have the press all across the country telling us that capital punishment is a terrible crime and that society cannot take the life of an individual even though an individual can take the life of some other person. Where is justice in this regard? The press never has had to answer to justice in this country, and I do not want to see any question of the freedom of the press introduced.
We have seen the law amended. Somebody mentioned the Truscott case in this debate. This question is not even tested in that case because the law has since been changed. A minor cannot be tried today for capital murder and therefore that case does not enter into this debate at all.
We have seen the law changed in 1961. We never have seen the law tried and proven in respect of whether or not the change was a good one. What has happened? The cabinet under the present government has shrunk from exercising its duty to the Canadian public. It is all well and good to promise the country a free vote on this question. I never have seen a free vote in this house and I doubt whether there will be a free vote on this question. I doubt it very much. Maybe I am from Missouri in that regard. I will watch, I will wait, and I will see.
The cabinet has shrunk from its duty to enforce the law of the land on this question and we, the public, have been lax in allowing

them to continue shrinking away from the duty they have to perform as the government and as the leaders of the country. It is all well and good for speaker after speaker to say that this debate is necessary and this debate must provide an answer to the question. We have heard speech after speech on this point. I am sure that today and on Monday there will be speech after speech again and I do not think there will even be a vote on Monday because many members wish to express their views.
What is the resolution before the house? It is for complete abolition. What is to be substituted as the major deterrent against murder in this country? Life imprisonment, subject to parole by the Governor in Council. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) went on about how he would prefer to put a man in a cage for the rest of his life rather than take his life. How cruel can you get? Put a man in a cage like an animal. I suppose the cage would be six by six and have a narrow window at the top. He spoke about how brutal hanging is. Do we v/ant to parade society before a lot of caged ar.imals before they die or put them away where somebody will not see them?
Somebody said we are not proud of our hangings and that we hang people in the dark. I am sure if we had a group of caged animals who were in cages for life we would put them where society would not see them. It is not a good subject; it is not a nice thing. The question it boils down to is, is hanging a major deterrent which should be retained? I have heard members say they will bring in an amendment to retain hanging for murders of policemen, guards and perhaps small children. Why would they do that? What purpose would they be accomplishing? What they are admitting to me is that they are satisfied it is a major deterrent and they wish to keep it for crimes involving jail guards and policemen who protect our society. They refuse to admit it is a major deterrent but they suggest it should be kept for major crimes involving children, policemen and guards whose duty it is to protect our society.
I could go on further on the question of the deterrent. Before the debate is over we will hear that hanging should be kept for second murders. In other words, we put a man in jail, he is then paroled and commits a second murder, and only after he has committed two murders should he be hanged. Here again what these people are saying is that we will use that major deterrent but we will use it less often. In other words, we are
March 24, 1966

saying the offender is a great man and his life is worth that of two ordinary citizens. This is how ridiculous the question is. The question will boil down to this if we allow ourselves to be swayed by the emotion of a few sentimental lawyers and a few sentimental thinkers.
We must look at this matter in as clearcut a manner as possible. We must look at it as unemotionally as possible. I stated at the outset of my remarks that I do not like some of the trends in justice that are evolving. I think the evolution which came about as a result of the changes in the Criminal Code in 1961 was a proper and just one. We set out two categories, non-capital murder and capital murder. I am in wholehearted agreement with that. I do not think that change in the Criminal Code, however, has been properly tested since it was brought about in 1961.
Ever since 1963 we have had commutations. How great a deterrent is a death penalty which never will be enforced so long as the present members of the cabinet are in their seats? How great a deterrent is that? It is no deterrent at all, or practically none. Some members have spoken in this debate and have said that if this resolution involving life imprisonment is adopted, life imprisonment is equal to the death penalty. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) in opening the debate stated that life imprisonment is just as much a deterrent as the death penalty. He went on to say that the death penalty is no greater deterrent than anything else. This resolution does not state we shall substitute a life sentence for the death penalty. This resolution states that we will put in place of the death penalty life imprisonment with the possiblity of parole on approval of the Governor in Council, a different matter altogether.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
What does that mean? Past experience indicates that these prisoners spend between nine and twelve years in prison, depending on whether their behaviour is good or bad, and they may spend as much as thirteen or fourteen years behind bars.
I always like to simplify things so that I may understand them. In this year, 1966, syndicated crime is moving into Canada and this is not the time for us to abolish capital puhishment or to make things easier for these criminals. In recent years we have had evidence of bodies being buried in lime in Quebec. We are all familiar with the McLaughlan case in Vancouver and the fact 23033-198i
Criminal Code
that the two people who were to appear in court on a narcotics charge were murdered yesterday. Surely I need say nothing more, because it is obvious that syndicated crime is moving into Canada.
Should we make things easier for criminals, and should we make the laws weaker, encouraging contract killing? Many people have talked about the greatest deterrent in Canada to murder. What does the Mafia have as its deterrent to keep their gangs on the straight and narrow, to keep them from squealing or going soft on the job? I suggest they use the death penalty. Their members either stay in line or they are rubbed out. They are encased in cement and dropped to the bottom of a river, or put somewhere else where they are not seen again. Torture is not used and life imprisonment is not used,-and I am sure the crime syndicates could impose life imprisonments if they wanted to, but it would be a great nuisance. Their ultimate deterrent is the death penalty.
If that analogy is a good one, then society's greatest deterrent is the death penalty. We in this country have not reached the point that we do not need a deterrent. In recent years we have all observed that crime is becoming of major concern to the citizens of this country, as evidenced as recently as yesterday by the killings in Vancouver.
In view of all these facts, I have reached the conclusion that now is not the time to abolish capital punishment. Our society has not reached that point at which we can forget about this ultimate deterrent to murder. It is my duty in this house, not to protect my interests or necessarily the interests of my family, but to protect society. I certainly feel that if we in this house vote in favour of this resolution we will be doing a disservice to society and, in fact, weakening the moral fibre on which we depend so much to protect ourselves and the citizens of this country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: First, Mr. Speaker, I want the house to know that I do not intend to take up much of its time or to repeat all that has already been so well said concerning the abolition of the death penalty.
But I do wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the party leaders who decided together that party lines would not enter into this discussion and that the vote would be free. And even if this has nothing to do with this debate, Mr. Speaker, I

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
must say I am one of those who hope that party leaders will give their supporters more opportunities to deal with matters before us in a non-partisan manner and let them free to vote as they wish. This debate is proceeding with such serenity that, in my opinion, it is setting an edifying example.
In any case, I want to repeat what others have said earlier and what I have discovered many times myself, and that is the great surprise of a fairly large number of Canadians when they learned about the great ease with which the cabinet commuted sentences even in cases where no recommendation for mercy had been given or, indeed, in cases which involved crimes that had shocked the Canadian people. I think that such a situation has been going on for too long and it is time we put a stop to it.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the comments that were made. Some very instructive things have been said, but I think that the speaker who impressed me most was the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), who made a dispassionate review of the situation. I realized that the hon. member is surely an excellent lawyer, and if I were ever charged with some crime and needed a good criminal lawyer, I think I would go to him.
There was no cheap display of emotion about his speech and I found his arguments most effective. He asked disturbing questions which I am sure will prompt the members of the house to try to find answers in all conscience.
I think this has been the debate for which members were best prepared, since I would say thousands of references and documents were quoted on the subject. We could, if necessary have agreed to forgo this debate, so that the question could be put forthwith because I feel that everyone has a rather good idea as to how he will vote. But as it is also our duty to throw light on these timely topics for the benefit of those whom we represent, this probably explains why each member wants to make his own comments.
Let us, therefore, assume our responsibilities in all conscience, in what I think is one of the most typical examples of the responsibility of the members of the house and after consulting the electorate and, up to a point, involving their conscience also.
I have studied all the letters and circulars which were sent me, and I have been struck by certain things. For instance, the letters from pressure groups or organized groups,

seemed to me in some cases prompted by certain leaders rather than by the natural desire of each individual to participate in the discussion.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I wonder if this has not precisely tended to blow up artificially the influence of those organized groups which favour the abolition of capital punishment.
I have been much more impressed by the large number of individual letters I received from my riding and from all over the country because I have had contacts all over the place. I told myself that those people who have gone to the trouble of writing me personally without outside pressures, without being urged by a well incorporated, organized and set up association probably expressed more authentic personal opinions than members of organized groups.
The personal testimonials I have received at home appear to be, to a very large extent favourable to the retention of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding on this question. I heard members talk of those mediaeval methods, of that barbaric attitude which consists in killing people, but it should nevertheless be realized that progress has been made in that area. People are no longer hanged for peccadillos, or quartered on the public square; since 1961, capital murder has been defined.
Miscarriages of justice are almost impossible in the present circumstances and the people who are sentenced to the gallows have been found guilty of capital murder beyond all doubt, and on the basis of complete evidence.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that capital punishment must be retained in the present circumstances, because we are not ready for abolition.
I shall even add, at the risk of seeming cruel to those who are against the retention of the death penalty, that a great many of them give me the impression of dreaming. They tell us that in our enlightened era, the death penalty is no longer required and, at the same time, we hear in this house very urgent requests for the setting up of judicial inquiries on organized crime, which would indicate that our enlightened era is perhaps resorting to modern methods to kill with more refinement than in the past, to commit mass murders as in the past perhaps, in short,
March 24, 1966

to kill for purposes of personal ambition and profit unthought of in the past.
It has not been proved, therefore, that our civilization has reached the point where it can do without the death penalty, which surely gives food for thought to people bent on doing wrong.
There is another thing which impressed me a great deal, Mr. Speaker, and I think that members of the house should not minimize this intervention:	representatives of police
forces at every level have unanimously requested the retention of the death penalty.
We, legislators, must by all means support the law enforcement officers who are certainly justified in asking us to retain the death penalty in the present circumstances, because they realize too that we are not ready for the abolition of capital punishment.
The time will come perhaps when we can abolish the death penalty. But until I am given proof that subversive activities against the established order, sometimes with violence, can be controlled in our country, I shall not accept the abolition of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, as long as it has not been proven to me, that reasonable prevention of organized crime has been set up here, I shall refuse to vote for the abolition of the death penalty.
As long as it not proven to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are organized to provide efficient rehabilitation of criminals here, I shall refuse to vote for the abolition of the death penalty.
As long as it has not been proven to me that we have enough prisons, modern prisons, built according to 20th-century standards, to house all those prisoners or criminals and keep them busy at something constructive, I shall refuse to let the death penalty go.
As long as we do not have here enough experts, psychologists, sociologists and, finally, specialists in all fields who will help us precisely to rehabilitate those people we want to keep in jail until they die, I say it will be illusive to advocate the abolition of the death penalty.
No. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must be realistic and say to ourselves that Canada took a great step forward in 1961, with the passage of legislation defining capital crime, capital murder.
I think we have gone through a stage. The next one will entail a reform of the penal code, in which there will be gradations in
Criminal Code
crimes; the granting of a little more leeway to judges; the organization of those jails where immates will be detained for life, according to modern standards; the training of those technicians and specialists who will look after rehabilitation; better preparation for ourselves to carry out prevention, of juvenile delinquency for instance; the continuation of the war on poverty, precisely to prevent the fostering of young bandits in the most deprived sectors of society.
All these things represent the stage we have to go through today before abolishing this crime deterrent called capital punishment and to act otherwise would be deceptive, I believe.
Mr. Speaker, I will now conclude my remarks. I will vote against the abolition of capital punishment, because in my opinion it is a hasty and deceptive legislation, and before passing any such legislation, we should rather undertake the reforms I men-tionned earlier, such as modern penitentiaries as well as the training of a qualified staff, and later a legislative reform to cope with this new situation.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now before us has been discussed and carefully studied for many years in various countries.
It is not the first time the Canadian parliament deals with this question. I am sure this debate will give rise to an objective exchange of views that will enlighten the Canadian people on a matter that is more and more in the mind and conscience of Canadian parliamentarians.
It was difficult for the work group which considered this question for some weeks to bring forward in this house a better method of discussion that should not appeal to one's feelings and sentimentality and partisanship.
I hope this debate goes on in this serene atmosphere, free from all strain that might have distorted the findings of our study in some cases.
Each one of us, Mr. Speaker, will have to vote freely at the end of this debate on the timeliness of abolishing or retaining in our statutes the death penalty for criminals found guilty of homicides.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, to embark on a digression and confess to the house that, in 1960, when we dealt with Bill C-6 intended to abolish the death penalty, I took part in the debate at that time. Then I made a study of

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting homicide and I made some reservations on the definition of this crime in our statutes.
The legislation on homicide, as defined in the act passed in 1960, does not satisfy me. At that time, I had suggested that capital punishment be suspended as long as the legislator would not succeed in establishing various degrees in murders.
I had also suggested that in the spirit of the legislation enacted in 1960, judicial error could cause irreparable wrong to some criminals.
But since that date, Mr. Speaker, after a review of the question and a closer study of the various reports of the royal commission appointed to investigate this important issue, I am not prepared, today, to uphold the argument for the abolition of capital punishment, as I had done in 1960.
However, what mostly influenced my opinion on this matter was obviously the amendment to the Criminal Code which was moved in this house, by way of Bill C-92, on May 23, 1961 by the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton).
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
As a matter of fact, the intention of this Bill C-92 was to divide murder into two classes, namely capital murder and non-capital murder.
This bill was the long-awaited answer to a judicial need and contributed to eliminate, in several cases, judicial errors resulting from the appreciation of essential facts submitted to the consideration of judge and jury.
Since this bill was passed, the judge must impose capital punishment only in cases where a premeditated murder was committed, and even in such a case, this legislation gives the jury the authority to recommend that the convicted individual receive the clemency of the court.
Under that act, an accused sentenced to death for capital murder may de piano appeal to a higher court against his conviction.
As far as those who are convicted of noncapital murder, the legislation provides as punishment a sentence of life imprisonment. That, I think, was a great improvement over the former provisions of the Criminal Code.
Therefore, pursuant to that Act, persons accused of being indirect accomplices to a crime of homicide, either before or after the fact, can avoid the death penalty and be sentenced to life imprisonment.

Such was not the case before. Indeed, under the former provisions of the criminal code concerning homicide, persons indirectly implicated in such a crime were treated in the same way as the main murderer and were liable to the same penalty, that is the death penalty.
To my mind, the adoption of bill C-92 has had for effect to greatly reduce the risks of judicial errors.
In the history of our courts, It has never been proven beyond doubt, that miscarriages of justice had caused irreparable prejudice to some convicts.
Statistics show that one error out of
250,000	cases was committed in all the history of some countries' courts.
I say "irreparable prejudice" because under our present legal set up, the case of a person sentenced to death can be reviewed by judges of different courts of appeal, and as a last resort, the cabinet reviews carefully each case where the death penalty has been imposed.
Bill C-92 goes still further than the recommendations in the reports from the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital punishment; it may be remembered that this committee sat for two years, namely in 1954 and 1955.
Members in this house will recall that this committee had recommended the retention of capital punishment and had also recommended that murder should not be qualified. However, Bill C-92 defined homicide as capital and non-capital murder, thereby going beyond the conclusions of the report presented by the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
What incites me also to change my mind as regards this question is the large increase of crimes in this country. I know that the abolitionists are going to say that this should not be considered as a determining factor as far as reaching an objective conclusion on this question is concerned.
Some of the members in this house will quote statistics so as to prove that, in some of the states in the United States and some other countries, the abolition of capital punishment did not contribute to any crime increase in those countries.
This is obviously a matter of interpretation. However, I should like to emphasize the fact that, in the province of Quebec, the incidence of homicide rose sharply during the last few years.
March 24, 1966

Unfortunately, I did not have time to make statistical research in the other provinces, but I should like to put in the record anyway the statistics I have for the province of Quebec.
A survey conducted on the number of homicides committed in Quebec from 1946 to 1965 provides us with the following figures: In 1946, 36 murders; in 1947, 32 murders; in 1948, 32 murders; in 1949, 29 murders; in 1950, 34 murders. Or an average of 32 murders a year for the five year period.
In 1951, 40 murders; in 1952, 42 murders; in 1953, 43 murders;, in 1954, 32 murders; in 1955, 36 murders. Or an average of 38 murders a year for the five-year period and an increase of 13 per cent over the five preceding years.
In 1956, 40 murders; in 1957, 37 murders; in 1958, 39 murders; in 1959, 44 murders; in 1960, 47 murders. Average for these five years: 41 murders, or an increase of 12 per cent over the five preceding years.
In 1961, 57 murders; in 1962, 45 murders; in 1963, 63 murders; in 1964, 54 murders; in 1965, 65 murders. Hence an average of 57 murders a year for the five year period 1961 to 1965 incl., and an increase of 28 per cent over the five preceding years.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that between 1961-65, a period during which the cabinet commuted death sentences, in addition to the statistics which I mentioned earlier, there was a considerable increase in the number of murders in the province of Quebec.
The following figures refer to our population:
In 1951, the province of Quebec had a population of 4,055,681.
In 1956, the population reached 4,628,378 inhabitants, an increase of 14.12 per cent of the five-year period; there was a 13 per cent increase in crime in the same period.
In 1961, the province of Quebec had a population of 5,259,211, an increase of 13.6 per cent for the five-year period, but during the same period, there was a 12 per cent increase in crimes.
On December 31, 1965, there was a population of 5,700,000 in Quebec, an increase of 11.4 per cent over the previous years, whilst the murder rate for the corresponding years showed an increase of 27 per cent.
In Quebec, since 1959, all death sentences have been commuted, and there was no execution; but at the same time, the rate of murders has doubled in our province in the last five years.
These statistics, Mr. Speaker, indicate an alarming and nearly desperate situation. All the members of this house understand that the province of Quebec has had a sad experience for the last few months in this respect.
We may recall the case of an ex-convict who had been sentenced to life imprisonment and who, having been released from the penitentiary after some years by the National Parole Board, a few months later cut the throats of four children.
Criminal Code
We all remember vividly the murder of two policemen which occurred in Montreal last year and in which the criminal, without batting an eye-lash, shot down two peace officers who were endeavouring to arrest the perpetrator of a bank robbery who had killed a person in the commission of his crime. All this shows that to my mind the time is ill-chosen to abolish the death penalty.
It will be said that it is not proven that the death penalty acts as a deterrent and can prevent a criminal from committing a crime. But what is not known is that there is no certainty either that the abolition of capital punishment would not lead to a greater number of crimes precisely because of the removal of this deterrent which is the death penalty.
It is impossible to assert that individuals who are not criminals now would not let themselves be led down the path of crime if we were to abolish capital punishment.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, from my experience in the practice of law, I believe that criminals give great importance to the penalties provided in the criminal code. How many times, in the practice of law, have we realized it.
Indeed, the bill before us provides no alternative, since the death penalty is to be replaced by life imprisonment; I submit that that is not a proper alternative.
Indeed, we do not have the assurance that the person sentenced to life imprisonment will remain there all his life since this resolution provides that the responsibility will lie with the governor in council to carry out his prerogatives concerning mercy.
Does life imprisonment mean a term of 10, 15, 20 years or more in this resolution? We do not know.
Experience has shown to date that in many cases, the parole board has released murderers sentenced to life imprisonment after a period of 10 to 12 years; and the same thing could happen when the governor in council chooses to exercise his prerogative of mercy.
We have been told, during this debate, that the abolition of the death penalty would show that our country has achieved a certain maturity, that our civilization has evolved; however, in a well-organized society, there are laws which ensure the preservation and protection of its members. Its rules and its laws must be adhered to by all individuals.

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
The basic rules of society are the expression of what the latter prescribes and of the penalties it provides for the violation of its rules. Without penalties, rules have no effect; and the penalty must be proportional to the crime or offence committed.
It is by practising the virtue of justice that society can secure that balance, and it is by practising concurrently the virtue of charity with the virtue of justice that the individual will respect the life and property of his fellowmen.
The third part of the resolution deals with the prerogatives of mercy and pardon which may be exercised by the governor in council. I think it is placing a very heavy responsibility on the shoulders of members of the cabinet to provide that they will consider alone each case of mercy.
That is why I would suggest that a standing committee of the house made up of members of the various political parties-or, if preferable, the justice and legal affairs committee-be asked to consider on merit each case of mercy and that a report be subsequently transmitted to the governor in council so that he can decide on the appeal for mercy.
Of course, committee reports would not necessarily be binding on the cabinet since only the governor in council is entitled to reprieve a convict.
Nevertheless, the aim of this committee's studies would be to help the cabinet, in some cases, to reach decisions and it would still minimize the remote possibility of judicial errors that may occur from time to time.
During debates in the house, several members have already expressed their dislike of hanging, the mode of execution now in use. I agree with them on this matter and I believe this very primitive mode of execution should be replaced by the gas chamber or the electric chair.
In closing, I should like to say this. We live in a society ruled by laws; peace and order must prevail in it.
Each individual forming this society must understand that the law applies equally to everyone, that every law by its definition and concept calls for a sanction and penalty proportional to the crime and offence. And it is our duty and responsibility as parliamentarians to see that those laws and their penalties are applied, if we want our civilization to continue enjoying the prestige and reputation it now has.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be brief, because I do not want to repeat the arguments which were put forward so far. However, I want to show that my attitude concerning the matter of capital punishment, is serious and that I respect the opinions of others. My decision to vote against the motion before us, does not make me a propagandist of the retention, who is trying to convince the abolitionists and prove them they are completely wrong. On the contrary, I believe that, under the present circumstances, there is some good in the position of both groups and I even think it is easier to be an abolitionist in the face of the rapid social evolution of our civilized world, since abolitionists are considered as reformists and seem to be more modern than we are.
Mr. Speaker, since I am basically in favour of the retention of capital punishment, I must admit that all the arguments advanced so far have not yet convinced me of the necessity for completely abolishing from our law this punishment, that some consider as barbaric. I am ready to admit that it is desirable to use it in a more and more limited way, as we improve our penal system, but, it is hard for me to think that I shall become convinced of the necessity of its total abolishment. Besides, it is not the punishment itself which concerns me most, but rather the fact that this punishment remains a usable instrument hanging over the heads of the criminals, as the spear of Damocles.
Therefore, the resolution in its present form, gives me no alternative, except if it is amended in order to maintain the death penalty for at least a certain number of crimes, among which the murder of police officers and prison guards on duty, as well as for some capital murders. It might be desirable that in this last instance, more leeway be made available to the judge, so that he may use clemency, replacing death penalty by life imprisonment when circumstances warrant.
Capital punishment is considered by many as a deterrent, some see it as a punishment or the repayment of a debt toward the society. Others consider it as barbaric, scandalous, as contrary to our principles of Christian charity. I considered all these points, I searched for an answer in statistics, the scriptures and literature published on this issue but I have always failed to convince myself that I should change my original opinion.
March 24, 1966

It is not only the question of playing with statistics, of setting forth a number of pros and cons, of appealing to our civilized spirit, but also there is another factor, which is one of personal feeling and what we feel deeply in our soul and conscience.
In regard to this issue, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves whether we really want to protect society; whether we are not becoming more sympathetic to the criminal than to his victim or eventual victims. It is our responsibility to provide this additional protection to our policemen, to our law officers and to our prison guards. This is a very risky job, the danger is sometimes great and these people, who also have wives and children, risk their lives to protect society. Should we be selfish enough to deprive them from the maximum protection, even though certain groups or associations, in the name of civilization, term the death penalty as barbaric. Have you ever talked to a prison guard. Have you ever thought of gangland activities within and outside the walls of such institutions? Is there any difference, as far as a murderer is concerned, between one, two or three life sentences? He only has to say: "Put it on my bill" and he will be ready to start again the day after.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
It is ridiculous to see what is being done and said in the name of liberty, human rights and civilization in this 20th century. One wonders who has more rights; the respectable, quiet and law-abiding citizen, the forces of law and order, who have the responsibility to pass and implement laws? I wonder, when I look at the activities of some of our fellow citizens. Even here in this house, Mr. Speaker, certain groups of members show more eagerness in defending criminal's, spies, in-corrigibles, than in defending the reputation and the integrity of the public servants; and they sometimes are prone to denounce police forces.
Another thing that strikes me is that many abolitionists are among those who are against our maximum security institutions. We saw it this week when a group of women called on us. They are against building fortresses to hold those who cannot be reformed, who cannot be saved-and there are some, believe me-but how is society going to protect itself? It is all very well to talk about rehabilitation, but it must not be done at the risk of endangering the life of the peaceful and law abiding citizens.
Criminal Code
Coming back to the death penalty itself, those who preach its abolition are doing so mainly in the name of respect for human life. They are right, life is a sacred thing, it comes from God, and criminals should begin by respecting it. Did Marcotte really have that respect when he retraced his steps to finish off police officer Brabant, already seriously injured?
What do you think of gang killings in the underworld, like the recent ones in the United States? We also have our own underworld in Canada, in Quebec. What about the fraudulent bankruptcies and the elimination of witnesses? We are not dealing with school children and I am not ready to say that they are all mental cases.
Mr. Speaker, I start from the principle that life is sacred and that it does for an individual to dispose of it. Whoever deprives another of his life is liable to lose his own. And I add that society, through the authority which comes to it from above, has the power and right to decide if such an individual deserves to live and how he must pay his debt to society.
I do not see in this statement anything to contradict the evolution principle in our civilization but rather a protection for that civilization.
I am conscious of the fact that in many cases there is need to ask oneself to what extent a murderer is responsible for his act. After the changes made in the law of 1961, I think we can leave it to our judicial system to define responsibility and to prove premeditation in cases of qualified murder. Most lawyers admit themselves that the danger of judicial errors is now eliminated by the changes made in the law. I do not accept either the argument that an individual who commits a murder is always in an abnormal state, it is too easy a way to make excuses for the murderers.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should endeavour to improve the world to the extent where capital punishment would no longer be required, but we have a long way to go. In my view, retention of the death penalty in the Criminal Code in no way interferes with the efforts already launched to rehabilitate criminals, to improve our social environment and to administer justice equitably.
Even with the eventual regression of crime, as a result of the evolution of social conditions and legislation, there will always be criminals. That is why I favour retention of

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
capital punishment, if only to remind those who might feel inclined to make an attempt on their fellowman's life that they may be forced by society to forfeit theirs in return.
IEnglish]


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important topic, dealing as it does with the supreme and fundamental right: the right to live. The Declaration of Independence sets out that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Since the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) is not here, I thought I would get away with quoting that Republican document.
At some stages in our discussion we focus on the aspect of the right of life, so far as the accused or condemned is concerned. At other stages we concentrate on the right to live of his victims, actual and potential.
In any organized community as distinct from an anarchic state, the relation between the state and the individual is constantly of the essence. The right of the state to take life is precisely the question to which we must address ourselves as legislators in this debate. For that is the supreme assertion of the authority of the state, which represents the group, or the mass, against the individual.
I am very happy-and I hope I am not being naive in this-that there is to be a free vote. I think that one of the good legacies from this difficult era in our public life will be the greater degree of independence in the House of Commons on the many occasions when monolithic party solidarity and unity are at least unnecessary, and often unhelpful.
I do not pretend to specialist knowledge of this subject. Indeed, since it is a broad issue involving morals, ethics and the fundamental application of the rights of the state, and of the citizens to which the state belongs, I doubt if anyone can ground the certitude of his opinions upon the basis of esoteric knowledge. Not even lawyers, in my view, have any special pre-eminance in the solution of this very important question, because this is far more fundamental than the operation of the mechanics of the law, or the appraisal of an institution.
I confess that I enter the debate with a feeling far removed from supreme overconfidence in the rightness of my view. Over many years, both before and since leaving the halls of learning for the arena of politics, I
[Mr. Laniel.l
have studied, as much as I have been able to, the views of people who have written on this subject. Like many other hon. members, I have read reams of statistics.
Out of this experience, and out of my observation of Canadian conditions in this realm, I reluctantly confess that I cannot in conscience, and conscience here is our only and final guide, give my support to the abolitionist cause. I say reluctantly, because my basic emotional response and my sentiments all combine, if I may use that word-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Be careful.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -to incline me to oppose capital punishment. I therefore would designate myself as a non-dogmatic but convinced retentionist.


An hon. Member:: Very good.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I admire those who champion the abolitionist cause, although I note in passing that on this question on which public opinion seems so evenly divided the persuaders on the abolitionist cause seem to be heard much more in the land than those who with equal sincerity and after equally careful study and reflection support a different course.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Sometimes the retentionist is made to appear as a sort of hardhearted antediluvian who cares not for the feelings of his fellow man. Nor do I find myself impressed by the argument that the abolition of the death penalty is somehow synonymous with advancing civilization.
What is civilization? Is this not an area where we may make very subjective judgments not only from place to place, from community to community, but from age to age? In the present epoch the cultural group to which we belong in the western world seem to show an unprecedented regard for the sanctity of human life. We have vastly narrowed the grounds on which the state appropriately can take life. We have legislated against practices which shorten the life span, and we have made phenomenal advances in the war against fatal illnesses.
On the other hand, this same society has a technology which allows us to destroy one another, not in hundreds of thousands but in millions, and yet all of these developments are advances. So I cannot accept the suggestion that our advancing civilization must be assured and certified by the abolition of the state-imposed death penalty.
March 24. 1966

I listened with great pleasure and interest to the brilliant speech of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), but even after having heard it 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.
Often it is said that it is morally wrong for the state to take life. Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) said:
I personally am unalterably opposed to the taking of life of any creature, either by an individual or by the state

This is a strong statement. He went on to say:
-except unavoidably in self-defence, or to fulfil a need.
This caused the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) to call him a qualified retentionist, and cause the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) in a very powerful address to point to this as a underscoring of the value of the deterrent. But it does strike me that when you erect moral postulates-


Mr. Byrne:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I shall listen when I am finished, and try to reply to the best of my ability.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I simply want to correct a misunderstanding of that statement. If the hon. member will note, it was to fulfil a need-that is, any creature. The fulfilling of a need would be to kill an animal for food value. It has not anything to do with human beings.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was quoting the hon. gentleman and was not suggesting that cannibalism was acceptable, or anything of the kind.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Animal.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But once a moral postulate is erected it seems to me that the allowing for exceptions greatly undermines the moral position. To say that capital punishment is wrong, period, is a strong position. But once you argue that there are certain conditions, certain circumstances which justify death at the hands of the state, then you move the question from that of moral certainty to expediency, to utilitarianism. You ask, not is it right or wrong absolutely, but does this or that course serve best the interest of the state or of the individual.
Criminal Code
I think we get into much of our difficulty-and yet it is hard to keep out of this area-when we start to sort out kinds and degrees of murder, and begin to place different evaluations on the type of person murdered.
Those who are asked by the state to risk their lives in the care or incarceration of the criminal are placed by society in a most exposed position. They walk with peril daily. A penitentiary guard, a policeman, if they serve society's ends surely deserve society's special protection. I am much moved by the communications which I have received from members of this goup. They speak from an exposed position. They speak from a deep and awful awareness of the danger and when they write, as did the Civil Service Association of Canada not long ago, I cannot be cold to this kind of argument:
In the past years three penitentiary officers have lost their lives in Canadian federal penal institutions through inmate inspired disturbance or direct attack. Penitentiary officers feel that to remove the death penalty for murder committed under these circumstances would, in effect, remove the only deterrent to deliberate attacks on their lives.
I cannot be deaf to that kind of plea.
Other hon. members have developed the question of the life long sentence, the life sentence which is really for life. We all know, and society knows to its sorrow, that convicted murderers after serving a certain time have struck again at society after leaving the prison walls. And so some say, "Make a life sentence mean a life sentence." Others have already expressed their view on this. To make the life sentence a real life sentence removes all chance for rehabilitation, and knocks out completely all possibility of reform. It has already been described by others how life imprisonment itself is a living death. But the role of the prison guard in all of this is extremely dangerous.
I do not want to traverse the ground that has already been covered by some people who have gone over their 20 minutes. I hope I can finish within that limit, but the painful aspect for the sincere retentionist-and there is no monopoly of sincerity in this regard-is the awful possibility that an innocent man may be hanged. Regrettably this has happened. Legal institutions, like all human institutions, are fallible. It is a situation which would bring nothing but agony to anyone involved closely or remotely with such an irremediable and final miscarriage of justice.
But the anguish of those responsible for such an error as that, Mr. Speaker, would

March 24, 1968
Criminal Code
surely not be greater than that of those responsible for prematurely releasing upon society one who will again take the life of his fellows. Cases of this kind are, alas, far from uncommon.
Lord Justice Darling told a British House of Commons committee that 26 years experience on the bench had convinced him that in view of the checks and safeguards ef English law it is practically impossible for an innocent man to be hanged, although a great many guilty ones escape. But when the state itself allows a guilty one to escape to deal death again to a member of society, what then? Errors have been made.
Some people seem to believe that they can look at a man for a short while and know he is innocent. I do not have the omnicompetence to do that. I know psychiatrists can do much to reveal a man's mind but they cannot look into his heart and know exactly what is there. I say it is very hard to be sure and I would not want to be the one to take an unnecessary chance.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
We hear much about statistics and we will hear more. I was very impressed by the statistics used by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette). I think, if we look at our own country and see what has happened here in recent years under the de facto abolition of the death penalty, we will find statistics there that are not overly cheering; in fact they are very disturbing. To me they seem to be going in the wrong direction; they are rising.
It has been said by those who dispute this point of view that you cannot make any short-range judgment, and that you must have a long time. But can those in charge of society's welfare and security take a long time? There have been highly civilized countries-to use that expression-which have abolished the death penalty and after careful consideration of the consequences of this action have reverted to it. It is not an easy question at all; far from it.
Like many other members I was present at the last two-day debate in 1960 on this question. I heard many fine speeches then. One which I remember very well is that of Mr. Martineau, a former colleague of mine. He said something which is very applicable today, when he pointed out as an absolute certainty that if that, particular bill were
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
voted down, not one additional murder would be committed.
But, how many hon. members who are listening to me here can say, consulting their own consciences, that if such a bill as this becomes law some murders which otherwise might not have been committed may be committed.
Let us search and consider that.
My learned friend from Royal said that there would be those who would quote scripture on all sides. That has been traditional. The clergymen in the south at the time of the civil war did quote many things in support of slavery, while their fellow theologians in the north found that the same doctrine gave them support.
No one has mentioned the Presbyterian church but, lest they think some Presbyterians base their views only on the grim Old Testament preachments, I would refer to a Presbyterian statement on the subject:
The right of the state to inflict capital punishment is currently being called into question.
That certainly is true.
Yet we would affirm the right of the civil magistrate to impose the death sentence for crimes like malicious and deliberate homicide. The state is given this right as the minister of God-
This is a reference to Romans 13: 1-7.
-and it shall have this right as long as evil continues to disturb the social order.
This is a religious statement, but I think it is a very meaningful observation of what we are facing up to today. So, Mr. Speaker, I am abridging my remarks in the hope that other speakers will have time. I can only say in conclusion, on the basis of careful thought, and in the hope that society might be a little safer, I feel it is in the public good that the law should remain as it is.


Harold Edward Winch: Might I ask a question, Mr. Speaker, of the hon. member who has just
spoken?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that the time allotted the hon. member has expired.
The hon. member for St. Paul's.


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the subject now before us was first raised, I have found it very difficult to decide just how I should vote on the question of the complete abolition of capital punishment. It is only very recently I have come to the conclusion, contrary to my original belief, that I must support this resolution.
March 24, 1966

Criminal Code
From the beginning I felt that capital punishment should be limited even more than it was by the amendment passed in 1961 which made the distinction between capital and non-capital murder. Nevertheless, for a long time I believed that capital punishment should be retained in certain circumstances; for example, pre-meditated murder for gain by a sane, sober adult, or the murder of a police officer or prison guard by a criminal in the course of committing a violent crime or while escaping or attempting to escape from prison.
Like other hon. members I have received a great deal of helpful correspondence from constituents and others and have been furnished with a great deal of informational material on the subject. After reading all of this and after discussing the matter with other members, and after listening to the debate in the house, I have, after considerable hesitation, come to believe that it is now possible for us to dispense completely with capital punishment, and that it is desirable we should do so.
Perhaps because of my own difficulty in reaching a decision, I fully appreciate the strength of the arguments which can be advanced in good faith by those who believe that capital punishment should be retained. For this reason, while I will vote for the complete and immediate abolition of capital punishment, I think it would be better to follow the procedure which was followed in England, namely to pass a statute suspending capital punishment for a trial period of five years.
During the last two and a half years the cabinet, by its policy of commutation, in effect has suspended capital punishment on its own responsibility. It would be much better for this house to provide specifically for the suspension of capital punishment for a five year trial period and remove this responsibility from the cabinet.
In this five year period I hope it will become apparent to an overwhelming majority of members that at our present stage of social development we safely can dispense with capital punishment. The necessary statute providing for permanent abolition can then be passed. If however, this hope proves ill-founded, then the present law providing for capital punishment will be reinstated automatically without further argument or debate.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that I reached my conclusion only after a great deal of difficulty. Because I know some other members at
least have had the same difficulty, perhaps I may be permitted, at the risk of boring some, to retrace the tortuous course by which I reached the conclusion that contrary to my original belief I must support this resolution.
Like the rope itself, the case for capital punishment depends not upon the strength of a single strand, but upon the combined strength of a number of strands when entwined. All of us know, for example, and will have to admit, that capital punishment certainly serves one very fundamental principle of law in that it prevents repetition of the offence by the criminal; it is absolutely final and effective in this preventive function: this is one of the functions of punishment. I also believe that capital punishment has a somewhat greater deterrent effect than any sentence of imprisonment. I think each one of us can recognize this intuitively without reference to statistics.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Where there are so many variable factors involved, statistics are of doubtful value. If they are of any value, they merely indicate that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is not sufficiently great to make any very substantial difference in the rate of violent crime.
Capital punishment is also in accord with a basic feeling-perhaps a primitive one-that most of us have, that punishment should be in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. From this point of view, in executing a criminal, society does not show any lack of reverence for life. On the contrary, the execution of the criminal who has taken life without cause is meant to emphasize the reverence which society has for human life and the horror with which it regards the criminal act which destroys it.
The fact that certain other countries have abolished capital punishment is not really very helpful in view of the fact that many other countries retain it and, in any event, our circumstances in Canada may be different. Canada is a relatively young country with a relatively small and non-homogeneous population dispersed over a great area. We have very special problems in maintaining law and order, and we must find our own solutions to our special problems.
Nor do I believe that the issue before us can be resolved by reference to religious, philosophical or moral principles applied in the abstract. These principles must be applied, of course, but with specific reference to

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
our actual circumstances in Canada today. Most of the great religions have recognized capital punishment in certain circumstances. Surely we must all recognize that it is impossible to say that capital punishment is immoral under all circumstances. In time of war or in a society emerging from disorder, or threatening to dissolve into disorder, or in a primitive society where other means of control and restraint are not available, capital punishment for the most violent crimes is probably essential.
I very much doubt that our ancestors were any more cruel than we are. The prevalence of capital punishment for a very large number of crimes just a hundred years or so ago is probably due to the fact that at that time society had not developed an effective prison system. In the absence of other means of preserving law, capital punishment was not immoral. On the contrary, it was essential, for, without law, society itself would perish.
It also seemed to me that arguments based upon the cruelty of hanging are really not relevant in this debate. If hanging is, in fact, cruel, surely less cruel methods of capital punishment could be developed. Nor do I place much stock in arguments based upon the fact that capital punishment is ignoble or degrading. Death is ignoble or degrading only if the cause of death is ignoble or degrading. The death of Socrates was not ignoble or degrading, nor was the death of Christ: tragic, yes, but not ignoble or degrading. Certainly the death of a murderer is ignoble and degrading, but it is so because of his crime, not because of the fact that society has executed him for that crime.
The argument that all criminals including murderers are ill or are the victims of society and should, therefore, be given medical and psychiatric care and attention can, I believe, be misleading. Some criminals may be insane or ill and they may respond to medical and psychiatric care; but there are other criminals who may be abnormal in the sense that they do not understand or respect the rights of others, or do not act or respond in a normal or socially acceptable way, but who are not ill in the sense in which we usually use that term. Even more important, in many such cases we have no reason to believe, in the present state of our knowledge, that their criminal abnormality, which is so dangerous to our fellow citizens and to society, can be cured by medical or psychiatric methods.

Nevertheless, while I appreciate the strength of all these arguments, I have come to the conclusion that I should support the abolition of capital punishment although, as I have said, I would prefer to see parliament suspend it for a trial period of five years.
At one time I was also inclined to think that there should be no possibility of parole in the case of a murderer who commits a premeditated murder for gain. I have since come to the conclusion that if it is believed he can be rehabilitated, the hope of parole should be extended even to him. Possibly also a life prisoner with hope of parole is less likely to kill a prison guard or commit a serious offence in prison if he has that hope of parole.
The resolution before the house suggests that parole should not be granted in these cases unless approved by the cabinet. I have some doubt as to whether this is desirable. I would have thought it better to impose final responsibility on the parole authorities and, if any review is considered desirable, it should not be by the cabinet but by a special board having specialized experience and knowledge in the field.
In abolishing capital punishment we must recognize the very heavy responsibility we are imposing upon our judicial and parole officers in trying to decide which offenders respond to rehabilitative treatment and which do not. We must be prepared to accept the fact that at the present stage of our knowledge, there are some offenders who cannot be rehabilitated and who will have to be imprisoned indefinitely. We who support abolition cannot have it both ways. If we want to abolish capital punishment we must be prepared to accept the fact that offenders who are incurable must be detained indefinitely in maximum security institutions, and possibly in special detention units of those maximum security institutions.
In making a decision to abolish capital punishment, we are imposing certain risks on society. We are imposing risks upon those who must work with the prisoners and we are imposing some risk on fellow citizens who must live in the immediate vicinity of the institutions in which dangerous criminals are confined.
Mr. Speaker, the governing principle which determined my decision in this debate is this. The purpose of our society should be to preserve and advance human life. It must be prepared to take life but only when necessary to protect other individuals or society itself.
March 24. 1966

In conformity with this principle, history appears to record a gradual movement away from capital punishment in peaceful and well-ordered countries as they mature and as they develop alternative methods of effective control.
In primitive societies, in impoverished societies which have not developed or cannot afford effective institutions for detention and correction, or in countries at war or faced with serious disorder, capital punishment is no doubt necessary, and indeed inevitable. The real question then facing us is one of judgment. Have we in Canada reached the point where we can now abolish the capital punishment of criminals without imposing undue risks upon other citizens and society itself? Clearly this is a question on which responsible and intelligent people, acting in good faith, can have very different opinions. That is why there is such a difference of opinion in Canada which, in turn, is reflected in differences of opinion among the members of this house.
Canada has developed a wealthy, complex and relatively mature society. I believe we can afford a multitude of institutions to deal in an appropriate manner with the great variety of offenders inevitable in a complex society. We can afford to provide medical and psychiatric care for those criminals who will respond to known methods of treatment. We can afford to establish institutions or special detention units from which there can be no parole or escape for murderers who do not or cannot respond to rehabilitative treatment.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am happy that the decision was made to have this debate on the resolution before us and not on a detailed bill. As many of my constituents have pointed out, the issue of capital punishment should really not be considered in isolation or out of context. Instead this debate should give rise to a reconsideration of the much broader social questions relating to crime and punishment and rehabilitation. As was pointed out in a newsletter from the John Howard Society of Alberta, we should consider the lack of psychiatric and other rehabilitative treatment and perhaps, indeed, the complete investigation and reform of our penitentiary system and penal practices.
For example, one of my constituents has suggested that benefits might accrue to society and to the prisoner himself if he were made to do productive work for fair wages
Criminal Code
and use such wages to help pay his keep and contribute money to persons he had injured. I am told this has been done for years in Minnesota. There is other experience we could draw upon and many worth-while possibilities we could explore.
Earlier this month the appointment of a parliamentary committee on penitentiaries was authorized. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the authority of this committee should be widened to consider the broader problems to which I have referred and which cannot possibly be debated here at this time. However, the deliberations of any such committee should not be permitted to prejudice or delay the present resolution, which I hope will be supported by a large majority of members from every party in the house.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, more than one person who has spoken in this debate has said that, while listening to all the various speeches, he has not yet been convinced. I have been struck by the fact that in many ways what we have in this exercise is not really a debate, inasmuch as we are not taking close note of the various arguments that are presented and then weighing them to find how they equate with our own points of view. If I am looking for a serious and lively discussion on this issue, I merely have to retire a few feet behind this curtain and thereupon jeopardize all my opinions and ideas. It seems that to deal with what appears to be a highly insoluble problem we should all retire behind the curtain until we have reached a decision and then come forward and announce the result.
I may not have too many opportunities -indeed, I hope I shall not have too many opportunities-to disagree with my hon. colleague from the constituency of Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), I find that in this particular debate I am in considerable disagreement with him. The hon. member began his remarks by saying that surely a fundamental question to be raised here is the right of the state to take life. I do not think this is the fundamental question. The fundamental question on the part of the state is the necessity to take life. That, to me, is indeed the question we should be wrestling with in this forum.
I hope that in the course of my remarks I may say very clearly what is to me a position that has grown out of a number of years of association with those to whom we refer generally as criminals. I might say that I have probably spent more time behind bars

March 24. 1966
Criminal Code
and in prison than any other member in this house, and I am somewhat proud to make that assertion.


An hon. Member:: You are not that old.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: An hon. member says that I am not that old. Age does not have too much to do with it. During my years at theological college I was fortunate enough to be prison chaplain. There I became acquainted in a very close way with a number of people who had been convicted of a variety of offences all the way up to and including murder. At a later date I was fortunate enough to visit, in the city of Chicago, a halfway house to which for further reformation some of the most incorrigible and dangerous offenders had been released after serving sentences. In all my experience with a variety of criminals it became obvious to me that many of the superficial conclusions we have drawn about people who commit criminal offences are highly incorrect.
I believe there are far too many of us in this house who make an easy division between those who are involved in some kind of crime, no matter what that crime may be, and ourselves. There is no such easy black and white division in humanity. Those who run afoul of the law, those who inhabit our various prisons and penitentiaries, are really not that much different from ourselves. The various motivations for their crimes are part and parcel of the same motivations that we experience daily, and we must try to do a much better job of understanding how they arrived in such an unfortunate position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: One of the arguments that has been used, and will be used, is this kind of indefinite referral from time to time to moral law. Very often in backing up such references to the moral law there is referral to the scripture. In my profession I must admit that I am not unfamiliar with various portions of the scripture, but I often find that in dealing with people who like to quote scripture a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Often people who desire to do so can find a text in the Old or New Testament to support their position, and they use this text as a proof text, out of context on a pretext. That is the kind of distortion of Biblical text that I am not going to tolerate. If I had the time, which I have not because Mr. Speaker will not allow it, I could prove almost anything by

the use of various scriptural texts. It is not this kind of isolated quotation from here and there that proves any position to be the right and infallible one. If one wants to make a serious appraisal of the scripture and the Christian position he should examine the total text.
What are the overriding and fundamental assertions of Christianity? If you take a serious approach to this question you will find, I think, that the teachings and practices of Our Lord and His followers was much different, in terms of His attitude to the criminal and social offenders, than we are often inclined to believe from these various texts that are hurled at us.
I shall not at this point make use of a variety of texts to prove what to me is a fundamental and overriding concern of the Christian gospel, that of acceptance, forgiveness and love. This was ultimately proved by Christ's own handling of those who were criminal offenders at the time of His own execution. One of the concerns that is uppermost in the minds of all of us, or it should be, is indeed the protection of society; and truly it has been stated that one of our fundamental, if not the most fundamental, concerns here is that society is truly protected.
When you come to the question of the protection of society, the arguments often go something like this: We do not really know what dangers we will be introducing to society by abolishing the death penalty; we do not want to take the risks of doing away with that protection and inflict untold misery on people in our society. That is the argument, is it not? But what of the other side of that argument? May there not be some dangers to society in retaining the death penalty?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
What proof has been advanced in this house that retaining the death penalty will provide some increased advantages to our society? Should we not be fair and ask the question: Do we perpetrate, continue and prolong harm to society by retaining the death penalty? Surely, if one side of that question can be asked, the other side should be asked as well. The burden of the proof has, by and large in our particular time, been upon the abolitionist. Let us hear, then, from those who defend retention. I feel, as the hon. member for Queens said, that the abolitionists have been speaking much more because they have something definite and conclusive to say.
March 24, 1966

314?
Surely, if we are concerned about the protection of society, it is primarily a custodial concern. If you are going to advance the argument that by having the death penalty as a deterrent you are now protecting society, then let us revert to those golden, bygone days when we could execute people for the merest kind of social offence. Nobody would accept that position today. Then why should we accept the assertion that capital punishment is proper for one kind of crime but not for another? We are I submit illogical at that point.
There is, in our concern here, that great question of deterrence. Time and again it has been raised, and I am sure it will continue to be raised until the conclusion of this debate. At rock bottom, the thing which prevents us from removing capital punishment is the thought that somehow or other, it is going to deter a man who is contemplating a certain crime if he realizes that the penalty for it will be capital punishment. Is it a deterrent? I can say, as a result of having spoken to many hundreds of people for hours in prisons, that I have yet to meet one man behind bars who even intimated to me that the fear of the punishment he would receive for his offence would have in any way prevented him from committing it. Indeed most offenders with whom I have talked said it never even entered their minds. I have yet to meet an offender who did not say: I never expected to be caught. These men did not expect to be caught. When these people commit crimes, does anyone believe they are going to take the time to think of what the consequences of their acts might be from the standpoint of the administration of justice?
When we talk about fear as a deterrent, we must also ask the other question: Is it possible that fear of the death penalty may, for some people at some time, be a compulsion to commit a capital crime? I feel that at times it has been. A man has recently written a book that has gained quite a bit of popularity. His name is Bill Sands. Some of you may have read the book which is titled, "My Shadow Ran Fast". Mr. Sands is not a man who committed the ultimate offence, but is a man who has spent many years in notorious prisons, one of the major ones being San Quentin. He knew men who had committed terrible crimes. Caryl Chessman was one of his acquaintances. He said in his book and in public interviews that he found men behind bars who were saying that this business of being locked up like an animal was so bad, so
Criminal Code
meaningless an existence, that they would be willing to take a chance on murdering, either a fellow prisoner or a guard so they would be quickly and speedily dispatched from this world.
Let us not think that by keeping the death penalty and locking men up in our institutions year after year we are protecting our prison guards. At times we may be doing the reverse of that. More than one prisoner behind bars today will tell you that he would much rather find a way to end his life quickly than to drag out this kind of meaningless existence. There is a great deal that needs to be done within our whole penal system, a system that we think is effective. We talk time and again about how valuable the fear of punishment is in the protection of society. If the fear of punishment is effective, I ask this question: Why is it that more than two thirds of those who are serving in our penitentiaries at this moment will, in all likelihood, return after their release, having committed other crimes? Does that sound like protecting society by some sensible kind of institutionalized justice? I think it is an atrocity that we put up with this kind of inferior system. Surely we should give much greater consideration to the fact that it may well be that the fear we are creating may do more harm in our society, may create more social hostility, than any danger that would be involved in the removal, once and for all, of the method of capital punishment.
Now, I suppose I have been fairly emotional in this debate. I am an emotional person at times. We have been told by the press that we were going to have an emotional debate, so we do not want to let the press down. Why is it we are having an emotional debate? Surely this should not be that emotional an item. Rarely have we dealt with such an issue which involved so few people. This is such an emotional question that it is not wise to get behind the curtain if you do not want to become involved in one of these emotional debates.
Why is it an emotional debate? Is it because of a tremendous feeling of antipathy, a sense of revenge, which we feel when a particularly horrible crime is committed? We want to see that person get what is coming to him. Is it also because of the fact there is a presupposition throughout our whole social organization that in order to control the relationship of men in our society we must always have in the background some certain element of fear? Far too much of our social

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
control is registered at the level of fear. It is a sad sort of thing, I think, that we have come to accept this as a fact, that the instrument of fear must be used in working out ways for our society to control our comings and goings, our human patterns in society.
I am even somewhat dissatisfied with this motion which is before us. I feel that the movers of this resolution have their feet in both worlds. They are against capital punishment but they have also put in that safeguard of life imprisonment. In other words, they are doing away with one fear deterrent and putting another in its place. Surely some time in our society we must come to the point where we can free these fear ridden, hostile people who offend our society and control them by some other means than blind punishment and directed social hostility. I hope the time has come when we can take some positive action in this regard. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) has suggested that perhaps we are not quite ready to take the risks the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) urged us to strive for today. Perhaps we will have to adopt the British solution of a five year period in which we really give this thing a test. I would vote for that, because at least we would be making a step in the right direction. I cannot vote for anything less than that, really, because the retention of capital punishment in any form, for any criminal offence whatever, is in effect saying that the retention of capital punishment is a right and proper system for our society. I cannot agree with this.
I hope that we are in a period where we can accept what I believe the majority of opinion of this country has accepted in a passive way for the past three years. I hope we can take enough responsibility, show enough desire in this house to be in favour of something that says something tremendously important about the dignity of each and every individual and his relationship to his fellow man.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Jean Berger (Monlmagny-LTslel):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be very long, but I wish to indicate clearly what stand I shall take, as other members will, when the time comes to vote on the matter now before us.
Naturally, we are discussing a disturbing, emotional matter; I might even say that while participating in such a debate, there is somehow a feeling that one's neck is in the noose.

Nevertheless, most of the speakers who spoke before me managed to come through with flying colours, and I feel I should have no difficulty in expressing my opinion on the matter.
However, I am in a slightly difficult situation. I have, as many other members, made several inquiries in my riding, in the last few months, indeed for over a year now, inviting my constituents to let me know how they feel about this debate, that is, the abolition or retention of capital punishment.
The response of my constituents has not been very strong; in fact, the percentage was very small. I do not know whether they were embarrassed to speak, or what else. At any rate, if I had considered only the letters I received, the decision would have been that much easier. But I felt among the people of my riding and among the people of the province of Quebec a certain reticence to depart from this system of justice called capital punishment.
Then, of course, I thought of the attitude I should take myself and I came to the conclusion that I had no other alternative. There may be some who would be inclined to fear that in taking position against such a measure, perhaps against the will of the people they represent, they might commit political suicide. At any rate, I believe it would be preferable to make known my position because if I did not act as I do, I would feel guilty of betraying the sacred principles supported by the most unfaltering and most serious beliefs.
Of course, there might be a very easy way out: one could sit in one's place, let the others do the talking and when the time comes to vote, go along with the majority. Or again, if I had simply followed the desire which may not have been sufficiently expressed by the people of my riding, but which I think I detected, I could have said: "Well, I rely on what the people of my riding have told me." But I refuse to play the part of Pontius Pilate and wash my hands of it all, hiding behind the feelings of the population which might not be sufficiently well informed regarding the problem we are discussing today. Therefore, I refuse to play the part of Pontius Pilate, and in a debate of this kind, I must make my opinion known freely, sensibly, honestly and conscientiously, facing up to my own responsibilities, according to my conscience, in that respect.
Naturally, I may say that I have great respect for the opinions which have been
March 24, 1966

expressed but I do not share the same views; I respect somebody else's opinion because any human being has a right to his own opinions and I make a duty of respecting this right which is one of the most sacred to man.
I should wish, however, that a greater number of people would get more information and more literature concerning abolition or retention of the death penalty, as I had time to do myself and, no doubt, most of the representatives of different counties of this country in this house for the past two or three years. If more people had been able to become informed in this way, it would be perhaps easier for them, thanks to references which would enlighten them on the situation, to express their feelings in this house.
My interest in this matter is not recent, because several years ago already I was closely interested on account of my work at that time as a news commentator on radio and television in a crime, a legal case, a trial which made the rounds of the legal circles in Quebec city, and since I did not live very far from where the alleged crime had been committed, I followed the case closely. I was a little excited to see how the case had been dealt with; as a matter of fact, it came up again not so long ago, and it raised doubts among the people on various aspects of justice. And, of course, I also discussed with learned colleagues, lawyers-a profession which I respect, I wish to add in passing- but I cannot agree with what some of them told me and what has been repeated here: If you were a lawyer, if you ever had to plead some cases. I repeat, with all due respect to the honourable members of the legal profession, that I cannot agree that it is an over-riding criterion for a better assessment of the case for the retention or the abolition of capital punishment, for, in my opinion, the spirit, or if you prefer, the concept of justice does not necessarily require legal knowledge or great legal know-how to express itself. It is something that is felt, it is something which has to do with the heart and the spirit, and I believe that any right-minded person is also in a position to form an objective opinion on such matters.
It is not necessary to let ourselves be mesmerized by high-sounding words such as criminology, penology, psychology and so on. We must consider the matter objectively.
Looking at the members gathered in this house, I ask those who have made up their minds and those who may still be in doubt
Criminal Code
what would be their reaction if they were called upon, let us say tomorrow, to sit on a jury who would have to decide whether a fellow human will live or will have to forfeit his life. Perhaps, in this way they would see whether they could express their views with as much ease. They would have to face the learned and moving pleas of counsel for the defence and of the prosecutor who seek, each in his own way, to impress those men or women that have been selected to decide the issue.
I had an opportunity to attend a number of trials, and that is roughly what I witnessed, It was claimed that people who could afford it made sure to retain the services of a skilled criminal lawyer to defend them.
I even saw one of our great criminal lawyers of the province of Quebec defend a poor chap accused of manslaughter; he felt so secure that he was sleeping in the dock. He said: My lawyer will fix it up for me. As a matter of fact, everything went well, but this cannot always be expected. At some trials, one may wonder, for instance, whether there should not rather be some equality, when one sees the difference between the amounts spent by the crown to prosecute the offender, and by the accused; if the latter has rather limited means, there is then a disparity which, in my opinion, is not normal. That is why, when one often attends trials, one wonders, if the man could afford one of the most outstanding criminal lawyers, whether he would not stand a better chance of having his case settled, of saving his life, of escaping the noose. This is a further reason which prompts me to speak in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.
Now, the death penalty itself has been referred to on several occasions and in various ways. Is it really an effective deterrent? That is the point. There is surely room for doubt. Can it be asserted that the threat of the death penalty has ever prevented anyone from committing murder? Surely not. Many instances, many quotations could be given.
And then, why all this secrecy surrounding the death of a criminal if it is to be used as a deterrent? In certain African countries, in Saudi Arabia, I believe, not only is the law of retaliation applied, but rather barbarous punitive measures are also taken.
For theft, for instance, they are satisfied simply to cut off the hand of the thief in the public square. I grant you it is rather radical, but it seems that it works out there. Nevertheless, these are barbaric methods, but

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
this represents somewhat a shameful execution, because in the system we know today an execution is carried out on the sly, generally after the twelve strokes of midnight.
The trial is public, the sentence is public, but when the time set for the execution comes around, it is carried out before a few select witnesses in the small hours. How do you think this can deter? And what results can it have on a criminal who may be recognized as such at a later date?
If punishment were to be meted out in public, as it used to be, there could be grounds for discussion. In any event, I too agree that the criminal should be in a position not to do any harm. Abolition deserves a try.
e (8:50 p.m.)
Obviously, there is nothing perfect on this earth. Society will always be imperfect. Punishment will always have to be meted out. It seems this is a hard fact of our social life. But capital punishment produces no good; everyone is aware of it, everyone admits it. It makes the condition of man more distressing than it need be. The fate of man will be no worse if capital punishment is abolished.
These are great hopes that abolition will improve society. Nothing is lost through abolition of capital punishment, society is not being jeopardized in any way. It may be, and I was most interested by the opinions of the previous speaker, that we will do some little good in working at finding other solutions to this problem. Mr. Speaker, we should stop to consider the root of the evil. Who is truly responsible? Perhaps we should not always punish those who disobey the law. Most criminals today are the victims of a still badly-organized society which has been unable, in the 20th century, to clear away its many slums. There are also other reasons. Let us not forget that many were taught to kill in cold blood-those who fought in world conflicts, who were in the Korean war, for example.
There are also deficiencies at home, parents who are too often irresponsible. There are many factors: the unhealthy climate of our penitentiaries and other institutions where criminals are further taught the ways of crime rather than rehabilitated- where young prisoners are perverted by older ones. These are also sources of evil and they too should be dealt with.
It is all very well to say that we should continue along the present lines, but we should look around us and strike at the root of the

evil. It is the evil itself that must be cured. It is not simply a question of legal murder by hanging, the electric chair or the gas chamber. All these things should be studied, all the more so because there are many other reasons for a deeper and more appropriate study.
And when you look at the roots of the evil, you see a spread of firearms. You can get them with the greatest of ease. There is also television which spoils many of our young people, who are watching programs that are surely unsuitable. At Christmas, when gifts are received, most toys are murderous weapons such as guns and revolvers. Kids learn at a tender age.
Everything should be examined and, as I said, we should go directly to the source of evil. Obviously, I cannot personally endorse the statement found on page 60 of the English version of the white paper on capital punishment sent to us by the Minister of Justice:
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.
Many members who have spoken before me had the opportunity to take a stand on that. Yet, it seems to me that there have been such instances. In Quebec city, many years ago, a nephew was hanged for the murder of his aunt but his uncle, on his deathbed -I do not remember his name and I was thinking of Giroux, but I do not know-confessed that he himself had killed the old aunt. He recovered his health and he has not been seen since.
This is just a case I am referring to in passing. There are others that raised many comments and made the headlines. In my opinion, the case of Wilbert Coffin was never clearly settled. It was discussed and will keep on being discussed for many years. Other cases were also submitted by the other hon. members.
So, there still remains the possibility of mistakes. These could be eliminated, and in a most simple way.
Obviously, there are certainly improvements to be brought about before taking perhaps such a decision. The Criminal Code should be amended. There will surely be amendments proposed to the National Parole
March 24, 1966

Board, and here I must admit that I had to read over this paragraph (c) several times: 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.
I had some doubts as to the effectiveness of this paragraph, and I still have a few reservations to make about it. Others may have succeeded in making a better analysis of it. At all events, I would also be inclined to fear certain repercussions as was explained, I think, by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) this afternoon, with regard to this paragraph and its possible implications for certain or all members of the cabinet in particular. At any rate, some changes should certainly be made in the parole board.
There might be some way also to proceed with justice itself. I understand that loathsome crimes are committed and that may be why a definite hesitation to do away with this medieval system of capital punishment seems to be felt in the province of Quebec at present. Well, several cases occurred, as was said by several people, and that is when emotions became involved. I understand there is the Marcotte case, and the Santa Claus case, there is the Dion case; these are very sad, obviously.
But if the workings of justice are examined in these cases, there may also be improvements to be made. It seems to me, and I am not so well informed on legal matters, I admit, I am not a lawyer, it seems to me very strange that in the Marcotte case, for instance, there were three persons involved. Fournelle, the accomplice, was taken aside and told: "You are going to help us. You are going to tell on your partner in crime and if you tell us, you will save your life."
What do we do, then, with a gangster who is as guilty as his partner if not more, who may also have done the shooting? By letting him think that his life will be spared, we make him perhaps not more of a criminal than he was, but more base and vile, since he will be used to prove his companion's guilt. And what will happen to him? He will be sentenced to some years or a lifetime in prison, but his life will be spared and he will be used against the other culprit.
It seems to me that such deals have no place in today's society. That is another reason why I go on record as in favour of the abolition of the present system.
You know that a dangerously close margin separates revenge from punishment in the
Criminal Code
application of the death penalty. There may be another argument. Some people think that prisoners get too much pity. They wonder what will be done with them. They say that it will cost a great deal to the state if they are sentenced to life imprisonment.
For those who had an opportunity to read a bountiful literature, for instance for those who are interested in birds, there was a prisoner known as the Birdman of Alcatraz, who wrote marvellous things about birds while in prison. Several generations of young and older people are taking advantage today of his masterly research.
Many have certainly had the opportunity to read books by Caryl Chessman, this American whose death sentence was commuted several times before he was finally executed. He had already begun to make a fine contribution.
I heard some mention that in a few years when psychology will have made some progress, it would perhaps be advisable to deal again with this matter and to consider then the opportunity of abolishing capital punishment.
Therefore, while we are waiting for science to develop and for us to become more intelligent, all we have to do, it seems, is to wait. It seems to me that such an attitude means: Let us remain barbarians, wait until science has made further progress; then we shall become more human again. This is, perhaps, too strong a language, but, obviously, it reflects, in a way, the views of many people.
Consequently it seems to me there is surely a way of ending this practice described by many, and I am one of them, as meaningless in the modern world.
I do not intend to quote the Bible. On the other hand, it is amazing that so many denominations have drawn from it for all the literature that we have received. The majority of people, those who belong to Christendom, seem to share the opinion that the time has come to show a little more respect for human life and to put an end to those executions that can no longer be justified in this twentieth century. I do hope that by the end of this debate, many will keep on looking for information, reading the documents they received and discussing with friends and fellow citizens-two heads are better than one- and that we shall find all together the best solution, the most desirable one, which will provide for the upholding of law, order, and authority.

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for having so patiently listened to my remarks. I will now yield the floor, with pleasure, to the others who would like to express their views on the subject.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
[English1


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would preface my remarks by paying the highest tribute possible to three Torontonians, Arthur Maloney, Q.C., Hon. Frank McGee, and Arthur Martin, Q.C. for their fine and effective work in bringing to the attention of the Canadian public the problems of the abolition of capital punishment.
I would also like to complete the record with regard to the Presbyterian church position set forth by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) where he quoted from a Presbyterian document as follows:
The right of the State to inflict capital punishment is currently being called into question.
Yet we would affirm the right of the civil magistrate to impose the death sentence for crimes like malicious and deliberate homicide.
Then he used a quotation from Romans in support of this.
I might add that the statement he quoted is the only official statement of the Presbyterian church in Canada on the question of the death penalty, but recently this has been under review, and the 91st General Assembly appointed a special committee in 1965 to consider this question and report to the 92nd General Assembly in June, 1966. The Synod of British Columbia, and at least a dozen of the 49 presbyteries in the church, have adopted resolutions calling for abolition of the death penalty. Therefore it seems to me that the Presbyterian Church in Canada is looming in the direction of the abolition of the death penalty, and I think the hon. member for Queens would permit me to add that to the statement he quoted.
This afternoon the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) prefaced his remarks by saying he was taking the position taken by the young Conservatives with regard to the retention of capital punishment. I would add that this does not necessarily embody the position taken by young Canadians in general.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) set forth the poll that was conducted in his son's class. I can reply with the same kind of poll conducted in my son's class,

concerning the position of young people with regard to the abolition of capital punishment.
Today all members of the house received a copy of a letter from the Student Christian Movement which reads:
The Student Christian Movement in the University of Toronto has asked me to express its concern with respect to the forthcoming motion and debate on capital punishment. The cabinet of the S.C.M., after much thought and discussion on the subject, has recorded its unanimous disapproval of such a penalty, no matter what the crime, and its decision is based on all grounds, both moral and objective. We urge you to consider our conviction in this matter, and to vote in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.
The letter was signed by the president of the Student Christian Movement.
There are two aspects of capital punishment with which I would like to deal. The first is the religious view, the position that a religious person may take, based on his religious faith. The second aspect is the question of compensation for victims of criminal violence, and in particular for the widows and dependents of victims of the crime of murder.
Concerning the religious view there is a great diversity of thinking among Christians on the question of capital punishment. All of us have received letters from individuals, and briefs from organizations, setting forth their different views. I think it is fair to say that most Protestant churches favour abolition, with a few fundamentalists disagreeing with the general view. Roman Catholics in the main agree with abolition, and I was deeply impressed with a lecture given by Father Kelly, president of St. Michael's College in Toronto, before the Society for Abolition of Capital Punishment. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to quote some parts of his speech. He said:
The voice of Protestant ministers and Jewish rabbis has been heard. If the Roman Catholic voice has been heard, it has generally been the voice of Catholic laymen. I feel obliged to be here because I think it necessary to add at least one Roman Catholic priest's voice to the crusade . . .
The first point I should like to make is that I see no theological or moral basis for retention and I see both theological and moral reasons for abolition . . .
Now it seems to me that punishment is by definition retributive; it pays back irrespective of the intention of the authority which imposes it. The big question is whether some substitute for capital punishment pays back enough. At this point another necessary consideration intervenes: a human punishment must always be directed to the good of society. A punishment which would prejudice rather than promote the good of society is plainly not a just punishment irrespective of the guilt of the offender or the authority of the punisher. The point I am trying to make here is that it is seriously questionable whether retribution alone ever provides a
March 24, 1966

sufficient motive for punishing. If I seem to labour this point it is simply because the die-hard reten-tionists are not satisfied when the obvious lack of reform necessarily implied by the death penalty is buttressed by the proof that capital punishment is no deterrent to the so-called capital crimes. The die-hard retentionist comes back to the argument on retributive grounds, and retributive grounds alone. He comes back to the point where it seems to me he must logically insist that inflicting suffering on an offender is justified in itself, an end in itself, regardless of the consequences whether they be good or bad. The crime seems to him to warrant pain and the degree of pain is determined by the gravity of the offence. Vindication is made a sovereign and self-justifying end. The modern conscience rejects this and I think that on this point the modern conscience is right.
He continues:
The death penalty is obviously not adapted to purposes of reform. This element can in no way be suggested as a justification for retention of capital punishment. Neither can retribution. The "life for a life" appeal is made on emotional rather than rational grounds. It is rather curious that this is the only instance in modern law where we try still to maintain a perfect matching of the crime and the punishment for it. If one man stabs another we do not insist on stabbing him in return; if he victimizes another by perjury, we do not in turn victimize him by perjuring him. The "life for a life" may have the appearance of justice but it is appearance only. To object that the indignation of society at an act of murder is different from and needs an expression different from that shown toward other crimes puts the burden of proof on the objector. Death of the offender is not the only way of expressing indignation. Whether it is the most practical way can be decided only on the basis of empirical investigation. This is precisely the area in which it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the death penalty for murder does not achieve the ends alleged for having it in our law books; it does not reform; it does not deter; it is purely vindictive and, as such, does society no good at all.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is not the only way or even the best way of upholding the divine law and it does not promote human betterment. The empirical evidence available to us in this moment in history does not allow a case to be made for retaining capital punishment for murder nor for maintaining that it is the only or best way of registering our indignation at those who take the lives of others.
I would also like to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Vatican state retains the death penalty but no longer carries out executions. Indeed the Pope frequently appeals for clemency. I recall attending Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto in the fall of 1964 where I heard Rabbi Powell give the position of the Jewish faith with regard to the abolition of capital punishment. He stated that although the Old Testament calls for the death penalty, there was abundant evidence in the Talmud which supported abolition, and indeed the Jewish faith has taken this position.
Criminal Code
The religious persons in favour of retention of the death penalty use mostly selected Old Testament texts with an occasional New Testament text to support their position. This is a wrong approach to the problem. What we are called upon to do is to strive for that mind which was in Jesus Christ and to bring it to bear upon the issues of our time. The New Testament gives us much guidance on the problem, not in the form of a set of answers, but in developing an attitude and a concern to find the ways and means of loving God with our whole being and our neighbour as ourselves. Slavery is an issue which provides an example. There is no specific Bible text prohibiting slavery, yet when we take the Bible as a whole and strive to walk by the spirit, slavery is unjust and evil. So with capital punishment. We should not approach these issues by asking what this verse or that verse says, but by bringing an elightened and compassionate conscience to the issues. It is not what the Bible says in this specific verse, literally interpreted, but what it says to us through its total message interpreted in terms of today's conditions that is relevant.
To take a Christian approach, Mr. Speaker, we must find out what is the situation. We must see what is wrong and use our best reasoning to deal helpfully and effectively with the problem, always keeping in mind the social ethic of reverence for life. Therefore, a necessary part of the Christian approach is to discover how capital punishment works out. We have had difficulty since 1961 because of the distinction between capital and non-capital murder, and the statistics have been rather difficult to interpret. However, in recent years the average number of convictions for murder in the United States has been slightly more than 8,500 and the average number of executions has been slightly less than 35. The statistics show with remarkable unanimity that neither the presence of the death penalty nor the frequency of the executions acted as a deterrent to murder. As it is now applied the death penalty is nothing but an arbitrary discrimination against an occasional victim. The victims tend to be selected on a very emotional basis in which the prejudices of society find expression.
The great majority of executions are of persons who, because of ignorance, poverty or other reasons, are unable to secure adequate legal counsel for themselves, while criminals of a higher economic or social status find

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
legal means for evading execution. The possibility of the death penalty can influence jurys to acquit persons actually guilty of murder, thus contributing to the miscarriage of justice. So long as they are administered by fallible human beings, courts will be subject to error. All other judicial errors, upon discovery, in some measure can be corrected and repaired; a judicial error culminating in an execution, however, is totally irreparable.
Without minimizing justice, the Christian must find his answer to the problem in compassionate concern. This is not sentimental romanticizing over a criminal, but a recognition that since man was made in the image of God, his life and blood are sacred, and that the major concern is his rehabilitation. Vengeance must give way to forgiveness and reconciliation. This means that the primary concern of correctional institutions is rehabilitation and restoration based upon informed compassion and humane wisdom.
The Christian has a continuing task of interpreting to the community the kinship of all human beings, and the depth of our concern is based on the fact that he is a human being and our brother under one God and Father of us all.
The second aspect I am going to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is compensation for victims of criminal violence. In murder cases there usually is a proper and deep public concern for the families of the victims. The loss of the head of a family results, among other things, in serious financial hardship for the widow and dependant children. The community must show as much, if not more, concern for the widow and the dependants for the loss suffered as it does for the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender.
In England a white paper on compensation for victims of crimes of violence was approved by way of motion on May 5, 1964 by the House of Commons and on May 7 by the House of Lords whereby a criminal inquiries compensation board was directed to be set up to compensate victims of criminal violence and which included compensation for the spouse or dependants of persons fatally injured.
This board operates in much the same manner as our workmen's compensation board, and in the case of a fatal injury any compensation awarded to the spouse or dependants is assessed on the same principles as a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, except for a restriction in the calculation of the loss

of income of the deceased. This scheme is a major breakthrough in the development of our laws concerning victims who have suffered as a result of crimes. It is a recognition that not only must the offender be punished but, equally as important, the victim must be compensated. To my knowledge only England, New Zealand and California have introduced this type of legislation. Canada needs similar legislation and Canadians are entitled to demand it immediately in our move forward with our treatment of offenders for crimes.
May we be granted wisdom, vision and courage, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in the full brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it might be useful at this time if, for a moment or two we were to think about what we are being asked to do here tonight and what we have been asked to do in the last couple of days. It seems to me we are talking about the abolition of capital punishment when in effect capital punishment now has been almost abolished. The only area in which capital punishment now obtains is premeditated coldly calculated murder and also murder of some particular individuals, such as policemen.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Mac-quarrie) impressed me very much tonight when he said if we vote down this resolution Monday night not one additional murder will be committed; not one that is certain. If we do not, I will leave someone else to answer that question.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, my good friend the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) said we should be Christ-like, and that we should in effect turn the other cheek. I suggest to him that the same Christ took a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple. He was not a namby-pamby.
The hon. member opposite, for whom I have the greatest respect, representing a Prince Edward Island riding the name of which I cannot remember, suggested, if in fact he did not state, that most of the criminals behind bars would prefer to hang rather than be imprisoned. I find that difficult to accept. I had a little to do with the commutation of one man's sentence of death to life imprisonment. It seemed to me that that man was very happy when he received this news.
March 24, 1966

I have heard it said by retentionists, of which I am one, not without some difficulty, that they base their conclusions on the fact that life ends at the grave. I cannot believe that because I do not believe life ends at the grave, and in that regard I am in very good company, including a succession of Popes, one of which was Pius XII. Another who believed as I was St. Thomas Aquinas.
I did not think I would have to refute a speech made by a Catholic priest, but someone had the courtesy to send me a copy of one made by Father Kelly. I do not intend to attempt to refute his speech at this time, but the quotation of the hon. member seemed to concentrate on retribution only. There are many other reasons for punishment and retribution. Surely the important part of punishment is its deterrent effect. I am not interested in retribution, as I hope I am not a very revengeful person.
One of the questions we have to ask ourselves is whether the death penalty is a deterrent, and would its removal be helpful in protecting innocent victims? It seems to me the essence of the abolitionists' case is the sanctity of human life. Yet it is for that very reason, the fact that I do value so highly the sanctity of human life, that I must oppose the complete abolition of the death penalty. I am concerned about convicted criminals, but I am far more concerned about the innocent victims and, above all, the possible future victims of criminals.
The ultimate justification of any punishment, Mr. Speaker, is not only that it is a deterrent, but that it is an emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime, and from this point of view there are some murders which, in the present state of public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely the death penalty.
Saint Thomas Aquinas said, "The slaying of an evildoer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community". Every human being is a social being by nature, needing to live in society and not being self-sufficient. He cannot attain his perfection without the help of others.
Social living requires the setting up of a government and order. The government of a country has the right, indeed the duty, to do what is necessary to preserve social order and the well-being of its citizens. When any member of society commits such serious crimes as to be a menace to the community, I believe the government has the right to put him to death.

Criminal Code
It has been said that society is like a body with a head, and that if a member of the body becomes gangrenous it can be cut off, when necessary, to save the whole body. Of course only the government can administer capital punishment, having responsibility, indeed the duty, of safeguarding the community. I know the Bible gives us as one of the Ten Commandments of God: "Thou shalt not kill". But surely in its very context this refers to murder and unjust killing. It must be remembered that God also gave Moses the Jewish law which contained death as the penalty for several grave crimes.
An individual obviously is allowed to kill in self-defence if necessary. The state can also defend itself and the country in war when unjustly attacked, and can order its soldiers to kill. The state has done so and will do so. Likewise the state can kill an individual of its own if the individual is, indeed, a deadly enemy of society.
The fear of capital punishment should, and in my opinion does, deter many from serious crime. I feel that even though life imprisonment does stop this man, the convicted criminal, from further crime, it will not be sufficient to deter others. Capital punishment has been, as I said earlier, almost abolished in this country. I cannot agree in conscience that complete abolition is warranted.
Much of the opposition to the retention of capital punishment is based on the idea of the fallibility of a single jury in a murder trial, of the possibility of an inflamed atmosphere in which a trial might take place, and of the personal disposition of a single judge in directing the jury in such a trial. However, under the appeal provisions a person convicted of murder may appeal his conviction and, in the impartial atmosphere surrounding this court, he may have the conviction set aside with a judgment or a verdict of acquittal entered. He may be granted a new trial or he may have the capital charge reduced to a lesser crime, if the jury on the evidence could have found him guilty of such an offence. My observation and my experience is that murder trial juries demand the highest possible standards of proof. I suggest there is a natural human reluctance to bring in a guilty verdict. I know this from personal experience, having been a member of a murder trial jury. This is not a duty that one takes lightly. Nor do attorneys or judges take this duty lightly. No man on trial for murder is ever given a superficial trial. I feel therefore

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
that there is little chance of an innocent man's being sentenced to death.
I want to add my voice to the growing number of Canadian citizens who feel that the innocent victims of violence, of murder and other crimes should be in some way compensated. Too long have we ignored the innocent victims of criminality. I am quite sure that members of parliament in all areas of this big land of ours have had experience in this matter and have constituents who have been, are being and will be victimized.
This government and all governments spend millions and million of dollars on crime prevention. Certainly this money is well spent on police protection and all the multifarious activities surrounding our protection. However, when all this police protection breaks down and a family is victimized by a murderer or other criminal, surely the state owes something to the victim or victims of its failure, in some cases-in many cases- widows and children. Just as society bears the responsibility for crime prevention, it seems logical to me that society should bear responsibility for its failure in crime prevention.
I should like to discuss one other point if I may, Mr. Speaker. Many times we have read in the newspapers, or realized through our own experience, that citizens have not come to the aid of policemen in certain instances. Indeed, it is a misdemeanour knowingly not to come to the aid of a policeman in the exercise of his duty. Yet when one does act as a citizen should and is injured or even killed in that endeavour, it seems to me there is little provision for the victim or for the family for injury or death caused in this way, no matter how heroic the action might be.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
If this were done, if suitable and just provision were made, obviously it would provide the incentive for more volunteer action by ordinary citizens on the side of the law to help the police when they could. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that too often the personal plight of those involved has been ignored. I believe this should and must be remedied.
In this debate a moralist may argue that the state has no right to take away human life, for in so doing the state is playing God. Somebody once said, "Man must play God for he has acquired certain God-like powers, among them a considerable degree of mastery over life and death, and he cannot avoid that exercise." Science has put into our hands, and

politics has required us to grasp firmly, instruments that can affect the very image of man hundreds of years hence, and for that matter, the duration of all life.
In a less awesome, but awesome enough way, modern medicine has been usurping prerogatives once held to be God's alone. It has learned to cheat death, not merely by the prolongation of life but by calling men back to life after several hours on the other shore. The judge who orders an execution is no more guilty of playing God than the doctor who, having decided that a human being has been summoned to eternity too soon, restores him to this world of time, and often of suffering.
Any case for the retention of the death penalty does not rest upon sentiment or hysteria. It is based quite simply on the fact that, human nature being what it is, potential criminals are most effectively deterred from crime by what they fear most. The penalty of death is obviously the most dreaded punishment. It seems to me it is certainly more dreaded than life imprisonment. While saying this, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not reasoning for the retention of the death penalty by hanging: Far from it. It is not for me to decide what form the death penalty should take. I suggest there are far more humane methods of execution than hanging. As I see it, there could hardly be a less humane method. However, the death penalty is a warning always there, always warning; just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear much about the ships that the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear down the lighthouse.
I am not one of those who believe that punishment alone promises social security. A year or so ago a minister of justice said:
Whenever public opinion sees only the horror of the criminal act and not the history of a delinquent soul, it naturally seeks merely to punish.
He went on to say that we must show Canadians how human conduct is moulded by poverty, sickness, mental deficiency, ignorance or a childhood marred by cruelty, hate, divorce and alcoholism. We must show the grotesque defamation of character which results from punishment which is blindly vengeful. We must show how human treatment, confidence and modern scientific care can salvage an individual, apparently criminal by nature, and return him to civil society transformed and grateful. This I believe, Mr. March 24, 1966

Speaker. But the law of love is also the love of liberty, and love and mercy have no stability without basic justice. Lowering the standards of justice is never a substitute for the concept of mercy. I find it only too easy to agree that the execution of a murderer is a horrible spectacle, but I insist that the murder of an innocent person by an atrocious crime is far more horrible. To love your neighbour is to protect him.
Some time ago in these parliament buildings there was a meeting of the attorneys general of our 10 provinces. I am informed that almost all those attorneys general-I believe with the exception of just one-agree that the retention of the death penalty is necessary, at least for atrocious crimes. These are men of long experience in justice, and with men and criminals of every type. It is their considered opinion that the stand I take here tonight-and not without a great deal of difficulty because certainly I am not, I hope, a particularly vengeful person-is the correct one; that is, that capital punishment should be retained at least for deliberate, despicable, atrocious murders deliberately planned and coldly committed.
After the most careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, I have reached the conclusion that I cannot in all conscience vote for the complete abolition of the death penalty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. When the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat rose to speak, I applauded him most vigorously. I was misinformed. I understood he was opposed to capital punishment. I now wish to recall that applause.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. May I say that there is no question of privilege here. If the hon. member wishes to make a speech on the topic of the abolition or retention of the death penalty, he will be able to do so in due course.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, very soon the Canadian people through their representatives in this house, will in conscience vote upon whether to retain capital punishment in this country. This is a serious matter to all of us in the house. The motion before us is a serious matter to hon. members and Canadians generally. Some of us thought there would be introduced a resolution which we could consider and perhaps amend until it was more generally acceptable not only to this house but to the Canadian people at large.
Criminal Code
It has been mentioned that there will be a free vote on this motion. I appreciate this very much and the people of Canada appreciate having, through their representatives in the house, a free vote on this most important question. We have a very serious responsibility in considering this matter. I mentioned earlier that some of us in this house and many Canadians generally had hoped there would be some qualifications in the motion with regard to the imposition of the death penalty. Many Canadians and hon. members of this house believe that one qualification might be that a person who has escaped from a penitentiary and killed a guard in the process of escaping should be subject to the death penalty. Many people believe that capital punishment should be meted out to a prisoner who commits such a crime.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There are those, Mr. Speaker, who feel that someone who kills a policeman, a man who is hired to protect society, certainly should receive the death penalty. We are charged with protecting society, too, Mr. Speaker. We have listened to many arguments this afternoon and yesterday, and we will probably listen to many more before this debate is concluded. How far do we go, how deeply do we consider this duty of ours to protect society? As I mentioned a moment ago, there are those who feel that a person who kills a policeman, a man who is hired to protect society, should be meted out the death penalty for that crime.
After listening to the debate, I find there are Canadians who feel there are even worse crimes than murder. I refer to the dope pedlar, for instance, who pushes dope to high school children in Canada. Many people feel that this is an even more heinous crime than murder, because it leads to all sorts of things up and down the scale.
As a representative, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I know what my constituents think. From what I have read, I feel that I know what the Churches of Canada think. I feel I know how the chiefs of police think. I feel I know how I think, personally. As a representative, then, I know full well how I should vote. The question is a simple one when looked at in that way. However, when the time to vote comes closer, and it is rapidly approaching, and I have to stand in my place and, in conscience, as a representative cast my vote upon whether or not we shall retain capital punishment, the problem becomes more serious. It becomes

March 24, 1966
Criminal Code
more serious moment by moment, day by day. A month or two ago I did not think too much about it. A year or so ago, I thought very little about it. Tonight I am thinking of it very seriously, and tomorrow I will think of it more seriously. As I said earlier the Canadian people, in conscience through their representatives in this house, shortly will cast their votes upon whether or not to abolish capital punishment.
I have mentioned conscience, and when I think of conscience I think also of the student of theology. Many of these people, young and old, bring forth the argument-not necessarily the argument, but put forth the idea-as to whether there is a difference between body and soul? I am sure that we, as Christians, must consider this question seriously. Is there a difference between the physical reality and the spiritual reality? Is there then a difference between the natural law and the spiritual law? Is there a difference between natural justice and eternal justice? As I said earlier, we are confronted with these thoughts. We go to a funeral and we are told: This is a piece of clay; the spirit has departed. This is just one of the ideas that we must consider, Mr. Speaker.
The one real argument that is put forward again and again by the abolitionists is that we must grow up; we must become more civilized, that we must treat people differently. I realize it is only about 150 years ago that the death penalty was meted out for people who stole the sum of five shillings or over. It was at this time the idea of abolishing the death penalty was first put forward. Surely, Mr. Speaker, I can agree with that: No one should be put to death for stealing five or ten shillings. Now we have come to the point where we are told we must grow up and we must abolish the death penalty for the ultimate crime. In my opinion, in considering this resolution, I am not too sure we shoud grow up so quickly. We have been told of many countries in which the death penalty has been abolished. We have heard a great deal about the United Kingdom and the United States. Capital punishment has been abolished in England, but I am not too sure the experience has been a happy one. The United States has not seen fit to completely abolish the death penalty. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if Canada is not trying to grow up too quickly. Perhaps we should go part way; perhaps there should be a qualification and the death penalty should be retained for certain crimes but not for others.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of this house. I have no intention of going through all the arguments for and against abolition of capital punishment. However, I want the Canadian people to remember that if this motion is carried and capital punishment is abolished, then we will have some other problems. Where do we go from there? For instance, the hon. member who spoke before me mentioned the innocent victims, the members of the family of the person who is charged. I say, Mr. Speaker, we have to consider also not just the one family but we have to consider two families: We have to consider the innocent victims on both sides.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We have spent very little time considering the innocent victims or their families, and I feel that this consideration should come within the qualifications I mentioned earlier. If we are considering so deeply the person who has committed the crime, we must also give that kind of consideration to the innocent victims on both sides. People in the world today are actually starving to death, yet the parliament of this great country is here considering only a few individuals.
In conclusion, I will mention one other matter. If the death penalty is abolished, then I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whether we should not also consider something else. We are strongly charged with the protection of society, which is the reason I rose in my place this evening. The question is how strong that charge is and how far we can go to protect society. Should we go a step further?
We are all familiar with intelligence tests. All our children submit to them. I am not too sure what they are worth, but they are accepted by society in general as worth while. Therefore I would leave this thought with the house. Should we go a step further and have the psychologist, the doctor, the lawyer, the clergyman and the teacher get together with the scientist and construct a machine which would test each and every one of us early in life, and from time to time through life? Then if certain traits manifest themselves, should we not begin control before the fact?
This is only a thought; I do not advocate this step. I agree with hon. members that a penalty is a deterrent. I do not agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and for this reason. Whether we collect a parking ticket, a speeding ticket, or commit any crime, if there
March 24, 1966



was no deterrent our whole correctional system or the protection of our society would collapse and chaos would reign. Therefore I cannot agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
I grant you, Mr. Speaker, it is an extreme penalty, but if we do abolish it I think we are bound to consider an alternative. We are still strongly charged with the protection of society, and we cannot fulfil that charge by doing away with deterrents and laws. As I said earlier, we have a penalty for every crime, even a parking ticket. I have heard no amendment moved to this resolution, Mr. Speaker, but I would strongly urge the house, through you, that some qualifications be made in it which would make it more acceptable to this house.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset of my remarks to point up what I think was an inaccuracy in the remarks of the preceding speaker. He made some reference to the need for laws, and the impression I got from his remarks-and the impression I have received from many who appeared to be retentionists -was that there is only one deterrent, if in fact there is any, and that is capital punishment.
It is therefore suggested that the issue is whether we are going to have deterrents or whether our whole legal system is going to break down. I know other speakers have dealt with this point, and the hon. gentleman who just preceded me seemed to be talking along the same lines. I would point out, as others have, that it is erroneous to assume that capital punishment is the only deterrent.
The issue-and this will be the main body of my remarks-has to do with the necessity for capital punishment. I am not one who feels that this is necessarily a moral issue. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the morality of killing, of taking human life, is determined by the circumstances. The taking of human life is the highest form of barbarism and is degrading to society. It is degrading whether or not this taking of human life is done by hanging, in war, or even in the case of self-defence. But no one commits an immoral act if he legitimately kills another in an act of self-defence.
Therefore I suggest, if we are all agreed, as my colleague from St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe) is agreed, that it is a dreadful thing to take human life, and if we agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), then the issue which must
Criminal Code
be decided in the matter now before the house is the necessity for taking human life.
I suggest that this very important matter ought not to be decided by emotion, by sentiment or suspicion, but by fairness and reason. I suggest that reason is the greatest mark of a civilized society. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the onus of proving the necessity for maintaining capital punishment is clearly upon the retentionists. They must give the clearest evidence of an imperative need and, I suggest, show beyond reasonable doubt the necessity for the cause which they espouse. We must examine the subject and find grounds to determine the imperative need for convincing evidence which will justify the taking of human life.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, I suggest falls under two headings. The first is retribution.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Ten o'clock.


Richard Joseph Cashin: This is the community's way of expressing its abhorrence of a grievous crime.


Mr. Ricard:: Ten o'clock.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are calling ten o'clock and I am wondering whether it is ten o'clock.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the house will agree to let the hon. member finish his remarks.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should have his full 20 minutes, and that time would be better taken on Monday.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I suggest that I would finish my remarks in eight or nine minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Has the
hon. member unanimous consent of the house to continue his speech, in view of the time limit he himself mentions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Richard Joseph Cashin: As I was saying, retribution is one of the two grounds on which we can find the evidence necessary for establishing whether or not we ought to take human life. The first ground of retribution is the community's way of expressing its abhorrence of the crime of murder, through the gravity of punishment which society extracts. In this way society hopes to impress upon its members the gravity of the crime itself. This is a paradox, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, because the

March 24. 1966
Criminal Code
community is expressing its exereme revulsion at such a crime, and in itself uses the very same means to convey this revulsion. On the long term basis the well-being of the community will be more affected if it does not resort to this type of retribution.
When we speak of deterrent we should look at the facts in order to determine the position we are taking. We must not do this by emotion, or by sentiment, or by fear. It has long been said that it is the abolitionists who are the sentimentalists. I believe that an earlier speaker has already quoted Sir Ernest Gower's book "A life for a life". Sir Ernest confessed that when he began the study of this matter he was convinced-and this seems to be the widespread feeling among those with whom I have discussed the matter-that sentiment was on the side of the abolitionists and reason on the side of the retentionists. At the end of the four years which it took to complete this work, he had to reverse himself. He came to the conclusion that reason was on the side of the abolitionists and sentiment on the side of the retentionists.
We must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? What is the evidence? What evidence can be put forth by the retentionists, who suggest that the death penalty is such a unique deterrent as to warrant its retention by society?
There are, I would suggest, in general three kinds of killers. There is the psychopath or the sex offender. People of that type are not subject to normal restraints. For these men perhaps there is no such thing as a deterrent. They are sick. Unless we publicly support a policy whereby we say to these sick people: "We cannot cope with you in society; therefore if this illness becomes evident, we will extract you out of society," then I suggest there is no reason for capital punishment; because many people of that ilk might commit crimes which may not result in the taking of human life, but which could be very serious in society. Those people can be equally a menace to society whether or not they have a particular tendency to the taking of human life, or something just short of that.
Really, if we are going to kill them because they are not the normal kinds of people in society, we should perhaps kill them before they take a human life, if they show any tendency in that direction. I would suggest that this is the logic that must be employed by anybody who would kill them, if in fact they were guilty of murder.

Of course there are those people you might term the one-shot offenders, who commit murder in anger, or under the influence of alcohol, or under a particular set of circumstances. These are the once-in-a-lifetime murderers. These people are obviously not going to be deterred by capital punishment, and perhaps they will not be deterred by anything else.
We then come to the group which is causing most concern, perhaps, the group of the professional killer. The evidence, as other hon. members have mentioned, suggests that for these people there is no difference between this kind of deterrent and any other kind of deterrent. If you will, they are equally effective or equally ineffective.
There are in this house probably a great number of hon. members who fought in the war. I was not among them because I was not one of the nine-year olds who was conscripted. I am sure that you may recall this suggestion which was made by a man who had spent some time in the war. He said that if you were asked to do something dangerous you did not say to yourself, "I will not do that because I will be killed, but I will do it because I will only lose a limb or I will only lose an eye."
The thinking process, if any, as I understand it from those who have discussed this with me was, "I will do it because I think I will get away with it", and most people who think they can get away with it, do it. Those who withdrew were people who did not think they could get away with it.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe), and I disagreed with what I thought was a rather unkind and unwarranted gesture on the part of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), when he rose on his facetious question of privilege. But I would like to say to my colleague from St. John's East, with whom I disagree on this point, that I can well understand and respect his position, but I think he is like a great many other Canadians in looking at this matter and saying, "I would be deterred from doing it, therefore others will also." But these, Mr. Speaker, are precisely the people who would not be doing it anyway.
When we are talking about this as a deterrent we ought to realize that the greatest deterrent is detection. There are certain communities in Canada that have a high incidence of traffic infractions. I can give an example of neighbouring municipalities. In
March 24, 1966

Criminal Code
one municipality fines for traffic infractions are higher than in the other, but it is notorious that motorists speed in that municipality. However, they do not speed in the other municipality because the police there are more on the ball and they know they will be detected. So if it is a deterrent perhaps only the professionals, however many they may be, are the ones who would really consider this is a deterrent; but the best deterrent obviously is detection.
I should now like to give a quotation. Although I have tried to listen to most of the debate, I do not know if this quotation has been given already. When I read it I suggest many hon. members will not know whether the quotation is from a present-day retention-ist or a man who actually made the statement 150 years ago. It is:
Repeal this law and see the contrast. No man can trust himself for an hour out of doors without the most alarming apprehensions that on his return every vestige of his property will be swept off by the hardened robber.
No, Mr. Speaker, he was not talking about capital punishment as it applied to the murder of a prison guard. These were the words of Lord Ellenborough, when he abhored a change in the law that permitted a person charged with stealing five shillings to be hanged.
While I respect the sincerity of all those who are retentionists I suggest that any study of the debates on this matter over the past 150 years does not show the position has changed one bit since the time of Lord Ellenborough, and the evidence of every study undertaken continues to prove that Lord Ellenborough was wrong. And, as Lord Ellenborough was wrong in 1810, I suggest that those who take the same position today will perhaps in a decade, I hope, or 25 years, look back on some of the things that were said in this debate and regard them in the same light as they regard what Lord Ellenborough said in relation to the offence of stealing five shillings.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Would the hon. member care to explain the position taken by nine attorneys general in Canada today?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am glad my colleague asked that question. I may suggest by the answer I am going to give him that I asked him to ask it, but I did not. I cannot suppose what the attorneys general think; but I know a very distinguished ex-attorney general from the other side of the house spoke on this matter, and he is the only attorney general, other
than the one in my own province, with whom I discussed the matter.
I would say that perhaps one of the fears of the attorneys general is that this could have a demoralizing effect on policemen and prison guards. I have met individuals who otherwise accept my reasoning but say it is a very serious matter for prison guards and the policemen. We must respect their views, but the reason they would exempt the murder of prison guards and policemen from the abolition of capital punishment is not so much for the deterrent effect but because its retention is important for the morale of the police and prison guard force.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Now, perhaps if that much were so and if perhaps in the next year or two our police force were to disintegrate, then perhaps we might be justified in saying because it is a deterrent in respect of police officers we will be justified in taking a human life in order to be able to have a police force. In that case I think we would be obliged to do that. However, I am quite sure that would not be the case. There are now 13 states in the United States which are abolitionist states. Looking at the records there and looking at the facts, I suggest to my hon. colleague from St. John's East and the attorney general from Newfoundland who is of the same view as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. O'Keefe)-


Mr. Alkenbrack:: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? I would like to ask the hon. member whether he knows of any case where a person was convicted of murder who did not have the benefit of psychiatric examination?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I regret that unlike many other members of this house I have not had a distinguished career before the bar. My experience is purely academic; but from the study I have made I was abhorred by what we regard as insanity and by the many cases where the exact conditions you outlined did not exist. Recently I read a book entitled "In Cold Blood". This was the most vicious crime one could imagine. Four persons in a family were killed. I do not know what reaction others might have but I do know of one person very close to me who has had perhaps a different view of it than I had from reading that book. I think the result was that it made her less convinced of her view of retention and made me stronger in my own view of abolition. If you read about that case, the boy who actually killed that

March 24, 1966
Business of the House
man did not think as he killed him; he thought what a nice man he was. He was not killing that man; he was killing his father. I do not think we are enhanced by killing him, unless we say we do not want that man in society, and then we should take him out; but that man should have been taken out long ago.
We should be finding out who these people are at an early stage in life and should be getting rid of them. Nothing was served by killing that man. To say to the contrary is to fly in the face of reason, to fly in the face of the views of the criminologists and sociologists who have made a study of this matter. I say it is important not to approach this by emotion or sentiment. If we are to adopt a position, let us know what it is. If we are to continue on with capital punishment, let us know why we are doing it. Are we doing it for vengeance or because we do think this has some kind of deterrent effect and one which is greater or more unique than any other? If the latter is our view, let us prove it.
I am grateful to the house for the time they have given me this evening. I would hope that the consensus now would be one of fact over sentiment, of reason over emotion, and of hope over fear.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to submit to the house for its consideration, first interim supply, and then the final supplementary estimates; then the two resolutions in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) to increase the number of judges. If the house is agreeable perhaps we can complete all stages of that tomorrow.
We will then take item No. 8 under government orders, house again in committee of the whole on Bill C-145, an act to provide for the development of commercial fisheries in Canada. This will be followed by government order No. 9, second reading of Bill C-153, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act. We will then take second reading of Bill C-150, an act to amend the Research Council Act and item No. 15, second reading of Bill C-149, an act to provide for the establishment of a science council of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister the number of months for which interim supply is being asked?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we propose to ask for two months interim supply.
[Mr. Cashin.l
We thought that appropriate in view of the Easter recess.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, the matter I wish to raise tonight with the Minister of Labour or his parliamentary secretary, who is here, arises out of a statement attributed to the president of the National Homebuilders Association speaking in Montreal, in which he stated that in his view a growing shortage of mortgage money is creating the danger of a critical stoppage in construction in this important industry. He has suggested that the government should re-enter the field of direct mortgage loans for speculative housing.
It is becoming apparent that there is a general tightening of the money supply in Canada at the present time, which has two effects. One, interest rates on mortgages rise because of competition for available money and, two, such investment funds as are available tend to shift out of the N.H.A. field, because of its controlled interest rate, and to move to more lucrative fields, conventional mortgages and industrial and commercial properties.
As conventional lenders shift to non-N.H.A. loan areas, the market dries up and the construction industry tends to slow down. To date this may not appear as a serious problem, but the clouds are on the horizon. Because of the importance of the building industry to have some indication of government policy, I hope that the government, if it cannot do so tonight, will consider making some type of extended statement in this regard.
Those of us who are associated with clients in the construction industry realize that builders must plan a long time in advance. If there is any danger of a mortgage shortage accumulating during the year, unless they know whether or not the government is prepared to act, it is virtually impossible to design a housebuilding program for the entire year. No matter what the government's answer is, I hope at some early stage it will make a decision and an announcement. Does the government intend to re-enter the direct
March 24. 1966

lending field if a mortgage shortage develops and, if so, to what extent? I hope it will tell the building industry either yes or no. It does not really matter which it is, as long as a decision is made so that other decisions can be based upon it.
Does the government intend to permit banks to enter the N.H.A. field to supply some of the needed funds? Is the government giving any thought to trying to design some orderly consistent method of providing mortgage financing in Canada? Up to now it has been turned on and off like a tap, largely for economic reasons, and the building industry has never felt that there was any reliable and constant source of mortgage money on which it could base its plans.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Finally, when and where does the government intend to honour its election pledge that N.H.A. financing will be extended to older homes? All the Liberal literature circulated in the urban areas in the last two election campaigns carried this promise, and we have so far seen no signs of its being fulfilled. I hope that the government will consider making a statement as to its intentions so that the people interested in this matter may know what the program is to be.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, this could become a serious problem. The building industry must know a year or more in advance where it is going. Builders cannot buy land, service it and make all the necessary commitments unless they are assured that there will be an orderly supply of mortgage financing available. Even though the building industry is continuing at a very good rate, all the signs at the present time indicate that there is a continuing shortage of mortgage financing. Because of the importance to the industry, because of the need to make decisions now for the balance of the year, I hope that if he cannot do so in the three minutes available now, the parliamentary secretary will urge the minister to make a full statement at an early date.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) will realize that it is impossible to answer adequately his thoughtful question in the three minutes placed at my disposal. I shall bring to the attention of the minister the many thought-provoking questions the hon. member has raised. In the meantime I should like at least to place on
DEBATES	3159
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the record a few facts that were given to me earlier in the day for use in replying to some of the questions raised this evening.
The suggestion, for instance, that the housing industry is to be jeopardized by a shortage of money is a problematical one. It might be of interest to hon. members to know that at the end of 1965 there were 120,000 housing units under construction in Canada. Because of this very high carry-over and the further fact that the whole housing construction industry is working to full capacity at the present time, it is expected that during 1966 not only will this level be maintained but the indications are that, despite the fears of representatives of the housing industry and despite the fears voiced tonight by the hon. member for Danforth, housing construction will surpass the record year of 1965.
The hon. member has made a point about planning in advance. He mentioned that this should be done a long time ahead. I am not too sure whether by "a long time ahead" he means three months, six months or a year. But I am sure that when the minister returns and has an opportunity to voice his opinion on future policy in this connection, he will cover this question. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make this point to the hon. member. National Housing Act mortgage lending the approved lenders and by C.M.H.C. was 33 per cent higher during the first two months of 1966 as compared to 1965, and housing starts were six per cent higher during the first two months of this year as compared to 1965. This is hardly a very gloomy picture.
Furthermore, during the past three years C.M.H.C. has been authorized to make speculative building loans in support of the winter housing incentive program, and approximately 22,000 such loans were made during the last four months of 1965. These houses are under construction at the present time. I might point out, of course, that this was in collaboration with the winter housing incentive program, or what is familiarly known as the $500 bonus.
The minister says that he can state unequivocally, however, that it is not the intention to authorize C.M.H.C. to make direct speculative loans at this time. Finally, in the question raised by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) he used the word-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member-
March 24, 1966
3160	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: May I have just two seconds, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member used the word "re-entry", implying that we were once in this field. According to my information, the department was never in the field of speculative loans.



HARBOURS-VANCOUVER-INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED WHARF DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) came out to the west coast to visit the harbour of Vancouver, to have a look at its facilities and to learn a little more about the great debate, some of the furore which was surrounding this harbour. He looked at that time at the C.P.R. property which forms one of the major elements of the Vancouver harbour. The C.P.R. property in Vancouver harbour is in a state of neglect. I do not need to enlarge too much upon this. It has been debated in the house, in committee and this story has appeared in the press many times.
The Canadian Pacific occupies piers that are condemned, old wharves that are no longer suitable for modern shipping. At the foot of Granville Street, the main street of Vancouver, it has a burnt out old pier which is marked on marine maps as a ruin. We want to see this end of the harbour, the best available deep waterlots in Canada today, properly developed. This is what we wanted the minister to see. We would like the minister to tell us what the National Harbours Board and the government of Canada are going to do in Vancouver this year.
The property in question has long been under dispute between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific. Historically the dispute goes back to 1884, when the steel came in as far as Port Moody and stopped there. This was the obligation of the Canadian Pacific to bring the steel through to Tidewater, which is at Port Moody. Then the company decided to move into the city of Vancouver, and when they moved into the city of Vancouver they assumed that they were given further grants along the right-of-way. The question of whether these grants were to be interpreted in the same way as the original land grants along the right-of-way up to Port Moody is the question under dispute.
There are areas in Vancouver harbour which have been under legal dispute since 1930 and the revenue from this property is put into escrow. What we would like to know
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
is this: When are the government and the Canadian Pacific going to get together and settle this long, historic dispute so that Vancouver can enjoy the development of these lands. We have to await the end of this dispute before proper wharves and piers can be built to serve this Canadian western port. We want to know whether or not there is to be expropriation of Canadian Pacific property, whether the Canadian Pacific itself can be encouraged to develop the property. There are rumours and stories in the Vancouver newspapers today that $50 million is to be spent by the National Harbours Board in this area. We know the dispute has not yet been settled. The minister has hinted at some things but we want something more definitive. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to say something about it tonight.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) for his eloquent description of the Vancouver harbour. It seems almost presumptuous of me to imply that I know more about Vancouver harbour than he does. I am sure I can add little to what he already knows. However, there are plans for the development of wharves on the south shore of the Vancouver side of the harbour for general cargo facilities which will require the use of the property now under dispute with the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is hoped that this property dispute can be settled quickly so that the early orderly development of harbour facilities can take place.
I understand that the minister was in Vancouver earlier this month. He did say that he hoped and expected that this dispute would be settled at a relatively early date, certainly within this year.


Grant Deachman: That's nine months away.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)



LABOUR CONDITIONS-ATLANTIC REGION-STEPS TO IMPROVE UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance can accept the fact that the content of my question, which we are now debating, will be the basis of numerous questions and speeches unless he takes special steps open to him to guarantee a continuing climate for expansion in the Atlantic area. We have the double-barrelled problem of keeping pace with the expansion in the remainder of Canada and of gaining
March 24, 1966	COMMONS
back the ground lost through a lack of interest and attention until the Diefenbaker administration took office in 1957. We recall very well the damage to our economic progress during the last period that a Liberal administration put into effect a national tight money policy that retarded our advancement, and members on this side of the house will not sit idly by and watch this happen again.
The national rate of unemployment in this nation as of February 19, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures, stood at 5 per cent, with more than 350,000 individuals unemployed. This is not a figure to brag about, for it indicates the extent of human suffering in our nation today. The shocking aspect of these figures is that 65,000 of these individuals and almost 11 per cent of the working population of the Atlantic provinces is included in this group. Over-expansion, boom and prosperity are foreign words in the Atlantic provinces, and tight money will only guarantee less hope of their ever being removed from the vocabulary of our people.
A new philosophy has been nurtured in the Atlantic provinces since the days of the Diefenbaker administration which produced programs and policies that were geared to find solutions to the special problems of our area. These programs were of significant benefit to the provincial governments in carrying forward their programs of development.
Since the present administration has taken office we have found little of the philosophy that was so evident between 1957 and 1963. With the one exception of an increase in assistance in the construction of the trans-Canada highway, we have witnessed a disinterest in our special problems. The Atlantic Development Board, while helpful within the confines of the amended legislation, does not have the financial resources available to it that will make the impact on our economy we had anticipated when we established it. We have not enjoyed the same degree of favour from this administration, and with the fractured thinking within the cabinet there is little hope in the foreseeable future for expecting the kind of approach we must have if we are to progress at the rate we consider advisable for the nation's good.
The minister has available to him the means of alleviating the tight money policy in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned. There
DEBATES	3161
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is no question but that action could be taken that would eliminate tight money from being the burden it presently is to the business community in the Atlantic area. If the minister wishes to implement a program that will allow our area to continue its advancement and share in the prosperity much more evident in the remainder of Canada, he can do so.
He can take the first step next Tuesday evening, when he brings down his budget, by recognizing the recommendations of the second annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, which appears on pages 175 and 176 of that report. He can also recognize the views of the Chairman, John J. Deutsch, to the effect that national policies need not and should not retard growth in our area of Canada.
We have a right to expect this kind of approach from the Minister of Finance, and he may rest assured that his inaction in this regard will lead to a concentrated and continuing attack from members in the Progressive Conservative party until such action is forthcoming.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it would be quite improper for me to try to anticipate what sort of budget will be revealed to us in a few days, next Tuesday to be exact.
I think that the Minister of Finance is well aware of the problems facing Canada and especially eastern Canada.

I should like to point out to the hon. member who has just spoken that, according to the latest figures that have been published, the employment situation in the maritime provinces has improved tremendously in the past few years. I am willing to admit that there is still room for improvement, but I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is quite familiar with the economic situation in Canada and that he is now preparing, for Canada as a whole and every part of Canada, a budget that should provide some very interesting listening next Tuesday.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.37 p.m.
3162

March 24, 1966



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
February 17th, 1966.
The Honourable Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister,
Government of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Prime Minister:
Your reply of January 26th to my letter of January 20th has been brought to the attention of my Cabinet colleagues who have thoroughly examined its contents.
After full consideration, and for the reasons set out in my letter, the Government of Quebec feels that it must maintain its decision to postpone indefinitely the study of the present proposed amendment to the constitution.
Of course, if such is the desire of the Government of Canada or of the other provinces, Quebec has no intention to oppose the
reconsidering, at a future federal-provincial conference, of the repatriation of the constitution in the light of the circumstances mentioned in our letters.
In any event, I must add that we are most anxious to see the Quebec Parliament Act adopted. If this question is not settled as envisaged it will have to be taken up again in any discussion of a new formula for the repatriation of the constitution.
I readily understand your disappointment at the decision taken by the Government of Quebec. You may rest assured, however, that in this matter my colleagues and I have never questioned the basic aim that our constitution should become absolutely and truly our own.
With my best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Jean Lesage.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 25, 1966