1966-04-05

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the house to table a press statement being issued today by the Canadian Wheat Board announcing the increased quantities involved in the new long term wheat agreement between the board and the China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hon. members will recall that both parties concluded an agreement last fall covering the sale and purchase of from 112.0 to 186.7 million bushels between August 1, 1966 and July 31, 1969. It has now been agreed that the quantities involved will be increased to a minimum of 168 million bushels and a maximum of 280 million bushels over the three year period. At maximum levels the total value of wheat shipments under this agreement will be approximately $550 million.
The board also announced the first sales contract under the revised agreement. The contract calls for the shipment of 59.7 million bushels of wheat during the first five months of the new crop year.
The new long term agreement provides for credit terms of 25 per cent cash and 75 per
cent in 18 months, which are identical to those in the previous agreement. A revolving credit level of over $200 million was required to facilitate this agreement and the government will provide the credit guarantee which makes this business possible.
I should also like to advise the house that agreement has now been reached as to the quantities of sensitive goods which the Chinese export organizations may export to Canada for the year beginning August 1. It will be recalled that when the new long term agreement on wheat was signed last October it was agreed that the annual dollar value ceiling on exports of such products should be fixed at $10 million per year. The individual product quotas were to be settled later. This has now been done.
With the consent of the house I would like to table this new quota list, and may I suggest that for the convenience of hon. members it be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, we have been expecting this announcement since last fall, when the Chinese delegation visited Canada and negotiations were started in relation to the additional approximately 30 million bushels per year. At that time some of us hoped that the agreement would be extended for a five year period, but be that as it may, I am very grateful, speaking for western Canadians and I hope all Canadians, that we have been able to supply the extra 30 million bushels to meet the Chinese needs.
I hope, too, that the government will consider very seriously not only the final establishment of the list of sensitive goods the Chinese can export to Canada, but the pledge the previous minister offered to the Chinese in relation to the setting up of a non-official trade office here in Canada. The Chinese have these offices now in more than a score of countries, and I am sure they would take it very kindly indeed if we gave them the opportunity of putting one or two of their people here so our importers could contact them in Canada to arrange for the import of

April 5, 1966
Wheat Sales to China
goods through direct representatives of the Chinese.
I would personally go one step further and suggest that we should ask the Chinese to establish stores in Canada where their handicraft goods could be displayed for all those who wish to see them. I believe we have some responsibility to the Chinese to do something positive to help them find markets for their goods, not only in this country but all over the world.
This market has turned out to be not only large and growing, but is now considered permanent. The Chinese not only want more grain, but I think are quite willing to try to find markets for their goods all over the world in order to pay for it. This breakthrough into the Chinese market has significance far beyond the mere dollars and cents value of the foreign exchange it earns for Canada. It gives us a chance to make contact with them and discuss matters other than the mere trading that goes on between our two countries.
I hope that some day our neighbour to the south will see fit to amend its Alien Trading Act and its Foreign Assets Control Act and allow the American people to trade with this, the largest country in the world. It is not a new concept wherein you trade with a nation which you do not recognize. I think the peace of the world would be improved if these steps were taken.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the announcement that was made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Finance will be welcomed by the people of this country, particularly our wheat producers. It seems at first glance that the magnitude of the additional sale is very great, but I venture to say that the additional sale does not really amount to that much. It would seem to amount to the order of 56 million to 94 million bushels over and above that which was earlier anticipated. If one carries this over the period of three years it does not mean as much in extra sales to the Chinese mainland as we should like to see.
It has already been suggested by the previous speaker that Canada should take additional steps to foster increased trade with China, even to the extent of setting up an unofficial agency in order to trade with that country. It seems to me the government of Canada should look seriously at the prospect

and desirability of recognizing the government of mainland China, because among other things it would provide for more official machinery for expanding and fostering trade between the two countries. I would hope that in the light of continuing large scale sales to China the Department of Trade and Commerce and the government will put increased pressure on the Department of External Affairs with a view to having Canada rethink its policy vis-a-vis China.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) indicated clearly that we will increase our wheat exports to the China National Import and Export Corporation and that on the other hand we plan to increase our imports of textiles and textile products.
Now, the minister advises us that, in order to enable the Chineses to increase their wheat purchases in Canada, terms for credit stipulated in the new long-term agreement are 25 per cent cash and 75 per cent in 18 months; these terms are identical to those of former sales. Credit by renewable acceptance of over $200 million was required to facilitate the sale and the government will offer the credit guarantee required to make the deal valid. This means that the Canadian government, that is the Canadian people, will guarantee the credit necessary to enable the Chinese people to purchase more wheat.
We do not object to exporting more wheat, but wheat is not the only thing we can export to China. We may soon see, because of our textiles imports, our own textile mills closed down in the Drummondville and Eastern Townships regions.
It seems to me the government should see to it that we export not only wheat but all other products we have in large quantities and it should enable Canadian industry and domestic commerce to avail itself of credits similar to that now being granted the Chinese people, so that they might sell their products and to bolster their production and distribution.
Once again, we do not object to transactions with China or anyone else, but we must do it for the benefit and advantage of the Canadian people, and not solely to increase the textiles imports coming from China.
Let us first think about Canada, and start at home in the greater interest of the Canadian people.
April 5, 1966

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Along
with other members who have spoken briefly on this announcement, Mr. Speaker, we welcome what appears to be a continuing and expanding market for Canadian wheat. One of the limiting factors in the sale of wheat during the past season has been the ability of the railroads to deliver this wheat to export positions. We certainly hope the minister and the government will use their influence to impress upon the railways that there is a need for expansion of the necessary facilities to get this wheat to our customers within the time specified.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of any flour in this expanded sales announcement. Of course you cannot sell people flour if they want to buy wheat. However, we hope if there is any possibility that some portion of this wheat can be exported in the form of flour, every effort will be made by the Canadian Wheat Board and by the government to impress upon our customers that we do have a very large milling industry within Canada.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, the performance of the railways during the past few weeks in delivering wheat to the west coast in particular has been far more satisfactory than it was during the early part of the shipping season, from about August until about December. We acknowledge that there has been an increased effort to allocate facilities and equipment to the delivery of this wheat. I want to say again, as has been said so many times in this chamber, that we do not regard the movement of wheat as secondary in so far as the over-all operations of the railway are concerned. This appears to have been the attitude of the railways during the last months of 1965.
So, as I said, we welcome this announcement. We hope there will be an expansion in our transportation facilities so we can meet all the commitments that are made, as well as being in a position to accept additional sales later this season.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


Hon. Roberi Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-23 (from the Senate), to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



RHODESIA-ATTEMPTED DELIVERY OF OIL BY GREEK TANKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Dietenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask him whether he has any further word in connection with the Greek tanker which apparently was intercepted by a British warship because it was believed that its oil was destined for Rhodesia? What is the present position in this regard? Does the Canadian government approve of the action taken in stopping this ship; what is the position as to the ownership of the ship; has there been a change in registration, and are any commonwealth countries represented in the ownership of the ship in question?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secrelary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question.
The present situation concerning this tanker appears to be that the ship is about to dock or has docked at Beira in the Portuguese territory of Mozambique. The Canadian government has been advised that the master of the ship stated, to the captain of the British naval ship who questioned him, that he was not intending to discharge oil at Beira but simply intended to make use of port facilities there, and that the oil cargo was intended for French Somaliland.
I certainly hope this proves to be correct. I have been in communication with the ambassador of Greece in Ottawa, and my understanding is that the government of Greece has ordered all ships of Greek registry not to carry oil to Rhodesia.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that this ship, while at sea, changed its registry to that of Panama; and if that suggestion be well founded what representations, if any, have been made to the latter country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has been a suggestion that there was a change of flag, thereby seeking to indicate a change of registry. However, there is some confusion on this point, and as there is an international law implication I prefer not to give any judgment as to the legal consequences. I may say that

April 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry this whole situation is bound to excite interest at the United Nations, and this in turn could encourage moves to give the United Nations a wider authority than it now possesses under the security council resolution of November last, which merely urged member states to take all possible steps to give effect to the sanctions program which was being taken against the government of Rhodesia.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that very lucid statement the minister has just made indicate that Canada intends to do its part in making sure that this problem shall be submitted to the United Nations?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: The right hon. gentleman I am sure would lucidly understand that that is a question that can only be dealt with at the right moment.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: In connection with what has been just said, I should like to ask whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can assure the house that the Canadian government will lend all necessary support, diplomatic and otherwise, to any action thought necessary by the British government, even including the use of force, to prevent the economic sanctions approved by the United Nations from being made ineffective by the delivery of shipments of gasoline to Rhodesia.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that I am prepared to agree without qualification to the suggestion made about the use of force, because there are important consequences stemming from that which one would want to bear in mind. I can say, however, that the Canadian government has taken every step pursuant to the security council resolution of last November to support the position of the British government, and to register its strong opposition to the illegal regime in Rhodesia.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If Canada undertook to assist in the use of force against Rhodesia might that not entail the loss of life unnecessarily?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Mr. Speaker, I did not of course say that we would undertake to use force. My hon. friend will recall that in February last, in discussion in this house, I made that very clear. If force is used to the

limit the consequences involved in my hon. friend's question are obvious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest we go to another subject. We have had the original question and five or six supplementary questions.



ZAMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO TERMINATION OF AIR LIFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the house whether the oil lift for Zambia that Canada has been taking part in has terminated, and if so was the reason for that termination the fact that other oil supplies were adequate for Zambia?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slale for Exlernal Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the oil lift to Zambia has not terminated. Canadian participation continues until the end of the month, when the matter is to be reviewed. I might say that the oil lift has been a very effective project.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 the Prime Minister announced that he intended to set up a royal commission to review the security procedures which have obtained in this country in recent years. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the personnel and the terms of reference of such a commission and, if not, how soon does he expect to be able to do so?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minisler):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to announce the personnel nor the terms of reference of the proposed commission now. I was giving consideration last evening to the terms of reference, and I hope very shortly after the resumption of parliament after the Easter recess to announce to parliament the commission's terms of reference, and the personnel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention in the terms of reference to empower the commission to look into any of the grievances with respect to security cases that have been handled in recent years.
April 5, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can say in a general way that it would be our intention to have in the terms of reference authority for the commission to look into security procedures, both in regard to their adequacy for the protection of national security and their relation to the rights and freedoms of the individual. I should think any commission looking into this aspect of the matter would wish to look into cases in the past to see if there is an example of one or other of these things.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a related question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government will table in the house today or at the earliest opportunity prior to the Easter recess the transcript of the press conference held by the Minister of Justice on March 10, which we have been assured will be made available as one of the matters before the royal commission. I think it would be helpful and important if it might be tabled in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will certainly be very glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker. The transcript of the press conference was, of course, attached to the order in council to be sent on to the commission.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister.
According to the answer to my question No. 137, it cost over $5 million to the Canadian people to audit the books of crown corporations which are not required to be audited by the Auditor General of Canada.
Does the government intend to correct this situation by entrusting the Auditor General with such auditing?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he put this question on the order paper?


David Réal Caouette: It has been put on the order paper, and that is why I should like to get an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member just said that he had received an answer and that he was not satisfied. He is asking a new question which does not seem so urgent, in my opinion, that it could not easily be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representations from the automobile industry to now remove the sales tax on production machinery as announced by him in his budget to be effective for April 1, 1967, so the automobile parts industry in Canada may be in a position to better compete with its counterparts in the United States? If so, what is the decision in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I may confirm that I have had such representations. They are under consideration.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: May I
address a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry. Is it a fact that the minister encouraged these manufacturers to go ahead and buy this machinery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked can be put at this time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that on Saturday, March 19, the Canadian National ferry Bluenose arrived at the mouth of Yarmouth harbour at 4 p.m. then turned around and went to sea until eight o'clock the next morning, much to the inconvenience of the passengers. Would the minister investigate the reason for this strange behaviour on the part of this government vessel?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

April 5, 1386
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his prospective capacity as minister of manpower. I have given him notice of this question.
In view of the telegram sent the minister on March 19 by George Burt, Canadian director of the United Automobile Workers, expressing concern over the loss of skilled tradesmen to the United States and the loss of jobs for skilled tradesmen in the automobile and automobile parts industries in Canada, would the minister inform the house whether he is prepared to launch an immediate investigation into the dimensions of the skilled trades drain out of Canada, particularly in view of the shortage of skilled tradesmen in other areas of the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not a question but rather a speech. I do not think the question can be accepted.



VANCOUVER-CONSTRUCTION OF SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL ELEVATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as minister reporting for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the long struggle that we had to persuade the Saskatchewan wheat pool to build an elevator at Vancouver, would the minister consider getting in touch with officials of this grain organization to see whether they would not reconsider the stopping of work on the five million bushel terminal at Vancouver which I understand has been precipitated by the cancelling of the government contract for the elevator at Prince Rupert.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool was in touch with me several days ago. Subsequently I had a letter from the secretary of that organization, and I agreed to see the president as soon as he could come to Ottawa for discussions. The president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool informed me, at the time of the first telephone call, that they had just received bids for the new terminal at Vancouver and that they were 30 per cent above their expectations. For this reason in particular they were reconsidering whether they should proceed,

and I asked the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool to come to Ottawa and have a talk with us here before making a decision.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a supplementary question, would the minister consider discussing with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture some readjustment in the handling rates on the west coast to deal with the very inflated costs there at the present time?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle knows, as do the Minister of Agriculture and myself, that the Board of Grain Commissioners is a semi-autonomous body, and it would be improper for us to make representations of that kind with regard to the rates being charged by elevators.
TROIS-RIVlilRES-POSSIBLE CLOSING OF ELEVATORS
On the orders of the day:


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the grain elevators of Trois-Rivieres are doomed to close shortly, due to a situation that has lately arisen, unless a drastic and urgent solution is found to solve their problems? Would the minister consider appointing a special committee at once to look into this matter with the interested parties?


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to determine the urgency of this question. The minister has noted it and I would ask the hon. member to put it on the order paper.


Mr. Mongrain:: May I bring it up at ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



WEST COAST-INQUIRY AS TO TERMINAL CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister consider the existing terminal capacity at west coast ports sufficient to service the demand for Canadian grain consigned through those ports.


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



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF TRANSPORT CO-ORDINATOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
April 5, 1966

the Minister of Finance, based on a statement he made earlier today. I would like to ask the minister whether the government is prepared to bring in legislation setting up a transport co-ordmator, so that maximum use can be made of our transport terminal facilities for delivery of the increasing amount of grain during the next crop season.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as the question in respect of legislation is concerned, this is a decision which would be announced in due course. Yesterday I met with the heads of the railway companies to prepare them for the necessity of continuing to use their facilities to the maximum, at least until the end of this calendar year. We have, as I say, reason to believe that the demand will be such during the balance of this calendar year as to put a strain upon all transportation facilities in the country.
May I just add that the performance of the railways in the last few months, already referred to in this house, has been most commendable. We are going to establish new records in this new crop year, especially on the Pacific coast.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-PETITION RESPECTING CHANGE IN PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could he advise the house what information he has had from the government of the United Kingdom respecting the resolution that was passed by the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec asking for changes in the powers and the authority of the legislative council of Quebec? Has he had any communication with the British government? What has been the reason for the delay in the presentation of that matter before the United Kingdom government? Is it still the intention to introduce it in the new British parliament? In other words, what has happened with the perigrinations of that resolution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no information recently about this matter. The resolution was transmitted to the United Kingdom government. Perhaps one reason for the delay was the recent election in the United Kingdom, but I shall be glad to get in touch with
Inquiries of the Ministry the U.K. government and ask their intentions in this matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
This question arises from a question I put to him in the house on March 24.
Is it the intention of the Prime Minister, before the recess, as an Easter bonus, to announce his new policy to promote bilingualism in the federal civil service?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make a statement on this matter tomorrow.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Would the hon. lady inform the house if she will soon announce plans for a centennial youth parliament; and in consideration of the fact that many members of the house are interested in this worth-while endeavour, will a parliamentary committee be set up to assist in furthering the project?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: As my hon. friend knows, Mr. Speaker, the centennial commission is the body which decides upon projects. I have not yet had forwarded to me a satisfactory project for the type of centennial celebration my hon. friend suggests.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister advised the house that he had received a resolution from the Prince Edward Island legislature. Now that he has had a chance to study it, can he assure the house and the people of P.E.I. that there will not be any readjustment of the timetable for the construction of the causeway?

April 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that the resolution is being given very careful consideration. I received it only yesterday, and I think I can assure him there will be no delay in the completion of the project.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he can tell us when the report on the meetings between himself and officials of the government of Ontario with regard to pollution of the great lakes will be ready? On Monday, March 24 he was kind enough to say the report was being prepared. Can we expect it before the Easter adjournment?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. This is not an ordinary report. It is an analysis of what is being done by both governments. I think it should be in after the recess.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: As a supplementary question, can the minister advise the house whether similar discussions are proceeding with the United States government concerning a joint pollution control program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Discussions at the technical level are conducted regularly. Discussions at the political level are contemplated.



EXPO '67 USE BY EDMONTON OF &quot;KLONDIKE&quot; THEME

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister, on behalf of the federal government, communicate with the officials of Expo '67 in the interests of preserving our national history undistorted, asking them to ensure that no promotional publicity prepared or being prepared under the direction of Expo will contain any reference to Edmonton's dishonest use of the Klondike resource?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: This question could not be accepted by the Chair. The hon. member is making allegations.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice to discuss it at ten o'clock. They are not allegations at all. It is just as important as the causeway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no assurance that the question will be accepted for ten o'clock.



QUEBEC-CAR LICENCE PLATES PROMOTING EXPO '67 AND CENTENNIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
We have learned with great pleasure that the Quebec Minister of Transport, Hon. Claire Kirkland-Casgrain, had announced that car plates for 1967 would underline two great events: Expo '67 and the Canadian Centennial. I should like to commend the minister on her initiative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his question?


Clément Vincent: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce aware of that decision and does he propose to hold a meeting with the ministers of the other provinces to decide now-


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



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the recent request by General de Gaulle that all NATO forces leave France unless they come under French command, and in view of the consideration being given by his department to a new policy, would he seize this unexpected opportunity to examine the policies of the New Democratic party with respect to NATO before coming to a decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
April 5. 1966


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of northern affairs, of which I gave him notice. It arises from the just announced discovery of treasure trove worth $700,000 in the ocean near Louisburg, Cape Breton. Was Alex Storm, an employee of the department and one of the three men who made the discovery, working for the department when he carried out research in the archives at Paris, France-


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



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the soft-hearted Minister of Transport, whom I would not wish to see become hard-headed, if we can expect an inquiry into the rail traffic problems on our peninsula in the very near future.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The inquiry is under way at the present time, sir.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been asked by the Winnipeg House Builders Association to extend the cut-off date for the $500 winter house building bonus in the case of houses under construction in areas which are in danger of being flooded?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I shall have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has she received a reply from the C.B.C. in answer to her request for an approximate cost of servicing the areas of Canada which are presently not served by C.B.C. television?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Not that I have seen, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Simpson: As a supplementary question, could the hon. lady say when she expects to receive this reply?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal and I keep hoping the agencies will respond as quickly as members of parliament would like them to do.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Did he finally succeed in contacting the provincial Minister of Natural Resources in connection with subsidies to gold mines in northwestern Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and he assured me that he would do his utmost to remedy the social aspect of the problem.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister to have any meeting with the Quebec minister in order to establish clearly what assistance can be given to northwestern Quebec gold mines?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the impression that the Quebec minister would deem such a meeting necessary.
[English1



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether there was a meeting today in Ottawa of senior air force officers from Greenwood, Summerside and Halifax to discuss the recent pay increase to pilots only, and if there was a meeting, is there any plan to offset the rumoured resignations of the many other officers of the air force?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to the first question is yes. In respect of the allegation in the second question, this is the first I have heard of it and I expect it is not true.

April 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the
minister now in a position to answer the question I asked a few minutes ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the question was ruled out of order.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister indicate what redress is open to radio navigators in the light of the violation of the principle of equality, as a result of the recently announced pay differential policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is out order. The hon. member is asking what redress is open. He is asking for an expression of opinion.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister say whether any indication has been given to air crew other than pilots that their pay situation will be reviewed in a manner that will prove favourable to their interests?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not beyond the cyclical pay review. I think it also has been indicated, as I indicated yesterday in my answer to a question by the hon. member for Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), on the question of whether the air crew allowance would subsequently be included as part of the pay for pension purposes, that this matter would be studied and a decision taken at the time the cyclical review is announced.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. What was the purpose of the meeting in Ottawa today with the officers from Summerside, Halifax and Greenwood if it was not to discuss the unrest?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question cannot be asked. The hon. member is asking a question which suggests the answer; it is a leading question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer he gave himself was incorrect. Perhaps I can set him straight-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence a supplementary question. Would the minister give supplementary consideration or review to the position of navigators, along the same lines that he has in respect of the pilots?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That question was answered yesterday. I said it would be reviewed along with the cyclical pay review. In answer to my hon. friend opposite I can say-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister make a statement in the house outlining his new policy in respect of the air force, and also outline what steps he is taking to improve morale in the three services?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is necessary, but when the national defence committee meets after the Easter recess I will be pleased to make a statement. I can say to my hon. friend, if he needs the reassurance, that we are making outstanding progress in our reorganization in the armed forces.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a representation from Edmonton requesting a two week extension of the winter works deadline date of April 15? If so, what consideration is the minister giving this request?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right such a request did come in some time ago. I have received a few, but not many from other parts of Canada. The Edmonton request has been referred to the officials for study.
I might say that I would be less than frank, in view of the second question, were I to hold out much encouragement to the hon. member for an extension in the Edmonton area. It will be recalled that situations similar to the one that occurred in Edmonton this year occurred in Quebec and in other parts of Canada in the winter of 1963-64, and in the lower mainland of British Columbia where a 29 day snow storm occurred in the winter of 1964-65.
Last fall the government announced its intention to extend the date to April 15. This was done at the time the program was announced last fall. It is doubtful that there will be any further extension beyond April 15.
April 5. 1966



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister table the report of the survey, commissioned by the government from UNICA Research Limited of Montreal into the matter of narrowing the air corridors across the north Atlantic from 120 nautical miles to 90 nautical miles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member place his question on the order paper.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think Your Honour must have misunderstood me when I asked my question. I was merely asking the minister whether he would table a report. I have repeatedly heard hon. members ask ministers whether they would table reports.


Mr. Speaker:: By the time the question ended the Chair had forgotten the start of the question. It could be allowed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would have to think about that request.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
.	STATEMENT ON PROVISION OF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I promised a reply to the question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in respect of the Indian medicine chest case.
I should like to tell him that the health services in respect of the Indian people have been in effect for many years, and that there is no question about their being impaired by any test case in the courts. What we are doing is endeavouring to provide medical services which can be integrated with those of the neighbours of our Indians.
I give this answer on behalf of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, within whose responsibility these services to the Indians fall.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the minister of northern affairs. Would it not obviate the necessity of appealing the decision in the medicine chest case if the government, either by administrative act or by the introduction of legislation, undertook to supply these services to the Indian people, on its own or by arrangement with the provincial governments, in which event the case would then be dropped?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now arguing the case rather than asking a question.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the story reported in the afternoon paper in Summerside yesterday to the effect that there is to be an increase in the fare charged by the C.N.R. on the New Brunswick-P.E.I. ferry, could the minister inform the house whether this increase has been considered by the board of transport commissioners, and whether that board will hold hearings regarding the increase?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make inquiries in this regard before answering.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that there will likely be an increase in the fare now being charged, will this increase go toward the construction of the new causeway?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the increased exports of Canadian Cheddar cheese, will the

April 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry minister bring to the attention of Treasury-Board the urgent need of assistance in the amalgamation of cheese factories so they can increase their production?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making representations to the minister, and I suggest that is not a proper way in which to frame a question at this time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Truscott case I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he has anything to report regarding consideration to the use of a short-cut if, on an examination of the case by the law officers of the crown, the conclusion is reached that there is a probability, likelihood or possibility that an injustice has been done, by the granting of a new trial, which the government has the power to do in cases of doubt?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be giving my report to the Prime Minister within a very few days. The point raised by the right hon. gentleman will be given consideration when I am preparing that report.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the conflicting statements made by the minister's parliamentary secretary to the minister of mines and the resources minister of British Columbia regarding possible water exports, will he be conferring with the resources minister of British Columbia in order to prevent any further premature announcements being made outside this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is making an allegation as part of his question, and for that reason it cannot be accepted.



DAYLIGHT SAVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. A short time ago I understood him to say that he would consider whether anything could be done toward unifying the implementation of daylight saving time across Canada. In view of what is being done now in the United States in this regard, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has thought about this and-


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as the minister of manpower. I should indicate that I have given him notice of my question.
My question relates to the sudden and unilateral decision of San Antonio Gold Mines Limited to close the operation of the gold mine at Bissett, Manitoba. In view of this situation, has the department taken any action either to help the company recruit skilled mine labourers or to establish a special national employment service office in that town in order to assist the people to find employment elsewhere in the country?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. A team of manpower officers under a regional director left Winnipeg this morning for Bissett. They will be located there for a period of time and will try to find employment and carry out consultations in order to direct some workers according to our training programs. They will also consider the situation in order to discover the extent to which we can apply our mobility manpower program. I might say that we are working in co-operation with the Manitoba provincial department of labour in this regard.
April 5, 1966



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purposes of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
(b)	substituting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in those cases where the death penalty is now mandatory; and
(c)	providing that no person upon whom a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is imposed shall be released from imprisonment without the prior approval of the Governor in Council.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the debate in which we have been engaged is one of great importance. The decision we will reach tonight will be an expression of the opinion of this house. If that opinion is for the retention of the present law there will be no change; if it is for modification, further steps will have to be taken by way of amendments to the Criminal Code.
I have listened with interest to the very many informative speeches that have been made. All of them I have read with critical attention. I have been impressed by the careful marshalling of arguments on both sides of the question and by the eloquence of those who have spoken as well as by their earnestness and conviction. The House of Commons has treated a serious subject with great care and appropriate consideration.
We have been discussing the question, as I see it, is the state justified in taking a life? Tonight we will give our decision and on that decision will depend the fate of many people in the future. The subject is not new. It has been debated for generations. It will be debated in the future, for murders are unlikely to cease and the state has a perpetual responsibility.
I am entering upon this discussion merely to record my point of view and to express my regret to those of my constituents who may hold a different opinion. I have refused to reply to questionnaires sent in advance for I hold that debate should precede decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not held a fixed position over the years on the subject of
Criminal Code
capital punishment. I am familiar with the stress and strain of being obliged to participate in that awful decision that consigns a man to the gallows. I have been oppressed by the lingering doubt that perhaps an innocent man was being condemned to death.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Twenty years ago I was a' member of a committee that endeavoured to obtain commutation of sentence for a man convicted of murder and sentenced to hang. He had been a comrade of mine in wartime. The other day I reviewed certain notes I had made at that time. I recorded that 15,000 citizens of Winnipeg signed the petition asking for clemency and that 75 lawyers of that city in one way or another had expressed similar views to the minister of justice of that period. We failed in our attempt. When all hope of reprieve had vanished I visited the condemned man in his cell on the day before the execution. We talked together as calmly and as dispassionately as if we had been in a home rather than in a prison. He told me he was innocent, but he made no complaints about anything or anybody. Stoically he had prepared himself to meet his fate with the same fortitude that he had shown overseas in wartime. A case like that inclines one to the abolition of the death penalty.
On the other hand, I have been bothered equally as much, if not more, by the many horrible crimes that have been committed. At an earlier period before the war, a convicted murderer who had escaped or had been released from prison in the United States entered Manitoba and strangled two women in the city of Winnipeg. One of the women was the mother of two small children. That case always comes to my mind when the subject of capital punishment is under discussion. It is, of course, only one of many somewhat similar cases. The question I have asked myself repeatedly is: Whose life is the more valuable. The murderer who murders again or the innocent victim? Which life does society consider should be saved? Is the state justified in saving the life of a criminal without being able to give complete assurance that another innocent person may not be sacrificed to that criminal's rage, lust or homicidal tendency? The case of strangler Nelson inclines me to the retention of capital punishment.
A wealth of material on the subject has been made available to us. Not least in value

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
is the White Paper prepared by the Department of Justice. I am not sure that anyone has produced in this debate any argument that is not to be found in that booklet. The statistics have been helpful but how much they prove is somewhat uncertain. On page 110 a review is given showing the number of murders over a five-year period in the various States of the Union. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have populations almost equal in size. Both retain capital punishment. In the five-year period there were 187 murders in Massachusetts and 717 in Pennsylvania. What does that prove? Compare both those states with Michigan whose population is only slightly larger. Michigan is an abolition state. In the five-year period murders in Michigan totalled 806 as against 187 in Massachusetts and 717 in Pennsylvania. Does this prove that capital punishment is a deterrent? But then look at North Dakota and South Dakota, states which could not be more alike in every respect. North Dakota has abolition; South Dakota retains the death penalty. In four of the five years tabulated their record is identical. Does that prove anything and if it does, what is it?
The abolitionists say that the retentionists cannot produce any figures to show that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. Nobody can, for those who are deterred from committing a crime do not volunteer that information to anyone. To say that the death penalty is no deterrent is to say that men do not fear death. This, to me, is incredible. Fear of death is an instinctive reaction. To conquer or subdue that fear is a feat of which some people are not capable. In wartime fear of death operates 3,000 miles away from the battlefield, one mile away, and on the battlefield itself. No one who has seen death in many forms can say and be believed that fear of death is not a powerful factor in determining a course of action. That is not to say that many criminals are not completely reckless and fearless. But there must be many others, criminally inclined, who shrink from risking their lives.
The sanctity of human life is a powerful argument that has been used very effectively during the course of this debate. I wish that the sanctity of human life were universally acknowledged. In the 66 years of this 20th century so little regard has been paid to the sanctity of human life that literally millions of people have been destroyed without compunction in war, in concentration camps, by atomic bombs. They have been destroyed in
[Mr. Churchill.1
the heat of action and with cold-blooded premeditation in the gas chamber.
In the state's increasing conflict with the criminal how much weight should be given to the wholly admirable ideal of the sanctity of human life? Which life is more sacred, that of the deliberate killer or that of the possibly defenceless and harmless victim? Which life is more useful to the state? To which does the state owe the greater responsibility? Can the state give an assurance that the coldblooded, calculating murderer will never have another chance to practise his evil ways? We are told that only a few murderers become repeaters. Whose life is the state prepared to offer up as the second victim or the third victim? Where, then, lies the state's responsibility for the sanctity of human life? These are some of the questions that I have been pondering during the last few days.
We have been informed by countless articles and statistics that crime is on the increase. We now know that we are in the shadow of organized crime which has infiltrated into Canada. Organized crime appears to make use of professional killers to accomplish some of its objects. To frustrate the operation of our laws professional killers apparently are employed to liquidate witnesses in narcotics and other cases. These professional killers either have no fear of capital punishment or else run that risk to avoid speedier punishment at the hands of their masters. Organized crime is a state within the state conducting war from within. How lenient can the state afford to be with those whose aim is the destruction of the state? Should capital punishment be retained as the state's ultimate weapon against organized crime which, far from being activated by impulse or emotion, relies rather on the most carefully planned, the most carefully premeditated operations?
The section of the Criminal Code which the abolitionists would like to remove is the very one which deals with planned, premeditated murder. The section, reprinted in the White Paper on page 67, reads as follows:
Murder is capital murder in respect of any person where it is planned and deliberate on the part of such person.
The section also provides the death penalty for those who kill law enforcement officers and prison guards. In recent years capital punishment has been sparingly used. The section is there in the act but the cabinet may use its discretion in its application. Commutation of the death penalty, life imprisonment instead of hanging, may be determined
April 5, 1966

by the cabinet judging with great care each case on its merits. The abolitionist should have no cause for complaint if the section remains in the act and the death penalty is rarely used. The retentionist should have little cause for complaint if the section is retained as the state's reserve power in case of necessity.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Society must decide which life is the more valuable-the child, the woman, the police officer, the prison guard or the criminal. The state cannot guarantee life for all of these at our present stage of development. The state cannot yet guarantee that prisoners will never escape. Psychiatry cannot yet guarantee an absolutely accurate answer to psychiatric problems. The parole system cannot yet guarantee that reformation and rehabilitation have been completely successful. Until those guarantees can be given the state owes a higher duty to its law-abiding citizens, to its women and children, than it does to the criminal.
I am now prepared to answer the question I posed at the beginning: "Is the state justified in taking a life?" My answer is "Yes", under the law as it now stands with the cabinet deciding each case on its merits and with due regard to the safety of the law-abiding citizens of the state. I propose to vote against the amendment and the main motion in order to retain the present law as it was modified in 1961.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are times, Mr. Speaker, when the House of Commons rises to heights of grandeur and becomes deeply conscious of its great traditions. I think this debate had been one of those rare occasions. There has been a minimum of rancour and there has been no imputation of motives because I think that the abolitionists and retentionists alike have been sincerely searching their consciences to see if we can honestly resolve a moral problem. This problem is, how can we abolish a brutal punishment without endangering the safety of society?
I am in favour of the motion to abolish capital punishment and I am also supporting the amendment to put it on a five-year trial basis. I doubt that there is much new that can be said in this debate. The entire field has been well covered but I should like to put very briefly four reasons for my opposition to capital punishment. The first is that capital punishment is contrary to the highest
Criminal Code
concepts of the Judaic Christian ethic. I do not propose to go into theological arguments, but both in this debate and in the discussions which have taken place outside the house many people have been quoting Scripture in support of retaining the death penalty.
It is always a dangerous practice to quote isolated passages of Scripture. The Bible has been quoted in times past to support slavery, child labour, polygamy, the burning of witches, and subservience to dictators. The Scriptures have to be viewed as a whole. The Bible is not one book, it is many books. It does not have a static concept. It represents man's emerging moral concepts as they have grown through the centuries.
It is true that the Mosaic law provided the death penalty for murder. It is equally true, if one looks particularly at the 20th chapter of the book of Leviticus, that the Mosaic law provided the death penalty for 33 crimes including such things as adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, witchcraft and sacrificing to other gods than Jehovah. It seems to me that those who want to pick out isolated texts from the Bible in support of retaining the death penalty for murder have to be equally consistent and ask that the death penalty be retained for all the other crimes listed in the Mosaic law.
Of course, those who take this position overlook several facts. They overlook, first of all, the fact that the Mosaic law was an advanced law for the primitive times in which it was formulated. It was later succeeded by the Hebrew prophets who introduced the idea of justice superseded by mercy, the possible redemption and re-establishment of the individual. They overlook the fact that if any nation in the world ought to feel itself bound by Mosaic law it should be the state of Israel. The state of Israel abolished the death penalty many years ago except for Nazi war criminals and for treason committed in times of war. The religious hierarchy of the state of Israel enthusiastically supported the Knesset in abolishing the death penalty in that country.
But for those of us who belong to the Christian religion it seems to me we have to remember also that the Christian religion went far beyond the Mosaic law. In the days of the founder of Christianity the Mosaic law still obtained. This law decreed that a woman taken in adultery could be stoned to death. We should remember the statement of Jesus of Nazareth when he came upon a group of people preparing to stone such a woman to


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You contend they are the ones who commit most of the murders?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You contend they are the insane?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) says that they are not insane. This depends entirely on her definition of insanity.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is in the law.
April 5, 1966


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: An individual who has
become so mentally sick that he will take another life or ravage a child is certainly not a mentally healthy or normal individual.
The third reason I am opposed to capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe there are better ways to ensure the safety of society. I completely agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who argued that we must be concerned about the safety of the public. When he asks which is the more important, the life of an innocent person who may be killed or the life of a murderer, there is no doubt that the life of the innocent person is the more important. But is the fact that we break a man's neck any guarantee that innocent people will not be hurt?
We are not suggesting removing the penalty. We are saying that the penalty which ought to be retained is one that will do the two things which are important. First of all, it must be a penalty which will remove the convicted person from human society as long as that person is likely to be a menace to the safety and well-being of his fellow men. Second, that person should be given an opportunity to receive whatever psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation is possible in the light of his own particular circumstances.
What we have to decide is what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker. Are we thinking purely of punishing somebody because they have done wrong? Are we thinking purely in punitive terms? Are we thinking purely in terms of vengeance or retribution? Or are we thinking of the two things I have mentioned, first, the safety of society by incarcerating the convicted murderer for life and, second, the possible rehabilitation and redemption of that individual. There is additionally the third great advantage that if society has made a mistake it is possible to rectify the mistake, because justice is a human institution and like all human institutions it is liable to error.
I maintain that society has no right to take from a man something which it cannot restore to him. If society makes a mistake and confines a man to prison, depriving him of his freedom, when that mistake is found out society can at least restore to him his freedom and provide him with some compensation for the years he has been incarcerated. But if we hang a man and then find that a mistake has been made there is nothing at all which can be done to make amends.
Criminal Code
My quarrel with the death penalty is that it is purely a negative attempt to promote the safety of society. We need to adopt positive measures to promote the safety of society. For instance, we need better law enforcement. In both Canada and the United States every year a great many unsolved crimes are committed. One of the best deterrents is for the criminal to know that if he does commit a crime he will be found out, that he will be incarcerated and put in a place where he can no longer be a menace to the community. We need quicker crime detection methods. For some types of crimes, particularly for those involving psychotics, there ought to be indeterminate sentences.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We all recall a case a few years ago in which a man sexually assaulted a child. He was sentenced to five years in jail. To my mind this was ridiculous because it was based purely on the punitive concept and not out of regard for the safety of the community. It was assumed that at five years less one day, when he was in jail, he was a menace but at five years plus one day he was no longer a menace. Such individual ought to be sentenced to be kept out of circulation until such time as a panel of judges, psychiatrists and social workers are as certain as a human person can be that the individual is no longer a menace to the safety of the community. I think that in many cases indeterminate sentences to keep out of circulation psychotics who are likely to commit crimes would be of great advantage. In the case I referred to the man got out of jail after five years. Within six months he had not only assaulted another child but had killed the child in the process. Had that individual been sentenced to an indeterminate sentence in the first instance he would not have committed this second heinous crime.
If we want genuine deterrents in this country we need a program of penal reform for the segregation of prisoners and for their rehabilitation so that young first offenders do not go to jail to take what is virtually a postgraduate course in crime.
Let us face the fact that when we talk about retaining capital punishment as a deterrent we are really trying to take the easy way out from solving our problems. In the long run society often gets the criminals it deserves.
Why do we have criminals? What is wrong with the society that produces criminals? Some years ago when I was attending

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
Chicago University I remember that every newspaper in the United States had a heading, "Where Is Crawley?" Crawley was a young gunman who was being hunted across the United States for a series of murders.
A very great columnist in the United States wrote a column which he headed, "Why Is Crawley?" He said that the people of the United States, instead of asking "Where Is Crawley", ought to take a little time out to ask "Why Is Crawley?" The columnist went over his history. He came from a broken home which the father had deserted and where the mother was out working all day. The boy lived on the streets. He was part of a gang of hoodlums. He was sent to reformatory and then was back on the streets. He was without proper education and without any counseling. He was sent to jail and associated with hardened criminals. He came out of jail twice as tough as when he went in. By 19 he was a hardened criminal. By the time he was 21 he was a killer. He was finally shot down by the police who were trying to capture him.
I suppose one of the most lamentable murders in our time has been the killing of President John F. Kennedy. Yet, when one reads the story of the man who is believed to have been responsible for his death, we find that when Lee Oswald was a boy in school he was recommended to undergo psychiatric treatment because of the dangerous psychotic tendencies he then displayed. But there were not enough psychiatrists to look after all the children in that particular part of New York city and this boy was not treated. This boy grew up with his psychotic tendencies expanding, and he is believed to have been responsible for extinguishing one of the brightest lights of our generation.
If we really want to tackle the problem of eliminating crime, we must tackle the problem of the slums which breed crime and we must tackle the problem of the lack of psychiatric clinics to take care of psychotics and persons who may become criminally dangerous. We need the kind of penal reform that will make possible the rehabilitation of first offenders with proper probation and parole. We need to go to the roots of the cause of crime and to ask ourselves what it is that produces the murderer in society.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall only take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the house.
My final point is that I am opposed to capital punishment because I believe that the measure of a nation is the manner in which it treats its misfits and its offenders. Capital punishment has already been abolished in most of the advanced nations of the western world. The abolition of capital punishment has come to be taken as the hallmark of a nation's conscience. I want to see Canada take this great forward step, and I want to make a special appeal to the members of the house to consider how important for Canada and for its future will be the vote we shall take tonight.
I understand that 14 men are now under sentence of death.


An hon. Member:: How many have they killed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This places the government in a very difficult dilemma.


An hon. Member:: You mean the cabinet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government is the cabinet. They are virtually one and the same thing.
I should not want to be in the shoes of the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet who have to face up to this very difficult problem. Nobody has been hanged in Canada since 1962. If the motion tonight is defeated the government is going to be in an awkward position. Either it will have to commute those sentenced to death to life imprisonment, knowing that the House of Commons has just rejected a motion suggesting the abolition of the death penalty, or it will have to take the defeat of the motion as an expression of opinion and allow the death sentences to be carried out.
I urge the members of the house to consider the predicament which faces the Prime Minister and the cabinet. I want to urge the house to give a five-year trial to the abolition of the death penalty. If the fears that have been expressed prove to be warranted, if there is an upsurge in the rate of homicide, if we are faced with an increase in crime rate, then in five years the members of the House of Commons who are here then can allow the
April 5, 1966

death penalty to become effective again simply by taking no action. But I would urge that we give this a chance, that we step into line with the progressive countries of the world which have already abolished the death penalty.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I know there are members in different parts of the house who do not agree about all the details, for example, about the full extent of abolishing capital punishment, but may I point out that we are not dealing with legislation. We are dealing with a resolution which simply sets forth certain principles. If the house expresses itself as being in favour of replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment, that will really mean life imprisonment unless the Governor in Council decides to the contrary. The government, I hope, will then bring down legislation. At that time we will be able to discuss the legislation and deal with the details of what the law will have to say.


John George Diefenbaker: It must bring in legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. If the resolution passes it will be mandatory on the government to bring down legislation, but the point I want to make is that when that legislation comes before the house it will be subject to amendment and refinement. This is not the time to resolve differences about details. The time to resolve them is when we have legislation before the house which can be discussed clause by clause in committee of the whole. At such a time the matter can be examined in greater detail.
What I plead for is that we pass this resolution tonight, with the amendment, which will declare in principle that the house is in favour of abolishing capital punishment and replacing it with life imprisonment. If we do that then I believe the House of Commons will have won a great victory, not a victory that will be accompanied by the blaring of trumpets or the rolling of drums but a victory in that we will have taken a forward, moral step and left behind one of the last relics of barbarianism. We will be moving forward to a more humane approach in dealing with crime.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively for four days to hon. members who spoke either for or against abolishing the death penalty.
I intend to be very brief. I will make what will probably be the shortest speech in this 23033-2451
Criminal Code
debate. As a matter of fact, I will make only a few remarks.
To show where I stand, I must say right away that I am for retaining the death penalty.
One of the main points raised by those who are preaching abolition-and I repeat "who are preaching"-is that the death penalty is not a deterrent against murder. Therefore, how can we explain that robbers, allegedly armed, sometimes use toy guns or, even worse, unloaded guns?
Another point often raised is about statistics. What worries me a little is that statistics are chosen in this or that country depending on whether or not they are favorable to the discussion. Besides, I think that statistics can be made to say anything, depending on whether they are taken as a whole or only in part. In this debate, they have been used to mean all kinds of things but only in part.
The Holy Bible was also put to use. But there again, if you take the time you will find quotations which, on occasion, can serve both sides, either for or against abolishing the death penalty.
In reply to those who claim that abolition would make the difference between civilized and uncivilized society, I say that premeditated murder certainly constitutes a much more serious obstacle to that ideal of a civilized society.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the first duty of an hon. member is to protect society by always considering the common good. I feel deeply that voting in favour of abolition is not to serve the common interest and I say that for two main reasons:
First, to vote for the abolition of the death penalty is to give hired killers the assurance that they can, for money, kill all those they want, without ever having to fear that the same thing will happen to them.
Second, to vote for the abolition of the death penalty is to give to all those sentenced to life imprisonment a licence to kill as they please, either other prisoners or prison guards, especially when trying to escape.
Murder is by far the most odious of crimes. It certainly deserves the harshest punishment: the death penalty.
[English1


Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate I had some misgivings as to the timing of it, fearing that following on a rather emotional period in the house we might see further displays of

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
extreme emotionalism, possibly followed by bitterness. But I think it is very much to the credit of all hon. members who have spoken that the calibre of the debate so far has been fine and that the various opinions have been expressed in such a sincere, studious and thoughtful manner.
The amiable and eloquent hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) objected to those in favour of retention inferring, intentionally or unintentionally, that abolitionists were soft on criminals. I would like to add an equally strong objection against those in favour of abolition inferring, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that those in favour of retention are somehow barbaric, unthinking and unprogressive.
One hon. member of the house said:
I see few members of this house prepared to question it-that abolition of the death penalty constitutes in itself social progress.
I definitely question it, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that by their speeches and opinions many hon. members question it too.
I do not agree with the inference that those who wish to abolish the death penalty are more modern, more learned or more sympathetic. For centuries thinkers and philosophers have returned time and time again to the idea of abolition. It is nothing new. It does not seem to me a sign of the maturing of our society. In fact it seems to me that the maturing of our society would be exhibited by a decline in crime altogether. But though we are rightfully boasting of our enormously high standard of living, yet at the same time we are considerably worried about the increase in violence, delinquency, and organized and professional murdering.
According to the Department of Justice June 1965, publication, "Capital Punishment", there are slightly over 60 countries in the world which still retain the death penalty and there are about half that number which have abolished it, totally or in part, so it does not seem at all true to say that we are somehow behind the times and very unprogressive if we do not rush into abolition of the death penalty.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) said in his excellent speech that it is nice to be a reformer. Indeed this is true. It is very dramatic and it is very attention getting, but to be a worthwhile reformer the reform proposed must involve some improvement in our society and no one yet has been able to state convincingly, to me at least, that abolition of the death penalty would be an improvement in our control of murder.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Only 13 of the 50 states of the United States have abolished the death penalty and in three of these the penalty has been revived. New Zealand and Australia have brought it back again after periods of abolition. It seems to me that very clearly it is a matter of interpretation, the interpretation of our regard for human life. It is precisely because I do regard human life as so precious and as the fundamental birthright of every human being that I say the gravest penalty must be maintained as a warning against murder and to encourage a premeditated and thoughtful form of human behaviour. Our whole society is concentrated on protecting this birthright, this feeling of the precious element of human life. We pride ourselves with some justification on the lowering of infant mortality, the extended life expectancy, our vastly improved medical science, and freedom from starvation and death by exposure. Whether it be from pride in our social standards or moral and religious codes, our whole way of life is directed to keeping people alive.
Research scientists, some of our most gifted minds, often die in despair having devoted their whole lives to the search for a cure in one phase of a disease. We have armies of police and we spend millions of dollars protecting people by instituting laws against assault, against reckless driving and against any behaviour that might lead to bodily harm. This all is based on our respect for human life and our desire that the life of each person, young and old, small or big, sick or well, should be untouchable and inviolate.
The person who rebels against this society, who sells or gives a government secret to another government is accused of treason. Generally this is considered the worst of all crimes and in some countries capital punishment is even maintained for treason when it is abolished for murder. I feel strongly that rebelling against our society to the extent of committing premeditated murder is just as loathsome as treason.
Other mistakes are retrievable, as has been said time and again in this debate, but this one is not. I think our young people should grow up knowing this, learning this. Why should there be so much talk about the irretrievability of the death penalty and so little regarding the irretrievability of the life of the victim? Why should we be so squeamish about retribution? Learning to live at all well or fully or rewardingly is learning of
April 5, 1966

Criminal Code
retributions. If we concentrate, we learn; if we exercise, we have strong muscles; if we over-eat, we grow fat. Some people will not recognize retributions as the result of their behaviour, or do not mind them, but no one should be allowed to have any hope of avoiding the penalty for murder.
Murder cannot be thought of as a permissible act in our society, and I strongly object to the argument that capital punishment is a repetition of murder. To me this seems to make a farce of punishment. If it is to be made a farce in the treatment of the most impermissible of all acts then it is logical to consider punishment a farce for lesser crimes, and where then does our society turn to for control?
I think one of the best speeches in this debate was made by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Miss LaMarsh). I agree with her entirely in respect of her support for the need for gradations of crime and therefore gradations of penalty. Like her, I definitely feel there is a limit which must be recognized as utterly unacceptable. If, regrettably, with all our efforts and safeguards members of our society still go beyond this limit of behaviour, there can be no other course but to remove them.
Certainly as much as anyone in this house I dislike emotional displays as a means of debate. But since some of my colleagues feel strongly enough about abolition of the death penalty to mention deep personal and religious reasons for their feeling. I hope I will be forgiven if I express a personal reason for retention of capital punishment, a reason which I am sure many Canadian women share and a reason which I think should be expressed-the feelings of a mother.
There are some unchanging facts in life, and in the days before childbirth or during the pain involved a mother's whole thought always has been and always will be that this child live. That it be beautiful, rich or clever always will remain secondary to the one basic wish that it live. Henceforth any sickness in this child becomes a mother's greatest worry. The end of this child's life becomes the greatest loss which could be contemplated, and if any person murders this child, whether if be with an axe, a gun, or poison, and for whatever reason, whether it be through jealousy, sexual perversion of what have you, then whoever that person be that person forfeits his or her right to go on living.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that I am alone in this feeling and in wanting this kind of protection in society for my children and for other children. Some persons speaking in favour of abolition have said that those in favour of retention speak of it in qualified terms and somehow are not sure of their opinions. I feel very sure that our society must have its rules and must have its penalties. There may come a time when there will be no murders committed. Like everyone else in this house, like every other Canadian, I sincerely hope so, but until this time comes I feel that millions of people across this country feel such revulsion to certain murders that the severest penalty must be maintained.
Capital punishment has been with us for a long time. There are thousands who feel it is a deterrent to murder. It is a long established practice that before repeal or revision of a statute those who seek the alteration must accept the onus of responsibility for substantiating their claim that a requirement exists for such changes. The people most immediately involved with detecting murder and apprehending murderers, our police, do not want abolition. To me this is an enormously strong argument against abolition. In other areas of our society we base our decisions on opinions of those most closely connected with the problem. Why not in respect of this so important problem?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In the 1960 debate in this house it was pointed out that perhaps one of the most convincing arguments is to be found in the report of the special parliamentary committee of 1956. They came to this conclusion on the sole point of whether capital punishment does represent a deterrent:
In considering the arguments for and against abolition, the committee was conscious of the view of the provincial attorneys genera] and other officials responsible for law enforcement from whom it received evidence that capital punishment is an important and necessary deterrent to murder.
The committee has concluded that capital punishment does exercise a deterrent effect which would not result from imprisonment or other forms of punishment.
Like the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), I do resent Communist organizations pressing us to decide in favour of abolition. Certainly they do not wish to aid us in strengthening our society. I am sure it is unnecessary to add that I am absolutely not implying any Communist leanings on the part of those who have spoken in favour of abolition.

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code


Mr. Orlikow:: Why mention it?


Jean Casselman Wadds: We have heard a lot from lawyers. I respect their learning and their experiences but it does seem to me that their experiences are probably concentrated rather closely in one area. To me, one of the most ineffective suggestions is that those in favour of the retention of capital punishment should have to witness capital punishment. Is it not equally sensible to demand that those who would use this argument should have to witness murder itself?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Casselman Wadds: There may be some mothers -undoubtedly there are-who feel differently than I who might ask: Would you feel this way if your child was the murderer? I can only say that personally I would. Of course, this is a thought to be avoided just as the thought of sending a child to war is to be avoided, but if we reach this limit of our resources in our society then we must pay the price.
I feel that war is a breakdown of everything that we are striving for with regard to respect for human life and in learning to understand others with whom we live. Murder is the same sort of breakdown. The record shows that all those in favour of abolition did not or would not refuse to go to war to maintain our type of society. This leads me to my last point, that we should vastly increase our resources toward the abolition of murder.
We hear a lot about guidelines in economics, guidelines in education, guidelines in culture. There seems to me to be one definite guideline, the irrevocable, unchangeable guideline which is, "thou shalt not kill".
Let us double, triple or multiply our research a hundred-fold into mental and emotional health, in every avenue that may protect people from the state of mind in which they commit murder. I think there may be a great deal to be done in this respect in our entertainment world. Surely there is a great deal of interest, beauty and charm in this world without so much of our literature, drama and art being devoted to crime and shooting. Surely it is bad for our children to watch shows ad nauseam in which there seems to be something smart and clever in violence and shooting straight.
Let us concentrate on abolishing murder, but until it is abolished let us treat it as it is, as impermissible and to be punished in the strongest possible way. As the hon. member

for Bow River and others have so rightly said, there are three ways of dealing with crime, by swift detection, by swift apprehension and by swift punishment.
Like all citizens, Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious that there be no weakening of respect for our judicial system. It seems to me, and I have questioned many people and have given close attention to every opinion that has crossed my desk, that Canadians are widely divided, even among churches and church members, in their attitude toward capital punishment. But I am sure all Canadians are unanimous in the feeling that the stability of our judicial system is of first importance in maintaining the stability of our way of life.
I think most people approve of appeals but I feel strongly that these should remain in our courts. I cannot but feel that cabinet decisions are bound to be political. They cannot be otherwise because they are made by politicians and politicians of all people, it seems to me, are peculiarly unfitted for such decisions. Their elected job is a temporary one. It is based on popularity and it does not carry with it the expectation of this kind of decision-making. Surely all such decisions should rather go to judges who are educated and prepared for such decision-making. They have the facilities for and are accustomed to accumulating evidence and evaluating it.
We have obviously progressed in the swift detection and apprehension of criminals and it does not seem sensible to me to weaken this progress by confusion, delay and uncertainty regarding the penalty. Distasteful as some penalties may be, I feel they are requisites in dealing with crime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, one is tempted to remain silent in this debate as it is quite impossible to be original. However, by repetition the total added weight of argument may help to influence the opinion of the house and tip the scales.
It is self-evident to state that the question of capital punishment has perplexed mankind for many years. Each of us has wrestled with his own conscience, torn by conflicting emotions and influenced by our individually developed philosophies hammered out in the battle of life itself.
My biggest personal battle was to try to separate emotion from logic. All of us are motivated by instincts, some of them quite
April 5, 1966

basic, and one is the reflex to hit back as hard as you are hit, to say that if a person destroys life he must pay by forfeiting his life. Through study and discussion I have arrived at the position where I support the general principle of the abolition of capital punishment. At the same time, if necessary to obtain some measure of abolition I would support amendments which would have the effect of retaining capital punishment for certain categories of murder.
What we are doing is deciding as a House of Commons whether capital punishment ought to be retained in a civilized community. In a civilized country the taking of human life can be justified only by the clearest evidence of imperative need. When we ask ourselves what is this clear and convincing evidence which justifies the taking of human life, the answer usually advanced comes under two headings, deterrence and retribution.
I believe that capital punishment can only be justified on the ground that it is a unique deterrent, and I contend it is not. Essentially this ultimate crime is motivated by emotions so strong that its perpetrator does not stop to think whether or not he will die for it. The law neither deters nor encourages him. For him, at the moment, it simply does not exist.
Because death is awful and final many people tend to underrate the deterrent power of the self-destructive prospect of life imprisonment, of loss of freedom, of soul-corroding confinement, of the deprivation from the simple pleasures and beauties of a free life.
It should not be forgotten that until 1955 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. The real deterrent to crime is the certainty of detection and punishment rather than the severity of punishment.
Millions of words have been uttered on this subject, learned briefs have been drawn, statistical evidence has been adduced, and the present position is that it has not been proven that capital punishment is a unique deterrent to murder. Nor has it been shown that when capital punishment was abolished the incidence of murder increased. Therefore I submit that the main argument for retention falls.
The second main argument advanced by the retentionists is that of retribution. What it means is that the community marks its abhorrence of the crime of taking human life by the gravity of the punishment it exacts. In that way the community hopes to burn into
Criminal Code
the conscience of mankind the unspeakable wickedness of the crime itself. We therefore have a paradox. To show the community the evil of taking human life, the community uses the taking of human life to do that very thing. Our society should say: We abhor the taking of human life so much that we ourselves renounce the right to do it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There is also an element of revenge in retribution which is understandable but which is not compatible with the degree of civilization we have attained. The question is often posed: How would you feel and act if someone ravaged and murdered your daughter? Instinctively and emotionally my first reaction, my first retort, would be that hanging would be too compassionate. But on cool consideration and logically analysing the question, what do I achieve by taking the murderer's life? Do I regain my child? It does not correct his error. The act brutalizes society and lowers it toward his own depraved and savage level.
The argument of retribution in effect says that the only suitable punishment for one who takes life is to take his life. Apart from moral and philosophical concepts of retribution, is there not a paramount, practical reason why society should not execute even the most sadistic, brutal murderer? Do we not achieve more by preserving him so his abnormal behaviour can be studied by psychiatrists? These studies are essential if we are to add to the sum total of man's knowledge, if we are to delve into the dim recesses of irrational behaviour, if we are to learn how these sick minds work. Might we not apply such increased knowledge in a preventive way which could conceivably stop the occurrence of a similar act, one which could be slowly forming in a twisted, sick, warped and tortured mind? If we eliminate the abnormal murderer, do we not cast aside all opportunity to examine him and really make more possible the repetition of the type of heinous crime that we as a society are so desperately trying to eradicate?
In the long run it endangers rather than protects society to execute even the most brutal murderer. Our chance to find out his reasons for committing the crime is gone. Thus we leave ourselves a prey to other potential and developing murderers who can harm an unsuspecting society whenever the circumstances permit. We must confine, examine and assemble the increasing, cumulative knowledge about abnormal psychology

April 5. 1966
Criminal Code
and apply it as a preventive measure if we truly wish to erase this type of menace from our midst.
For those who waver in this debate, I believe that one of the most convincing and perhaps clinching arguments against capital punishment is the possibility of judicial error. First, error can arise leading to conviction and execution in situations where through ignorance or lack of funds the accused does not have the highest possible calibre of defence. This is rare but possible. Second, in any system of administration of justice, however mature and efficient and in spite of the best legal counsel, through coincidence and circumstance miscarriages of justice can and do occur. The Evans case in Britain is the most striking example of this possibility. The execution of the convicted person obviously makes rectification of the error impossible.
Mankind recoils at the horror of taking an innocent life. Mankind blanches at such monstrous injustice. When we know that the possibility exists, this alone is a most powerful argument for the abolition of capital punishment. Britain has for years gone through the agonies of debate on capital punishment. They achieved its abolition with a compromise. Capital punishment was abolished for a five-year, trial period. If necessary we could follow their example. If there is no significant increase in capital murder during that period, parliament can move with assurance and public support to relegate the hangman's noose to where it belongs, the museum. If this approach would satisfy some honest doubters I for one would support such an amendment.
Through the centuries man has tried to grapple with the abstract question of justice. It is a relative concept which changes with the times. If we peer back into history we note that capital punishment was once thought to be the only just punishment for theft, adultery, heresy and forgery. We now find this punishment for such misdeeds revolting. Voices thundered in the past that death was the only suitable punishment for such crimes.
As society develops and the sanctity of life becomes more ingrained into our philosophy, as we struggle to combat our primitive urges which are scarcely concealed beneath the surface of us all, gradually through quiet evolution we have discarded old ideas of retribution and punishment. We have taken tentative steps. We have groped toward

changing and elevated ideas of justice. We clamber clumsily at times, hesitatingly and afraid up the ladder of social reform and progress. Is not the abolition of capital punishment the natural culmination of centuries of man's effort to achieve justice based on reason? Is it not the final step, the final rung on the ladder, the summit or the high plateau to which we at times unwittingly and at times consciously have been painfully crawling?
I feel that now is the time to take this last step. I believe it to be inevitable. I see no purpose in delay. A custom which has disappeared in most civilized countries and is withering away in many more should be discarded in a country such as ours which has been renowned in the past for its enlightened reform approach to the great social questions of the day. When historians in years hence peer back down the distant corridors of time, when future generations yet unborn reflect on this day of decision, let them be able to say: Members of the house bravely and wisely took another forward step in man's eternal search for solutions to the problem of crime and punishment.
Men of good will have honestly and sincerely voiced their opinions in this house. What a rare and precious privilege it is that we as individuals are still masters of our fate. Whatever the result, this chamber will be forever enriched, forever ennobled by the clear clash of conflicting concepts of free men in a free land, all dedicated to adding a little more to the sum total of social justice.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this important debate and putting my own thoughts and convictions on the record, I am mindful of the very fine speeches that have been made, particularly this afternoon. I shall be very brief. I have three contentions to put forward in support of my own position. First, I am concerned with the bleak outlook in regard to violent crime. I have figures here I could quote which demonstrate that violent crime, organized crime, in the United States increased by 40 per cent from 1958 to 1964, and the predictions are that if trends continue, particularly in juvenile delinquency, by 1975 there will be an increase of 80 per cent in crimes of violence. Figures also demonstrate similar trends in Canada.
Capital punishment still represents necessary protection for our social order. I distinguish capital punishment as applied in some countries in Africa for their self-protection.
April 5, 1966

But the peace and good order of the public can be endangered from time to time by forms of professional criminality. We are legislating for the whole of Canada, not for a particular state or a European country with different outlook from ours. I am impressed by the fact that at least the Attorneys General of our two major provinces profess that there is still a need for the retention of capital punishment.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
My second thought is that abolition de-emphasizes the role of rehabilitation. Abolition tends to detract from our whole program and unfortunately does not mean a corresponding interest in attention to rehabilitation. If I may digress for a moment, I would say that I believe many strong retentionists and abolitionists become so wrapped up in the problem that they tend to forget the major part of rehabilitation itself. In addition, many abolitionists will have to revise their thinking in so far as maximum security institutions are concerned. Most of them tend to be against segregation.
My third contention is that the attitude of society toward crime and punishment would be weakened if we removed the supreme sanction of the death penalty. In other words, it demonstrates society's revulsion to crime. The abandonment of the death penalty may cause less serious concern toward criminals which would result in a lowering of morality and our attitudes would be weakened accordingly.
I want to refer to the amendment of the former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. I am against it. It has the appearance of being government sponsored and the appearance of a cover-up or back door method. In my opinion we have had already a trial period. Let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, the issues are the same regardless of this amendment. It would be wrong to support this amendment and I suggest that the government must accept the responsibility.
The amendments made in 1961 served a purpose. I would have liked to see capital punishment gradually fall into disuse but still on the statute books. The government failed to live up to its responsibilities in this regard. They panicked in the Marcotte case where there was not even a recommendation of mercy. The government has been in trouble ever since. Contrary to what has been said in the press and elsewhere, the onus of proof is still on the abolitionists.
Criminal Code
The other day I read that those who feel like I do are in what is called the "twilight group". I do not mind being placed in this position. In closing may I say that the other night I felt that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) had expressed my thoughts quite well when he said, if I have to choose between the protection of society and the convicted murderer I am on the side of society.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park):: It is
not too often, Mr. Speaker, that I raise my voice in this chamber. I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so on this very important subject. It may be said that what has been said has no influence on those who have listened once they have made up their minds. I have made up my mind on how I am going to vote. I intend to vote for abolition. However, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Wadds) have influenced me to the extent that I am going to toss aside my prepared text and speak as briefly and as firmly as I can about my views on this subject.
In the first place, sir, I had the privilege and opportunity of serving on the committee of this house which dealt with capital punishment. This committee considered all the factors for retention and abolition. These factors were argued strongly and very ably by people who were competent, knowledgeable and factual in what they had to say. It has been said that the committee decided to retain capital punishment. As you all know, there is no minority report issued by such a committee. My summing up of the situation was that the committee came to the conclusion that the public of Canada were not ready for the abolition of capital punishment at that time and found reasons to justify that position.
I should like to call to your attention the development of the idea of the abolition of capital punishment over the past twenty years. In 1948 the United Kingdom House of Commons passed two bills. One was for the complete abolition of capital punishment and the other provided for the division of murder into two classes, retaining mandatory punishment by hanging for a capital crime. Both of these bills were thrown out by the House of Lords. We know that in this house there have been no debates in the past in regard to the abolition or retention of capital punishment but this matter has been debated in the British House of Commons for centuries.

April 5, 1986
Criminal Code
The members of the committee which dealt with capital punishment had the advantage of reading the debates which took place in the imperial parliament. They referred to the royal commission report which had been submitted on capital punishment. I had the opportunity of reading the report of the royal commission on capital punishment. I have come to the conclusion that capital punishment at the present time should be abolished.
Following that a law was passed in England dividing murder into two degrees and retaining capital punishment for murder in the first degree. The law here was then changed by this parliament and murder was divided into two degrees, retaining capital punishment for murder in the first degree. We can see the progressive spread of the idea. The royal commission found as a matter of fact that, having regard to the number of homicides in the United Kingdom and the number of persons who had been executed for murder over the past 50 years, the problem had resolved itself into such a small compass that it was a case of retention or abolition or finding some practical way of moderating the rigidity of the law.
The only solution that they could suggest was that after a jury had made its finding of guilty or not guilty they then be asked to go back and make a second finding if they had made a finding of guilty. They should be asked to decide whether there were extenuating circumstances indicating that the penalty should be reduced to life imprisonment. They have now gone one step further in the United Kingdom and suspended the application of capital punishment for a period of five years.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I feel that we too have advanced to the stage where we should abolish capital punishment. I have struggled, as all members have struggled, with my conscience in making up my mind whether or not this final sanction of the law should be imposed or revoked. I believe that it should be revoked. I appreciate the sanctity of life. I can understand the feelings of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas just as I can understand the feelings of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. This is a matter of conscience and my conscience dictates to me that capital punishment should be abolished. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for its abolition.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words this

afternoon to express my views on the resolution for the abolition of capital punishment. I have decided for some time now, to vote for the retention of the death penalty in cases of capital murder, treason and piracy, as provided under the 1961 act. An amendment to the resolution is now before the house, providing for abolition of capital punishment for a five-year trial period.
Mr. Speaker, I am also against this amendment because it is equivalent to saying to those who may have ideas: Do it now, you have five years to do it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is the proper solution and, frankly, I have not been too impressed by the speeches I have heard in the house in support of the abolition of the death penalty.
It is said that Canada is civilized enough now to abolish the death penalty; there were times in the past when people were more civilized than they are today. The fact that we know about automation or that we are on the threshold of cybernetics does not mean that we are civilized for all that. To my mind, being civilized is to know that my neighbour exists, that he has rights and that I must respect them. Whoever plans a murder surely does not respect the rights of his victim. In all the speeches made I found only repetitions of the massive propaganda to which we have been subjected to get us to vote for the abolition of the death penalty. I noted, Mr. Speaker, that the abolitionists have at their disposal vast advertising media to make it appear that a great majority of the people are in favour of abolishing the death penalty when a capital murder is committed.
When it was made public that we would have to vote for or against the death penalty, I asked myself who could benefit from the abolition of the death penalty, if not the murderer himself. Personally, I have no plans. If the death penalty is abolished in cases of treason, who will benefit from it if not the traitors? With regard to murders committed during acts of piracy, who will gain if not the pirates themselves? I agree with the legislators who, in 1960-61, advocated the abolition of the death penalty in the case of unpremeditated murders; for instance, in the case of an individual who kills in anger and also for crimes of passion. Moreover, the insane and adolescents are no longer put to death. I am in favour of that. But the man who makes his decision coldly and plans his crime with care is no longer useful to society.
April 5, 1966

Mr. Speaker, I also deemed it advisable to consult my constituents on that matter by sending a questionnaire to all the families in my riding. Their opinions were very divided. In the eastern part of my riding, people are slightly in favour of abolishing the death penalty, whereas in the western part they are in favour of retaining it. The comments made in several replies greatly helped me to reach a decision.
Even if I favour retaining the death penalty, I do not think that execution alone is an effective deterrent against murder. But whoever deliberately, with premeditation, deprives of his life a competitor, whether in business, in love or in any other field, does he not put himself outside society? If it were possible to kill, without being punished severely, all those who, one way or another, prevent us from achieving our goals, overpopulation would not be a problem in the world.
Does not the traitor who kills the head or heads of government, or who plots to betray his country to the enemy, deserve death? Besides, among the countries that have abolished capital punishment for murder, treason is still punishable by death.
Mr. Speaker, violent death, whether it is caused by an individual or by the state, is as much repugnant to me as to anybody. That is why all of us without exception should take advantage of this debate to consider and find the means to improve life within our human society, in order that everyone may develop according to his intelligence and capacities; in order that men and women who unite to perpetuate life may raise their children in suitable homes and teach them to respect God and other people.
It is time to assume our responsibilities and to stop feeling that this should concern others, but not us. We should react as equal and responsible men and women. We should face the problem and realize that our children and our children's children should not be made to suffer for our follies. We should give up the idea that science can replace moral's and progress replace hard work and that, for instance, the well-known tranquilizers can replace peace of mind and the well-known dope, mental toil. We should give up the idea that pills can master the soul. We should give up our faith in so-called progress that sends satellites into space but cannot, because of politics, prevent two men out of three from going hungry. Finally, we should understand and spread the understanding around us and 23033-2462
Criminal Code
make the mighty that lead us understand that science without conscience will ruin the soul and that a world without a soul is doomed.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
To respect life is not solely a matter of not killing. It is a matter of allowing life to fulfil itself, of ensuring such conditions as will allow the harmonious and free development of the human being.
While some want abolition of the death penalty for the murderer or the robber, claiming that it does not befit us to do justice and that God alone has the right of life and death, others, and often they are the same, favour abortion which is nothing other than murder.
Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic. The society in which we live must be made to recognize the right to live at all times, must be made to fulfil its true role. But first of all, what is society? Robert Rochon recently gave us an excellent definition in La Presse and I quote:
A society is a group of men Joined in a single community by nature, by law or by agreement. It is the moral union of intelligent beings, grouped in a stable and efficient way to achieve a common and chosen object. Now, that moral union of intelligent beings has three essential elements to achieve this goal:
1.	Common purpose toward an end known to and wanted by all;
2.	Common willingness to achieve this end;
3.	Co-ordination in the means leading to this end, and thence the necessity of one common authority.
Relationship between the members of the social body as such is determined by the purpose of the society and ordered by it. That group of men or intelligent beings is therefore a social fact consisting essentially in the behaviour of its members.
Hence the necessity of complying with principles, practices, moral or legal rules.
These rules, Mr. Speaker, must be followed and respected by all, without exception, failing which sanctions must be taken according to the gravity of the offence against society, but it is not enough to act severely, we must get at the crime, at its roots by improving our methods of crime prevention, detection and prosecution.
Let there first be an end to murder and then capital punishment will no longer be necessary.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a modest contribution on the motion now before the house as to whether the death penalty, as provided for in the Criminal Code, must be abolished altogether or whether it should be retained.

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
This question has a high degree of interest for public opinion and is not only controversial, but gives rise to very subjective stands. I am pleased to find that parliament agrees to settle this vital question through a free vote, one which is not subject to party discipline, for it is very binding on each member's conscience.
Mr. Speaker, what are the arguments put forward by the abolitionists? That it is morally wrong for the state, or for a person, to take a human life, in contravention with the Christian principles and human and social rules characteristic of a modern society. That it is a barbaric and outmoded punishment which is not consistent anymore with our modern ethics or philosophy, and most of the civilized countries have successfully abolished it. That the death penalty is but the expression of revenge by society against a murderer, and undesirable.
It is asserted also that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent. It does not have any special deterrent effect as would imprisonment. A great proportion of murders are committed in anger, and then, the consequences have no deterrent effect. On the other hand, whoever plans to escape justice is not influenced by capital punishment. Only the normal, law-abiding citizen could control his impulses when considering the punishment and at any rate, he would not commit murder. The certainty of being discovered and caught has a most effective deterrent effect, and the study of behaviour supports this argument.
It is maintained that a large proportion of murderers are not fully responsible for their actions and that the threat of this or that punishment would therefore not stop them.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a brief summary of the various arguments put forward by the supporters of the abolition of capital punishment.
I have no intention to extend my speech unduly, but I should like to refute those few considerations, and draw from them some conclusions.
The nature of the problem encourages those in favour of abolition to express their opinion openly and dissuades those in favour of its retention from doing the same, because they are afraid to be considered as inhuman or even worse. To justify their stand, those in favour of abolition should demonstrate that capital punishment has proven to be a failure and that it is totally undesirable.

One cannot measure precisely the deterrence of this punishment, but for lack of proof to the contrary, one must admit that capital punishment is a deterrent and, if one is opposed to that punishment, reasons other than lack of deterrence must be invoked. The fact is that we can never know how many people are dissuaded from crime by the threat of punishment, either capital punishment or any other. Since gratuitous murder is extremely bad from a moral viewpoint, punishment must remain severe in order to demonstrate the capital offence it represents against society. Otherwise, the eventual murderer will very likely assume that society does not consider such a crime as one of the most repulsive. Those in favour of the abolition of capital punishment are concerned with saving the life of the murderers and also with the possible result of leading to brutality which executions might have on the people in general. But most, if not all, abolitionists would retain capital punishment if they were convinced it would spare innocent lives. Most feel they would not be justified to endanger the life of one citizen. At a time when the state is losing ground in its fight against crime, we should be more concerned about protecting society than criminals.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at what is going on around us in our respective areas, how many crimes are committed: bank robberies or other robberies, armed robberies, breaking into homes where residents are beaten to death for money alleged to be hidden, rape of young children, indecent assaults, etc.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be tragic if capital punishment were abolished to be replaced by life sentence, when we know that our penal and rehabilitation institutions are not now provided with adequate personnel to face the many problems that will arise.
The time has not yet come to abolish capital punishment. Why should we show excessive zeal when our neighbour to the south, one of the most progressive, the most powerful and the most democratic country in the world, has deemed it wiser to maintain the death penalty in 42 of the 48 states, including all the major states except Michigan.
The Association of Canadian Police Chiefs, in their letter to us, say that it is most concerned over what it calls the contempt that is being shown nowadays for the law of the land. It states that the customary procedure of the government of Canada since 1957
April 5, 1966

of showing clemency for dangerous criminals by commuting death sentences to so-called life imprisonment has largely contributed to the present sad state of affairs.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The association is, moreover, definitely convinced that the death penalty is the surest protection police have against dangerous criminals.
I think the time is ill-chosen to submit the question of death penalty to parliament, particularly in view of the great mobility of the population, the urbanization of rural centres and the inflow, where control is probably not fool-proof, of undesirable immigrants who think our country is an ideal place for crimes and gangsterism.
We must support our police forces. They are our advance guard against crime and, through their association, they are asking that capital punishment be retained; their morale would be seriously affected if we did otherwise.
I have here some figures for six of the largest states taken from reports of the F.B.I. of the U.S. Department of Justice for the years 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1953, in answer to those who maintain that criminal statistics, in the end, prove nothing for or against capital punishment as a deterrent to murder. Those figures show that in five states that have retained the death penalty the rate per 100,000 population is lower than in Michigan, where it was abolished. The most striking example is that of Massachusetts where, with a population of 3,729,795, including Boston, the rate is 1.3 per 100,000, compared to 4.5 in Michigan, the population of which is 3,850,500. Even in a state as large as that of New York, where the population is 11,665,437, the rate of 3.1 is lower than that of Michigan.
Here are more figures:
Popula- Rate per Number of
State	tion	100,000	murders 1949-53Michigan	3,850,500	4.5	806 (no penalty)Massachussets	3,729,795	1.3	187 (with penalty)Pennsylvania	5,699,131	1.7	717 "New York	11,665.437	3.1	1,820 "California	6,666,927	3.5	1,154 "Ohio	4,924,372	4.2	1,055 "
Mr. Speaker, in the light of those few considerations and in view of those facts, I find myself unable to support the abolition of capital punishment. However, I would make a distinction between capital murder and non-capital murder. When homicide is committed without premeditation, in a fit of
Criminal Code
anger caused by sudden provocation, the accused should be recommended to the mercy of the judge or the jury. This should also be the case for those less than 21 years old.
The others, the hardened criminals, are a danger to society and their deliberate actions should be punished by death, which is just punishment for the vilest of crimes and which alone may atone for an unforgiveable crime.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the humble contribution I wanted to make to this debate in accordance with my conscience and for the welfare and security of society.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate and I must say there have been some extremely informative speeches. Both the supporters of abolition and the supporters of retention have presented their cases in a very capable manner.
I do not intend to take much of the time of the house. However, I feel that we as representatives of the people are obliged not only to stand up and be counted on issues which come before us but whenever possible to explain why we take the stand we do. I know all hon. members realize that the subject matter of this resolution is extremely important, and it has been mentioned many times that each individual member is facing a difficult decision.
Most of the points pro and con have been brought to the attention of the house and I do not believe there is much new ground to be developed. Both retentionists and abolitionists have presented statistics to endeavour to prove their case. Other hon. members have quite openly stated that no amount of statistics can prove the case one way or the other. Therefore it is my belief that each of us must make his or her own decision.
I must say at this time that I have come to the conclusion that I must vote against the motion before us and I wish to state my reasons briefly. But before doing so I wish to say I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who pointed out so clearly that, despite a widespread interest in what the House of Commons is occupied with, we are not deciding anything other than establishing the opinions of hon. members on capital punishment. It is my feeling that this opinion poll may result in a very narrow decision but

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
it also could be a decision by an overwhelming majority. Any further action would then be the responsibility of the government, but we have no assurance that the government will bring in any of the suggested amendments.
Should the government decide to introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code as the result of what is now considered a free vote, the house could then be faced with a vote on this subject according to party lines. This brings me to my second reason for supporting retention of the present law.
I feel and have felt for many years that when we as parliamentarians discuss the subject of abolition of capital punishment we are putting the cart before the horse. On many occasions I have said that the parole laws of our country should be amended first. This resolution says that we can amend them at the same time as we amend the law respecting murder, which somehow suggests it would be a routine matter. If it is just a routine matter let us do it first and see how it works out.
I am fully convinced that most of the retentionists and probably all the abolitionists strongly feel that our parole laws should be amended and therefore I ask, why have we ' not done this job? If this debate is going to prove anything it is the fact that our parole laws need amendment, and after the amended laws have been given a reasonable trial we may find that more hon. members may wish to support the abolition of the death penalty.
There are two other reasons why I intend to vote against the motion. I believe the law as it now stands, wherein capital and noncapital murder are clearly defined, is as close to satisfactory as we can make it considering our parole regulations. Second, I am one of those who feel that the penalty of death is a deterrent and as such gives some measure of protection to our law enforcement officers and to society in general.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, since it is late I shall be very brief.
First, I should like to say that I would have voted for the abolition of capital punishment if, in the first place, Parliament had provided for as long a debate on all the ways and means to ensure real social reform concerning the judicial system, the penitentiaries, the rehabilitation and re-education of those living on the fringe of society.
IMr. Simpson.]
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Second, if parliament had committed itself to amend the Criminal Code, more particularly chapter 217, Prisons and Reformatories Act; chapter 206, Penitentiary Act; chapter 307, Canada Evidence Act; as well as chapter 264, Parole Act and chapter 160, Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Third, if parliament undertook to amend section 660 of the Criminal Code with regard to habitual criminals, because I am convinced that if the Criminal Code were amended to read "shall" instead of "may", society would be spared many murders.
As an example, I should like to quote from a talk given by Mr. J. P. Gilbert, police director of the city of Montreal, before the Ste. Marie alumni association. I quote:
To give a concrete illustration of the problem of habitual criminals, I wanted to quote figures, he said. I have examined the record of every individual involved in murder cases in Montreal, during the last fifteen months, a total of 30 individuals involved in some 20 murder cases.
I had taken from the record what is called the "tally sheet" of these people. This sheet shows in chronological order, the offences committed since age 18. The number of offences on the sheet varies according to each individual from a minimum of four offences to a maximum of 46, the last noted being a charge of murder, some sort of crowning glory for their career.
Those thirty persons have a total of 359 offences charged against them.
Each tally sheet was examined and a line drawn at the exact point where the criminal careers of those individuals should have ended, because they became habitual criminals under the law.
Now, and that is the most important thing, if at the proper time we had put an end to the criminal activities of those people through preventive detention, and if they had been given an indeterminate sentence, we would most likely have prevented, not only 20 murders, but also 16 robberies and 219 criminal and other offences, for a total of 255 offences.
The legislator has provided for the use of an indeterminate sentence in the very case we are dealing with.
It is our responsibility to make sure, in the best interests of society, that the law becomes operative. It is with a view to social protection, not for a purely vengeful purpose, that the Montreal police department intends to bring before the courts in the near future all individuals who, under the act, are habitual criminals. It is in the light of this and for the same reason that we are looking forward to obtaining the support of all parts of this society which it is our duty to protect.
In the fourth place, I would vote for abolition of capital punishment if I were given the assurance that the accused persons shall be given an equal chance. The crown should try to get to the truth much more than to have a man convicted, as may happen in some cases.
April 5. 1966

For this, I suggest that the crown make available to the defence free of charge, instruments at his own disposal, that is detectives, investigators, experts in various fields.
In the fifth place, if we could provide our society with true and efficient means of rehabilitation, especially for the prevention of crime, this would mean that we should set up throughout our country re-education programs teaching what is right. Hon. Cyrille Vaillancourt stated recently in this connection:
What is the use of re-educating those who live on the fringe of society if, on the other hand, they are taught evil.
"In conscience," say the abolitionists. As far as I am concerned, my conscience tells me that the first thing that should be of concern to me, for the time being, as representative of the riding of Levis, is that I have to do my duty to the best of my knowledge and according to the mandate given to me.
Hence, I shall say that if there were judicial errors, as has been argued many times, but this has never been proved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 5:45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 56 (4d) to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put the question on any amendment before the house.

Order. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to special order made on Thursday, March 31, 1966, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the amendment now before the house. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), Housing-consideration of Royal Commission on Urbanization; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), technical and vocational training-request for subsidization of teacher training program;

the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent):	Agriculture-eggs-Frequency of
deficiency payments.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the 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.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the speeches we have heard in this debate have been of a uniformly high order and have shown a great deal of thought on the part of hon. members. One could single out any number of speeches touching on both sides of the question for particular mention. I think of the very good speech made by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier). I did not agree with him but it was an exceedingly well prepared and well thought out speech. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) also made a very eloquent plea. I did not agree with him either but I think he gave a particularly fine demonstration of spontaneous speaking in the house. We also heard from, among others, the hon. member for Queens, and this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) spoke. Those are the ones I remember but perhaps it is invidious of me to mention them because I am sure I have missed some very good ones.
I had hoped to rise earlier this afternoon to indicate that I was opposed to the amendment and rise now to indicate that I am also opposed to the motion. I do not think that I am going to bring to the attention of hon. members any new argument one way or the other but I do feel, like all other hon. members, that this question is one which affects us personally. It is not one which was a matter of electoral campaigning. It is not a matter of political partisanship or party platform, and thank goodness it is not. Therefore one must explain one's view to one's constituents.
Right from the outset I would want to reject any impatience that has been shown by certain editorial writers or by some speakers
April 5. 1966

in the house who, either because they have written articles or have spoken in the house and come to their own conclusion, feel that this debate should now end, particularly if other speakers in this house want to express a view which is contrary to the decision arrived at by these editorial writers or other speakers in the house. I can only classify that as some form of intellectual or moral arrogance and frankly it is more to be pitied than criticized.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that I am against the resolution as I was against the amendment. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), and others I feel that the burden of proof in effecting a change in the law is upon those who seek to change the law. This may be my feeling as a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and I confess that so far their arguments have not been compelling enough to effect a change in the law as it now stands in the statutes.
I know that everyone has expressed his views bona fide one way or the other. I have a folder full of letters and petitions on both sides of the question. I would thank the people in my constituency and those elsewhere who have written me on the subject, and I am only sorry that I cannot agree with them all. But they have written to me according to their conscience, and I am speaking and voting today, I hope, according to my conscience.
I do not think that at this time there is any purpose in canvassing the argument whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent. However, the argument usually made to us to indicate that capital punishment is not a deterrent is that those people who have been apprehended and sentenced to death and questioned on the subject have said that it was no deterrent to them. But, Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier this afternoon, there may be hundreds and thousands of men and women in this country who have been deterred. These people do not appear in any statistics. In the same way there may be thousands of men who have been deterred from committing armed robbery or any other form of crime simply because there is a punishment for that crime. If I may say so, I think the argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent puts in doubt the whole theory of punishment because it applies merely to what you might call the peak and not to the whole slope of the theory of punishment.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
When we get to the very bottom of the slope we may look at the three or four-year
Criminal Code
old who will not raid the cookie barrel or the jam pot because he knows that if he does so without permission his little backside will be warmed or he will be slapped on the hand. That deterrent fear is fundamental to the theory of punishment and in my example we see it at its most elementary stage. I know that some people think it is wrong to punish three and four-year olds because this might create repressions in the child I will leave those people to their own opinions. In any event, that is my comment with regard to the theory of capital punishment not being a deterrent.
I must also pay attention to the views of the people who are charged in this country with the protection of society and the enforcement of the law. I disagree with some of them on many things at times but in this regard I pay attention to them. Our police forces have had far more experience than many of us in dealing with that segment of society which unfortunately runs afoul of the law.
Also, when we cast aside entirely the opinions of the Attorneys General of this country and the opinions of their officials who have the responsibility for administering criminal law, we are arrogating unto ourselves some sort of exclusive preserve with regard to the theory of the definition of the law of punishment or of criminal law in this country. We know that the majority of Attorneys General in this country have pronounced themselves in favour of retaining capital punishment. Their views are not to be cast aside and denigrated. The Attorneys General and their staffs are part of the lawmaking process and they have their right to opinions about capital punishment.
Another reason, Mr. Speaker, why I should not like to see capital punishment abolished is, frankly, that the abolition of the death penalty would reduce murder to the level of many lesser crimes in the mind of society. Let us look briefly at some crimes for which life imprisonment is the maximum sentence and for which crimes life sentences have been given. Those crimes include rape, abortion, robbery with violence, and treason which is punishable not only with life imprisonment but in the alternative with death. A habitual criminal who has been found guilty of at least three indictable offences may also be sentenced to life imprisonment. Is it intended to bring murder down to this more prosaic level? Murder is the most abominable crime against a human being. After all, we as

April 5. 1966
Criminal Code
humans have an inalienable right not to be deprived unlawfully of our lives.
May I quote briefly from the White Paper on capital punishment prepared by the Department of Justice. I quote a passage taken from the report of United Kingdom royal commission which sat from 1959 to 1963. As found on page 2 of this pamphlet it reads:
-We think 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. "The fact that men are hung for murder is one great reason why murder is considered so dreadful a crime." This widely diffused effect on the moral consciousness of society is impossible to assess, but it must be at least as important as any direct part which the death penalty may play as a deterrent in the calculations of potential murderers. It is likely to be specially potent in this country, where the punishment for lesser offences is much more lenient than in many other countries, and the death penalty stands out in the sharper contrast.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what was applicable to Great Britain in 1963 is today equally applicable to Canada.
May I now state my last reason why I would vote against the motion. I particularly refer to paragraph 3 thereof. It is my feeling that over a period of years the executive has improperly usurped power by setting itself up as a sort of super grand jury to examine every death sentence. These examinations are held under varying conditions. Cabinet may be dominated by two or three strongminded individuals whose personal views on capital punishment then become, by an indirect process, the law of the land. We do not know what quorums attend cabinet meetings, we do not know what members attend, we do not know what forms of pressure, political and otherwise, are going on in cabinet under certain conditions. These things are all in my mind. No reasons are ever published why a death sentence was or was not carried out.
However, by being critical of what is being done by the executive I do not subscribe to the view that this argument should be used against the retention of capital punishment. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it exceedingly strange that the present cabinet, without the sanction of the electorate, without the sanction of parliament, has by its own actions deformed the law. That law was passed by parliament which has the supreme authority to do so. It was not passed by cabinet, because parliament has supreme authority in this country. Cabinet has deformed

by its actions the law which a good number of those present in the house passed when the Criminal Code was amended in 1961 to create two classes of murder, capital and non-capital.
My criticism of this wholesale intrusion by cabinet into the carrying out of the death penalty as laid down by law and with the safeguards now provided is that it is wrong. Except in exceptional cases where there may have been a recommendation for clemency, cabinet intrusion has been wrong.
I think that the provision in paragraph (c) of the resolution that parole from a life sentence shall be subject to review by cabinet is wrong. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that every stricture I have made against cabinet action regarding interference with the death penalty is applicable also to parole.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Political pressures can be very prevalent. I know this has happened. The position would not be made public. Who can appear before cabinet to make representations? It is the rights of individuals that are being made the subject of secretive consideration and decision.
I would much prefer that we have a parole board of experts charged with the authority for release from a life sentence. In the same way the carrying out of the death penalty should be on the recommendation of the equivalent of the Home Secretary, the Solicitor General, let us say, who with his staff would make the review, and unless there were extraordinary circumstances there should not be interference by individual members of the cabinet with respect to the decision.
In conclusion may I say that I think the law as amended in 1961 should be given a much fairer trial. It had only two years of application before de facto the death penalty was abolished by what I say was an improper action of the executive in deforming the law, perhaps not the letter of the law but certainly the spirit of the law, without any sanction from parliament.
This sanction from parliament, this law and these amendments we are considering must also be considered by the other place which is also part of parliament and whose views in this regard must also be consulted. Therefore I would urge hon. members to reject the resolution.


Mr. Matheson:: May I ask the hon. member how he explains that the former administration on 24 occasions commuted death to life
April 5, 1966

imprisonment without recommendation of either judge or jury while the present administration did so in only 6 cases? If he has criticisms, would they not apply much more forcefully to the previous administration?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Without being partisan may I say that the hon. gentleman is a little touchy because my strictures did not refer to any particular administration except that I said this administration had de facto abolished capital punishment. Under the previous administration there was capital punishment but it was restricted from what it was prior to 1961 because prior to 1961 you could have had a case like Truscott which could not arise under the law today. On this point I say that if the cap fits it may be put on. I am speaking personally. I am expressing my own views and I am not putting any partisan tag on any of my strictures.


Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution because one of the experiences that has agonized me throughout the years is the fact that the most serious crime in the Criminal Code of this country requires the least proof for conviction. In fact, more positive proof is required to obtain conviction of a person who might go into a five cent to a dollar store and pick a dollar item off the counter. The proof necessary to convict would have to be positive in that case whereas in the case of murder, which seldom has witnesses, we proceed by making proof through circumstantial evidence.
Notwithstanding the fact that I favour the abolition of capital punishment I would make a distinction in the case of policemen and prison guards. I would reconcile that with the theory that when I am asleep in my bed at night and a policeman is on his beat protecting me and exposing his life to danger who feels he needs the protection of the deterrent of capital punishment, I think I owe him the protection that he feels he needs in order to protect me. I would also make that distinction with respect to prison guards because if a convicted murderer is condemned to prison for life and then kills a prison guard he will have committed a second murder for which there is no punishment.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said that we also have to examine the question of the definition of insanity. I agree with that but we also have to go into the question of how confessions are obtained. It is all very well for us to say in criticism of
Criminal Code
confessions obtained in the Soviet Union that they are the result of brainwashing whereas confessions obtained in Canada are quite all right. In this connection there are many avenues of the Criminal Code that we should consider in a civilized society.
One of the most abnormal things we do under our code is to charge a man who has attempted suicide with a criminal offence. I think it is wrong to take a person who is addicted to opium and throw him in a penitentiary, because he is obviously sick just as the person who attempts suicide is obviously sick.
It has been said that capital punishment should be retained for fiendish crimes. I would say that the more sadistic the crime the less responsible is the person who perpetrates it because that person is obviously sick. When I support abolishing capital punishment it is not because I want to do it for the sake of the person who has committed murder but rather for the purpose of raising the level of our own civilization because if capital punishment is not abolished today in Canada it will be abolished at some time in the future.
Recently I received a pamphlet circulated by the Communist Party of Canada which through a press release has asked the public and members of parliament to support the abolition of capital punishment. I would say to the Communist Party of Canada that I am supporting the abolition of capital punishment, but I would ask them to print 200 million copies of their pamphlet and distribute them in the Soviet Union where the authorities are still executing people for economic crimes.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
The other day I saw, as did many hon. members, an execution that took place in full view of the public in Saigon. It was for an economic crime and it was a revolting sight. It did not act as a deterrent in Saigon, because the people of Saigon have revolted against the sight of this execution and now have demanded that the military government of South Viet Nam be replaced by a civilian government.
I do not advocate it, Mr. Speaker, but it would be interesting to speak about the manner in which the Bible has been brought into the question of whether we should retain or abolish capital punishment. It would be interesting-and again I am not advocating it-if back to back with the debate we are now having on the abolition of capital punishment

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
we had a debate on euthanasia. If that were to occur we would have the retentionists going to the abolitionists and saying "Lend me your notes because tomorrow I am speaking on euthanasia", and the abolitionists would be going to the retentionists and saying, "Give me your notes because tomorrow I am speaking on euthanasia".
I am not going to quote Biblical texts, but if I were to quote Biblical texts it would seem to me that the one instance in which God sat as the judge in Biblical history and heard the case of the first murderer he called the accused before him, sat as the judge, heard the case and condemned the accused, but he did not condemn him to execution. He condemned him to what Cain described as punishment greater than he could bear.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask-when I am speaking in this manner it is a question of one civilization versus another-what kind of a civilization do we want to live in? I am convinced that the rehabilitation of criminals will not be brought about through psychiatry. Incidentally, I feel that psychiatry has failed in rehabilitation, one field in which it could have shown its worth. I do not believe rehabilitation lies in psychiatry. I do not believe it lies in sociology or in the probation officer. I think it lies in chemistry. In the future we will treat a criminal as we treat a person today who has diabetes. The chemical imbalance which exists in the criminal and which makes him a Mr. Hyde instead of a Dr. Jekyll will be found.
I should like to quote an article which appeared in Time magazine, the issue of February 25, 1966. It reads as follows:
In general, drug control of personality will be widely accepted well before the year 2000. If a wife or husband seems to be unusually grouchy on a given evening, says Rand's Olaf Helmer, a spouse will be able to pop down to the corner drugstore, buy some anti-grouch pills, and slip them into the coffee. Or a lackadaisical person could be dosed into a sense of ambition. Electrical stimulus of brain areas has been shown to produce responses of fear, affection, laughter or sex arousal; such techniques, says Yale's Dr. Jose Delgado, "will certainly increase man's ability to influence the behavior of man".
If this be true, if it is only a matter of chemistry, then it indicates how uncivilized we are in this century to continue with the death penalty.
So, Mr. Speaker, with the expose I have made I should like to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), which is in

line with the type of amendment he moved. It reads as follows:
That the motion be amended
(1)	by adding to paragraph (a) of the motion the words "except the capital murder of a police officer, prison guard or other person as described in subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 202A of the Criminal Code"; and
(2)	by adding to paragraph (b) of the motion the words "except in the case of the capital murder of a police officer, prison guard or other person as described in subparagraph (i) or (Ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section 202A of the Code"; and
(3)	by inserting in paragraph (c) of the motion immediately after the word "imposed", the words "or in respect of whom a sentence of death is commuted".
In conclusion I should like to say that the history of man has been a history of killing, but perhaps if we abolish capital punishment and every country in the world abolishes capital punishment wars in the future will be averted.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to some very fine speeches in the house on the pros and cons of capital punishment. Members have spoken with sincerity on both sides of the question. Sincere men can look at the same problem and have different answers. I did not support the five-year plan simply because we would have little if any more information than we should have today after four years of abolition. We do not have the personnel in psychiatry or in psychology to carry on in depth the studies required. Considering that in this country we have had four years when no one has been hanged and considering that only a five-year period was sought, I could not in all conscience vote for that type of resolution.
If the main resolution carries the government will have to present a bill in the house. I hope that at that stage it will be referred to a committee where witnesses can be called and where first-hand information can be obtained from those dealing with murderers. I mean psychiatrists whose practices have involved this type of prisoner over the last ten years, psychologists who have studied these prisoners, some of the penal officials who deal daily with those who have committed murders, and some police officers who are concerned with law enforcement and crime.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
We could also receive first-hand opinions from members of the John Howard Society, which has such a great reputation for working over the years in the interest of criminals,
April 5, 1966

in an attempt to rehabilitate them. Perhaps we should also hear the opinions of parole officers who work daily with these people, and police officers who have handled them over the years. Finally, perhaps we should hear information and opinions from penal officials who have worked with these people in these institutions and know of their shortcomings and good points. It is only by this method that we can decide fairly and honestly how to deal with the situation.
It seems to me that we are considering this whole situation from the wrong end of the scale. We should go back in case histories and find out why these people become murderers. We must go back and study the lives of the boys and girls in Canada who, after 15 or 20 years, commit murder. This is the target at which we should direct our sights. If we can prevent crime we will not have murder, and there will be no need for debates such as the kind in which we are now involved. In other areas we use preventatives rather than curatives, and I suggest this is the answer to the present problem.
At this time I should like to refer to certain figures regarding the number of individuals paroled. I think the average runs in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent, of whom approximately 95 per cent require some kind of supervision. I believe 50 per cent of those either requiring a little or a lot of supervision eventually return to prison. Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) is shaking his head. If he has anything to tell the house I should like him to do so because the figures I have cited are those I have taken from medical records and journals available to me.
It is interesting to note that in Canada we have on the average one parole officer for every 60 parolees. This figure is very poor when compared to the comparable figure in countries which have studied this whole problem and have obtained the best results. On the average they have one parole officer for every 25 parolees.
I suggest there is no value in a five-year trial period because we cannot in that time train the number of psychiatrists and other personnel necessary to a successful evaluation of the rehabilitative program in that period of time. If we do away with capital punishment we will be faced with one of two facts. We will either have our penitentiaries inhabited by people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment or we will have to develop successful rehabilitation measures.
Criminal Code
One might be led to believe by the motion now before us that individuals convicted of murder would be kept in prison for a considerable period of time, until pardoned by the cabinet. However, if one considers the recard of the last four years he will realize that the cabinet will parole them all. It would be far more cruel to incarcerate an individual for the rest of his life than it would be quietly to put him out of the way. If we put these people in a prison for the rest of their lives and wash our hands of them they will gradually deteriorate in mind and body. I am sure if hon. members had an opportunity to talk to some of these people they would soon learn that fact.
Has our science of analysis and assessment reached a point that we can honestly decide which convicted murderers can be rehabilitated and safely put back into society? One need only refer to the records to come to the conclusion that we have not reached that point. I know of one particular case where a psychiatrist let a man out of the penitentiary on his belief that the prisoner had been rehabilitated and would become a good useful citizen. Within a year of his release he murdered four young boys.
These are the shocking things that one must consider in deciding in good conscience what should be done. We are unable to decide without doubt whether or not an individual who is allowed out of prison on parole is going to commit another crime. I remember the case of an individual who escaped from penitentiary. He had been confined there as a result of a conviction for armed robbery. He was recaptured, returned to the prison and considered to be one of the worst prisoners in that penitentiary. At one point he was confined to the black hole. After a period of time the people responsible considered that he had been rehabilitated. In passing perhaps I should state that this man moved step by step from being considered the worst criminal in the penitentiary to one having the highest position of trust, meriting permission to work in the library. Everyone agreed that he had been completely rehabilitated and should be released. The psychiatrist, his pastor and jail officials all believed this to be the fact. His case was presented to parliament through a petition and he was eventually released.
Following this man's release he travelled around the country addressing service and boys' clubs, giving them very good advice. It was strange, however, that within six months of his release a series of crimes occurred

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
throughout central Ontario. Eventually this man was caught in the act of robbing a liquor store in western Ontario and in the attempted capture of him he was shot and killed. It is perhaps interesting to note that the crime wave then ceased.
I have just brought this case to the attention of hon. members as an indication that we cannot know absolutely and as a certainty what is in the mind of a criminal, or what he might do following his release. That is the situation which confronts us at this time.
In Canada today we have over 100,000 prisoners in our jails and penitentiaries, and it is said to cost in the neighbourhood of $20,000 to $25,000 per year to maintain these prisoners and assist in the maintenance of their families, while insuring the enforcement of the law, I suggest that is not an exaggerated figure when one considers the cost of maintaining families and providing police forces across the country. It does not take much of a mathematician to figure out that it costs approximately $2 billion per year as a result of the incarceration of the 100,000 prisoners now in our jails.
At this time we are acutely short of parole officers and psychiatrists. This parliament should begin to consider the major and overall problem of penal reform. We should do something to find out where crime really begins. I mention this with some feeling because we must go back and find out what drives these young people into a life of crime. We should not be using our time to consider hanging, but rather we should be devoting our energy, time and money to research in the field of crime.
In conclusion, it is my earnest belief that we should refer this whole problem to a committee in order that we can obtain the opinion of the experts regarding this whole matter. Having done that, we might be in a position to make an honest decision as to what is best for the individuals who have been unfortunate enough to have committed murder.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Anti-gonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart).


Mr. Valade:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask Your Honour whether we are in order in proceeding with the debate, in view of standing order 3 concerning a quorum. I wanted to be fair to hon. members who have something to say in this

debate and I think Your Honour should decide whether we should continue or wait until we have a quorum.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that there is a quorum in the house. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough.


Mr. J. B. Siewari (Anligonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak previously in this debate because I thought that the White Paper prepared by the Department of Justice put before the house in a very satisfactory way the arguments on both sides of this vital question. In addition, those who have spoken, as several hon. members have commented, have approached this difficult question in a serious and earnest manner. In other words, sir, I felt that the arguments which would determine whether I should vote for or against the main motion had been adequately explored.
This evening however something happened. The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) put before the house a most important amendment. In doing this he was following in the direction set the other evening by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme). The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency had the misfortune to discover that his amendment was out of order. This evening the hon. member for Cartier has revived the substance of that amendment in a manner which I assume is in order.
In examining this complicated question of capital punishment, which has excited the earnest consideration of some of the most profound people of our western civilization for the last 200 years, I do not think it is correct to turn to what one might call "principles", in the hope that there one will find adequate guidance for the conclusion one should draw. We do not live in a perfect world; consequently, the principles that we sometimes discuss in an academic way, the principles we find set forth in books on philosophy, do not help us too much when we are confronted with practical situations. Therefore, sir, I do not find the arguments based on "principle" adduced on either side of this question helpful or conclusive.
It seems to me that we have to proceed in a much more pragmatic way. I do not mind telling you, sir, that if I had a plain choice between the retention of capital punishment and its abolition, my judgment would lead me to vote in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. I would be hard put, in defending that judgment, to marshal data or
April 5, 1966

theoretical argument that would inevitably lead to that conclusion. Similarly, I think if I were arguing for the opposite judgment I would have the same difficulty. I do not believe that data or theoretical argument point to the judgment one ought to make.
In other words, I believe that one makes up one's mind on a question such as this chiefly by turning to all one's past experience, to all the practical cases that one has lived with throughout his life. I am saying that my own experience, such as it is, would lead me to favour the abolition of capital punishment, and I am quite prepared to insist that there are other members in this house whose experience would lead them to a different conclusion. These are the facts of life; and I think we ought to explain how we reach our conclusion in a realistic way and not by disguising our human fallibility behind an insistence that someone has conferred upon us, in this particular matter, principles which are certain and sure. While I am in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, I recognize that there are people who feel very strongly that those people whose task it is to defend our society and state from those who would destroy those institutions, namely those we often call "officers of the peace," ought to be specially protected.
I do not think it is inconsistent with my general inclination toward the abolition of capital punishment to support the amendment that the hon. member for Cartier has put before the house. His amendment is couched in legal language, and I had to turn to the Criminal Code to see what it was all about. I find that section 202A of the Criminal Code provides, in subsection (c), that murder is capital murder in respect of any person who by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of "a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties." It goes on to say that murder is capital murder in the case where a person causes the death of "a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties."
The effect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cartier would be to modify the resolution put before the house so that the penalty for capital murder as now prescribed in the law would continue to apply to cases where individuals killed persons as
Criminal Code
described in the subsections of section 202A of the Criminal Code which I have just read. It seems to me that to accept this amendment is perfectly logical. I am in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. I realize that my judgment is quite fallible. I realize there are those who feel strongly that capital punishment should be retained for those who kill these classes of persons, and I am prepared to yield to their superior experience in this regard. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Cartier deserves my support and, I would hope, the support of other hon. members.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, like many hon. members I shall deal only briefly with the question before us, one of the most important that we have to settle.
To this end, I shall avoid the figures of speech used by some of my colleagues in discussing this resolution, so that I may examine the problem with all the possible objectivity.
I shall also stay away from the emotional style, so that emotions will not replace the logic that should guide us when we are trying to determine whether capital punishment should be removed from or retained in our statutes.
Mr. Speaker, in order to determine whether capital punishment should be removed from or retained in our statutes in cases of capital murder, I think one should restrict oneself to the value of the expression "capital murder" or, if you wish, "premeditated murder".
To begin with, let me say that I probably lack the qualifications of a lawyer to deal with this matter, but with all the respect I can feel for members of the legal profession, I suggest it would be advisable to let those who practise law in a professional way assess the value of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, a premeditated criminal offence is devoid of all passion that could lessen the guilt of the offender. Such an act is committed viciously, in a dastardly fashion, when fully aware of the causes and effects, both for the victim or victims and the culprit or culprits. It is committed either for easy profit or to eliminate a person who might interfere with the illegitimate plans of a murderer.
Faced with such a situation, what is the responsibility and the duty of society toward those who set it up for their own protection?

April 5. 1966
Criminal Code
In my opinion, this is the question which members of the house must answer: What is the responsibility and the duty of society toward those who set it up for their own protection? Responsibility, duty, obligation are imperatives which legitimate authorities must carry out with promptness, firmness and justice.
Promptness must in no way lessen prudence; neither must firmness prevent understanding, nor slackness replace justice. Dura lex, sed lex is a saying well known to our lawyers and which expresses very well the heavy responsibliity entrusted to those vested with the duty and the obligation of enforcing the law.
We all realize the great responsibility that rests with us in this debate, that of deciding whether or not we should maintain in our statutes the death penalty for a person guilty of capital murder.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said yesterday something amounting to this: When an execution takes place, we all feel involved. Yes indeed, how could it be otherwise since it rests with us to make the decisions required in the matter of law enforcement and protection of society?
When a soldier, as member of a firing squad, has to shoot point-blank a comrade in arms, does he not feel much more directly involved? Yet, he has to go through with it. It is his duty.
Our society is under the same obligation to do its duty.
To my mind, it is not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North has said, a question of whether it is right or wrong for us to take a human life but whether the elimination of the author or authors of a capital murder is the only means to ensure the protection we are bound to give society.
Such is the question we must ask of ourselves, and not the question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North who, to my mind, is defending the objective by which we must be guided in discussing the merits of this resolution.
That, I feel, is the cornerstone of the decision the house is called upon to render.
May I be permitted to quote, as an example, a commentary recently published in Le Devoir, by Mr. Claude Wagner, Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec, former judge and a highly reputable lawyer when he

was in private practice. Here is what Mr. Wagner said:
At a time when crime is on the increase and when greater efforts are being made to fight all types of crime, especially organized crime, it is hardly necessary to underline the naivety that would be shown by the Parliament of Canada should it decide to abolish capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, if the death penalty is not a preventive, it is undoubtedly the sole protection of the community against repetition of the offence.
He who deprives another of the right to live forfeits himself that right.
At this point, one can rightfully ask questions which we must of necessity answer.
Would the abolition of the death penalty for capital murder give society the protection it is entitled to?
Does our society have means of protection against the murderer as efficient as the death penalty?
Is the sentence of death decreed against the murderer by society to be interpreted as a deterrent or as a vindictive act?
Is the society that frees a murderer more civilized than the one that does away with him?
What is the greatest risk for our society, that of hanging an innocent man by retaining capital punishment or that of endangering the life of honest citizens by abolishing capital punishment?
The first hypothesis is unlikely, since the legal precautions with which the judicial system has been surrounded in the last few years leave very little chance of hanging an innocent man by mistake.
As for the second hypothesis, Mr. Speaker, it will obviously remain as long as we leave potential murderers at liberty.
How many of the abolitionists would be willing to live with a reprieved murderer? The abolitionists might find the answer to this question disappointing.
Why? Because none of the possible volunteers would feel safe and agree to the experiment.
It is up to the authorities to ensure the greatest possible safety for the individual by all the means at their disposal, that is by legislation and its enforcement through delegated authority.
Of course, our society is deficient in its ways of preventing crime. Therefore, we should ask ourselves whether our society is
April 5. 1966

taking every social, economic and educational step to eliminate as much as possible the causes of crime.
In this respect, we certainly have urgent, imperative and immediate responsibilities.
Murderers do not always come from the poor classes. Some belong to the upper classes of society. But criminals undoubtedly most often spring from among the poverty-stricken.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
That is why I deplore the time devoted by the house to the matter of deciding whether or not we should abolish capital punishment, and that a period of time has never been devoted to a substantial debate on the means to fight human destitution in our country.
The pity shown the criminals would be better justified if it were shown the parents of murder victims or the poverty-stricken.
While waiting for this change of objective, it is our duty to point out clearly what primarily is the role of the legally constituted authority in our democratic society.
This role seems clear to me. It consists in giving every honest and law-abiding Canadian citizen the assurance to be able to enjoy fully his right to life, without danger of being deprived of it by anyone.
Those who, by their actions, act contrary to this basic and undeniable premise, must expect society to deal most severely with them.
This protection sometimes, unfortunately, entails the elimination of the guilty person from our society.
That is why I must in my conscience vote for the retention of the death penalty in our statutes, so that society does not consider itself forsaken by those who have been given a mandate to protect it.
Concerning the amendment moved by the member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) and the other moved by the member for Cartier (Mr. Klein), I think the first one changes nothing to the situation now existing in Canada, since the cabinet can, by decision, commute all death sentences handed down.
Concerning the amendment moved by the member for Cartier, I believe it has some merit, but it falls short of what is required, since it seems to be concerned tremendously, and justly so, with the policemen, the person in authority, but very little with the protection of the individual, of society which gave us, as I said a while ago, the mandate to protect it against actions deserving the most
Criminal Code
rigorous punishment. Let us try, Mr. Speaker, to build a society for law-abiding people, a society in which potential criminals, these parasites of society, will be aware of the consequences of their actions.
Why should legislation announce with fanfare to potential murderers that the Canadian parliament is considering their iniquities and is ready to absolve them at the first opportunity.
I think we must today take an extremely important decision, binding our conscience. I know and I believe that every member will fulfil this responsibility with justice and objectivity, for the good of his fellow citizens and his voters, the taxpayers who send them here to speak on their behalf.
Personally, I take my stand. I am conscious of discharging my duty and reflecting here the opinion of my constituents.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few suggestions which should be taken into serious consideration by this government.
I suggest that we should revise and put teeth in our legislation against crime in Canada; that we should control more adequately the sale of fire-arms and restrict it to specially authorized organizations.
I believe also that we should spend a lot of time in the house discussing the ways and means of improving the circumstances of human beings in our country and contributing to the rehabilitation of poor families in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who suggested, in the course of this debate, that a fund should be instituted in order to help the families of murder victims.
I believe that this request, which was made by the Quebec Federation of Municipal Policemen, is worthwhile and that the government should take it into consideration as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if, in previous discussions, reference was made in the house to a telegram sent by the Quebec Federation of Municipal Policemen, which includes more than 6,000 municipal policemen, in which they asked the government to maintain capital punishment in Canada and institute a special compensation fund to help the dependents of murder victims.
As to the amendment which was before us earlier, regarding a five-year trial period during which capital punishment would be abolished, I must say that it resembles strangely

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
a suggestion made last year by a Labour member of parliament in Great Britain, Mr. Sydney Silverman who, when lecturing in Canada on a tour at the invitation of a member of the N.D.P. advocated that solution as a substitute or an alternative to the present legislation.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the retention of capital punishment, not because I consider that this is a legislation of revenge and prevarication, but because I know that it is the only one we have, at this time, to protect our society against potential criminals and murderers.
t English!


Mr, C. R. Granger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in common with all other members of this house I have been giving the matter which is before us this evening a very great deal of serious thought. I have noticed from the speeches to which I have listened and the comments of my colleagues in the House of Commons that everybody has been giving the subject deep and earnest consideration. Personally, I have tried to weigh the relative merits of the arguments which have been made on both sides, arguments which seemed to be so well balanced that one appeared to offset the other, to the extent that it took me some time before I was able to come to a firm decision.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I did come to a decision. The decision to which I came was that I would have to support the abolition of capital punishment. Granted, there are many factors involved and there are some intangibles for which there is no yardstick. Men of good faith and high principles support both sides; and there is no doubt that the sincerity of the one side, regardless which side it is, is equally matched by the sincerity of the other side.
I reached my conclusion for two particular reasons, among many others, and I should like to deal with them very briefly in a few moments. I do not wish to cover ground that has already been well covered by speakers before me, but I should like to say that it is to be expected that the general character of the people of Canada will be reflected in their laws.
These laws are designed not only to protect society but also to encourage the continuance of the principles which have been an abiding source of strength to all people in our nation.
[Mr. Valade.i
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
In the present debate arguments are made both for an against retaining capital punishment. Those who support retaining capital punishment and those who support its abolition are both endeavouring to bring in legislation which will be for the the betterment of Canada. I think there is no doubt about their intentions. However I believe that capital punishment ought to be abolished, if for no other reason than that to some extent it is unenforceable. It seems that it is becoming more and more difficult to enforce laws on the statute books that prescribe capital punishment. Where hangings are concerned juries seem to be unwilling to bring in verdicts of guilty. Quite often when a man is sentenced to hang, the verdict is changed to one involving penal servitude.
As things are today a man knows when he commits murder that he has an excellent chance, if caught, of not being executed. Therefore what are the advantages of retaining capital punishment? Under circumstances such as these, any deterrent effect capital punishment has is negated by the fact that the sentence to hang is seldom carried out.
I believe that the value of a deterrent depends largely upon the certainty and swiftness with which justice is dispensed. As things are there can be no certainty that capital punishment will be carried out. It is almost certain that when a man is sentenced to hang there will be interminable delays. As I said, juries seem hesitant to bring in verdicts finding accused persons guilty of capital murder, when they know that the convicted man very likely will hang. As a result there are laws on the statute books which are not enforced. That being the case, I maintain that it is better to rewrite the laws than to have them ignored.
On the other hand if the sentence for capital murder were life imprisonment, in my view juries would not be reluctant to bring in verdicts of guilty. There would be a far greater certainty that a murderer would be found guilty and punished if it were realized that the consequences of murder were certain penal servitude for life. I submit that the real deterrent would be the realization by would-be murderers that the law would be enforced, and enforced swiftly.
Another reason why I think hanging should be abolished is the effect that I think legalized killings or executions have upon the public character. When I talk of this I realize that I am talking of something about which it is impossible to quote statistics. It must be a
April 5. 1966

matter of opinion, and it must be something for which there can be only a belief. It cannot be substantiated by fact. I agree with the man who said that whenever a criminal dies on the gallows a little part of the nation dies with him. I believe that an execution by the state has a detrimental effect upon the character of the people. I believe it has a detrimantal effect on both the state and the people. Also, I believe every time a man is hanged, the dragon's teeth for future crime are sow n. I believe by the very means by which we seek to abolish crime we are in fact sowing the seeds of future crime. I believe it is wrong for the state to take upon itself the prerogative to say that it is permissible to kill in the face of the divine command: Thou shalt not kill.
I believe, too, that it is wrong in this modern age, in a country known for its humanities, for its forward looking social thought and conscience, that we should have today as part of our system of justice an instrument of medieval murder which is comparable with the rack and the thumbscrew. I believe it is time that the people of Canada should banish from this land the shadow of the gibbet.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate assuredly not because of the enthusiasm the question under study stirs in me. I do so rather out of a sense of duty, and therefore shall do it fairly rapidly. I have risen simply because I owe it to my electors to let them know where I stand with regard to the abolition or retention of capital punishment. Referring to the correspondence exchanged with my electors, it would seem that the question has not aroused their enthusiasm or interest very much. In fact, I have received only four letters from the people I represent in this house. It is interesting to note that, in one of them, one paragraph reads as follows:
-society must absolutely be protected against this wave of the most revolting crimes.
This shows, Mr. Speaker, that in my electors' opinion, retention of the death penalty reflects not a desire for vengeance but rather a means of giving society the protection it needs.
In addition to those written testimonies which I hold in my hand, I discussed the matter with several of my electors who all
Criminal Code
agreed that society should be properly protected.
Consequently, it will not be news for any of them to learn that I will act according to their wishes and that it will make it a duty to vote in favour of maintaining capital punishment.
During our debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the opinions of both sides, the abolitionists as well as the retentionists. I respect those who do not share my opinion and I hope that they, in turn, will respect the opinion of those who do not share theirs.
In the course of our discussion, we had the opportunity of listening to many arguments and, especially of realizing that those who favour the abolition of capital punishment have brushed a very sombre picture of the lot of the murderer who is lead to the gallows. However, I think they forgot to give the complete picture by not referring also to all the inconveniences and harm sustained by those who are related one way or the other to the event, the victim's family.
At this point, I should like to put the following question: What is the result of a murder, when the widow of the man killed must subsequently struggle with all kinds of sad situations? Was there any thought given to the very talented young man, who, for a lack of money to continue his education, must bring it to an abrupt end, thus losing the possible advantages of an enviable and very interesting job which he could have filled in society? And what about the numerous other inconveniences faced by the families of those victims of the deadly bullets of certain people who have lived almost all their lives outside the law.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is our responsibility to take the necessary action to protect society. Have those who are in favour of abolition paid enough attention to the fact that by abolishing the death penalty we would give free rein to the traitors who endanger the very security of our society, of our country? What about the leaders of organized crime, the hired killers and, finally, the habitual criminals who would never miss an opportunity to commit other crimes if they could?
Mr. Speaker, I might have given more attention to that motion if the crime rate today was decreasing instead of increasing. I think it would be a serious mistake at this time, and when the number of crimes is forever increasing, to soften the steps taken to eradicate crime in society.

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
I think it is our duty to keep our eyes open and to give the protection needed. You know as I do that today masked bandits and criminals operate in the remotest regions and commit the most odious crimes in front of people who watch them helplessly. My colleague from Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) told yesterday the story of a tragedy which happened just a few days ago at St. Robert, a very quiet rural community where defenceless people were ill-treated and where crimes which would make your hair stand on end were committed.
Mr. Speaker, I will not say any more but I would like however to be reassured about the steps that will be taken by the government if the abolition of the death penalty is approved tonight and I would also like to know the attitude of the government in case it is maintained.
Personally, I think that with the 1961 amendment it is almost impossible to send an innocent to the gallows. Therefore, I think that by applying the present law, we have the guaranty that everyone gets the proper protection and that, in cases where there is the least doubt, the accused has the possibility of having the facts examined and of claiming his rights fully as provided by the House of Commons and the statutes of Canada.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: I admit in all sincerity that nobody wants capital punishment to be abolished more than I do, providing there is no one left to deserve it. Let the murderers and gangsters abolish it first, as a retentionist once said.
My colleagues spoke either for or against the death penalty with dignity, conviction and seriousness and they often used arguments or statistics that are open to question. Some indulged in sentimental statements and oratory which, in my opinion, should not have taken up so much of our time in this discussion.
Like other members before me, I should like to give you briefly my opinion and that of the great majority of my constituents on this matter that I find most delicate, one on which everybody has his own idea, while stating that capital punishment is neither a murder nor a vengeance, but a deterrent.
The countries which impose or have imposed it are not murderers; otherwise, you would have to condemn all nations of ancient history and many modern states that have

always insisted on protecting the public interest. Even the Bible refers to it very often, as many pointed out during this debate.
Society, Mr. Speaker, was not formed by accident. It was the will of our Creator that it should exist. It originated in the nature of individual man himself, who is unable to pursue his goal alone and to achieve the full development of his own being without the help of his brethren. Society is not the result of man's will, but of the deepest needs and most imperious aspirations of his nature. It is of divine origin, like our own nature. It received then the necessary means to protect the common weal.
We have to decide if the state should retain or abolish capital punishment as a means which it has by its nature for the greater good of society.
We have been told that capital punishment was justifiable in the days of barbarism, but that in a civilized country it should not exist. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there will always be, in the various strata of society, a certain category of people in whom the indestructible instincts of cruelty or vengeance will have to be held in check by the salutory fear of death and this applies to us at this time. I believe this. I should like, in particular, to protect those whose duty it is to maintain law and order, and who ask us to retain capital punishment.
Allow me to support most of the arguments of those who preceded me and who advocated retention, although I must say one of the arguments of the retentionists really shook me, and that is the one which accuses society of not having done enough for certain individuals. Society, it would seem, is responsible to some extent for certain murderers. This assertion leads us to ponder on our responsibilities and endeavour to do even better in the future.
I understood the numerous arguments on rehabilitation, but one wonders if we are truly adequately prepared to reform the convicted, materially, morally and spiritually.
Do we have the necessary competence, in quantity and in quality? An army of experts on the rehabilitation of criminals would be needed, and we do not have them. Considering the considerable knowledge required of competent psychologists, surely it is not with guards, more or less sufficiently remunerated, I admit, lacking the required specialized and continuous training, from whom only grade 7 is required and who are in direct contact with the criminals that we can, in spite of
April 5. 19G6

their willingness, infuse what it would take into the convicts.
We must also take into consideration the surroundings in which the prisoners live. They will try more readily to find means to escape and to learn new tricks than to mend their ways. Assuredly, many social and penal reforms should be made; we have made a start, but are we ready to give all these unfortunate people the help they really need?
When we are ready, we will be in a better position to consider abolition of capital punishment, because retention must not be an everlasting and absolute decision.
Mr. Speaker, even though abolitionists were perhaps better prepared for this debate through publicity, I am convinced that we must retain the death penalty at present.


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be as brief as possible and I should like to concentrate on society and its responsibilities. I do not want to repeat what other members have said for or against capital punishment, but simply to point out the responsibilities of our society concerning this vile crime deserving the sentence of death.
Mr. Speaker, the authorities have the right and the duty to punish the bad and reward the good. God Himself does it in this world and in the next. As all power comes from God, the authorities should imitate God: they should punish evil while tempering justice with mercy. Parents themselves, whose authority comes from heaven, have the right to punish and to reward; so have those to whom they entrust the education of children; so has the Church through its spiritual punishments; so has all true authority in this world.
The Ten Commandments of God, and especially one such as "Thou shalt not kill", apply to every human being, for each will be judged according to his virtues and his sins, his merits and demerits. The commandments cannot apply to society, for theft, murder, adultery, lying and so on, are sins and crimes committed by individuals, not by society. Society, through the authority of its legitimate leaders, has the right and the duty to protect its individual members and to punish those who harm them. If the 5th commandment of God forbids a man or those close to the victim of a murder to kill for motives of justice or revenge, because a man is not in himself an authority, society, which has the authority, must intervene and punish if necessary. In wartime, society kills, destroys,
Criminal Code
lies, cheats and violates almost all the commandments and it must not justify itself in the same way as the individual alone or a particular soul. Those who cannot make these distinctions can only live in confusion and make anarchic judgments.
The main arguments of abolitionists are based on emotionalism, sophism, the weakening of the authority required to maintain order, the contradiction of God's commandments, materialism and more often than not, atheism. They are based on a distorted psychology tending to abolish the notion of sin, of personal responsibility, and to find society guilty of all sins and crimes of individuals considered as victims of that society. And since criminals, through this reasoning, become the victims of society, it is felt that those poor victims must be spared, looked after, coddled and even pampered. Is this not topsy-turvydom, the negation of divine rights and authority, of the rights of society to punish evil and protect us from it?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, our society also has responsibilities. It is entrusted with heavy responsibilities and great duties. The strongest, the richest and the shrewdest overwhelm the weak. It is the law of the jungle at its most ferocious, and it can only foster inequalities.
This is being felt in all classes of society. How many middle class or professional people are compelled to compromise with their conscience in order to live according to their rank and their class? Many of us would be amazed if they could scrutinize consciences and realize the disorder created by our antisocial and anti-human economic system.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Our economic system has caused more casualties than the most devastating wars for the last hundred years. We have a great many families who have lived like animals, in hovels, without medical care, without education, without the bare necessities, disinherited, robbed, dispossessed and thrown into the streets by the barbaric, heartless, slanderous system of usury supported by those who are or were responsible for the commonweal; those who protect such a system are guilty of greater crimes than those who have had the misfortune to commit an offence.
Mr. Speaker, several members have reiterated in this house that taking someone's life was forbidden, because life is a gift of God and only He can take it away.

April 5. 1966
Criminal Code
Let us also recall, Mr. Speaker, that God said: "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword".
This is my answer to these gentlemen: Why then do some men take it upon themselves to organize national or international slaughters? If it is a criminal act to take someone's life, how criminal then are those who have eliminated thousands of human beings under the guise of defending Christendom, Civilization, Democracy, or the Homeland? If so many lives could be destroyed to save various countries, to protect them against aggression, it should also be permitted to sentence to death a habitual criminal for the protection of society. I think it is our duty to do so. But here again, a great number of those crimes are due to our anti-Christian, anti-moral and anti-humanitarian system.
I agree with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) that we should put more Christianity in our schools, in our institutions, in our lives. Mr. Speaker, the day we have in our legislatures, men who do not fear what people say and who have taken the undertaking to act according to justice as revealed by God and to legislate so that justice prevails in Canada and in modern America, they can once more reveal to the nation the secret of permanent freedom and justice and show the world the great ways of a durable peace.
To that end, we must reinforce our army and increase its units; but we must above all organize another sort of army, an army of devoted revolutionaries, composed of men and women who will wage an all-out war on injustice and corruption because they will not be afraid of having their lives exposed, of men and women who do not protect the corruption of others, of men and women who do not despise problems, of men and women who will face problems with firmness instead of avoiding them, of men and women who will strictly apply the principles of honesty, purity and unselfishness in their daily life. We must not only seek to contain and check the criminal world, but we must change it, and, to that end, we must believe in the Lord's Prayer: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."
If God's will is done on earth by men who listen to him and obey him, surely remedial measures can be taken at the political, economic and social levels so as to ensure education and change the environment.
All this is urgent, but it will take more than laws to face up to hate, dispel fear, destroy envy and put an end to colour, race

and environment selfishness, which are the sources of our divisions.
Mr. Speaker, we have remained stunted in the moral and spiritual fields; we have to live with a civilization craving for pills and excitement, where people while away boredom by looking at sex films or films of violence, and taking pep pills or sleeping pills, or ulcer pills. Often we cannot bring unity in our homes, in industry or in our country, to say nothing of our incapacity to do anything in a world torn up by fear, envy and hate.
Nowadays, a nation should not be afraid to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong. If we uphold what is right, as God shows it to us, in domestic or foreign affairs, in our private life as well as in our national life, then our private life and our national life will both be spent for the eternal happiness of each and every one of us.
Mr. Speaker, capital punishment is the only penalty that fits the seriousness of the crime of murder. The punishment imposed for a serious crime should be commensurate with the horror it arouses in most people; in the final analysis, punishment is justified because it emphatically constitutes condemnation of a crime by the community.
From this point of view, some murders deserve the ultimate sentence, that of death, provided that justice be the same for all and that the influential, the upstarts and the rich share the same fate.
Mr. Speaker, the death penalty is a just punishment for the greatest crime of all and may alone atone for an unforgiveable crime.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, our society has great responsibilities. Before making a decision which will greatly affect society, its future and the future of crime in society, I would like each member to ponder the strongest arguments. I think that the strongest argument is to have recourse to punishment of the Divine Providence, to put the question in the hands of Providence.
And on these words, I close saying that I shall vote against the abolition of capital punishment. I shall also vote against the proposed amendment, which recommends capital punishment only when policemen or prison guards have been murdered for, in my opinion, the members of society must be protected and respected as much as any policeman. I know that they, whose duty it is to maintain order in society, are more exposed than the others, but that is no reason to protect only them. All citizens must be protected, equally and justly. Justice must be
April S, 1966

done, it must triumph according to natural law and divine law.
[English1


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to take part whatsoever in this debate from the opening day of the five now devoted to this subject until the vote tonight, but in view of some circumstances which developed a few days ago I now wish to make plain the position of those of us who are called retentionists, of whom there are a large number in this house.
The government house leader introduced a motion some time ago which required the unanimous consent of the house, to set aside government business for three days in order that we might discuss a private member's resolution introduced in the names of four individual members of this house. This motion required unanimous consent. While it called for the abolition of the death penalty the retentionists in the house did not raise any objection to it, and we had three days' discussion on the question.
Upon the conclusion of the three days of debate, which was all that the abolilionists asked for, an objection was raised to continuing the debate because government business was being set aside and the national work of the country was being delayed and held up. The retentionists considered that there was very important government work to be done. As a result of the objection raised by the retentionists, and I am using that word in its plural form, we were able to pass the supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1966 during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Then efforts were made to bring back into the discussion stage this question of the abolition of capital punishment. Unanimous consent was again required from the members of the house, including the retentionists of whom there are a large number. The retentionists are very, very anxious to have brought on to the floor of this house and discussed a private members' notice of motion which stands in my name. This notice of motion is No. 22 and can be found on page 26 of today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. It was introduced on January 20, two days after the house assembled, because the retentionists in this house are thinking of the victims of murderers more than they are thinking of the criminal element who perform the murders.
Criminal Code
This resolution which stands in my name, but was introduced on behalf of all retentionists in the house, was drawn up properly by the senior law officers of the crown. You will find the wording as follows:
That, In the opinion of this house, the government should consider the expediency of introducing legislation for the creation of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to hear the pleas of persons who have suffered permanent injury or disability as the victims of crime and award compensation to such persons or their dependents as would seem fair in the circumstances, and wherever possible to do so, to impose payment of compensation by criminals to those they have injured.
This resolution could be based on any one of a large number of cases, but I am thinking in particular of a murder that occurred in the area of Toronto in which I live. A little seven-year old girl was murdered by a man who was, of course, later judged insane. He was considered sane right up to the time of the murder, although he was then 24 years of age. You realize, of course, that in the first 24 years of his life they could not tell whether he was insane or not, but the moment he committed a murder he was judged insane immediately.
In other words, they take one half hour of his life, as compared with the 24 years he had lived and was considered sane, and find him to be insane. The little girl was in our Sunday school and when she was murdered, and foully murdered, a fund was started in the section of Toronto in which I reside and go to church. I go to church in the riding of High Park although I live in the riding of York-Humber. A fair collection was taken on behalf of the little child. The amount collected paid for the funeral, the funeral plot and left some money over for the distraught mother, her husband and the little girl's brothers and sisters. But once that little sum of money, which had been contributed by Christians and other people of compassionate minds and hearts, was expended, that was the end of it.
I was a newspaper reporter for eight years, although I was in the newspaper business for a total of 40 years. During the time I was a newspaper reporter I covered several murder trials and had the bitter experience more than once of having to interview the families of murder victims. In these cases I never had anything to comment except unfavourably, because of what results from the action of murderers.
We retentionists believe that the federal government should establish a financial fund that would make payments regularly to the

April 5. 1966
Criminal Code
families of victims of murder and other criminal acts. This resolution was introduced on January 20 and I made a personal plea to certain ministers that it be brought on the floor of the house before the resolution for the abolition of capital punishment was introduced. I received absolutely no answer.
I and the retentionists in this house have more interest in the victims of murderers than we have in the murderers themselves. If a person is flying in a Trans-Canada Air Lines plane and the plane crashes, such as occurred at Ste Therese, Quebec, and your loved ones are killed, you can collect from T.C.A., which I suppose you might say is the government. Some lawyer will get up and tell me it is not the government, that this is a crown corporation and is not the government at all. But we pay the deficits.
You collect from the government if you lose a loved one through an accident on-I said Trans-Canada Air Lines but for the benefit of those who want it I will say Air Canada. You knew what I meant when I said Trans-Canada Air Lines, anyway. If you are in the province of Ontario, and I cannot speak of the other eight as well, and a man-


An hon. Member:: The other eight? There are nine.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: -driving a motor car runs into you or your loved ones and someone is killed, if you cannot collect cash from the person who caused the collision and the death in your family you can institute an action and collect compensation from the unsatisfied judgments fund administered by the Ontario government through the Department of Highways. I refer to a death occasioned by an accident involving motorcars. Or you might be walking up the street in your own municipality and trip over a broken sidewalk, fall very heavily on the ground, fracture your skull and die within a couple of hours or days. Then the family sues the municipality and receives compensation for the death in the family. But if someone in your family is murdered by a criminal, we turn all the strength of the crown in behind the criminal to see that he gets three meals a day, has a warm bed, is looked after properly and is given a psychiatric examination. What about the victim? The attitude is: The victim is dead; skip it.
I say that if we can collect through accidents in an Air Canada plane and from the government behind Air Canada, if we can collect from the government of the provinces

because of a motorcar accident and our loved ones are killed or die as a result of the accident, if we can collect from the municipalities if we should fall or trip due to some faulty work in the municipality, the families of victims of murderers and other criminal acts should also be compensated by the state, because they did not bring the situation on themselves.
When I asked the law officers of the crown, on behalf of the retentionists, if they would prepare this resolution, I said to the law officers that I wanted it drawn up on the basis that the families of victims of murderers should be able to collect in a cash way, if not from the criminal-whom the abolitionists are everlastingly telling us are poor, poor, poor-then from the government. According to the abolitionists the rich are never murderers; it seems that only the poor are murderers. They never point out that 80 per cent of the world's population are poor, so of course 80 per cent of the murderers will be poor. They just refer to the large number of murderers who are poor.
If the family of the victim cannot collect from the murderer or the murderer's family, surely they are as entitled to collect from the state as the family of a person who is killed in an Air Canada plane, on the highways of a province or due to negligence on the part of a municipality.
We retentionists gave unanimous consent, although we could have withheld it, to have the discussion of this resolution against capital punishment resumed for a fourth and a fifth day. The newspapers, those men and women who sit a long way from us and can read our minds as though they were an open book-I noticed this comment in some of the mass media-said that pressure was going to be applied here, pressure was going to be applied there, the steam-roller was going to roll and the whips were going to crack. Let me say in all fairness to the gentlemen who have conducted this debate that there has been no pressure at any time, of any kind, applied to any retentionist. There has not even been any conversation with any retentionist. This debate has been conducted properly and in a high-minded way, I believe, by the ladies and gentlemen who compose the House of Commons. But the retentionists went along with unanimous consent because they wanted me to present this argument at this time.
April 5, 1966



[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We have co-operated. We granted unanimous consent for the first three days. We granted unanimous consent for the fourth and the fifth day. We granted unanimous consent so the leader of the Conservative Party was able to continue beyond his 20 minutes. We granted unanimous consent so that the leader of the New Democratic party was able to continue beyond his 20 minutes, although we knew both were abolitionists. We granted unanimous consent for the continuation of the debate from ten o'clock to 11.30 last night. We granted unanimous consent for no division to be taken during that period and for the day's adjournment proceedings to be deferred. We retentionists have granted unanimous consent on about ten different occasions in the last two weeks to aid those people who want to mollycoddle the criminal element of Canada by reducing the severity of the punishment stated in the Criminal Code of Canada. At this time we would like the house leader of the government, and the cabinet, to please allow the retentionists one day in which government business will be cleared away so that we can discuss this resolution No. 22 calling for compensation to the families and victims of criminal acts.
When the law officers of the crown were preparing this resolution, they said to us: You do not want this resolution prepared simply as though all the victims were murdered. They remarked: We know your heart and we know your mind on this point. If a girl were being attacked by, let me say, an ape, a word synonymous with this type of man, and she cried out, perhaps as a result of having vitriolic acid thrown in her face to blind her, and gentlemen came rushing to her aid while the ape disappeared, that girl might be left blinded for life, although she had not been murdered. These officers of the crown said that they had prepared this resolution to cover a case like that, also, where a person has been attacked by a criminal and has suffered permanent injury, the family has suffered damages and compensation should be made available to that family.
Now, of course, the situation is much worse in a case where the breadwinner is murdered and a widow may be left with children to look after. What compensation does the state provide? The state provides none. The retentionists are asked, out of their Christian hearts and compassionate minds, to contribute to a fund for the relief of those families 23033-247
Criminal Code
where the breadwinner has been murdered. I say that before we start easing the severity of punishment on murderers, we should give consideration to looking after the families of the victims, not only of murderous attacks but of other criminal attacks.
On behalf of the retentionists in the House of Commons, I ask that the government-not in the distant future, not in due course and after consideration, not after the Easter vacation or when the matter has been given every possible consideration or an inquiry has been made by the justice department-grant the retentionists a day, right away. We retentionists have granted unanimous consent regularly during the past two weeks. The government has set government business aside. They have even set aside the discussion of the budget.
We simply ask for one day. We do not think that is too much, considering that we have given unanimous consent for a five-day discussion for those who want to aid and abet the criminal population. We now want one day so that we can direct the cabinet's attention to the question of arranging for compensation for those families who may have lost their breadwinner, may have lost the mother of children, may have lost a child in his teens whom they have raised at great expense and was just coming to be a financial satisfaction to his parents, only to be done away with by a murderer. A family may have lost a dearly beloved baby by a murderous attack. What has the state cared up to this moment? It has done nothing: The victim is dead, so let the dead bury their dead. It says, in effect: let us find the murderer, we will make a gentleman out of him by buying some more psychiatric couches, putting him in prison for life and feeding him well. The retentionists ask for a little attention to the families of the victims.
I do not intend to comment further on this debate, except to say that I am opposed to the amendment. I am opposed to the main motion. The man or woman does not live who can tell me that the persons set out in this amendment, a police officer, prison guard, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, is of more value to me than my wife or any one of my three daughters.
I believe that the death sentence is a deterrent. The abolitionists believe that the death sentence is a deterrent or they would not be introducing an amendment such as this which would prevent the murder of a

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
police officer or prison guard by holding up the tear of the noose to those who might murder them.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicioria-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, because I have
strong feelings about the question of law enforcement in general, because I have strong feelings about respect for the law, because I have strong feelings in connection with the loyalty and support that the citizens of any country should give to the officers charged with law enforcement within the coniines of that country, I feel I should have something to say on the resolution before the house. Now, in order to refresh our minds, I should like to read the resolution itself. I quote:
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;
I particularly draw to the attention of the house the words, "all offences". I continue to quote:
(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.
I find myself looking at the meaning of the word "expedient". I realize that we in this house frequently use and understand the meaning of the word "expedient". However, this is not an ordinary resolution. This is a resolution that is going to change something which affects many people, something upon which we all have very strong views. I am one who has been impressed by the arguments that have been advanced. Some of these arguments have been temperate while others have been quite emotional. Nevertheless these arguments have been advanced, I feel, by people who feel strongly about this subject.
I looked up the meaning of the word "expedient". I find that the Oxford dictionary gives the following meanings for the word "expedient": (1) advantageous; (2) suitable; (3) politic rather than just. So far as advantageous is concerned, in this day of increasing violence everyone will ask what possible advantage could there be by removing a possible deterrent to murder.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
With regard to the second meaning, that is, suitable, what makes a time when respect for

human life is becoming less with each passing day a suitable time to be taking away a possible deterrent to the murder of the innocent? Then, we come to the last meaning, politic rather than just. Surely we, as members of this house, are not so much concerned with the letters and protests received from those who I feel, quite inadvertently, would appear to favour the attacker rather than the victim. I think we have to legislate to protect society to the greatest possible degree. This becomes our duty. I contend that in a period of frightening increase in crime in Canada it is neither advantageous, suitable nor politic to remove from our statute books the death penalty, especially in the case of certain heinous crimes.
I feel that in debating this question we are putting the cart before the horse, as was said this afternoon by another speaker. I feel we should be debating and diligently seeking ways and means to control the criminal elements in our society and to get rid of the international crime rings, which we are told are even now entrenching themselves in our country. No doubt these people are following this present debate with more than average interest.
I feel that we should be debating and seeking ways and means of strengthening the hand of our law enforcement officers rather than placing their lives in further jeopardy. I believe they deserve to be fully supported in their difficult job of protection, and that never should undue pressure be brought to bear upon them.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of what we might be debating here; it is what we are debating. What we are debating is simply whether it is expedient to abolish the death penalty and to replace it with life imprisonment, subject to certain reservations. I cannot subscribe to the general idea that there is a great advantage in bringing about such a change. I do not believe that such a change as this should be made in the statutes of this country merely upon a majority vote. I believe there should be at least a two thirds majority before any legislation such as envisaged by this resolution is passed.
I feel that we have to pay some attention to our law enforcement officers. We have ample evidence that law enforcement officers in practically every province of the country have expressed the opinion that the abolition of the death penalty is not in the interests of justice. Provincial attorneys general, judges
April 5, 1S66

and many people who have dealt with criminals consider that the death penalty is a definite deterrent.
This is not the first time that this subject has come before the house. But I believe that this is the first time the government of the day has asked the house for a yes or no decision in the matter. I believe that resolutions of this nature have been talked out previously, as we say here, but this government has asked us for a decision. I presume that an amendment to the Criminal Code will follow such decision, if favourable. However, it seems to me that the whole question is too important for it to be confined to the judgment of just a few people. I feel the question should be carefully examined by an impartial tribunal in the light of existing circumstances and amendments made in 1961.
Having mentioned the amendments of 1961 let me immediately recall what must be obvious to everybody. These amendments have been in operation now for less than five years. After a limited time of operation we now have presented to us a resolution which pretty well does away with the flexibility, if you like, of the amendments made in 1961. We have a resolution which seeks to change the law, one which expresses the view that the death penalty should be abolished.
The fact that this resolution is before us today suggests that something must have been lacking in the amendments made in 1961. Mr. Speaker, I do not subscribe to that general idea. I do not believe that there is anything very much lacking in the amendments of 1961. Therefore, as we come nearer to the time to vote on this resolution, why do we not look at the amendments to see what they embody?
In my opinion these amendments gave very definite and most reasonable protection to a person accused of murder, short of total abolition of the death penalty. Capital murder, as compared with non-capital murder, is clearly defined. According to the white paper on capital punishment which was prepared by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) in June of 1965, persons under 18 are exempted from capital charges. Up to September 1961 any person convicted of murder was sentenced to death. From that time on, owing to the distinction made between capital and non-capital murder, which was clearly defined, only those convicted of murders which had been deliberately planned or committed in crimes of violence by the direct
Criminal Code
intervention or counselling of the accused, were sentenced to death. The death penalty was also imposed for the murder of a police officer or a prison guard acting in the course of duty and which resulted from such direct intervention or counselling. Additional information regarding the charge of capital murder and the charge of non-capital murder can be found at pages 66, 67 and 68 of the book which I hold in my hand.
The present law concerning a person convicted of the charge of capital murder should be well known. But I sometimes wonder whether it is realized that the decision whether a charge of capital murder or noncapital murder is laid is made by the local prosecutor after consultation with the Attorney General of the province in which the crime is committed. Surely if there is any doubt in the mind of the Attorney General or the chief law officer of the crown in any province, the accused will be charged with the lesser offence of the two, which would be non-capital murder, and this is a protective feature.
Since 1961 an accused person is arraigned on a charge of capital murder only if the Attorney General or crown attorney is satisfied that that is the proper charge to be laid. From there on the procedure is well known by all. Twelve jurors are sworn before the judge and they hear the evidence. The jury determines questions of fact, the judge determines questions of law. At the conclusion of the cases for the prosecution and the defence the jury decides upon the guilt of the accused. Still another safeguard is the fact that the judge asks the jury whether there is any recommendation for mercy, and such recommendation, generally speaking, brings a commutation.
With the above facts in mind, it seems to me that those who argue that an innocent person may suffer the death penalty are talking about something most unlikely to happen in light of the amendments of 1961. The fact must also be faced-and I do not say this critically-that for the past three years the present government has commuted every death sentence. Commutations have become ordinary rather than extraordinary. I have always felt that every time there was a commutation there was a feeling of rejoicing among criminals.
It has been argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent to the crime of murder. I submit it is, and I base that submission on the fact that nothing is dearer than life itself.

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
The old saying that "while there's life there's hope" applies. There is another old expression to the effect that were it not for fear of the law, man would commit murder. These old expressions are probably cliches and trite, but nevertheless there is usually an element of wisdom in them.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Before leaving the subject of the 1961 amendments, I believe it is proper for me to say that a five-year trial period is not long enough. Before the present resolution was presented to us there should have been an examination made of the results under the amendments. Has experience indicated an improvement as compared with the situation which existed prior to 1961? That is one of the questions to be asked. Should the amendments be given a longer period of time in order to determine whether they are sufficient or insufficient?
One of my reasons for voting against the resolution before us is that the 1961 amendments have not had sufficient time to demonstrate their effectiveness or otherwise. I once asked a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario his opinion on the abolition of the death penalty. I wish I could quote his reply. He referred to instance after instance of killers whose sentences had been commuted to life imprisonment, who were later released and sent out into society to strike again. One such man killed three times before he was finally condemned. The judge said: "My experience shows that there are people who are definitely killers."
In our determination to do what is best I believe we should be very much influenced by what is good for the defence of society. We must act in the public interest. The protection of law abiding citizens who still make up the vast majority of the people who sent us here for that purpose, must be put first. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it is the duty of all of us to do all in our power for the protection of the people who have entrusted to us that duty that responsibility.
We know that there are organized gangs of criminals whose business is murder. Dare we say to these criminals these words; "Come to Canada where we have abolished the death penalty. It will be easier for you there to kill. In Canada there is no crime, no matter how vicious or often repeated, that is punishable by death. And what does life imprisonment, so called, amount to these days? Perhaps ten

years and you are free again, the way things are going today."
Do we want to take the responsibility of having said that to any organized criminals? I, personally, am not willing to take that responsibility. Sometimes I think that there is altogether too much attention-and this has been mentioned by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan)-paid by well in-tentioned people to the criminal who has committed murder, and too little attention paid to his victim. How terrible the experience of the victim must have been. What an agonizing ordeal the victim must have gone through. Put yourselves in the place of such a victim. It might be a small child; more often it is an old person living alone. It could be a taxi driver sitting unprotected on the front seat of his automobile. It could be a storekeeper with a cash register, and with something worth stealing. The victim could be a police officer on duty or someone who in the carrying out of community service must be out alone at night. The victims might be even whole families said to be rich, as in the case so minutely described in Truman Capote's much talked about book, "In Cold Blood". The book brings out the fact that the plan for killing a man and wife and two children was made while the two criminals were in the penitentiary. They heard that the people lived in a somewhat isolated place; that they were well to do people. The motive was robbery. A very cold-blooded murder was planned, carried out, and only a very small sum of money realized. My reason for going into some detail about this incident is simply to emphasize that we must be governed by our desire to protect the innocent and defenceless people at all times. That is my opinion. We may differ on how best to do this, but let us not differ in our concern for those who need protection. Let us not differ in the need to reduce crime and violence as much as possible.
An interesting sidelight on the criminal character is brought out in this best seller, "In Cold Blood". It is that the two killers so minutely described in the book would swerve their car and speed up in order to kill a dog on the road. Senator McGrand, organizer and first president of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies said: "Where there is no respect for life itself, there is no real respect for human life". The victims of a killer have no judge or jury of 12 to say they should not die. They have no body of legislators such as are assembled today in the Canadian House
April 5, 1966

of Commons to argue that they should not die. They die, and that is the end of it.
We have societies for the rehabilitation of the criminal. More power to them; they are needed. But I have yet to hear of societies devoted to helping the widow and children of a murdered man. I wonder why public sympathy seems to be so misplaced. Is it because the public has become so accustomed to see crimes of violence night after night on television, that many people now take death by violence as something which happens all the time, or as mere play acting? Can you not hear the words: "It is not real; it is just a show".
Unfortunately the play frequently turns to grim reality. I am convinced that many crimes, especially those committed by juveniles and immature adults, are brought about by what these people have seen on television. Violence on television is glamourized. You hear people saying: "Television is a wonderful thing". Yet, who makes a serious attempt to turn this wonderful modern medium into a means for education, for better living, rather than what it seems to be today, which is a means of education for delinquency and crime? I wonder if something ought not to be done-[DOT]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton that the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: How long?


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you. An hon. member asks how long I shall be. I say, perhaps three or four minutes.
In voting on this resolution, I consider that I have no choice. I should like however to support legislation which will contribute to the protection of society. I believe I should repeat these words: Our responsibility is the protection of our people, who in many cases are helpless women and children against whom at any time crimes may be committed.
I say that it is clearly the duty of members of parliament to support and enact laws, and to vote money for the protection of those who
Criminal Code
have entrusted to us that duty and responsibility, and that great honour. Therefore, my approach to the question of the treatment of a person who has committed a crime classed as capital murder is entirely from the standpoint of what is the best course to follow in order to legislate a maximum deterrent.
It has been argued that many nations have discontinued capital punishment. That is correct. Many have gone back to it. Great Britain has once more abolished the death penalty. It has been referred to in this debate that in the year 1965 there was a most alarming increase in the murder rate. The Daily Express had the figures and they are here, but as the house has been good enough to allow me to finish my remarks, I shall not go into them. However, there was an alarming increase in 1965 as compared with 1964. I know it may be argued that the next year the rate may be down. However, the proposition advanced is not one-sided.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I was impressed by many speeches, especially that this afternoon by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Wadds). I was also impressed by the speech made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) a week or so ago. He asked questions. So far I have not heard those questions answered. These were questions that were troubling him and they are troubling me too. He wanted to know what life imprisonment meant. No one has taken the trouble to define it.
He referred to organized murder syndicates that exist in large centres both in the United States and Canada, syndicates made up of people willing to murder other people for money-blood money. No one has said anything about that. In completely renouncing the death penalty do we render their business easier to carry on? My hon. friend from Bow River also raised this question: Do we make life safer and more secure for law abiding citizens when we mollycoddle criminals?
It is my considered judgment that the amendments made to the Criminal Code in 1961 should be given a longer testing period. They are a far more lenient approach to the whole problem of the treatment of a murderer than existed previously. Why do we want to substitute something else after less than five years experience of something which was based on a more lenient approach to criminals? I fail to understand that.
I cannot support the resolution as presently presented. I favour retention of tin death

April 5, 1966
Criminal Code
penalty for certain crimes such as premeditated murder, treason, murder of a policeman or prison guard, and for repeaters. My basic approach to the question is that I am convinced it would be most unwise to make a decision on what is really only part of the problem of the treatment which the state should inflict upon a citizen who has taken the law into his own hands and committed the crime of murder. I use the word treatment rather than punishment because I am sure in my own mind that no one today connects the death penalty with punishment for a crime. The removal of danger from innocent people is what the law was designed to accomplish.
When I vote on this resolution I am going to be influenced by the following: Do 1 vote to protect innocent and law abiding citizens from death by violence, or do I vote to be more lenient with the criminal who has deliberately planned violent death and has been convicted of the same after due deliberation? So far as I am concerned I shall vote to protect the law abiding citizens, and on this basis shall vote against the resolution as presently constituted.


Mr. J. B. Morison (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of being able to express myself this evening because initially-and I am going back about 18 months-I was quoted as being a retentionist and against the abolition of the death penalty. Subsequently I was quoted as favouring the abolition of the death penalty. I did not come to this opinion without some study. My basic reading was on the value of the death penalty as a deterrent, and as I read the authorities on the deterrent value I wondered whether or not I was just emotionally wound up in this thing, and therefore I swung toward the abolitionist side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John B. Morison: I went back to my riding, however.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John B. Morison: That is all right, Mr. Speaker. I represent the riding of Wentworth. There are 56,000 people who vote there and I do not believe they are all wrong; and when I returned to my riding and spoke to them I found the majority do want retention of the penalty. I was sure then that they were not all emotionally involved, that there had to be an idea behind it and, if this was the case,
(Mr. Flemming.]
maybe I had approached the subject from the wrong point of view, namely whether or not the death penalty was a deterrent.
The more I looked at it the more I realized that this probably was an irrelevant argument. Nevertheless, as I heard many hon. members talk about the subject I started to look at figures, and in this connection I quote from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics report, catalogue No. 85209, at page 11.
There I see that murders reported to the D.B.S. in 1956 ranged about one in every 10,000, and homicide deaths resulting therefrom were 1.2 in every 10,000. This was a pretty consistent figure. It was .9 in 1955, 1.0 in 1956, .9 in 1957 and 1.1 in 1958. The corresponding homicidal deaths in those years were 1.2, 1.2, 1.3, 1.2 and 1.4 in 1958.
Then in 1961 we introduced the definition of capital and non-capital murder, and we had wholesale commuting of the death penalty through 1962, 1963 and 1964. Murders reported to the D.B.S. in those years were 1.4, 1.4, and 1.4 per 10,000, and homicidal deaths resulting therefrom were 1.6, 1.5, 1.5,-about a 40 per cent increase on the average. Whether wholesale commuting started the trend I do not know, but it certainly caused me to wonder whether or not I should re-examine the situation.
From the figures it appeared that either the deterrent value was not there or else the Canadian people were becoming more lawless in their outlook toward crimes of violence, and if this is the case then I can only put forward something of my own thinking. I am not going to dwell on the evolution of capital punishment. We have heard many abolitionists talk about the death penalty for nickel and dime crimes. This is no longer the case and I am very glad it is not. However we have refined the death penalty down to the point where it is only applicable for premeditated murder, treason, and crimes of violence. I do not believe that the death penalty is a neurosis of our judicial system. I feel it has been refined to the point where it is an absolute necessity.
Out last amendment to the Criminal Code in 1961 divided murder into two classes, capital and non-capital, and I do not believe we have had a true test of the fairness or the efficiency of this law. It is the erosion of this rule of law that frightens me, and I shall return to this later.
Today the death penalty stands as the supreme punishment for those who defy our way of life and prefer to live with violence
April 5, 1966

and mayhem. It is not used basically as a deterrent today, it is not used as revenge: It is used as the basis of the security in which our people live.
It has amazed me how many people have told me, "I do not really know why I want the death penalty retained, but I do know that if it is abolished it is a weakening of my rights. It is a weakening of the protection I have against those people who do not want to live within the laws we have designed for ourselves."
It is all very well for the abolitionists to stand up and plead for the dignity of life and the salvation of a convicted killer, but I am not sure that John Doe, citizen, is ready to accept the return of these killers into society, or even that he wants the responsibility of looking after them while they are incarcerated.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I also have sat here for three or four days listening to this debate and I always have felt as I sat here with my colleagues-and I am speaking of colleagues on all sides of house-that we represent 18 million Canadians; these are the Canadians who look to us and ask us to decide on laws for their protection and for their welfare. I do not believe we are doing that when we are allowing the possibility, or probability, of some men who cannot live within our laws being turned back into society. Nobody has any guarantee he is going to be able to live there within the law, but everybody is afraid that he will take a life again or will again destroy.
Earlier I mentioned an erosion of the rule of law. I believe throughout the world today our legislatures are taking away the rights of the individual. They are taking away these rights in different ways, so that in many of the matters which are a part of their way of life, people are deprived of basic rights which would have been protected by adherence to the rule of law.
Akin to this there also is something which has worried me and given me great concern; that is, the general lack of discipline we have among us and a disregard for any authority. I think a good example of this is a report of picketing in Oshawa not very long ago. This report is to the effect that there were so-called picketers who had ignored a court injunction and who had torn up this injunction after it had been read by the sheriff. What makes it even more frightening today is
Criminal Code
that on that picket line were prominent people whom we like to think of as our leaders; one was Mr. C. H. Millard, one of the persons we imported as a trustee of the S.I.U.; another was the leader of the New Democratic party in the province of Ontario.
Another incident which has given me some concern-and it was mentioned earlier this afternoon-was the comment of one of our judges in Ontario to the effect that it was a waste of time to pursue a capital murder charge, and he went to the lesser one of non-capital murder.
This outbreak may have been poorly timed. Nevertheless to me, and I am sure to many people who read those headlines, it was indicative of the disregard in which law is held today through the ill use of executive power. Instead of abolishing the death penalty at this time, I say it is better that we return to the proper use of capital and noncapital legislation, with some hope that, if we here in the house give a mandate, the executive branch will re-examine the royal prerogative and use it, not as a salve to their conscience, if this is what they have been doing, or as a stop-gap pending new legislation, if this is what they have been doing, but rather use it in the circumstances for which it was designed-extraordinary circumstances with a plea for clemency from judge or jury, or both.
In closing I might suggest to the abolitionist who says there are two types of law, one for the rich and one for the poor, that it is a deplorable situation, but it should not be allowed to influence the erosion of law. It could be argued that the rich should be deprived of the right to legal representation because the poor cannot afford it. This is a problem which could well be taken in hand by a strong and energetic law society, if it feels that it has failed to provide good representation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the death penalty is archaic; I do not think it is useless, although I might say that possibly the way we administer it is archaic. If we are going to make a change, then let us not abolish the death penalty but rather change the way we administer it.


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


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: As everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, we now are in the dying minutes of what has been a long, interesting and thoughtful debate. In the few minutes

April 5. 1986
Criminal Code
which remain I think it would be impossible for anybody to add anything to what has been said in the way of information. I certainly do not intend to attempt to do so. However as one of the movers of the resolution I did wish to say one or two words about the debate, and if I have the time, I should like to make a brief summary of the position we have been trying to present. I do this, Mr. Speaker, because no matter what the outcome of this debate, I do not think in our own hearts any of us have any doubt with regard to the result which will be achieved here tonight. I believe the earlier vote is symptomatic of what likely will be the result when the main motion is called.
This debate may not have been the greatest debate in parliament, but to me, it certainly is the finest debate in which I have participated since I came to this parliament away back three elections ago in 1962. Some of us who are newer members, Mr. Speaker, at times despair that our parliament ever is able to come to grips with what we think are fundamental problems. We often, or at least I do, feel a sense of frustration in that we never seem to be able to come to grips with the problems which stir us and reach our basic emotions. I do not think we can say that any longer.
I have sat through all the speeches in this debate, because I was one of the sponsors. I think it has served an extremely useful purpose, no matter what the outcome may be. I think it has forced us as members to put aside much of our partisanship and has permitted us to discuss, think about, and deal with matters of life and death and our attitude toward these things and toward all society which we hope to lead and which we endeavour to govern. It has compelled us to think about the criminal as well as the victim; it has made us think about the victim and his relatives; it has made us consider the relatives of the murderer and the stigma which will follow them all the days of their lives.
Many of our members have conducted a refresher course in religion. This too has been interesting. It has forced us in this chamber to look at the whole range of our scale of justice, its treatment of the accused, its injustice to the victim, its failure to curtail crime, its admitted inability to rehabilitate the criminal, and has shown us that we do not even understand the cause of crime much less its solution. For that reason I hope the debate will have served a useful purpose.

I should like to pay tribute to the other co-sponsors of the resolution, throughout the course of the debate, for their co-operation; the co-operation of all of them was unlimited, unprejudiced and of the highest order; it was a great pleasure to work with them.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I want to thank, on behalf of the sponsors, all members in all parts of the house who have participated in this debate for the consideration they have given to the motion and for the manner in which they have treated it. I think all members who have participated- and I have listened to all the speeches-have spoken deeply, sincerely and honestly. Though I may disagree with many-indeed, I anticipate I will disagree with the majority tonight-I hope that nothing I have said or that my supporters have said will be taken by those with whom we differ as implying that they are barbaric, or lacking in mercy, or that their concern for the well-being of the community, the protection of its citizens and the suppression of crime is any less than ours. I say that in all sincerity.
I think, Mr. Speaker, this debate has demonstrated that in all parts of the house our objectives are the same. It is the means to achieve them upon which we differ. All members who have spoken have voiced a concern for dealing with the problems of crime and for deterring the crime of murder. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) raised the whole problem of compensation. I suspect there would hardly be a dissenting voice in this chamber if a motion of that type were to come forward. Those of us who advocate the abolition of the death penalty have always suggested that we are not mollycoddling the criminal. We hate murder and we hate crime: We have just suggested that the methods we now use to control it are not adequate and are not the only unique deterrents. We have always supported the principle of compensation for victims.
If there is one sad note in this debate it is to me that in the midst of the entire five days we have not heard from three of the top judicial officers in the land. No matter what the outcome of this vote, to me it will always be a source of personal regret that we did not have the benefit of the views and experience of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). I feel sorry that in the midst of this debate they have sat mute, in silence, their views, intentions and experiences unregistered.
April 5, 1966

In this debate those of us who support abolition of capital punishment have tried to develop its historical background to point out to the house that we are not really doing any thing new, but that we are merely taking the last step in a long process of evolutionary change. We have accepted the view from the beginning that there is no member of this house who likes hanging, and that all hon. members who wish to retain hanging do so out of a sense of revulsion but of conviction in their minds that it is the only effective deterrent to the crime of murder.
Mr. Speaker, we have disputed this suggestion and we have tried to put on the record the experience of other jurisdictions where hanging has been removed with no appreciable change and with no effect upon the population or upon its safety. We have emphasized our view that the whole question of emotion surrounding hanging inhibits and confuses any sort of systematic attack upon the problems of crime. We have said that the real solution to crime does not lie in this type of penalty, but in greater emphasis upon the strength of our police, their salaries, their training; upon more courts and more adequate methods of detection. I feel that all the emotion which has surrounded the problem of hanging inhibits, deters and restricts us in this very serious goal.
Above all, we have tried to suggest that this whole question should be dealt with in a calm, reasonable and rational way. Indeed it has been a source of surprise to me to sit in the chamber and observe the tremendous emotion that has been generated. I had thought that the point before the house was a very simple and narrow one, as to whether or not we could take the last step and remove hanging as the penalty for capital murder. Instead we have gone very far afield, and great heat and emotion has been generated. This is perhaps inevitable under the circumstances, when we are dealing with a subject that touches people so deeply and upon which they feel so strongly.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I am only hoping to run out the clock for another couple of minutes.
The only other problem that has always confronted me relates to the role of a member toward his constituents. I know that the people in my constituency want to retain hanging and that I intend to fight against it. This raises problems that all members who want to give effect to the views of their constituents must face. I feel that this is not 23033-248
Division
the kind of subject about which one consults his constituents. This is not the kind of problem such as medicare or the role of the state in planning, about which your constituents have facts upon which you can make decisions.
The problem we face tonight is of the type that can only be settled by study, by reason, by judgment and by experience. This is the type of thing that can never be made available through one's constituents. This would be much like the man on a jury who having heard all the evidence, then goes out on the street and asks the people what he should decide, on the basis of newspaper reports/ There is a time to follow and a time to lead, and during an issue of this kind we face a time when parliament should lead the nation, rather than follow it.
In about one minute we shall take a vote. Speaking for myself, will accept the result whatever it happens to be. I realize that a defeat of the motion will raise very grave and serious problems for the government and certainly for the cabinet. My heart goes out to them because of the agonizing decisions they will have to make.
Having listened to the debate and having received the views of my colleagues in all parts of the house my mind is unchanged. If we are not successful tonight, let me say that we have only lost round one of the battle to take Canada forward, and the fight to abolish the last remnant of this ancient penalty is not dead and has not stopped.
We will begin again tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to special order made Thursday, March 31, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate the business we propose to submit to the house tomorrow. First, item No. 6 on today's order paper, third reading of the ARDA bill; second, item No. 9, third reading of the aeronautics bill; third, item No. 26, committee stage of the Bills of Exchange bill; fourth, item No. 42, the C.N.R. branch line
3912	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion legislation; fifth, item No. 10, second reading of the fair wages and hours of labour bill; sixth, item No. 4, second reading to amend the Research Council Act; seventh, item No. 15, second reading of the Science Council of Canada bill; eighth, item No. 39, second reading of the bill implementing the tax agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom and the tax agreement between Canada and Sweden.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) concerning the possibility of bringing teacher training under the subsidizing section of the manpower retraining program. I do not think it is necessary for me to point out to hon. members of this house the importance of all matters pertaining to education. At this time of year our newspapers are full of advertisements for teachers, indicating that the chronic shortage of teachers which has been persistent in Canada since the war has not begun to be resolved. I am sure we will all agree, too, that it is a matter of priorities in coming to grips with the general problems of education.
For many years in Canada and in this house there was neglect on the part of the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada with respect to responsibilities in the field of education. In recent years there have been major breakthroughs, and particularly I would refer to the technical training program which I believe got under way in 1961.
Since 1961, there has been some $1 billion spent in the construction of new vocational schools. The number of these schools has amounted to 880, and 337,878 new student places have been provided under our Technical and Vocational Training Act. I am sure that this brief review of the statistics will indicate that the problem to which I have referred, that is the shortage of teachers, has been confounded and aggravated by this one program alone.

DEBATES	April 5, 1966
I am sure that it must have been an oversight when this particular aspect of the manpower program was organized to have neglected bringing under the regulations a subsidy provision for teacher training of recruits. It seems to me that it would be particularly helpful to the older worker who has been replaced by a process of automation and technological change, and yet has the necessary educational background, to go on to teacher training college and, within the short space of a year, prepare himself or herself for an entirely new career as well as make a very great contribution to the whole upsurge in our educational program.
This obvious oversight came to my attention when I had several people approach me indicating that they had not been able to come under the subsidy retraining schedule. It was a surprise, I found, to even government officials in the regional national employment offices. They tried in every conceivable way to bend the regulations, realizing the importance of a program of this kind. Unfortunately they just could not accommodate these persons within the present terms of the act. As a result, we were only able to assist these people by having them go on welfare during the period they were under training in a teacher training college.
I think it is significant, Mr. Speaker, that in the United States, which has embarked upon a vast program of war on poverty, one of the new programs contemplated by the President in attacking this problem is the provision of a teacher corps. Teaching is essential to any upgrading program. We have a shortage of teachers. We have people who are willing to enter the profession of teaching. I think it would be of great assistance to them if the regulations could be changed to overcome this unwitting mistake that has been made, and a program provided for preparing teachers for general schools.
Before you can accept students into these vocational schools, of course there must be preliminary education. I am sure, therefore I do not have to go any further in this presentation. In view of the fact that potential retraining candidates are now making plans for training courses next year, I trust that some action can be taken as quickly as possible to resolve this difficulty.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought many worth-while points to our attention. At the same time I think it should be pointed
April 5, 1966

out that the training of teachers is clearly a provincial responsibility. Although it is part of the joint programs between the federal and provincial governments, the initiative in matters such as this rests with the provinces.
Assistance to the provinces in the training of technical and vocational teachers is provided for under program 7 of the Technical and Vocational Training Agreement. The number of persons trained under this program has increased considerably since 1961. In the past five years, 6,200 persons have been enrolled in teacher training courses under this program. The federal government has contributed $1.6 million to the cost of these courses. Since 1961 new technical and vocational teacher training centres have been established, or existing operations expanded, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. The four Atlantic provinces have jointly expanded the technical and vocational teacher training centre at Moncton.
Much of the foregoing increase in teacher training has been oriented to the preparation of technical and vocational teachers for secondary schools. It is true that teacher training for those engaged in the teaching of adults has not been adequately developed, and consideration is now being given to this aspect of the problem.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Some steps have been taken as a result of recommendations made by various organizations interested in this matter. This summer this department, in co-operation with Carleton University, the Northern Electric Company, the National Research Council and other organizations, is arranging a pilot project course designed to upgrade instructors in electronics. The department is also developing a concise package training course that can be used in teaching adults.
The crucial task at the present time is to raise the general level of skills in the labour force through training. While the vocational training of youths coming up through the school system contributes to this objective, it is essential to increase the scale of training among adult workers, and to achieve that requires an increase in the quantity and quality of teachers.
The National Technical and Vocational Training Advisory Council recommended last fall that the minister develop a plan to increase the number of competent teachers and administrators of technical and vocational courses, and to upgrade and retrain technical instructional staff. This recommendation is now being studied by the department.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may 1 add that the observations of the hon. member have been noted and will be brought to the attention of the department for further study.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.36 p.m.

Wednesday April 6, 19G6