1966-03-28

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this report refers to Bill No. S-14. I presume it will go on the order paper in the usual way.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works) moved:
That the public accounts volumes I, II and III
for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1964 and March 31, 1965, and the reports of the Auditor General thereon, tabled on February 16, 1965, and February 1, 1966, respectively, together with the reports and financial statements of the Canada Council for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1964, and March 31, 1965, and the reports of the Auditor General thereon tabled on July 14, 1964 and March 7, 1966, respectively be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: By leave, Mr. Speaker. This must be done by consent. I certainly wish to give my consent, but I think the house leader should ask for unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-158, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (St. Luke 11:46).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to remedy the grievance that arises when the public relationship between a member of parliament and a citizen is subverted to the private relationship between a lawyer and client to the financial hurt of the citizen; as when, for example, the citizen asks his member to make inquiries of the ministry in an immigration matter and is often dismayed to find that his member, being a lawyer, has billed him for fees on a solicitor-client basis.
This grievance is an ancient one and the remedy proposed is to revive and modernize an order of the United Kingdom that is 300 years old. I present this bill as a further contribution to the development of a code of ethics for members of the Senate and House of Commons, and trust it will receive the support of all parties in this house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Some members are now asking me to explain what this St. Luke 11:46 means. May I have that privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe we would need unanimous consent and I heard at least one "No". I suggest to the hon. member that this bill has already received first reading, and he will have ample opportunity to make his explanation when we get to second reading.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Coates: 1.	What additional facilities are to be constructed at the young offenders' penal institution at Spring-hill, N.S.?
2.	What is the cost of the additional facilities and were public tenders called and, if so, who was the successful bidder?
3.	How many tenders were received and what were the names and the amounts of the tenders submitted by each bidder?
4.	When will the young offenders' penal institution be completed and on what date will inmates be transferred to the institution?

March 28, 1966
Questions


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secrelary of Slate):: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	A workshop and two small chapels.
2.	Public tenders have not yet been called.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	In 1966. Some two months after completion of construction.


ECONOMIC SURVEY OF NORTHERN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Keays: Has the government requested a survey or study of the economic conditions in northern New Brunswick (a) if so, who made the survey, when was it undertaken and when was it completed (b) what were the fees for this project?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Yes. (a) Dyname Corporation. This survey was undertaken during the period July 22, 1965 and was completed February 1966. (b) $118,000.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. Harley: 1.	What is the salary of the members of the Hamilton Harbour Commission?
2.	Is this salary paid directly by the federal government, or is such salary paid out of the revenue received from the undertakings of the Hamilton Harbour Commission?
3.	Has the government given consideration to increasing the number of the Hamilton harbour commissioners in order that the town of Burlington be given representation on the commission?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secrelary to Minisler of Transport):: 1. The Members of the Hamilton harbour commissioners do not receive any salary. Upon application to a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, they may be awarded compensation under the Trustee Act of Ontario. The court has established $9,200 to be divided among them as they see fit for 1965.
2.	The compensation, when awarded, is paid out of revenue received from the undertakings of the Hamilton harbour commissioners.
3.	This has been considered but no decision has been taken.


LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS, COMPETITION No. 66-0-523
Mr. Allard: 1.	Why is the knowledge of the English language primarily required for the position of standards and methods officer, Civil Service Commission, competition number 66-0-523?

2.	Why is the knowledge of both the French language and the English language not required to the same degree?
3.	Why in this notice of competition does the Civil Service Commission consider the French language as only an asset to the candidates?
4.	Why does the Civil Service Commission not require bilingualism in all cases?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1, 2, 3. Competition 66-0-523 was the third competition advertised by the Civil Service Commission to recruit a methods and standards officer for the Department of Public Works, Ottawa. For each of the first two competitions, advertised in 1964 and 1965 respectively, a knowledge of both the English and French languages was required but neither competition attracted a qualified candidate willing to accept appointment. It was concluded that candidates with the desired technical and linguistic qualifications were not available. After carefully reviewing the needs of the department and the circumstances under which the duties would be performed, it was decided to require knowledge of English with knowledge of French considered an asset in the assessment of the candidates.
4.	The role of the commission as far as bilingualism is concerned is determined by section 47 of the Civil Service Act which does not require bilingualism in all cases.


ARDA PROJECTS, EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mr. Neveu: 1.	Will the Minister of Forestry provide a list of what are the ARDA projects that have been considered or are being considered, for the eastern townships area, including Shefford county in particular?
2.	Has the setting up of a pilot project in the rural part of the Shefford area been recommended and, if so, when will it be carried out?
3.	What is, in brief, an outline of the main points of this project?


Maurice Sauvé: March 28, 1966
Project Number	Description	Category	General Area of Activity	Shareable Cost	Federal Contribution5107	Corriveau watercourse improvement to reclaim 195 acres over 1.5 miles; involving 4 farmers.	SW	Missisquoi County	* 5,579	s 2,7895111	Marcil-Stacey watercourse improvement; 2.1 miles, reclaiming 169 acres involving 12 farmers.	sw	Chfiteauguay County	15,588	7,7945116	Guay Henry watercourse improvement; 3.4 miles; reclaiming 507 acres; involving 15 farmers.	SW	Ch&teauguay County	24,302	12,1515180	Bank protection on Saumon River Majority of farms at the confluence of Mas-sawipi and Saumon Rivers will benefit.	sw	Sherbrooke County	7,901	3,9515187	River bank protection of the Saumon River in Ditton township.	sw	Compton County	13,159	6,58024010	Acquisition and development of land for campsite-St. Armand Est. (159 acres).	Land Use and Farm Adjustment	Missisquoi County	19,000	3,975


PAY RATES, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SHIPS
Mr. Forreslall: What are the current rates of pay, by classification, for ships' crews, Department of Transport, on (a) west coast ships (b) Great Lakes ships (c) east coast ships?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The current salaries of
ships' crews, Department of Transport, are listed on the chart hereunder. A few exceptions from the common rate occur; these have been noted under "comments". These exceptions occur because the conditions of employment vary in respect to function of vessel, size of vessel, and number of galley staff:
Rates-Ships' Crews (All rates in dollars per month)
Position in Department	East Coast and
of Transport Vessels	Great Lakes West Coast	Comments
Boatman	275			
Boatswain	323	361	Boatswain's Mate	297	345	Cable Foreman	383	Chief Cook	364	396	$363 (Estevan, Douglas, zie); $351 (Skidegate)	MacKen-Assistant Cook (Second)	(or cook) 286	363	$341 (Estevan, Douglas, zie)	MacKen-Cook-Seaman	293	Cook	286	363	Third Cook	275	346	Ship's Carpenter	323	355	Ship's Clerk	372	Coxswain	335	Second Coxswain	306	Dayman (E.R. Wiper)	281	Deckhand 2	344	275 (Eastern Canals and Barges)	Diesel Operator	364	Donkeyman	323	358	

March 28, 1966	COMMONS	DEBATES 3235
		Questions
Position in Department	East Coast and	
of Transport Vessels	Great Lakes	West Coast Comments
Electrical Assistant	321	
Engineer	306	
Engine Room Petty Officer	323	
Fireman	308	343
Launchman	395	
Leading Seaman	287	
Oiler	315	346
Operator	315	
Quartermaster	312	350Seaman	275	340Chief Steward	372	402 368 (Estevan, Douglas)Assistant Chief Steward (Second	Steward)	323	351 335 (Estevan)Steward (Assistant Steward)	293	351 368 (MacKenzie, Douglas)Steward's Cook	378	Storekeeper	293	Waiter	275	313Winchman	315	355Pilot Boats	Deck Hand	344	357Senior Launchman	470Launchman	395	448Crash Boats	.Coxswain	453Second Coxswain	429Deckhand	392Patrol Cutters	Oiler	367	401Seaman	319	392 275 (Spume, Spray, Spindrift)Steward Cook	378	Steward	399Cook-Seaman	293	Lifesaving Stations	Boatman	340Coxswain	392Engineer	371Relief Personnel	Oiler	346Seaman	340Assistant Steward	275	335 275 (Barges-Seasonal)Trainee Engineer	315	349Other	Patrolman	340SASKATOON TERMINAL ELEVATOR	5. What is the depreciated value of this elevator
Question No. 818-Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):		6. What has been the cost of repairs and reno-
1. What is the capacity of the Canadian govern-		vations at this terminal in each of the years 1961.
ment terminal elevator at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan?		1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2. How manv bushels of (a) wheat (bl oats (c)		7. How many permanent employees are there at
barley (d) rapeseed, were stored	at the end of	this terminal (a) office (b) caretaker (c) laboureach month at this elevator for	the years 1961,	ers, and how many seasonal?
1962. 1962. 1964 and 1965?		8. What was the total payroll in each of the
3. What is the total amount of grain put through		years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
this terminal in each of the years 1964 and 1965?	1961, 1962, 1963,	Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):4. What was the original cost of	the terminal?	1. 5,500,000 bushels.
Questions

March 28, 1968
2.


STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END
[Stage Direction]
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)1961 January	Nil	423	862,090February	
2,442,012	"	423	702,726March	
2,447,572	"	423	551,348April	
2,466,286	30,434	423	416,065May	
2,451,364	30,434	Nil	333,382June	
2,512,383	30,434	it	249,257July	
3,165,327	22,750	««	203,228August	
3,320,226	196,876	It	334,972September	
2,505,453	217,046	it	793,284October	
2,305,528	279,760	424,284	821,776November	
3,128,874	279,760	555,701	853,590December	
3,463,482	279,760	615,622	797,8811962 January	
3,342,437	279,760	618,174	734,522February	
3,444,581	279,760	618,174	712,662March	
3,449,830	279,760	515,329	600,874April	
3,452,784	279,760	229,454	395,581May	
3,452,784	279,760	Nil	254,210June	
2,992,048	239,400	it	153,779July	
2,992,048	73,859	ti	118,251August	
2,992,048	32,859	it	118,053September	
1,629,448	32,859	li	118,053October	
1,561,308	32,859	ti	247,398November	
1,565,662	Nil	it	279,687December	
1,565,662	"	it	230,1001963 January	
1,565,662	Nil	Nil	173,816February	
1,565,662	"	it	148,604March	
1,560,539	7,872	ti	78,307April	
1,560,539	7,872	a	77,314May	
1,560,539	7,872	a	5,482June	
1,560,539	7,872	it	1,193July	
1,560,539	7,872	tt	1,193August	
1,846,986	7,872	a	1,193September	
2,153,658	7,872	a	136,086October	
2,293,849	7,872	tt	249,923November	
2,293,849	7,872	a	244,708December	
2,293,849	7,872	a	249,9321964 January	
769,888	7,872	a	248,741February	
326,120	7,872	a	202,741March	
317,834	7,872	a	105,016April	
317,834	7,872	a	77,416May	
318,692	7,872	it	49,574June	
318,692	7,880	a	5,564July	
318,692	7,880	a	5,564August	
318,692	7,880	a	3,778September	
318,692	7,880	a	3,778October	
318,692	7,880	it	115,860November	
318,692	7,880	it	408,938December	
318,692	7,880	tt	586,8341965 January	
318,692	7,880	tt	329,626February	
571,123	7,880	it	279,773March	
1,015,320	7,880	tt	203,244April	
1,250,550	7,880	tt	199,844May	
1,298,366	7,880	tt	199,601June	7,880	tt	199,601July	7,880	it	179,451August	7,880	tt	171,605September	7,880	it	151,805October	7,880	tt	154November	
386	7,880	it	1,670December	6,770	tt	2,752

March 28, 1966
[Stage Direction]
3.
Crop Year	Receipts Shipments
	(Bushels)	(Bushels)
1960-61	3,948,434	4,096,1821961-62	3,211,077	3,419,9871962-63	168,235	1,779,8011963-64	986,373	2,222,7051964-65	1,755,677	806,5011965-66	(to Feb. 28, 1966)..	295,505	1,561,2884. Original cost-$1,283,988-	-total capitalcharges to date-$2,216,121.	5. The depreciated	value of	the elevator
accepted for municipal tax purposes in 1964 is $1,101,745.
6. Cost of repairs and renovations
Fiscal Year
1960-	61	
$45,5711961-	62	
32,0441962-	63	
51,4751963-	64	
27,6671964-	65	
12,5381965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
65,307
7. Continuing staff as at February 28, 1966 -(a) Office-2, (b) Watchmen-3, (c) Operating Staff-20, and Casual or Seasonal-Nil.
Questions
8. Total payroll
Fiscal Year
1960-	61	
$264,6221961-	62	
158,3811962-	63	
149,2111963-	64	
141,0551964-	65	
132,7071965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
142,922

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What is the capacity of the Canadian government terminal elevator at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan?
2.	How many bushels of (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley (d) rapeseed, were stored at the end of each month at this elevator for the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	What is the total amount of grain put through this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
4.	What was the original cost of this terminal?
5.	What is the depreciated value of this elevator, to date?
6.	What has been the cost of repairs and renovations at this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
7.	How many permanent employees are there at this terminal (a) office (b) caretaker (c) labourers, and how many seasonal?
8.	What was the total payroll in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	5,500,000 bushels.
2.


STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END
[Stage Direction]
1961	January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September....
October	
November	
December	
1962	January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September....
October	
November	
December	
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)5,397,414	Nil	Nil	Nil5,397,414	li	a	it4,909,744	U	a	it4,260,107	it	u	a3,831,892	it	tt	a4,115,919	it	a	a5,124,387	it	it	a5,175,270	163,391	a	a5,212,083	272,172	a	a5,230,001	274,947	a	a5,103,057	274,947	it	a4,953,423	274,947	a	a4,717,873	274,947	a	a4,582,530	274,947	a	a4,214,826	274,947	a	u3,770,236	323,928	a	a3,214,826	371,118	a	u3,214,826	267,573	30,034	a3,214,826	162,729	35,986	a3,214,826	162,729	35,986	u3,214,826	162,729	39,321	a3,214,826	162,729	39,321	3,214,826	162,729	35,121	a3,214,826	162,729	30,921	
Questions
[Stage Direction]
March 28, 1966
STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END-Concluded
1963	January_
February..
March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August...
September.
October__
November
December.
1964	January_
February..
March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August...
September.
October__
November
December.
1965	January_
February..
March....
April	
May	
June	
July	
August...
September,
October__
November
December.
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)3,214,826	162,729	20,221	Nil3,085,826	162,729	13,771	ii3,085,826	122,478	9,671	3,085,826	122,478	Nil	3,085,826	Nil	it	3,085,826	«(	ii	3,085,826	68,358	a	3,085,826	Nil	a	3,085,826	it	a	3,085,826	a	a	3,026,896	ii	a	2,913,281	<<	a	2,072,444	n	a	it1,283,694	a	a	300,268	a	a	300,268	a	a	201,666	a	a	101,666	a	a	ii101,666	a	a	ii20,218	a	a	it218	a	a	ii218	a	a	ii218	a	a	ii218	a	a	218	it	a	286218	a	a	Nil218	a	a	218	a	a	«<218	a	a	((218	a	a	ii218	a	a	230,587	a	a	ii207,443	a	a	ii218	a	a	201	a	a	ii201	a	a	ii
3.
Crop Year	Receipts	Shipments
	(bushels)	(bushels)
1961-61	1,374,412	1,625,2251961-62	584,205	2,295,0501962-63	71,694	331,0501963-64	1,397	3,053,9171964-65	1,146	102,5941965-66	(to Feb. 28, 1906)..	238,116	239,3364. Original cost-$1,283,988-	-total capitalcharges to date-$2,309,630.	5. The depreciated	value of	the elevatoraccepted for municipal tax purposes in 1964	is $771,120.	6. Cost of repairs and renovations	Fiscal Year	1960-61	... $120,4171961-62	... 23,8961962-63	.. 23,7481963-64	.. 9,3171964-65	.. 5,5911965-66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	.. 2,074

7.	Continuing staff as at February 28, 1966 - (a) Office-3, (b) Watchmen-3, (c) Operating Staff-19, and Casual or Seasonal-Nil.
8.	Total payroll
Fiscal Year
1960-61	 $126,726
1962-62	 131,067
1962-	63	
132,8651963-	64	
133,6661964-	65	
122,2101965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
123,878

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What is the capacity of the Canadian government terminal elevator at Edmonton. Alberta?
2.	How many bushels of (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley (d) rapeseed, were stored at the end of each month at this elevator for the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	What is the total amount of grain put through this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
March 28, 1966

4.	What was the original cost of this terminal?
5.	What is the depreciated value of this elevator to date?
6.	What has been the cost of repairs and renovations at this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
7.	How many permanent employees are there at this terminal (a) office (b) caretaker (c) labourers, and how many seasonal?
Questions
8.	What was the total payroll in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


John James Greene: 1.	2,350,000 bushels.
2.


STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END
[Stage Direction]
1961	January...
February...
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September..
October...
November.. December..
1962	January...
February...
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November. December..
1963	January
[Stage Direction]
February...
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November.
December.
1964	January - February..
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November.
December.
1965	January - February..
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November
December.
Wheat	Oats
(Bushels)	(Bushels)
898,880	12,419
699,309	10,295
598,839	11,212
604,039	2,162
601,808	2,162
573,171	5,262
605,738	2,162
612,609	5,646
612,609	15,455
523,668	18,162
523,668	49,823
375,430	76,565
396,377	97,299
401,102	108,375
404,569	108,375
398,694	108,375
392,206	108,375
388,406	74,015
383,172	28,954
421,449	16,000
474,147	16,000
474,147	16,000
476,046	11,206
474,147	16,000
132,595	16,000
132,595	16,000
131,872	16,115
131,872	16,115
131,872	16,115
168,851	16,115
152,669	8,827
118,722	8,827
86,054	5,268
129,212	7,849
165,800	7,968
176,454	9,246
834,794	16,727
1,664,521	16,959
1,832,409	16,959
1,750,900	16,727
1,741,394	16,727
1,735,118	16,727
1,718,007	14,244
1,280,768	14,244
1,182,091	14,244
1,178,108	14,244
1,220,283	14,421
1,219,152	14,421
1,234,739	14,572
976,933	14,395
1,167,547	14,395
1,139,230	10,511
1,113,499	13,694
803,871	13,694
849,724	11,083
1,055,117	483
934,526	483
633,526	483
618,568	332
604,727	332
Barley	Rapeseed
(Bushels)	(Bushels)
5,427	427,584
3,613	301,229
2,358	31,995
967	4,489
4,234	5,581
3,903	8,060
649	8,060
649	Nil
649	208,064
649	808,493
649	1,216,318
53,635	1,314,332
82,028	1,143,041
35,016	884,971
50,829	643,903
54,649	566,452
54,000	564,205
53,765	564,205
51,229	564,205
35,739	564,205
35,739	629,649
15,765	891,999
Nil	860,187
9,355	375,057
7,434	229,584
5,529	64,763
5,582	Nil
5,582	((
5,582	
5,582	"
10,602	
10,602	
8,546	
13,335	140,853
24,791	199,940
24,634	199,940
24,634	170,940
25,039	106,940
25,039	70,000
22,816	68,317
17,934	12,000
24,282	1,000
24,282	1,000
5,987	317
5,987	4,002
7,448	293,775
11,112	317,765
10,805	332,871
9,277	221,293
10,070	311,041
8,936	320,663
8,683	259,462
17,172	182,998
14,648	6,500
343,888	6,463
706,466	6,463
207,121	6,463
457	2,225
Nil	75,931
{(	139,750
Questions
[Stage Direction]
March 28, 1966
3. Crop Year	Receipts	Shipments
	(bushels)	(bushels)
1960-61	. 1,954,141	2,171,4271961-62	. 1,913,624	1,492,5521962-63	. 660,962	1,516,0671963-64	. 2,248,440	664,5741964-65	. 2,803,277	3,349,0401965-66	(to Feb. 28, 1966).	. 1,129,063	1,704,0734. Original cost-	-$1,525,217-	[DOT]total to date-$1,749,998.	5. The depreciated value of	the elevatoraccepted for municipal tax purposes in 1964	is $842,550.	6. Cost of repairs and renovations	Fiscal Year	1960-61	1962-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	... 14,550
7. Continuing staff as at February 28, 1966 -(a) Office-2, (b) Watchmen-3, (c) Operating Staff-20, and Casuals or Seasonal-4.
8. Total payroll
Fiscal Year
1960-	61	
$142,2011961-	62	
133,8441962-	63	
131,5991963-	64	
146,9351964-	65	
163,2051965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
149,364

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What is the capacity of the Canadian government terminal elevator at Calgary, Alberta?
2.	How many bushels of (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley (d) rapeseed, were stored at the end of each month at this elevator for the years 1961, 1962. 1963. 1964 and 1965?
3.	What is the total amount of grain put through this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
4.	What was the original cost of this terminal?
5.	What is the depreciated value of this elevator to date?
6.	What has been the cost of repairs and renovations at this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
7.	How many permanent employees are there at this terminal (a) office (b) caretaker (c) labourers, and how many seasonal?
8.	What was the total payroll in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


John James Greene: 1.	2,500,000 bushels.
2.


STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END
[Stage Direction]
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed
1961	January_
February..
March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August...
September.
October__
November
December.
1962	January_
February..
March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August...
September.
October__
November.
December.
(Bushels)	(Bushels)
740,882	Nil
717,560	<<
740,831	a
732,456	tt
590,745	it
561,660	tt
683,687	tt
689,901	u
679,808	u
684,426	tt
684,426	tt
648,091	u
665,927	a
660,357	tt
658,393	a
663,407	tt
663,407	tt
650,995	tt
626,452	tt
638,737	tt
656,136	tt
656,136	tt
656,136	tt
658,122	tt
(Bushels)	(Bushels)
123,455	30,232
983,576	32,262
924,146	1,004
814,203	134
793,514	3,116
558,700	3,762
495,265	3,762
587,767	Nil
1,446,974	29,954
1,543,969	102,363
1,424,628	122,001
1,424,628	133,010
1,311,824	137,928
1,201,381	142,847
1,156,873	45,271
1,026,190	Nil
762,093	"
553,663	tt
393,322	it
358,927	"
475,048	29,683
871,688	87,046
1,179,080	87,046
1,339,167	Nil

March 28. 1966
[Stage Direction]
Questions
STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END-Concluded
1963	January..
February...
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November.
December.
1964	January - February..
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September. October - November. December.
1965	January__
February..
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November.
December.
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed
(Bushels)	(Bushels)
97,928	Nil
99,423	<<
99,268	<<
99,268	<<
99,268	tt
99,268	ft
99,268	It
99,268	It
99,268	
90,973	it
94,697	
94,697	ft
315,641	It
852,629	it
1,482,026	it
1,529,482	it
1,558,901	tt
1,575,411	ti
1,575,411	it
1,543,324	it
1,543,324	tt
1,544,874	tt
1,495,063	it
1,145,292	tt
1,154,528	tt
1,339,908	
1,366,567	tt
1,377,567	tt
1,381,670	it
1,379,064	it
1,506,416	it
1,780,050	ti
882,654	tt
789,759	tt
304,980	tt
104,628	tt
(Bushels)	(Bushels)
1,376,381	Nil
1,330,704	
1,114,511	
857,767	
676,920	
561,072	
270,750	"
75,573	
208,825	
370,940	
376,209	
400,930	
566,226	<«
599,917	
600,149	
363,468	
248,468	
146,541	
30,444	
1,062	
586,218	
769,694	
735,120	
763,797	
785,497	tt
755,206	16,592
756,960	12,646
753,768	10,976
552,465	10,976
247,945	169
117,004	169
56,534	169
145,084	169
539,819	Nil
583,463	33,283
548,999	29,597
3.
Crop Year
Receipts	Shipments
(Bushels)	(Bushels)
1960-	61	
2,491,7241961-	62	
1,966,1181962-	63	
1,949,3901963-	64	
2,710,2071964-	65	
1,749,8731965-	66(to Feb. 28, 1966)..	1,422,646
2,205,522
2,129,057
2,599,145
1,465,066
1,706,364
2,420,560
7. Continuing staff as at February 23, 1966- (a) Office-2 (b) Watchmen-3 (c) Operating Staff-21, and Casuals or Seasonal-3.
8. Total payroll
Fiscal Year
1960-	61	
1961-	62	
1962-	63	
1963-	64	
1964-	65	
1965-	66 (to Feb'. 28, 1966)
[Stage Direction]
4.	Original cost-$869,600-total to date- $1,376,380.

[Stage Direction]
5.	The depreciated value of the elevator accepted for municipal tax purposes in 1964 is $473,380.
6.	Cost of repairs and renovations
1960-	61	
$81,2361961-	62	
93,5621962-	63	
53,9011963-	64	
8,9031964-	65	
7,0901965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
5,529
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What is the capacity of the Canadian government terminal elevator at Lethbridge, Alberta?
2.	How many bushels of (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley (d) rapeseed, were stored at the end of each month at this elevator for the years 1961, 1962. 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	What is the total amount of grain put through this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
4.	What was the original cost of this terminal?

March 28, 1966
Questions
5.	What is the depreciated value of this elevator to date?
6.	What has been the cost of repairs and renovations at this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
7.	How many permanent employees are there at this terminal (a) office (b) caretaker (c) labourers, and how many seasonal?
8. What is the total payroll in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


John James Greene: 1. 1,250,000 bushels.
2.


STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END
[Stage Direction]
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed
1961	January__
February..
March....
April	
May	
June	
July	
August....
September,
October___
November
December.
1962	January__
February..
March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November.
December.
1963	January__
February..
March....
April....
May	
June	
July	
August....
September.
October___
November.
December.
(Bushels)
1.072.340
1.072.340 1,076,492 1,076,491
939,656
708,369
675,165
671.190
671.190
638.124
638.124
638.124
638.124
638.124
638.124
638.124
390.744
390.744
390.744
390.744
390.744
390.744
390.744
390.744 15,850 Nil
it
160
160
160
160
(Bushels)
Nil
It
(Bushels)
329
756
756
756
756
756
756
756
Nil
(Bushels)
Nil
1964	January	 238,975
February	 684,409
March	 940,906
April	 964,152
May	 964,152
June	 964,152
July	 964,152
August	 964,152
September	 870,436
October	 791,118
November	 791,118
December	 59R118
1965	January	 591,118
February	 591,118
March	 591,118
April	 591,118
May	 591,118
June	 585,120
July	 685,462
August	 1,128,365
September	 1,174,966
October	 1,174,966
November	 1,040,517
December	 669,046

March 28. 1966
[Stage Direction]
3.
Crop Year	Receipts	Shipments
	(bushels)	(bushels)
1960-61	209,181	580,2961961-62	. 635	286,5261962-63	1,668	392,2531963-64	972,132	8,1401964-	65	
1965-	66	. 122,201	400,890(to Feb. 28, 1966)..	. 499,475	540,5744. Original cost-	-$978,711-total	to date
[Stage Direction]
5.	The depreciated value of the elevator accepted for municipal tax purposes in 1964 is $737,930.
6.	Cost of repairs and renovations
Fiscal Year
1960- 61	 $ 2,708
1961-	62	
5161962-	63	
1,5651963-	64	
35,8541964-	65	
3,0561965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
3,8767.	Continuing staff as at February 28, 1966-(a) Office-2 (b) Watchmen-3 (c) Operating Staff-13, and Casuals or Seasonal- Nil.
Questions
8.	Total payroll
Fiscal Year
1960-	61	
$78,6781961-	62	
79,7641962-	63	
77,5051963-	64	
86,8051964-	65	
87,1871965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
88,846

Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What is the capacity of the Canadian government terminal elevator at Prince Rupert, B.C.?
2.	How many bushels of (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley (d) rapeseed, were stored at the end of each month at this elevator for the years 1961, 1962. 1963, 1964 and 1965?
3.	What is the total amount of grain put through this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
4.	What was the original cost of this terminal?
5.	What is the depreciated value of this elevator to date?
6.	What has been the cost of repairs and renovations at this terminal in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
7.	How many permanent employees are there at this terminal (a) office (b) caretaker (c) labourers, and how many seasonal?
8.	What was the total payroll in each of the years 1961, 1962. 1963, 1964 and 1965?


John James Greene: 1.	1,250,000 bushels.
2.


STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END
[Stage Direction]
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)1961 January	
Nil	Nil	992,801	NilFebruary	
"	"	683,626	"March	
"	"	248,130	"April....,	
"	"	969,280	"May	
"	"	422,878	"June	
"	"	711,611	"July	
"	"	400,618	"August	
"	"	238,643	"September	
"	"	891,330	"October	
"	"	866,442	"November	
"	"	311,910	"December	
"	"	225,529	"1962	January	
"	"	951,947	"February	
"	"	605,708	"March	
"	"	87,681	"April	
"	"	680,380	"May	
"	"	161,272	"June	
"	"	111,564	"July	
"	"	113,721	"August	
"	"	115,515	"September	
"	"	115,515	"October	
"	"	115,515	"November	
375,284	197	115,515	"December	
462,786	Nil	115,515	"
March 28. 1966
Questions
STOCKS IN STORE AT MONTH END-Concluded
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Rapeseed(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)	(Bushels)1963 January	
730,033	Nil	115,515	NilFebruary	
654,060	686	4,666	March	
470,485	Nil	4,666	April	
352,982	4,666	May	
161,171	4,666	June	
268,239	4,666	July	
744,485	3,065	4,666	August	
774,970	23,621	3,600	September	
76,877	21,268	3,600	October	
250,530	14,304	3,600	November	
285,163	11,661	3,600	December	
342,841	1,032	3,600	1964 January	
101,455	1,496	3,600	itFebruary	
744,131	1,603	3,600	March	
712,881	1,749	3,600	April	
473,229	1,259	3,600	May	
377,224	1,113	3,600	June	
590,956	1,113	3,600	July	
471,930	1,113	3,600	August	
611,072	1,438	3,600	September	
532,510	1,247	3,600	October	
319,746	1,284	3,600	November	
565,971	1,612	3,600	11December	
133,939	1,213	3,000	1965 January	
700,595	1,113	3,600	"February	
118,986	1,113	3,600	March	
397,876	1,417	3,600	April	
816,946	1,284	3,600	"May	
211,510	1,284	3,600	UJune	
248,708	1,284	3,600	July	
477,687	1,113	3,600	August	
616,302	1,639	3,600	September	
464,619	1,639	3,600	October	
291,022	1,826	3,600	November	
187,395	1,113	3,600	December	
290,834	1,113	3,600	
3.
Crop Year	Receipts Shipments
	(Bushels)	(Bushels)
1960-61	9,878,210	10,398,1731961-62	10,244,417	10,531,3141962-63	4,301,122	3,665,3841963-64	10,233,465	10,503,3411964-	65	
1965-	66	10,138,037	10,132,281(to Feb. 28, 1966)..	8,787,228	8,875,8894. Original cost-$1,244,378-total to date -$1,680,603.	5. The depreciated	value of	the elevator
accepted for municipal tax purposes in 1964 is $635,255.

6. Cost of repairs and renovations
Fiscal Year
1960-	61	
$61,5041961-	62	
53,2321962-	63	
72,2301963-	64	
34,4541964-	65	
28,4201965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
24,4927.	Continuing staff as at February 28, 1966-(a) Office, 2 (b) Watchmen, 2 (c) Operating staff, 23 and Casuals or seasonal, 28.8.	Total payroll
Fiscal Year
1960-	61	
$175,4761961-	62	
248,6541962-	63	
159,9041963-	64	
241,7061964-	65	
271,8621965-	66 (to Feb. 28, 1966)	
290,323
March 28, 1966

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


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. During the summer of 1965 the Department of Citizenship and Immigration employed: (a) sixteen summer employees at the head office, (b) two at the Immigration Port of Ottawa.
2.	Sixteen were appointed by the Civil Service Commission under the Student Employment Program for University Graduates and Undergraduates. Later, when the Student Employment Program had been completed, the Department with the approval of the Civil Service Commission appointed two additional summer employees.
3.	To our knowledge none of these summer employees had relatives who worked for the Department.


SUMMER EMPLOYEES, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Caron: 1.	How many extra employees were hired for summer positions by the Department of Public Works (a) at Confederation Heights (b) at 1010 Somerset Street West (e) for all other kinds of work, during the summer of 1965?
2.	Who recommended these employees?
3.	Do they have relatives-father, mother, brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts-who work for the department?

Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works: 1. The total number of temporary employees hired in the Ottawa area was: (a) 162; (b) 86; (c) None. All in Ottawa area included in (a) and (b).
2.	The Civil Service Commission, National Employment Services, Members of Parliament, Senators, etc.
3.	Not known. Such information is not recorded.
Questions


NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC RESPECTING AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	Are there negotiations in progress between the federal government and the government of Quebec, concerning the joint amateur sport program?
2.	What has been the result of the last negotiations?
3.	What have been the amounts laid down by the federal government for this joint program since it was initiated?
4.	What has been the share received by each province since the program was initiated?
5.	Does the province of Quebec recover by any means the share that it would get if it participated in this program and (a) if so, by what means (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2.	Quebec has not indicated its intention to participate in the Federal Provincial Amateur Sport Program. However, since the com-mencmeent of the program there has been the closest co-operation between the Federal Government and the Province of Quebec which has resulted in direct federal grants being made to national organizations operating for the most part in the province of Quebec and representing French Canada, such as the Canadian Catholic Girl Guides- French sector, which has received some $25,000 in federal aid under the program to date, and the Association Canadienne des Centres de Loisirs to which federal grants to date have totalled $103,900. In addition, the Federal Government has agreed to contribute up to $700,000 to meet the costs of organizing and staging the First Canadian Winter Games which will be held at Quebec city in February 1967.
3.	Under the Federal Provincial part of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program $500,000 was made available in 1962-63 and $1 million in each subsequent year.
4.	The amounts claimed by and paid to the provinces since the commencement of the program are as indicated on the following statement.
5.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) See answer 2, above.

March 28. 1966
Questions
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT PROGRAM (Amounts claimed by and paid to the Provinces since the commencement of the Program)
Province	1962-1963 Planning	1962-1963 Projects	1963-1964 Projects	1964-1965 Projects	1965-1966 to February 28, 1966 Projects$	*	$	$	SNewfoundland	
16,779	13,892	22,332	40,316	48,416Prince Edward Island	
15,400	15,185	9,100	38,311	23,869Nova Scotia	
17,810	13,717	29,998	40,743	53,961New Brunswick	
17,289	10,039	27,496	52,521	51,412Quebec	
Ontario	
38,898	12,508	25,000	95,015	149,551Manitoba	
18,531	18,416	64,185	64,203	38,413Saskatchewan	
18,509	16,172	7,500	36,866	54,730Alberta	
20,174	14,438	41,544	45,349	33,648British Columbia	
21,247	13,439	11,066	50,423	84,230Northwest Territories	
15,091	7,290	3,366	26,478	33,714Yukon	
15,057	5,900	7,331	23,868	25,959Totals	
214,785	140,996	248,918	514,093	597,903


ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	When was the original program signed with each of the provinces under the "roads to "resources" program?
2.	What is the date of expiration of the original program in each province?
3.	What is the amount of money paid by the federal government in each year to each province under the program?
4.	Have any provinces asked for extension of the program and, if so, which provinces and for what period of time?
5.	If any provinces were granted an extension, were the terms of the original amount payable altered and, if so, by what amount?
6.	Have there been any requests by provinces to redraft a new agreement and, if so, which provinces have asked for such an agreement?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: [Mr. MacEachen.l
March 28. 1966

Questions
<N	CO
3248

March 28. 1966
Questions
5.	Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have been granted extensions. Manitoba's request for an extension is still under review as this request was received just recently. The total of the original amount payable to each province has not been altered.
6.	Yes. Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia.


WILLIAM MACEACHERN
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has Mr. William MacEachern been taken on staff by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, if so (a) on what date (b) to what position was he appointed (c) at what salary?
2.	What were Mr. MacEachern's qualifications for the position in question, and who was his employer prior to his present appointment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. (a) February 21, 1966. (b) Special Assistant, (c) $12,000 per annum.
2.	Mr. MacEachern's qualifications include a bachelor of arts degree from St. Francis Xavier University, a diploma in journalism from the University of Western Ontario and a wide experience in reporting and related activities. Before joining the staff of the minister's office Mr. MacEachern was employed in the field of journalism and public relations.
2.	What was the estimated value of products exported as a result of keeping the St. Lawrence river open during the same years?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The river St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal was not in fact kept open at all times throughout the winter for the years 1960-1964, but was blocked by ice jams for varying periods between the start of ice formation in December and the final disappearance of ice in April. The total time that the river was blocked varied from a minimum of 41 days in the winter 1963-64 to a maximum of 77 days in the winter 1960-61.
The cost of operating the Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers to clear ice jams and to try to prevent their formation in order to prevent flooding of the adjoining low lying countryside was as follows; 1960-61, $238,270;
1961-62, $271,700; 1962-63, $272,400; 1963-64, $389,300; 1964-65, $356,700.
These costs apply only to the icebreakers operating between Quebec and Montreal and not to the provision of icebreaker services at other points to assist navigation in the lower river, gulf of St. Lawrence and Atlantic provinces.
2.	Not available.


C.B.C. PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMENTATORS, NOVA SCOTIA ATLANTIC PROVINCES FISH EXPORTS
Mr. Flemming: Question No. 941-Mr. McCleave:
In the C.B.C. selection of commentators on public affairs for radio and television broadcasts originating from Nova Scotian stations during 1965, how many broadcasts were made by (a) employees of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and Mail-Star (b) other newspapers (c) members of the faculty of Dalhousie University (d) members of faculties of other universities (e) other sources?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the following includes all individual, scripted commentaries, talks and reviews originating with the corporation's public affairs department and broadcast on a local, regional or national basis: (a) 136; (b) 52; (c) 25; (d) 41; (e) 134.


WINTER NAVIGATION, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
Mr. Flemming: 1. What was the estimated cost of keeping the St. Lawrence river open during the winter season of the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?

What are the figures, in dollars, of the value of processed fish and fish products produced and exported from the Atlantic provinces in the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: (a) Value of fish and fish products from all manufacturing and trade industries, Atlantic provinces.!
Sea fish Inland fish
Total

Sea fish Inland fish
Total

Sea fish Inland fish
Total

March 28. 1966

1963	Sea fish	$164,757,000
Inland fish	670,000
Total	$165,427,000
1964	Information not yet available,
ilncludes Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec.
(b) Domestic exports of processed fish and processed fish products cleared through customs ports in the Atlantic provinces during the years 1960-1964 were as follows:
Calendar
Year
1961
1963
Processed Fish and Processed Fish Products $47,004,000
48.824.000
50.705.000
57.551.000
67.428.000


PURCHASE OF BELL TELEPHONE STOCK BY EMPLOYEES OF SUBSIDIARIES
Mr. Nesbitt: Questions
2.	Consultation between the Canadian historic sites division and the Canadian Travel Bureau has taken place leading to the availability of such information in time for Canada's centennial.


COST OF B AND B COMMISSION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the estimated cost of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism to March 31. 1966, as set out by the Minister of Finance?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the commission for the fiscal year 1966-67?
3.	On what date was the commission established and on what date does it plan to conclude its inquiry?
4.	What was the length of the following royal commissions and the cost of each (a) MacPherson royal commission (b) Glassco royal commission (c) Porter royal commission (d) Gordon royal commission (e) Rand royal commission (f) O'Leary royal commission?
5.	Has any royal commission appointed since 1945 carried on an investigation for a longer period of time than is indicated by the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism?
6.	Has any royal commission appointed since 1945 expended in excess of $3,000,000 in bringing its investigation to a conclusion?
What are the reasons for the Board Of Transport Commissioners' rejection of the Bell Telephone Company's proposal to allow employees of wholly owned subsidiaries to buy Bell Telephone stock under the same plan provided to Bell Telephone stock under the same plan provided to Bell Telephone employees?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows: this information is contained in the board's judgment of February 18, 1966, and the board's order No. 120008 of the same date, which can be obtained upon application to the secretary of the board.


CENTENNIAL PROJECTS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Since 1963, what progress has been made on the program to develop a major historic site in each province and territory to be available for the edification of visitors to Canada during our centennial year?
2.	Has the government made arrangements for historic trail tours to be available in time for Canada's centennial?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. All the
provinces except Alberta have an established major historic site under active development. While the Yukon Territory has also such a site under development, the Northwest Territories has not yet arrived at the final decision in this matter.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to parts 1, 2 and 3 of this question, I am informed by the royal commission as follows:
1.	The estimated cost of the royal commission to March 31, 1966 was $4,502,635.33.
2.	The estimated cost of the royal commission for the fiscal year 1966-67 was $1,200,000.
3.	The commission was established by order in council on July 19, 1963. No final date has been established for publishing the commission's report.
The answers to parts 4, 5 and 6 are as
follows:
4.	(a) 38 months, $574,090; (b) 30 months, $2,791,915; (c) 30 months, $732,901; (d) 28 months, $1,303,819; (e) 11 months, $99,166; (f) 8 months, $136,121.
5.	See answer to part 3.
6.	No.


EXPENDITURES ON WHARF, LITTLE SANDS, P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	What was the total expenditure during the fiscal year 1965-66 on the wharf at Little Sands, King's County, P.E.I.?
2.	Was a contract let for this work and, if so (a) to whom was it let (b) what was the contract price (c) were there other bidders and, if so, who were they and what were the amounts of their bids?
3250

March 28, 1966
Questions
3.	What were the names of all persons, firms, or corporations to whom money was paid for this job and the amounts paid to each?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): 1. $74,463.15
2.	Yes, (a) and (b) Colin R. MacDonald Limited, Antigonish, N.S.-$68,690.
(c) Yes, the other bidders and the amount of their bids were: Scott Wheaton Limited, Moncton, N.B., $74,260.00; Leo Leblanc, Ri-chibucto, N.B., $77,140.00 Norman N. MacLean, Murray River, P.E.I., $77,306.00; Modern Construction Limited, Moncton, N.B., $84,643.00; Stanley Reid, Port Hilford, N.S., $86,880.46.
3.	Contractor, Colin R. MacDonald Limited, Antigonish, N.S., $72,749.38; Material Inspection-Atlantic Testing & Inspection Co., Charlottetown, P.E.I., $185.47; Inspectors-Angus Stewart, $1,489.90; Thomas Hayter, $38.40.


AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS AGREEMENT
Mr. Howe (Wellingion-: Huron):
1.	What motor car companies have taken advantages of the agreement concerning automotive products between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America, signed on January 16, 1965?
2.	What models of each of these companies and in what number for each model, up to January 16, 1966, have been (a) exported from Canada to the United States (b) imported from the United States into Canada?
3.	What was the total value of (a) these car exports from Canada to the United States (b) these cars imported from the United States to Canada?
4.	What was the retail price of each of these models with automatic transmission, windshield washers and wipers, sun visors and wheel discs, and including all government taxes at (a) Windsor, Ontario (b) Detroit, Michigan?
5.	Under the previous arrangements, what would have been the revenue for Canada on the cars imported from the United States during this period?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	The following manufacturers of motor cars, i.e., passenger automobiles, are operating under the Canada-United States automotive agreement. American Motors (Canada) Limited, Chrysler Canada Ltd., Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, General Motors of Canada Limited, General Motors Products of Canada Limited, Studebaker of Canada Limited, Volvo (Canada) Ltd.
2.	Information concerning models of vehicles imported from and exported to the United States, or the numbers of vehicles imported and exported by individual companies, is not available.
[Mr. McQuaid.l
3.	(a) Total value of cars exported from Canada to the United States-January 1965 to November 1965 (latest import figures available) was $68.8 million, (b) Total value of cars imported from the United States to Canada-January 1965 to September 1965 (latest import figures available was $96.0 million.
4.	Details of retail sales of motor cars are not reported to the federal government and dealer prices differ appreciably depending on the circumstances of a particular sale. It is possible, however, to compare factory wholesale prices in Canada and the United States. For comparable models of popular volume selling cars, the Canadian price was on average 8 per cent higher for 1965 models, whereas for 1966 models the differential ranged from 3 to 5 per cent.
5.	Under previous import duty remission arrangements which were replaced by the present automotive program, it would have been expected that full remission of duty on vehicles imported from the United States would have been earned by the companies and that the revenue, therefore would have been nil.


ROADS TO RESOURCES, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What is the amount paid to date to the province of Saskatchewan under the roads to resources program?
2.	What roads were undertaken in Saskatchewan under the program?
3.	What are the terminals of each road?
4.	What was the approved total mileage of each road?
5.	What is the mileage completed to date of each road?
6.	What is the total cost of the mileage completed on each road?
7.	What is the estimated cost of completion of each road?
8.	What is the estimated date of completion of each road?
9.	What payments were made each year to the province of Saskatchewan since commencement of the program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. $6,181,804.48.
2 and 3. Uranium City road, commencing at Lac La Ronge and proceeding north along the western side of Reindeer Lake, thence westerly to Stony Rapids and Uranium City. Hanson Lake road, commencing from a point on highway number 55 at or near the village
March 28, 1966

of Smeaton, thence northerly and easterly through Nipawin provincial park, thence easterly by way of Big Sandy Lake and Ballantyne Bay, thence north of Hanson Lake and terminating at highway number 35 at or near the town of Creighton. The Otosquen road, commencing from the town of Hudson Bay, thence northerly to Carrot River, thence
Questions
easterly to the Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary. The Island Falls road, from the Hanson Lake road to Island Falls. The Cumberland road, from Squaw Rapids to Cumberland House. Prince Albert bridge- Construction of a bridge over the North Saskatchewan river at Prince Albert.
4,	5, 6, 7 and 8.
Cost of	Estimated Estimated
Approved Mileage	Mileage	Cost of Date ofMileage Completed	Completed	Completion	CompletionUranium City road	505.0	65.5	$2,600,105	$16,000,000	Not available provincial scheduleHanson Lake road	225.3	225.3	5,757,303	3,500,000	CompleteThe Otosquen road	79.1	79.1	1,646,531	1,800,000	CompleteThe Island Falls road	75.0	14.4	564,663	3,500,000	Not available provincial scheduleThe Cumberland road	57.0	35.0	267,991	927,543	Not available provincial schedulePrince Albert bridge	-	-	1,527,016	1,650,000	Complete1958-	591959-	601960-	611961-	621962-	631963-	641964-	651965-	66 to date


$ 750,000.00 961,224.08 1,940,259.79 806,326.92 581,565.81 311,863.04 410,945.57 419,619.27 FOREST ACCESS ROADS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What amount has been paid to the province of Saskatchewan in each year since commencement under the forest access roads program?
2.	Where are these roads located?
3.	Have any requests been made by the province of Saskatchewan for additional funds under the program and, if so, on what dates?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	The following amounts have been paid
to the province of Saskatchewan in the fiscal years as shown:
Fiscal Year	Federal Payment
to the Province

1957-	58	95,0561958-	59	179,4381959-	60	161,3531960-	61	nil1961-	62	263,9541962-	63	172,9621963-	64	185,1891964-	65	60,7581965-	66 (To Nov. 30/65)	38,603

2.	The following is a list of roads and trails constructed, the names indicating the location: Dore Lake road, Montreal River road and bridge, Emmeline-Montreal river road, Armit road, Fir river road, Bittern lake road, Muskeg lake road, Bigstone road,

March 28, 1966
Questions
Kazan lake trail, Primeau lake trail, Dip-ner lake trail, Lac La Plonge trail, Cumberland, trail, Pinehouse trail, Emmeline trail, Fire Guard trail, Portage La Loche road, Neweiben road and bridge, Fox Point road, Sipanok channel bridge, Turnburry road, Helldiver lake road, McBride lake road, Chitek lake road, Keely lake road, lie a La Crosse road, Miscellaneous bridges, Big Sandy road, Stewart lake trail, Porcupine hills trail, Miska lake trail, Little Bear south trail, Little Bear north trail, Fishing lake road, Clearwater valley trail, McLean lake trail, Des-charme lake trail, Dillon-Sandy Point trail, Clear lake trail, Michel-Dillon road, Water-hen-Lac des Isles road, La Loche road, Sturgeon Weir, Tulabi lake, Puskwakaw lake, Kis-topiskaw, Johnson lake, Hamill lake, East Trout, Torch trail, Shirley lake road, Turnor lake road, Potato lake trail, Jan lake road, Amyot lake trail, Michel point road, Kemball lake road, Apps lake trail, Candle lake East road, Candle lake South road, Candle lake road, Green lake road, Waterhen road, Whelan bay road, Canoe lake road, White Swan road, Emma-Christopher road, Division road, Parr Hill road, Meadow lake road, Ballantyne bay road, Cowan river bridge, Lac des Isles road, Shoal lake road, Strong Pine road, Woody river road, Canoe lake-Beauvil track, La Loche-Clearwater river track, Limestone lake, Winteringham lake, McBride lake road, Granite lake, Tyrell lake, McDougall creek road, Mistatim Tower road, Nesslin lake road, Rabbit lake tower.
3.	No.


AVON RIVER PROJECT, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Reid: 1.	Has the government made a commitment to participate in a project on the Avon river in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the project?
3.	What is the extent of the participation by the government of Canada?
4.	When will tenders be invited from contractors?
5.	Will tenders be invited by the government of Canada or by the province?
6.	Will the tendering and construction processes be supervised by any agency of the government of Canada, and if so, by what agency?


Maurice Sauvé: 1.	Yes.
2.	Construction of a combined causeway and dam with aboiteau to provide permanent flood protection for 3,400 acres of marshland; a crossing for both the highway and the railway; and diversions of both routes around the town of Windsor, N.S.

3.	Fifty per cent of the costs of the basic structure required to accommodate the highway and railway, including the costs of extending Windsor's sewage system through the dam, and the costs of the engineering and contingencies for that part of the project, not exceeding $1,335,000.
4.	Information not available.
5.	By the province.
6.	Jointly by the province and the maritime marshland rehabilitation administration of the Department of Forestry.


TAX REFUNDS RESPECTING HOMES FOR AGED
Mr. Johnston: Under the terms of the Excise Tax Act, section 47, (a) how much money was refunded to organizations constructing homes for the aged in 1964 and in 1965 (b) what were the sums refunded for each province in 1964 and in 1965 (c) how many institutions in each province received such refunds?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: The information is not available in departmental records.


SENIOR OFFICERS, PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Ricard: 1.	What are the names of the ten senior administrative officers of the Canadian government printing bureau?
2.	What position is held by each of them, and what duties are assigned to each such officer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I.	There are eight (8) Senior Management Officers at the Canadian Government Printing Bureau and their names and titles appear in answer to question No. 60, parts 2-3-4 and 5, House of Commons Debates of February 2, 1966, page 574.
2.
Name and Position C. B. Watt,
General Manager.
Manager,
F. E. Everett,
Production (Main Plant).
J.	A. Kiefl,
Production Manager,
(Outside Plants).
Duties
Responsible for the management, operation and control of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau.
Conducts the operations of the Main Plant of the Printing Bureau.
Conducts the operations of the Outside Plants of the Printing Bureau.
March 28. 1966

Name and Position
F. Rogers, Plant Engineer.
M. Zaleski, Manager, Research and Industrial Engineering Services.
R. D. Mather, Comptroller.
G. Neyron, Personnel Manager, (Acting).
J. B. Archam-bault, Special Assistant.

Duties
Develops and applies programs on plant engineering and maintenance. Develops measured time standards for all production operations; conducts special technical studies including research on materials for specifications and quality control.
Provides financial services and controls, including data processing and systems analysis.
Provides industrial relations and personnel services, including staff training and welfare.
Assists and advises the General Manager in his executive and administrative duties and responsibilities; provides administrative services.


VISIT TO CANADA BY CARDINAL WYSZYNSKI
Mr. Laprise: Does the government intend to make representations to the Polish government toward allowing Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski to visit Canada next May?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I would not wish in any way to intervene in a matter that is within the domestic jurisdiction of the Polish Government; however, I think I can say that I fully understand the feelings of Canadians of Polish origin towards Cardinal Wyszynski, whom they have invited to visit Canada to attend their ceremonies marking the Polish Millennium. I would share their regret if the Primate of Poland were not in a position to accept their invitation and if their hope of welcoming this religious leader should be disappointed.


COST OF APPRENTICE TRAINING, H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;
Mr. Forreslall: What is the average total cost of training one apprentice, by shop, at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax?
Questions


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Approximately $18,000. There is no significant difference in the costs of training apprentices between the various shops in H.M.C. Dockyard Halifax as all apprentices are compensated on a common wage schedule.


TABLING OF DOCUMENTS RESPECTING DISABLED PERSONS ACT
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the government of Saskatchewan asked permission from the government of Canada to table in the Saskatchewan legislature all correspondence between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada asking that the Disabled Persons Allowance Act he amended to (a) increase the benefits, and (b) alter the federal regulations with a view to increasing eligibility?
2.	If so, on what date was the request made?
3.	Has approval for the tabling of this correspondence been granted by the federal government?
4.	If so, on what date was approval granted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare has not received a request from the government of Saskatchewan for permission to table correspondence dealing with the Disabled Persons Allowance Act in the Saskatchewan legislature.
2, 3 and 4. See answer 1 above.


DELAY IN FISHING VESSEL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Is there a delay in the payment to some fishermen in Districts 7B and 8 in Prince Edward Island of the subsidies payable under the Fishing Vessel Assistance Regulations, 1964, and, if so, what is the reason?
2.	How soon will cheques be issued to those to whom payments have not as yet been made?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Yes. For a considerable number of boats in the 35' to 45' size there is question as to eligibility.
2. A survey team is examining the boats in question. For those which may prove eligible, payment will be made without delay.


IMPORTS OF CHAROLAIS BULLS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	How many Charolais bulls have been imported from France in the past four-year period?
2.	What was the average import valuation for these animals?

March 28. 1966
Questions
3.	Has the federal Department of Agriculture purchased any of these animals (a) directly from French exporters (b) from Canadian livestock breeders?
4.	If so, what average price was paid by the federal government for these animals?
5.	How many such animals were purchased?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and National Revenue as follows:
1.	Thirty one bulls and 82 females are now in quarantine at the Grosse lie, Quebec, quarantine station, from where they will be released in late April or early May if they pass the necessary health tests. These are the only importations from France within the past four years.
2.	$4,944.62 Canadian funds.
3.	(a) No. (b) No.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


COPIES OF BILL OF RIGHTS
Mr. Bell (Saini John-: Albert):
1.	How many copies of the bill of rights are still in stock in the department of the Queen's Printer?
2.	Is the Queen's Printer still continuing to produce copies of the said bill of rights to meet the demand and, if not, for what reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. None of the English version, 458 copies of the French version.
2. No, because the demand has not warranted the cost of a reprint so far.


SECRETARIAT FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Is there a secretariat for federal-provincial affairs?
2.	If so, when was it established?
3.	What minister has jurisdiction over this secretariat?
4.	Are there any full time employees?
5.	If so, what are each employee's specific functions?


John Ross Matheson: 1. Yes. There is a special unit within the Privy Council office, known as the provincial relations secretariat, with general responsibility for the co-ordination of federal-provincial activities.
2. The establishment and terms of reference of the secretariat were announced in the
[Mr. Schreyer.l
House of Commons on May 12, 1964, by the then parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.
3.	The Prime Minister.
4.	There are three officials specifically attached to the secretariat devoting from two thirds to three quarters of their time working directly for the secretariat. There are in addition a number of other officials in the Privy Council office who are concerned from time to time with the federal-provincial relation aspects of questions within their particular fields of responsibility. The time spent by these officials on such matters varies depending on circumstances.
5.	Not applicable in light of reply to item
4.


COMPLETION OF FORMS BY METEOROLOGICAL BRANCH EMPLOYEES
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Are employees in the meteorological branch of the district air services of the Department of Transport being fingerprinted on form CSC 283-20M-1-57-1027?
2.	If so, what is the reason for this action?
3.	Are employees in the meterological branch of the district air services of the Department of Transport being asked to complete a "personal history form''?
4.	If so, what is the reason for this action?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	When security is a requirement consistent with the announced government policy on personnel security; see volume 108, number 76, House of Commons Debates for Friday, October 25, 1963, at page 4047.
3.	Yes.
4.	See answer to 2 above.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Did the Civil Service Association of Canada make submissions to the Department of Transport and to the Civil Service Commission, in 1962 and/ or subsequently, concerning the need to modify the classification and promotion opportunities for radio operators in the public service of Canada?
2.	If so, when were such submissions made?
3.	Did the Department of Transport make recommendations to the Civil Service Commission in respect of any such submissions?
March 28, 1966	COMMONS
4.	If so, what proposals did the Department of Transport advance?
5.	What action did the Civil Service Commission take on any such proposals?
6.	Is the Civil Service Commission considering at the present time any proposals for a reclassification of positions in which radio operators are employed?
7.	If so. when is it expected that the Civil Service Commission will announce its decision in respect of any such reclassification?
Return tabled.


PARLIAMENT HILL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he would state under what authority the city of Ottawa police on Saturday prevented members of parliament from approaching Parliament Hill, thereby interfering with the privileges of members of parliament.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into this matter. I had not heard of this difficulty before, but I will look into it at once.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING OPTING OUT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement at the Quebec Liberal conference over the week end to the effect that there will be no need for Quebec or any other province to opt out of any plans because in future the federal government will not opt into matters within provincial jurisdiction, I want to ask the Prime Minister if this will apply to the introduction of a medicare program for Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the kind of program I was referring to when I said that I hoped that in future the federal government would not be required to opt into these joint programs.
DEBATES	3255
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare being absent, I shall put my question either to his Parliamentary Secretary or to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Inasmuch as the newspapers report that at least 40 people died suddenly in the Quebec city area after drinking some beer, are federal authorities looking into the matter? Will we soon know what brewery is poisoning the public, so that we may put a stop to that scourge?
[English1


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have read this report and I shall discuss it with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to see what inquiry can be made.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question of the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), I wish to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could she tell us whether inspectors of the Food and Drugs Directorate in Ottawa are now in Quebec City to warn the population as soon as possible against the danger of food poisoning from a certain kind of beer now being sold?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the importance of the matter and in view of the large number of sudden deaths, can the parliamentary secretary tell the house whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare is now in Quebec, so as to assist in solving this problem?
[English1


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

March 28, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just had some information sent to me to the effect that the federal authorities have, of course, been made aware of the problem and are co-operating with the provincial authority in investigating this matter. Two members of the food and drug administration are in Quebec city today.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Since several hundred persons have been poisoned in Quebec city, could the Prime Minister see to it that the name of the company responsible be made public as soon as possible?


Mr. Duquei:: Mr. Speaker-


Gilles Grégoire: May I have an answer to my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has some doubt whether the line which is being followed by the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Quebec East-

who, apparently, wants to put the same type of question. I do not think this question is in order at the present time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The member for Lapointe put a question which was answered by the Prime Minister, and it seems to me this should bring the discussion to an end.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A tragic event has occurred in the city of Quebec. In fact, over a hundred persons were poisoned after drinking beer bearing a certain label, which was allegedly manufactured without due regard for the regulations. Two hundred other persons are in danger of being affected by the beer bearing this label.
Furthermore, it is urgent and even vitally important that the name of that company be known as soon as possible. It is in the interest of hundreds of Quebec citizens. Following the death of nearly a hundred persons, will the name of that company be made public?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is premature, since the Quebec Health Department stated this morning that it was in no way established that beer was the cause of these deaths.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are starting a discussion and I suggest that hon. members should confine themselves to the questions asked and the answers given.


Gilles Grégoire: Who is he protecting?


David Réal Caouette: The backers.
1English1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would ask him whether it is true that Hon. Lionel Chevrier, our high commissioner to the United Kingdom, is being recalled and, if so, what is the purpose of his recall?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time heads of missions return to Ottawa for consultations with the government. This is a routine visit.


Mr. Churchill:: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question can I ask if the government has contemplated a new policy in relation to Rhodesia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether this is a supplementary question. If not I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has a supplementary question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You would have ruled me out on the same grounds. I will wait.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I merely asked if the visit of our high commissioner to London had to do with a new policy being formulated for Rhodesia.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Inquiries of the Ministry
FINANCE	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the report by the United States national industrial conference board that United States business believes the guide line policy will stifle economic growth and will not contribute substantially to solving the United States balance of payment problem, has the minister received any indications that this policy may be discontinued in the near future?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows and as the house knows, I have been expressing similar views about the effect of United States guide lines upon Canadian and United States developments. However, in answer to the specific question asked by the hon. member, I have not received any indication of any change in United States policy.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. With respect to a press release of March 18, noting the intention of the government to build a replica of the Grande H ermine which will be moored at Expo '67, then put on permanent display as a tourist attraction at the Cartier Breboeuf park at Quebec city, may I ask the minister whether he will review this policy as a matter of urgency, due to the fact that Gaspe is the birthplace of Canada and the request for such a project originated in Gaspe? It is urgent that a review of this be made before the policy is made final and irrevocable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has made his point. If he wants to pursue it he should place the question on the order paper, or discuss it in the adjournment debate.


James Russell Keays: I am worried about this, because I believe this will cause a distortion of history unless it is put right. May I be allowed to debate it at ten o'clock?



REQUEST FOR REPLY TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Justice when we might expect an answer to question No. 577 on the order paper, which has been there for 46 days.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: apologize to the hon. member for the delay. The question could have been answered about ten days ago. I signed the release, and the hon. member should get the answer to the question some time today or tomorrow.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement in the budget papers tabled on Friday last by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that the cost of living will continue to go up this year, what are pensioners to do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts as to whether this is a type of question which can be asked. I do not accept the question the way it is put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the question needs to be more specific may I ask the Prime Minister what will people, who cannot now get by on their pensions, do when the cost of living goes up? Does the government have any answer for this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [Later:]


Mr. Eric Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Prime Minister somewhat related to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I will put it in a more direct way because I agree with Your Honour that the discussion then was out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I realize this question has been put to him many times, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could today inform the house if anything is to

March 28, 1986
Inquiries of the Ministry be done by way of an increase in the old age pension before, shall we say, Easter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not today, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he would consider an increase from the present $1,260 maximum to $1,900 as income for a single person in need of assistance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question of policy which I suggest to the hon. member cannot be asked at this time in this way.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether he has received a letter from the Canadian postal employees union complaining that their officials were not invited when the Prime Minister discussed the matter of bilingualism in the public service with the officials of the civil service association?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that this question was put last week and that the Prime Minister answered it.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
Is he aware of the fact that French speaking R.C.M.P. officers, particularly in Montreal, are complaining that they are still being refused French forms to make their reports, and would he kindly give instructions in this regard?
[English1
Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General: This is a matter which has been under study in the department for some time, and I can advise the hon. member that it is being given active attention.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the government, and in particular of his department, not to allow municipal taxes on farm homes to be considered as a farm expense against farmers' income tax?


Mr. Speaker:: This is the same type of question, which I do not think should be asked at this time.


Lee Elgy Grills: Right. Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoit (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister who answers for C.M.H.C. About a year ago, in answer to a suggestion by myself, the minister said he would give consideration to recommending the appointment of a royal commission on urbanization in Canada. In view of the continually mounting problems created by urbanization, has the minister reached a decision on this suggestion and, if so, could he tell us what is his decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this question should be placed on the order paper.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, but I see he is not in the house at the present time so perhaps some other minister could give me the information I seek. On Friday the Minister of Transport undertook, at my request, to check into the reported lay-off situation at Vancouver airport. I wonder if he has done so and, if he has, what the information is on this point; because I am still receiving wires about the alleged lay-offs.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into that matter and be in touch with the hon. member.
March 28, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. R. W. Priifie (Burnaby-Richmond):: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister without Portfolio also check into the report that a strike is being threatened by the air traffic controllers at Vancouver within the next 24 hours?


John Napier Turner: I will.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the recent book on the trial of Steven Truscott once again raises serious questions about the effectiveness of our criminal procedures in adequately protecting the rights of citizens, will he assure us that the committee on corrections, which is now working, will speed up its work so that we can have before the house in the near future measures for a thoroughgoing reform of the Criminal Code?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have an appointment this Thursday with the chairman of the committee, and I will discuss with him the question raised by the hon. member.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask if he can inform the house whether any negotiations were carried on over the week end between the striking unions and the trucking firms in Ontario, and what plans, if any, there are for further negotiations this week.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that some negotiations have taken place during the last few days and that further negotiations are contemplated, beginning on Wednesday of this week, with the suggestion that they be sustained until some solution is found.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question, can the minister inform us whether someone representing his department is present throughout these negotiations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: In most instances but not in all cases. I might say that I myself spent an
DEBATES	3259
Inquiries of the Ministry hour and a half in Toronto discussing this matter with the provincial minister and his senior departmental officials during the latter part of last week.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as minister of manpower. Is the minister considering the representations that are being made against a proposed move of the national employment service office from Moncton to Halifax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair in a case such as this to determine whether there is any urgency. I am not sure whether this move is going to be made this week or next week, but in view of the special circumstances I might allow the question.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. The new regional offices for manpower are to be responsible for coordinating all the manpower services, including training, rehabilitation, placement of immigrants and so forth. The new office will not be of the same nature as the one in existence right now in Moncton. But in any event no final decision has been reached and Moncton is not going to suffer in any way from the decision we are going to take about that office.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the future minister of Manpower.
When he says: "Steps will be taken to help persons who will eventually be displaced in the Maritime provinces to find jobs", is the minister aware of the situation prevailing in Val d'Or, Malartic, Rouyn-Noranda, where mines have or will eventually close down?
Is the department offering guidance to those workers or helping to create new industries to keep them in their own areas?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the department is generally informed about displaced workers and closing down of mines. The unemployment service is looking after all those problems and does solve them in many instances; in other cases it takes more time, but the situation does not escape us.

March 28. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



COPPER-REQUEST FOR EXPORT RESTRICTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, as I do not know to which minister my question should be directed, I shall put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Has he been informed that there is a serious shortage of copper in the country? Has the government been approached on the subject of reducing exports of copper to the United States in order to keep it for Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a general question which should be put on the order paper.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-INCREASE IN ELEVATOR CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and preface it by saying I posed the question to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture on Friday, but he preferred to leave the answer to the minister of northern affairs. I now ask the same question that I asked on Friday. Has the government as yet made a favourable decision about an extension of the grain elevator in Prince Rupert?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no final decision. The tenders that came in with respect to that particular contract were extremely high and, in view of the fact that they were so high, it has been determined not to go ahead at those prices but to postpone the work until prices receded somewhat, or until we can get better prices with respect to the construction.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As a supplementary question, will the minister consider having the planned facility re-engineered so as to provide the same capacity at less costs?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we would be very pleased to consider any plans which will give the same capacity at less cost.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the answer we have just had from the Minister of Agriculture regarding building costs, I want to ask the Prime Minister if it is now the position of the government that it recognizes building costs are too high in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[Translation1



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Did the economic council of Canada send him a special brief in connection with the budget he will put before the house tomorrow and is he ready to table it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the only advice we have received from the economic council, bearing on this point, has been published.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources which arises out of a press release issued by his department under date of March 23, indicating that a recruiting campaign is under way, through the cultural affairs section of the Indian Affairs branch, to recruit Indian girls to act as guides and hostesses at the Indian Affairs Pavilion at Expo '67.
I wonder whether the minister can tell the house through what channels across the country this recruitment campaign is being organized.


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



CROWN CORPORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) stated in the house that the Polymer Corporation has no French Canadian director. Having looked into the matter, I should like to say that there is one, that is Mr. Eugene Laflamme, of Quebec city, whose address is 410-
March 28. 1966


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the "bureau de direction", not the "conseil d'administration". The "bureau des direc-teurs" of the Polymer Corporation if made up of businessmen, including the president of Aluminum Company, while Mr. Eugene Laflamme is an "administrator". I said the "bureau des directeurs", on which there is not one French Canadian.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the minister was speaking on a question of privilege, on a point of order, or whether he had put a question. In any case, I doubt that he can make a statement at this time, and I point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that he has nevertheless succeeded in correcting the situation as he wanted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, following the minister's statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member, even if he had a question of privilege, which I doubt very much, has explained the situation and I suggest to him that we could readily conclude the discussion at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that I had misled the house. That is my question of privilege. Let the minister read what I said last Friday and he will find that I stated that there were no French Canadians on the "bureau de direction". This is still true, and I invite the minister to come to picket the headquarters, as he promised he would.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
So as not to mislead the people as the minister just did, could the minister undertake to look into the whole situation concerning the Polymer corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production, who is responsible for the Polymer corporation?
Since there are no French Canadians on the "bureau de direction" of this corporation,
Inquiries of the Ministry which scandalizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), could the minister tell us whether he will appoint one?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Does the minister admit that he blundered a moment ago when he referred to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will the minister tell the house about the unpopular measures the government is about to take to control inflation, to which he made reference at a meeting in Quebec over the week end?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would be kind enough to point out to me to which unpopular measures he is referring, I could answer him. But I cannot think of any just now. Which is the unpopular measure?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has seen the headline in Saturday's Toronto Star regarding the measures that he hinted should be taken, I wonder whether he can make a statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it is incumbent upon the minister to make that kind of a statement in answer to the hon. member's question.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clemeni Vincent (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Can the minister tell us when he intends to complete the dairy program he announced last week and inform us about the government's intentions with regard to the price of cheese, powdered milk and casein?
March 28. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Those are decisions of the stabilization board, Mr. Speaker.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the fact that the new dairy program will come into force this week, is it the intention of the minister to make known the decisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Board before April 1?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read the statements that were put out last week I think he will find that they contain the information.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is considering the possibility of holding conferences with regard to Rhodesia, with the view of altering some of the punitive measures that Canada has taken against that country which now appear not to have been successful?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, sir.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask another question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is not as loquacious as he normally is. Is Canada participating in any way in radio broadcasts to Rhodesia which are antagonistic to the Smith regime?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know of no such broadcasts, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on three occasions the Secretary of State for External Affairs has promised to table the aide-memoire to the United States regarding changes in S.E.C. regulations. I should like to ask him whether he will be ready to table it soon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for jogging my memory. I will table it tomorrow.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that sessional paper No. 1-B, tabled on Friday, lists the names of a number of people who are in violation of the Canada Elections Act, and that three or four of them are persons the government has appointed to government positions? Does he not think something should be done to rectify this situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into that matter right away.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. During his meeting this morning with Mr. Todgham, president of the Chrysler Corporation and the Canadian Motor Vehicles Manufacturing Association, was the subject of automobile safety discussed relating to the inclusion of proven safety features at the production level, and can the minister report any progress in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that was not the purpose of our meeting this morning.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stan-bury:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
March 28, 1966
[Stage Direction]
(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.
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, as we resume consideration of the motion concerning the abolition of capital punishment, I want to say that it is an honour and privilege to take part in this debate. The question of capital punishment has been brought to the attention of the nation as never before, and as a result the eyes of Canadians across the nation are focussed on this debate.
It is no light matter for any one of us to be part of a decision which involves the lives of other human beings. Life moves forward constantly, and with it progress. The famous Danish critic, Kierkegaard said "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Therefore we must seek to learn from the past in order that we may live safely and justly in the future. The spirit of the times is for change. Change is imperative if we would survive. The pattern of living things is for change. However, acknowledging that, I do not believe it means that we should reject those basic moral principles which have been the warp and woof of our heritage. I believe it is our duty to be progressive enough to understand the inevitability of change but conservative enough to accept the need for the continuity of basic principles particularly as they relate to fixed values and standards.
The question of capital punishment is one which arouses emotion in each of us. I am grateful for this non-partisan debate on the basis of personal conviction. I believe it has been of a very high standard and a credit to the house. Abolitionists and retentionists both claim evidence to support their arguments. Conflicting evidence confuses the picture. In my opinion the reason there is no convincing evidence on the subject is that it is difficult to measure man's mind. Therefore what we say is basically for the record as we explain the reason for our personal votes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but conversations are taking place in the chamber which make it very difficult to follow the hon. member.


Robert Norman Thompson: Before proceeding further with the reasons for my own stand I must
,	Criminal Code
state that I cannot support the motion before us because I am convinced that it would be wrong to abolish the death penalty completely. It is interesting to note that while this motion would provide, if passed, for the abolition of the death penalty under the Criminal Code, it does not have this effect with regard to the death penalty as provided in other statutes. I am thinking specifically of the National Defence Act, sections 66,67,68,69, 70 and 71. It is a fact that section 66 of the National Defence Act makes the death penalty mandatory for certain offences against the state.
I cannot accept the statement repeated by several in this debate that to retain the death penalty is to cling to a hangover from the barbaric past. In my Christian faith I believe that human life is most sacred. Man was created in the image of God. In the commandments of Moses I am told by God not to kill. When others in my society accept this command with me, then I have personal safety of life as do my family and neighbours.
The sanctity of human life cannot be questioned. Christ has told us to love our neighbours. Murder, the taking of life, is not to be condoned. It is therefore the continuing responsibility of the Christian to interpret to those about us that every human being must have as his basic right not only justice before the law but also our personal understanding, respect and concern because he, like me, is a human being and our brother under one God, Creator of us all.
However, in determining my own stand on the question of abolition versus retention I cannot rely entirely on my own judgment. There are still those old-fashioned enough, and I am one of them, who believe that God has provided in His Word guidance to meet every problem which may confront us. In James 1:5 we read:
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
To me, at the root of every question the Scriptures must be our final authority, not my opinion or someone else's. It is not the reasoning of one who differs with me which must be my final guide. It is not the norm of what is considered the lowest common denominator of custom or current practice. It is not even what the church itself teaches, for again it is the Bible, not the church, which is the final authority. In my understanding of Scripture I find that capital punishment was

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
intended by God as a penalty for those who take law and justice into their own hands or who for personal gain wilfully take the life of another person.
Prior to the days of Noah there was no death penalty. When Cain killed his brother Abel there was no such law and no such sentence was passed. He was banished from the Garden for life. Following this the descendants of Cain became part of a society which was grossly corrupt, rotten with sin and violence, and God sent death universally upon all but one family. Following the flood God says in Genesis 9:6:
Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.
Exodus 21:12 says the same thing:
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Significantly this passage in many Bibles falls on the same page as the Ten Commandments which are the basis of our Canadian law and fundamental to the moral conduct of the individual. Some argue that the New Testament has changed this Old Testament teaching. They say the New Testament has replaced the "eye for an eye" philosophy with an ethic of love. However, the ethic of love theme of the New Testament applies only on a person to person basis, as do the Ten Commandments. The command to turn the other cheek cannot apply to law enforcement by the state; otherwise lawlessness would be encouraged. The right of the state to punish with death is more expressly established in chapter 13 of Romans, verses 1 to 5. Here the apostle Paul describes the law enforcement officials as "ministers of God" who "bear not the sword in vain".
Many Bible commentators, much more wise in their understanding of the Scriptures than myself, interpret this passage as supporting capital punishment. Among them are such men as Luther, Calvin, Hodge, Clarke, Moule, Meyer and Studd. Capital punishment is the traditional Christian position. It was also held by the Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas. According to the Romans' passage, God gave the state the power of death for two reasons, first, to satisfy the demands of God's justice and, second, to serve as a protection to society by deterring crime in the future.
When the state takes the life of a capital offender it does so as God's agent, having received express authority from God. In the performance of law enforcement law officials 
are likewise responsible. Therefore it is as much a dereliction of duty for law officials to execute men who do not deserve death as it is to fail to execute criminals who deserve it. That does not mean that every capital offender must be executed. Far from it. The Bible permits and encourages justice to be tempered by mercy at times but not all the time.
Capital punishment is necessary for the good of society. I agree with Father W. J. Ring who said recently:
The whole function of government is to protect and to advance the common good, the welfare, of the civil community as a complete entity. This it does by legislation through the exercise of civil authority both in the making of laws for the common good and in seeing to it that the laws are kept by means of adequate and appropriate sanctions. Moreover, since man is by nature, and not simply by choice a civil animal, and his nature as such is from God, then God also is the source, in this sense, of the civil authority without which the common good and, consequently, the individual good of the citizen, cannot be achieved. Civil authority, then, is the exercise of divine authority in the civil sphere. It was for this reason, for example, that St. Paul could tell his people to be subject to their rulers.
Now since the government is charged with the duty of protecting and defending the common good it has, then, the right to use whatever legitimate means are required to preserve the common good which, after all, can only be the physical, emotional, moral and intellectual welfare of the civil community as a complete entity.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Consequently, it is obvious that the government has the right and the duty to defend the civil community from aggression from without, as in time of war, or from aggression from within, as from treason and the like. This is so, even though such a defence of the community may involve the taking of the life of the aggressor. Surely, if by way of the just defence of his own life a given citizen may take the life of one who is unjustly attacking him, a fortiori, the civil community, through the agency of government, may do the same thing when the life of the community is so endangered. A murderer is precisely that, an unjust aggressor with regard to the community, for in taking into his own hands the unlawful execution of another human being in this fashion he has thereby made an attack on the life of the community itself.
Dr. James M. Gray, the noted Bible scholar and Christian statesman of our parents' day, stated it well when he said:
The death penalty has been abused in almost all the countries of the world, but this does not justify its abolition in cases of premeditated homicide; and unwillingness to apply to the criminal the pain of death ordained by God himself, the author of life, always tends to the increase of crime and gives loose rein to personal vengeance. The inviolability of human life means that the life of a human being is a thing so sacred that he who takes it without just cause must pay for it with his own in amends to outraged justice, both human and divine. When, therefore, law makers abolish the death penalty for capital crimes, they
March 28, 1966

strike a blow at the very source and centre of real God-ordained government, and transgress an unrepealed law of God for the good of the race.
God placed upon man the great responsibility of self-government. This responsibility has never been taken away. The authority of the .state is subject to the sovereignty of God and it is man's duty to obey in all the instructions He has given and for this reason man has no authority to make his own choice against that of God. Clearly the commandment is that the state has the right to administer *capital punishment for premeditated, wilful murder, and I agree with the present *Criminal Code's differentiation between capital and non-capital murder, even as it is agreed that the state has the authority that it has to administer lesser punishment for lesser *crimes.
It is not correct to grant this responsibility as retribution or revenge. Retribution and state authority must be differentiated. The issue is between the administration of justice by the state and the individual. Punishment for a crime is the responsibility of the state; it is clearly the state's prerogative. There are those who have said in this debate that reformation and rehabilitation are the primary objectives of punishment. This therapeutic aspect is an important part but not all of it. Punishment also must have as its objective the cleansing and protection of society and the vindication of justice.
"Thou shalt not kill" is probably more correctly stated as "Thou shalt not murder." Murder is always killing, but killing is not always murder. Capital punishment is killing but it is not murder. It is, rather, the penalty for murder. Scripture defines murder: If a man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die-that is capital murder. In other words, murder is the direct result of unlawfully planning the death of another person, or where one person dies as a result of another person seeking to fulfil his own passions of greed or sex. It is worthy of note that the majority of today's murders fall into either of these two groupings. Perhaps the most common of the two is the gangster murder by the professional criminal.
The recent murder of lawyer Payette of Montreal is a good example, or the lime pit murders of the underworld in Quebec. Here the murderers make killing their business. They are men who weigh the benefits and the risks. They may even have their legal advisers. They, by specific intent, make a decision
Criminal Code
to eliminate certain people. Society, the common good, must be protected from such and capital punishment is the only effective penalty. Surely such criminals are not worthy of some therapeutic reform. I cannot but agree with former Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner L. H. Nicholson, who said:
The criminal fraternity generally would welcome the abolition of capital punishment. I think the time has not yet come to abolish capital punishment.
The inquiry into the security of the nation promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) may well be more important than any of the recent inquiries. Has international crime, the underworld of gangsterism, successfully penetrated the fibres of our society? Perhaps even the Munsinger inquiry has its importance in determining whether or not the real threat of the underworld posed itself in the person of a party call girl.
It is imperative that the channels of justice do everything in their power to make sure that men who are not guilty of murder do not die. As one regards the current book about the trial of Steven Truscott one wonders if in this case justice did do all it should have. The Bible warns about such cases.
The murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
The moral law of God is perfect. Human beings are not perfect and do make mistakes. You and I do, we all do. However, I do not believe we should condemn what is sound law simply because of the imperfections and mistakes of human beings. Our society will be strengthened if we seek to uphold and honour the moral laws of God rather than repudiate and abolish them.
I respect the appeal the abolitionists have made in this debate. However, I believe their suggested solution is one which will have far greater and more serious consequences than those which the specific problem presents to us now. There are a few comments I should like to make regarding some of the arguments presented by those who support abolition.
First, it is said that capital punishment is not a deterrent. If capital punishment appears to be not much of a deterrent the reason is that a lot of the sting has been taken out of it. Although crime has steadily increased the use of the death penalty has steadily decreased. Practice in Canada during recent years is equivalent to the abolition of

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
capital punishment. It is for this reason that I believe the resolution before us must be permitted to come to a vote. I had intended at first to move an amendment but as the debate has progressed I have become convinced that the question has been well put. This debate, therefore, should be terminated without undue extension by a specific vote.
It is argued also that society should be concerned about the redemption of the criminal, a redemption that might be prevented by an execution. However, by the same argument society should be concerned for the safety and welfare of potential murder and rape victims. One of Caryl Chessman's targets, a 17 year old girl, was subjected to brutal depravity for four hours. Twelve years later she was still in a trance with little hope of recovery. Jack Graham blew up an airliner containing his mother and 43 innocent victims. How much opportunity did these victims have to prepare for eternity, for eternal redemption?
On the other hand, there needs to be more concern for crime prevention. Is it reasonable to campaign strongly for the possibility of the redemption of murderers, most of whom have a long record of violent crime, while millions of pliable minds watch men and women being stabbed, shot, strangled, drowned, poisoned, and maltreated in almost every possible way as often as 20 times a day on television? If those who lead the movements for abolition are really concerned for the sacredness of life they should do something about the disrespect shown for life on television programs and in movies, which do so much to influence pliable minds.
It appears that with a decrease in the severity of punishment for criminals comes a corresponding increase in crime and the suffering of the innocent. In recent years, for example, the number of policemen murdered by felons has been larger than the number of felons executed by the state. It is argued that the administration of capital punishment is attended by many abuses. This may be so. The same can be said of the administration of Christian churches. Do we, therefore, eliminate the Christian churches? No, we try to eliminate the abuse. The same appproach applies to the abuses of capital punishment.
Abolitionists make much of the loss of innocent lives through the death penalty. They overlook the fact, however, that more innocent lives have been lost through non-executed criminals who remained alive to commit more crimes than through executed non-criminals.

It has been said that the science of penology as well as the improvements in standards of social work and law enforcement have advanced to the point where society is protected to a greater extent than by the imposition of capital punishment. It is true that we have more effective police forces and more thorough rehabilitation of criminals. However, of the 14 states in the United States which abolished capital punishment prior to 1962, 8 have reinstituted it. Penology does give more protection now than formerly against criminals committing crimes in the future, but it cannot protect against persons committing crime in the first instance.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Every one of us, Mr. Speaker, still reflects the image of God. To murder a man is still an outrage, an outrage against God, the Creator, against man, the victim, against the victim's loved ones, against society and against the institution of government. Because life is sacred, Mr. Speaker, life must be protected against maltreatment and murder. Policemen charged with the enforcing of the laws of the state must have the right to kill in self-defence or in the interest of law enforcement. The state must punish severely, at times with death, those who wilfully disregard the sacredness of the lives of others.
I believe this is necessary for the general good of society.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that I would join only to a very limited extent with what has been said by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), but I do agree with him with regard to the quality of this debate. In answer to those who have made accusations in respect of standard of debate in this house I say that the strength of argument, exercised with restraint, and the eloquence which has gone hand in hand with common sense have been a great tribute to the members who have participated during the two days through which this debate has progressed. The subject is a tremendously difficult one. I hasten at once to say that I completely disagree with the hon. member for Red Deer as to his conclusion, the way in which he has arrived at his conclusion and as to the way he is going to vote.
One can not dismiss from one's mind, Mr. Speaker, all of the wisdom which lies within the four corners of the Scriptures, but in respect of the religious considerations in regard to this matter God has endowed me with some intelligence and set me upon a path
March 28, 1986

along which I have derived some experience. In coming to a decision in an issue of this kind I would be derelict in my duty if I failed to take into consideration the knowledge and experience I have derived during the course of my life and my career. Having done this, I can come to no other conclusion, Mr. Speaker, than that I must support this resolution.
I have taken a little time to look through the debates of Wednesday and Thursday of last week and I think a rather remarkable phenomenon appears from a reading of what has been said. I am particularly interested in what has been said by those who have taken the opposite view to mine and who, generally, seem to favour retention. The phenomenon is this, Mr. Speaker. If you examine carefully what most of these members have said-this applies particularly to those who appear at first blush to have been very strong proponents of a measure of retention-you will find somewhere in their speeches indications of doubt, of qualification, of conditional acceptance. In my opinion, if there is to be an onus in an issue of this kind the onus should be upon those who urge that capital punishment be retained. I think the act of taking life is so unnatural, so abnormal and so repugnant that those who argue even for the right of the state to take life must be prepared to discharge that onus.
Here, Mr. Speaker, we find in this chamber those who argue for the retention of capital punishment qualifying their statements. I have a few of the comments before me but I am not going to relate them to the hon. members who made them. One hon. member said: "The supreme penalty should be enacted only after guilt is established beyond a shadow of a doubt and only for wanton, wilful and premeditated murder".
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as other hon. members know, today guilt must be established in any criminal offence beyond a reasonable doubt. If capital punishment were to be inflicted only upon those who were convicted within the four corners of this qualification, I think capital punishment would never be carried out. The hon. member said that guilt must be established "beyond a shadow of a doubt". This shadow of a doubt must be applied to each specific area of the charge. It must be established beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was wanton murder, that it was wilful murder and that it was premeditated murder. The hon. member who made that statement may not know it but I
Criminal Code
suggest he has a strong doubt in his own mind as to the necessity of preserving capital punishment.
Another hon. member said: "So long as human sciences are what they are I think it might be wise to wait". Then there is the qualification: "Let us not do it now; let us wait a little while. Let us have another parliament abolish capital punishment." Another hon. member said: "I have reached the conclusion that now is not the time to abolish capital punishment". Another hon. member said: "I think it must be retained because we are not ready for abolition". And so it goes.
I would direct my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to those hon. members who are still wrestling with their consciences, those hon. members who are gripped in the agony of irresolution in an attempt to come to a proper decision in this matter. I suggest that if those who are urging that capital punishment must be retained can do so only in qualified terms of this kind, then they have failed to establish a case by that standard which we in this chamber should expect in an issue of this sort.
Let it be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that in this debate we are holding in our hands the highest of all human responsibilities, that of life and death. It is for us to lay down the rules which can spin out the golden thread of life or snap it off each time a trapdoor opens to hurl a living, breathing human being into the darkness of eternity. I know there are those who say and are quite entitled to say that we will do this only to those who in turn have taken life.
But this distinction must be made. Ours will not be the tortured, twisted and unnatural action, sometimes only an emotional muscular reflex, which comes from the gloomy recesses of the mind of man who has killed. Ours is, or should be, the calm, reasoned, cold and calculated volition, the collective act of those who are the repository of the wisdom of all the people in the state. For us there can be no refinements, no subtleties, no distinctions, no recommendation for mercy, no excuse. Let this be understood.
I suggest that there can be no clearer way of bringing this home to the attention of the house than to put it this way. If we fail to pass this measure substantially in its present form, then whether we like it or not we are directly and intimately concerned with all the consequences. It is of no avail to say that the law is there and that it ought to be a matter

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
of applying it, of letting the law taking its course. We are the law. We make the law; we change the law or we leave the law relating to capital punishment as it is. I suggest that if we retain capital punishment we must be prepared in our minds to spend the last hours with those who are condemned and awaiting execution, to walk with them to the scaffold, to watch the hangman securing the noose, and to wait for the end. We are a part of this and we cannot rationalize or raise specious arguments to avoid this consequence.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, as solemnly as I can. The decision in an issue of this kind, made by the yeas and the nays which will be cast when we vote on this resolution, cannot be supported on anything but our own consciences. We should listen to our constituents, read the writings of others and review the debate not only on this particular resolution but on others which have gone before. This is right and this we can and must do. But the ultimate decision must be made by each one of us in the loneliness of his own conscience.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mention has been made of the fact that there has been a possibility of error creeping into criminal trials and this has been linked to the Truscott case. Generally speaking, I have confidence in our courts, in our judges and in our system of justice, and my view in this regard is derived from almost 40 years of practising law mainly in the criminal courts of this land. But, Mr. Speaker, this is only relative praise. Our system is not perfect. In my opinion it is only the least imperfect system of any systems of justice that I know. There is room for error. There have been miscarriages of justice. Innocent men have been sent to jail. Men have been hanged when the sentence imposed on them should have been reduced. Also, I believe innocent men have been executed.
However, I would rather discuss the extension of this principle to something distinct from though related to the simple black or white of guilty or not guilty. Let there be a certain set of facts which could be, and I emphasize the words "could be", proved. Does this mean that under any possible conditions the same result, the same verdict, the same sentence would always be brought about? By no means. There are wide possibilities for variation.
The choice of the charge to be laid is a choice which lies within the range of an individual or within the range of several

individuals. For example, in my own province of Alberta it is the Attorney General who decides on the basis of a certain set of facts which have been brought out in a preliminary hearing whether the charge will be manslaughter, non-capital murder or capital murder. Also of importance are the character of the judge, the make-up of the jury, the character, ability, experience and background of counsel for the defence and to a lesser extent of crown counsel.
I say on my full responsibility and with all the solemnity I can command, basing my opinion in large measure on my own personal knowledge, that out of the same set of facts it is likely and in fact possible that different combinations of these external collateral conditions can bring about a verdict of not guilty, a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, a verdict of guilty of non-capital murder, a verdict of guilty of capital murder with a recommendation for mercy or a verdict of guilty of capital murder with execution to follow. I have always had an uneasy feeling, despite the strides we have made in our system of jurisdprudence and in spite of the progress we have made in the administration of justice, that in our trials and in our administration of justice there still remains much of the quality of a gamble. There still remains something of the nature of a game of roulette. We can never be certain that the ball is going to drop into the proper slot.
One is tempted to draw on one's personal experience to support this view. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than to refer to an incident in a most fascinating book called "For the Defence", which is a biography of the great English advocate, Sir Edward Marshall Hall, superbly put together by another lawyer, Edward Marjoribanks. In the book it is set out how in one of his earlier cases Marshall Hall defended a young working girl who had been seduced by a married man. She bore an illegitimate child. Soon after the birth of the child she told the nurse not to mind the baby but to attend to her, the mother. Ten days later the young mother was sitting with the nurse and her baby and said, "How can anyone get rid of a baby like that?" Shortly afterward the mother took the baby up to bed and the child was never again seen alive.
The police traced the mother and an inspector took a statement from her in which she said, "I will tell you the truth. I killed it. I did not know what to do with it. I put it in a box. You will find it up there." The mother
March 28, 1966

was charged with wilful murder and admitted the charge. The law being what it was, she was indicted for murder. Her counsel called no evidence and his entire defence was elicited through cross-examination.
The mother's remark at the confinement was accounted for by the fact that she had not seen the child and her maternal instincts had not been aroused. Her remark about getting rid of the baby was shown in a completely new light when the two nurses called by the prosecution admitted that the emphasis fell upon the word "Can" and that the actual words were "How can anyone get rid of a little baby like this?" This, together with the admission that the mother was kissing and feeding her child, completely contradicted the interpretation suggested by the prosecution.
As to the other statement attributed to the mother, the whole meaning of it is changed by making the middle sentence refer to the last part and not to the first. In other words, having killed the child accidentally by overlaying it in bed she admitted this and then said she did not know what to do with it and had put it in a box. As to the admission of wilful murder, the inspector admitted that he had made a mistake and had never charged her with wilful murder, but merely with causing the death of the child.
In that case a brilliant defence counsel with a sense of timing and drama who had recently suffered a similar tragedy in his own life, conducted the defence. Presiding at the trial was an outstanding and sympathetic judge and a sympathetic jury. The verdict was the right one. However, I do suggest it is quite possible, and in another case it might have happened, that had counsel for the defence attempted to exclude the statements he would have been unsuccessful and the result would have been, as happens in eight cases out of ten, a verdict of murder.
This, of course, is a case where justice was done. However, I can recall a case in which I participated some years ago, Mr. Speaker, where a young boy of 19 was tried, convicted and ultimately executed. This happened well over 30 years ago. In that particular case the evidence was strongly consistent, in my opinion, with insanity and certainly with a verdict of manslaughter. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty of murder with a strong recommendation for mercy. The boy was ultimately executed.
Many years later I had the opportunity to discuss this case with one of the jurors who
Criminal Code
had come to see me. He told me that the trial jury had been dominated by one strong-minded individual who had an almost pathological aversion to any crime which included robbery and violence. It happened that in this case robbery with violence was not the motive. At least, it was not the primary motive. It happened that after the crime the boy had put on a pair of pants and a shirt belonging to the deceased. In the pants was 50 cents. It was in this sense that this man on the jury took it that there had been robbery with violence and he dominated the proceedings to such an extent that the verdict of guilty of murder was brought in. The rest of jurors salved their consciences by bringing in a recommendation for mercy which was not acted on. The boy was hanged.
This sort of thing does happen in our murder trials. In our system of penology and parole there is always some hope for righting a wrong and for making the punishment fit the crime, if necessary after the event. But we cannot awake the dead to say that we are sorry, that we must have made a mistake and that we really did not mean to hang you. I suggest that on vagaries such as this, on such slender reeds as this, rests the issue of life and death. Can we safely entrust to these arrangements the lives of any members of our society? True, they are imperfect members but imperfect members of an imperfect society for which we must at least accept our share of collective responsibility.
All of us have, with concern and with anxiety, studied the history of this grizzly subject of capital punishment and I conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. We must conclude that there has been a slow but inexorable move toward the lessening of the use of this barbaric and outmoded instrument of execution which, despite arguments to the contrary, is still in the minds of too many people the weapon of retribution and vengeance. Can anyone really doubt that the end result of these proceedings will be, as in other civilized states, the abolition of the death penalty? Why then should Canada be among the last to act in its abolition? Mr. Speaker, let us do it now.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to take part in the debate, not, as must be obvious to all hon. members, as a member of the cabinet but as a member of the House of Commons speaking on a private member's

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
resolution and speaking as a matter of conscience. Throughout my remarks, which I anticipate will be brief, I will try not to reflect in any way upon matters which I have learned as a Privy Councillor and member of the government though it will be appreciated that it is difficult to set aside such experience.
If one must characterize one's position in this debate, my views are somewhere between those of the last two speakers. If you look at the subject from the point of view of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I am a retentionist; if you look at it from the point of view of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) I am an abolitionist.
Murder is foul whenever it occurs. In the scale of our crimes it is and has always been the highest, the most hideous and the most hated by our people. Throughout the history of Canada and even before, by reason of the form of law we have followed many punishments have been exacted upon those who have taken the lives of others, some of them so horrible that nowadays we can hardly believe that sentient men and women would resort to drawing and quartering, rending limb from limb and similar penalties. We have a scale of punishment for every offence under the law. Our laws are framed for the preservation of the balance of our society and, of course, to protect our social structure. We attach different penalties to different offences, ranging from a kind of supervision, something we call a suspension of a sentence, through monetary fines and periods of incarceration to the death penalty which we now retain as the final punishment for the taking of a life.
The temptation is easy to take a Biblical approach and to characterize any retentionist as a person who requires only that "vengeance be mine". Yet I think the word "vengeance" probably does not apply to anyone in our society with the possible exception of a person who feels himself or herself individually aggrieved, a person who is likely to be a close relative of a murder victim. We feel gradations of revulsion with regard to crimes. We feel gradations of revulsion even about civil matters involving offences against society. It seems to me-and I say this for the peace of my conscience-that there are some crimes, some kinds of murder which cry out for the ultimate penalty. Again, this is not a matter of wreaking vengeance but an expression of a punishment which is the top of the scale, the only way in which in our society
rMlss LaMarsh.]
we can move to keep our social structure as we would have it. This means there are cases of willful killing for which I would not require the death penalty to be meted out. When I spoke in this chamber in 1961 while the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) was minister of justice it may be recalled that when killings were being divided into capital and non-capital murder it was a suggestion of mine that the murder of a prison official should be regarded as a type of capital murder.
It seems to me that if we are to retain our social structure positive measures must be taken to protect men such as police officers who risk their lives for our protection. Measures must be taken to protect our prison guards, those ill-paid individuals who need to be constantly on the qui vive to protect society from the occupants of prison cells. Then there must be some means of protecting society against those who commit murder for the second time. I believe this latter category is rare. I believe experience has shown that only in very few instances do people acquire a taste for killing and then kill again. But records show that such cases exist.
In these three categories it seems to me society needs the death penalty, bearing always in mind that I speak of those who are sane, of those who have not successfully raised the defence of insanity. Speaking from my own conscience, I believe the death penalty should be imposed for these classes of murder.
What I say in this regard is nothing new. Many hon. members have singled out the same classes of people. But, since I believe there must be a gradation of penalty to correspond with a gradation of crime, my conscience compels me to speak about a special kind of murder, revulsion to which may arise, I will readily admit, as much from the fact of my own sex as from my experience of 16 years at the bar. It is a crime so foul and it causes such revulsion that I do not in any circumstances hold out against the retention of the death penalty for those who rape and murder small children. The outrage felt by a family is to be expected. The outrage of society follows, not because one wants to forms a lynch party and destroy the person responsible. Most Canadians are, I believe, not so uncivilized; our veneer is deeper than that. But we have, so far as I know, no records of women attacking infant males and causing their deaths. Perhaps nature militates against it.
March 28, 1966

Criminal Code
Attacks on young female children by men sometimes the number of those present who who are sane within the definition of our law are exercising the prerogative right of mercy, have, I believe, been increasing rather than Perhaps this parliament would feel that now diminishing, and by far the greater number is the time to curb that right, now is the time of children so attacked are destroyed, not by to detail when and in what circumstances the the attack itself but by the deliberate decision law should be interfered with rather than be
of the attacker so as to protect himself against apprehension. The fact that there are many such rape-murders of small children may be cited by abolitionists as proof of the fact that the death penalty which is now imposed is no deterrent. In my years at the bar I have heard this question of deterrence argued back and forth. I have read the figures which were produced for all hon. members and for the public by the Department of Justice last summer. I have read and studied the murder statistics published recently by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics covering the last few years in Canada. I have done this, and I confess that so far as I am concerned I remain convinced that for this most heinous crime this most heinous penalty must remain.
Perhaps we could protect many who are charged-it may be falsely-with this and other capital crimes by making a psychiatric report mandatory. At the present time it is not mandatory for someone who is charged with capital murder to undergo a psychiatric examination. If a defence counsel is instructed to do so and if the defendant can afford it, he can always retain an alienist and ask him to consider an accused who lies in a cell. His cursory examination may take no more than half an hour.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
If there is some reason, so far as the Crown is concerned, to believe that there is something wrong with the accused the Crown, of course, may always obtain a psychiatric report. But I think we should be careful, no matter how archaic our definition of insanity may be, that at least within the limits of the law as framed no one, by reason of lack of opportunity, should be denied the defence of insanity when appropriate.
Perhaps also, if we are to retain capital punishment in any form, we must consider something which so far as I am aware has not been attacked by legislatures, and that is the prerogative right of mercy of the sovereign. It' has passed now and resides in the executive body of the cabinet. So far as I am aware from what I have been able to find to read about it, it is unfettered in this jurisdiction and elsewhere and depends upon the minds, the consciences, the hearts, even
carried out.
We have error in our courts. There is no question of that. No lawyer who sits in this chamber or practices in any court of the land will say that there have not been errors in the cases he lost, and some tragic ones. But, as the last speaker said, none of us can be sure that so long as man is imperfect the institutions he puts together will be more perfect. I have great respect for our courts, for the men who operate within them as officers and who sit in judgment on us.
In addressing myself to this resolution I feel I would have to vote against it and of course against any amendment save an amendment that would retain within the law those classes of cases which I have had an opportunity to cite. I cannot myself move an amendment. Because this is the first opportunity I have had to speak from the front benches without speaking for my own department, I would like to thank hon. members for the attention with which they have received my remarks.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, since last Wednesday several hon. members have expressed their views on the death penalty and the following resolution: 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.
The present resolution contains three propositions. I am against paragraphs (a) and (b) because, in my humble opinion, the death penalty must be maintained a while longer.
I would be in favour of paragraph (c) because it would be appropriate for the governor in council, rather than the parole board, to decide about changing a sentence of life imprisonment or perpetual imprisonment in cases where such action has been considered until now.
But, since the movers of the resolution did not present it in such a way as to allow

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
separate votes and you, Mr. Speaker, following a point of order I raised last Wednesday, supported by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), decided not to separate the resolution as far as the votes were concerned, I will vote against the said resolution.
We are given the occasion to ask for the retention of the death penalty or its abolition. I will be brief for two main reasons: first of all, my position on that subject has been well known in the house since 1958 and there is no conclusive reason for me to change it today. Moreover, we must not prolong the debate in order to allow the government to introduce as soon as possible very urgent measures to fight poverty, namely by increasing old age pensions, family allowances and reducing taxes in favour of Canadians with a low income as well as fighting inflation and increases in the cost of living. I hope that in his budget speech tomorrow night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) will meet the wishes of millions of citizens.
Mr. Speaker, on May 30, 1958, I made a speech in the House of Commons in favour of the retention of capital punishment. At that time, I stressed the provisions of our Criminal Code which seem marked with secular wisdom, with many judicial precautions and consecutive legal appeals. I showed also that capital punishment was an effective deterrent against murder, an appropriate retribution, a protection for the administration staff of our prisons and a means to avoid the proliferation of professional criminals. In conclusion, I said then that capital punishment must not be abolished as long as our customs and institutions would not make it necessary, and as long as the great majority of our Canadian people did not require such a change.
In 1961, our parliament gave a clear definition of capital murders, that is murders with premeditation, and non-capital murders. Today, I can see no definite argument which would convince me to change my stand.
However, I want to make it clear that, in my mind, capital punishment is not so much a necessary punishment than a means to set an example and to effectively prevent capital murder, treason and piracy.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Some members used statistics from foreign countries to support their argument, to illustrate the decrease or increase in the number of murders as a result of abolition or retention of capital punishment.

We must not judge solely by such data, for figures do not give the same results throughout the world, and it must be recognized that various countries reflect historical, political, social and psychological differences.
Let us, however, recall that England abolished capital punishment in 1964 and that, since then, murders have increased by one third, to such an extent, in fact, that on January 29 last, hundreds of thousands of Englishmen launched an active campaign in favour of reinstating it.
Here, in Canada, and more specifically in Quebec, according to the provincial Minister of Justice, Claude Wagner, who said so at Verdun, at a banquet held on January 30 last, there are twice as many murders since Ottawa has multiplied commutations of death penalty. The same is probably true for the other provinces.
It is advisable, under the circumstances, to retain capital punishment and to demand that the governor general in council, that is the federal cabinet, assume its responsibilities and apply the present law in its entirety. If the members of the federal cabinet commute death penalties because, in their innermost heart they want abolition, then let them speak out now and vote according to their conscience. But I would ask them to quit playing hide-and-seek and systematically making the present laws inoperative.
Capital punishment remains the best answer to capital and sordid murders, as the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) so ably pointed out a while ago, the first deterrent for thousands of citizens against such crimes. This is so true that people who deal with law courts, in whom armed bandits confide, know full well that a large number of bandits do not load their revolvers before committing a robbery, for fear that, in the excitement of the criminal operation, they might kill someone and hang for it later on.
It remains that some hardened murderers who have not been rehabilitated due to lack of advanced psychiatric knowledge, are known to be a permanent menace to society. It should be remembered that prison guards and other inmates are also members of society. If a life sentence is the only punishment for such murderers, in many cases they will try to escape. To achieve this, they will not hesitate at all to kill a guard or an over talkative partner. If justice nabs them again for naught save life, all they have to say is: "Put it on the bill. What's a murder more or less. Let society keep on feeding me in spite
March 28. 1966

of my crimes and escapes and the permanent menace that I am."
I have no objections to certain judicial reforms to enable every citizen, accused or sentenced for life under the provisions now in force, if they lack sufficient money for an adequate defence, to benefit from the same legal advantages now enjoyed by the Crown. In every case where mandatory death sentence is involved, the state should cover all legal costs of a full defence and, in addition, give the accused or the condemned without means the choice of counsel.
Furthermore, I would look with favour on the suggestion that the criminal now standing condemned for life come under the governor in council as far as his liberation is concerned. In such serious and far reaching cases, the responsibility of a decision should rest with those directly responsible to the people as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) and the members of the Federal Cabinet and not with the untouchable commissioners of the Parole Board.
Certain acts could also be improved and adapted to the developments of modern science. I am referring specifically to the evidence required on mental cases. Finally, rehabilitation methods could be improved.
But whatever reforms are suggested, capital punishment must be maintained in the statutes and fully implemented. I beg to differ from the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) who maintained, on Thursday last, that we have now achieved a sufficient degree of civilization and progress to solve capital murders and murders for gain by means other than capital punishment.
I am deeply convinced that man, by his nature, will always be a human being and not a god, a being torn within himself between good and evil, and that his degree of civilization or moral refinement will always be in doubt.
As representatives of the people, we must take public opinion into account. That is why at the end of last January, through the newspapers of my county, I sounded the electorate of the county of Sherbrooke, with the following result:
Of 541 answers received, 475 or 88 per cent were in favour of retaining capital punishment; 66 answers or 12 per cent wanted capital punishment abolished.
Criminal Code
Those who favoured the retention of capital punishment were asked questions concerning method of execution. The answers were as follows:
50 per cent favoured hanging; 18 per cent, the electric chair; 11 per cent, the gas chamber; 13 per cent, the injection; .4 per cent, the guillotine; 2.6 per cent, shooting; 1 per cent, other methods and 1 per cent left it to the choice of the condemned man.
The Junior Chamber of Commerce of Sherbrooke also questioned its 210 members on this subject at the beginning of last February and 73 per cent of the answers were in favour of retaining capital punishment.
Therefore, for the reasons given in my speech in this house on May 30, 1958 and in view of the additional explanations which I gave today, I shall vote against the present resolution I want capital punishment to be retained as long as psychiatry and psychology do not succeed in making sane and well-adapted individuals out of those who commit premeditated and horrible murders.
{English1


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons, for the three days during which this debate has been taking place, has been discussing a matter of very great and urgent concern not only to those here but to the country as a whole. In a debate of this kind, as indeed in any debate, it is only to be expected that members will take different positions for different reasons. We will, therefore, be in disagreement. I am in disagreement with many of those who have spoken or with the position they have taken or have indicated they will take. But we all proceed on the assumption that in this debate at any rate our disagreements and differences of opinion do not involve any questioning of motives and that we respect the motives and positions taken by others. The sincerity of the motives of everyone who has participated in the debate is demonstrated by the quality of the speeches which have been made.
Notwithstanding that feature of this debate and notwithstanding the importance of the subject we are dealing with and the decision that has to be made, I have a growing feeling that the House of Commons should not be asked to vote on this matter after only three days of debate which, as now has been indicated, is all the time that will be made available. I feel that we are not qualified to

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
make a proper decision and I therefore intend to make a suggestion as to how we might deal with it by an alternative method before I conclude my remarks.
Speaking for myself, I have to say with respect to the motion that if it comes to a vote I have not yet heard sufficient evidence to convince me that the law should be changed as the motion would change it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I have to vote on the motion I will therefore vote against it. I shall, as I know every other member will, vote with a clear conscience. I think I can fairly say that I am not in the habit of avoiding issues or ducking or evading responsibilities. If I have to vote I shall, and I will do so with a clear conscience but with a very great feeling of concern because I do not think we should be voting on the motion at this time. I know that the concern I feel, which makes me take this position and which leads to make my suggestion, is not a unique concern. I know it is felt by all members, although perhaps in the greatest measure by those who, like me, will feel compelled to vote against the motion if it comes to a vote.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Great concern would be felt by me if we had to vote because I do not think the evidence has been sufficient to cause me to approve of the motion. I do not think the arguments that have been advanced enable us to make up our minds. Particularly I think it is not a sound argument and yet it has been advanced-this is what bothers me-to say that the retention of capital punishment would be evidence of a continuation in Canada of some sort of barbaric society. I think this is not the kind of argument that should be used in this kind of debate, at least not in an attempt to convince others to change their minds, because if we vote to retain the death penalty it is not because we like to have it. Who is to suggest that anyone who votes that way takes any pleasure in the contemplation of the execution even of the most brutal murderer? We would vote that way because we believe that the retention of capital punishment, at this stage at any rate, is necessary for the protection of society and that no other means sufficiently adequate have yet been established.
In this connection, in support of my position I do not rest my case on the argument of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. I

rest it rather on the ground of protection from those who have shown a readiness to commit or procure the commission of a deliberate and planned killing. It is in this respect that I speak of the protection of society. I should like, therefore, to discuss the matter for a few minutes in the context of that approach and in the context of the law as it now stands as a result of the changes made in 1961.
In the course of the debate on the amendment to the Criminal Code which I had the honour of introducing when I was minister of justice in 1961, I attempted to elaborate and state as a philosophy, if you like, the concept upon which in my mind that amendment was based. I refer to the amendment which divided killings into two types, non-capital murder and capital murder.
I am not going to rehearse all those arguments at this time, although I have re-read them, but I have seen no compelling evidence to lead me to believe that the argument is not sound and does not form a sound basis for the retention of capital punishment. I am not suggesting that the law as it was amended in 1961 and as it now stands is perfect. By no means do I suggest that. Law is always susceptible to change and improvement. But surely we are entitled to be convinced by argument that the change suggested is an improvement before we simply adopt it for the purpose of change in itself.
It is therefore, I think, only right that we should remind ourselves what the law of 1961 did and how it now stands. One thing it did was to eliminate from liability to the death penalty many of the types of murders which some hon. members seem to have used as the basis of their arguments for the abolition of capital punishment. The change in the law in 1961 eliminated from suffering the death penalty a person who had committed murder and might be described as psychotic. It provided that capital murder was the only type of murder to which the death penalty was applicable.
In other words, by that change it is provided that unless the crime which results in a killing or the killing itself is planned and deliberate, the murder is non-capital. If the killing is carried out by an insane person there is, of course, still the absolute defence of insanity. If it is carried out by a person in a sudden fit of passion there is, quite apart from the defence of provocation, the necessity for the Crown now to prove that it was done in a planned and deliberate fashion, and if it
March 28, 19SG

can be established that it was done in a fit of sudden passion that element is not proven. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if the crime is totally unpremeditated, then it is not capital murder. That important change was made, and it seems to me to have been overlooked by many of those who have spoken in support of this motion.
Further, even if the murder is capital and the jury finds that the accused was guilty of a planned and deliberate killing, there is the important change made as a result of the law of 1961 that the jury must be asked whether they have any recommendation to make as to leniency or mercy. The jury must be asked that question. The purpose of inserting this provision was precisely to take care of the case in regard to which the jury had any doubt so that even if they felt it was capital murder within the definition, if there was something about it, some surrounding factor which would cause them to recommend leniency, they could do so. Even although they had found the accused was not insane within the legal definition of insanity, yet they might not be sure that his mental state was such that he should in fact suffer capital punishment as a consequence of his crime.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to observe that I am not happy about the definition of insanity as still carried forward in our Criminal Code. I refer to the old M'Naghten rule. I think this is one area which should be studied and possibly changed. This is another reason why I think this motion is inadequate and does not enable us really to get at the roots of the problem with which we should be dealing if we are to deal conclusively with the matter of capital punishment. I observed recently reports in American periodicals of a recommendation made as a result of an extensive study of the definition of insanity by the American Bar. I am very much influenced by that recommendation, which seems to me to be a great forward step in the legal treatment of insanity.
Coming back to the question of our law as it now stands, another important change made in 1961, which seems to me to go a good distance to meeting many of the arguments that have been advanced by those who have spoken in favour of the resolution, was that we provided for an automatic appeal court review. It does not matter whether the accused is rich or poor. If convicted of capital murder he not only has the right but the appeal court has the duty to review the case and the transcript of the evidence not only
Criminal Code
with respect to matters of law but the adequacy of the procedure and the facts as well. This is so whether or not the accused makes application for appeal. In addition to the reveiw by the court of appeal which is carried out automatically the accused has the right as a right-he does not need leave-to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land. His case can be heard there whether he is rich or poor. He does not have to apply for leave.
Another very important change that was made and which I think should be borne in mind when we consider our position with respect to the motion was that in 1961 we inserted a provision in the law that no one under the age of 18 years could suffer pain of death by hanging. Even though convicted of capital murder such a person cannot be sentenced to be hanged. So, Mr. Speaker, while I make no further observation on the Truscott case at this point I simply say that Steven Truscott could not have been sentenced to hang after the 1961 change in the law.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
These, sir, are some of the factors I think should be borne in mind when we ask ourselves whether we are yet convinced that the law with respect to capital punishment as it now stands should be changed. I have said that in my view the philosophical arguments in support of the retention of capital punishment rest on the basis of the protection of society from those who would deliberately challenge society's supreme ordinance, the only basis on which a well ordered society can rest, namely, that no individual has the right to take a life. I say that society must be protected against those who would deliberately challenge that law. I am satisfied that this is quite a different argument from the argument which says that capital punishment should be retained because it deters would-be murderers from killing. Obviously it does not because people still kill. You cannot say it is a completely effective deterrent. Nor in my view, however, can you say it has not deterrent effect. Unfortunately you cannot prove the case one way or the other statistically, as it were. It is for this reason I say that it never seemed to me to be a sound basis upon which to rest a firm position. I think the basis of the protection of society against those who have defied society's supreme law is a sound philosophical basis.

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
Other arguments were advanced which in my view leave room for the kind of uncertainties about which I have spoken and the kind of uncertainties which I would feel if I were compelled to vote now. These arguments are based on the statistics relating to the number of murders and the disposition of capital cases after there has been a conviction. I think it is important in the light of what we are discussing to examine some of these statistics. I shall only look at those since 1961 when the change was made to distinguish between capital and non-capital murder.
I should like, first, to look at the statistics with regard to the commutation or disposition of these cases because I think the statistics here indicate there is another area or another kind of uncertainty about whether some change should be made in the present law. I am alluding to the same facts as were referred to by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), namely, that perhaps there should be greater certainty introduced into the circumstances under which the prerogative of mercy may be exercised.
I have referred to the change that had the result that a person convicted of capital murder is now convicted only of deliberate killing and we still have the additional safeguard of asking the jury whether or not they have any recommendation to make. It was certainly my thought, and I speak here only as an individual and do not say the law carries this interpretation, that when there came before any government of which I might be a member or others might be members a case where there was a conviction for capital murder and no recommendation of mercy, the disposition of the case should not be in doubt.
We find, if we look at the record of cases since 1961, the first year of the change, to ascertain whether or not any recommendations were made, that from the statistics reported on pages 100 to 103 of the White Paper on Capital Punishment, as brought up to date by some statistics that have been very kindly furnished to me by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), show there have been 30 capital cases since September, 1961. There have been 30 cases in which an individual has been convicted of capital murder.
In so far as recommendations are concerned, we find that in 12 of these cases the jury made no recommendation and in the other 18 cases the jury recommended mercy.

It is interesting to find too, Mr. Speaker, that out of those 30 cases the judge, who of course always has the right to make a recommendation, made no recommendation in 19 cases. The judge made a recommendation in 11. Further, it is interesting to note that the judge recommended mercy in two cases in which the jury did not recommend mercy. This, then, is the record with regard to recommendations. As I have said, out of 30 cases the jury recommended mercy in 18 and made no recommendation in 12.
I refer now to commutations. We find that since 1961, when the former government of which I was a member was in office, there were ten cases of persons convicted of capital murder which came before us. In eight of those cases the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and in two cases the sentence was carried out. If we examine the question of recommendations we find that of the eight commutations, five were in cases where the jury recommended mercy. Of the three where there was no jury recommendation, two had been recommended to mercy by the judge.
There was a commutation, between September, 1961 and April, 1963, in only one case in which there was no recommendation whatever. If you examine the record since April, 1963, you will find there have been 20 convictions for capital murder which came before the cabinet and all 20 have been commuted. Of those, 13 had been recommended to mercy by the jury and 7 had no recommendation by either the judge or the jury. It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to make any political condemnation here. However, speaking statistically, I would say that since April, 1963, there have been seven, what I would call doubtful cases where the government did not act in accordance with what I had believed would be accepted as the intent of the new law, namely, that where there was no recommendation in a conviction of capital murder there would be a certain execution. I mention this because I do believe this feature is a major reason for the unrest and concern which is felt about this whole matter in the country at the present time.
The other statistics which may or may not prove anything but certainly are a cause for concern, the kind of concern which I said would be felt if we have to vote on this motion, are statistics which have come before me from my own constituency. I feel they are typical of a mixed urban and rural constituency. The daily paper in Kamloops ran what
March 28, 1966

might be called a poll for three days. They inserted a small coupon in which the readers were asked to indicate broadly whether they favoured retention or abolition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: There seems to be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue his speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I thank the house for this courtesy. Of the coupons so completed and sent to me, 226 were in favour of retention of capital punishment and 36 in favour of abolition, a proportion of nearly 7 to 1 in favour of retention.
Another statistic which concerns me but which, as I say, may or may not be capable of immediate proof or statistical application in this case, is the number of murders reported to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics since 1961. I use that year because it is the year in which there was the division between capital and non-capital murder. In 1961 there were 185 murders reported; in 1962, 217; in 1963, 215; in 1964, 218. It could be said, therefore, that whereas in 1961, the last year before the change, there were 185 murders, since that time the number reported to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has gone up by an average of 30.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Cashin:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


An hon. Member:: Wait your turn.


Edmund Davie Fulton: These statistics, like so many other statistics in this matter, are perhaps not a valid guide so I want to take them further in order to complete this reference because of what it shows. I find that in 1960, the year prior to the one with which I started, 190 murders were reported; in 1959, 141; in 1958, 153. And so it goes back, Mr. Speaker, with a steady dinimution in the number of murders or a steady increase, if you like, up until 1961. However, it is still indisputable that although there has been a steady increase in the number of murders, nevertheless there was a jump of 30 and a substantially sustained increase between 1961 and the subsequent years. I do not know whether or not this is related to the change which was made in the law but it is the kind of statistic which
Criminal Code
causes grave, real and justifiable concern to those who, like me, require convincing proof before we will be ready to say that capital punishment should be abolished.
One other factor which is most important to me, Mr. Speaker, in the consideration of this matter is this. It is true that the law now provides that there is no death penalty except in the case of a murder which is planned and deliberate. Therefore we have the case that where a person kills deliberately, for instance, for individual gain, then he is subject to capital punishment. But if there is an question of doubt a recommendation may be made.
I am not so much concerned with the case of one individual, one isolated transaction. I am concerned about the fact that syndicated crime does exist in Canada, and let us not blink our eyes at that fact. Syndicated crime does exist and it concerns all of us, not just the government. I am not here to apportion blame. But it is there and is a matter about which we are all concerned and which we are determined to fight. I am wondering whether we can fight it effectively without capital punishment.
We are dealing here with the case of people who are sitting in comfortable offices and ordering the elimination of others. They say: "Rub him out, he is getting in the way". These people are enemies of society. They are deliberate and dangerous enemies of society. Society needs and is entitled to the maximum protection against them which we can afford.
I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, that life imprisonment is sufficient protection in the sense in which I am using the words "protection of society". These people, if they are detected, prosecuted and convicted, must not be left around. Therefore there are but two alternatives: one is execution, the other life imprisonment, but life imprisonment real and literal.
I do not know whether those who favour this motion would reproach me by telling me that the most inhuman punishment of all is to lock a man up literally for the rest of his life. But society needs the protection of the permanent removal from its midst of this kind of enemy once caught, prosecuted and convicted. I think that even in the case of a vicious criminal who might have been put away for life imprisonment pressures would mount for his release before he had served that penalty to its fullest and to its literal extent.
So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that it seems to me that these uncertainties, some

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
of which I have mentioned, are not removed by this motion and therefore it cannot be supported at the present time. As I say, society needs protection, and it seems to me this is removed at least in part, or would be, if the motion carries. Police officers and prison guards need protection. Yet I do not think it is logical to retain capital punishment for them only, that is to say, in cases where police officers or prison guards alone have been killed. It seems to me that it is the nature of the crime, not the person or the victim, to which we should look. I also stated, Mr. Speaker, that the motion does not deal with the important question of insanity, the case of the person who may have a psychotic personality as against one who is legally insane. Therefore I cannot vote for it.
There is another reason I should like to mention-I hope the house will permit me to do so because I think it is terribly important-why 1 do not think we should be asked to vote on this matter now. I do not think that any member should be asked to vote at this stage at all. I say this because in addition to the uncertainties I have mentioned I believe there are some 10 or 12 men who have been convicted of murder and sentenced but whose cases have not yet come before the cabinet. Therefore I do not think it is right to ask the House of Commons to vote under those circumstances.
Certainly I think we are entitled before the debate is concluded to an assurance from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)-I regret he is not here; however, I have mentioned this matter to one of his colleagues and I hope that the message will be passed to him as urgent-that whatever the outcome of this debate, whether we vote on the motion or not, whether we carry it or whatever the outcome, those cases now waiting to be dealt with by the cabinet will be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the law as it now stands so that no one can say we have influenced the disposition of those cases one way or the other by any vote taken in the House of Commons. I am sure the Prime Minister, if he will reflect on that for a moment, will see why we have the right to ask for that assurance.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a suggestion at this point. My suggestion is that instead of voting on this question at this time the matter should be referred to a special committee of the Senate and this house. I would move such a motion but I think it

would require unanimous consent; otherwise it would not be in order at this stage.
I do not want to involve the house at this time in a procedural discussion of this nature and in this context, but I think there are very real and important advantages which would follow from the reference of this subject matter for study by such a committee. It is ten years since we had a committee of parliament study the question. A very good committee was set up between 1954 and 1956. However, it dealt with capital punishment, corporal punishment and lotteries, though it did deal very helpfully with capital punishment in the light of opinion prevailing at that time and in the light of the evidence available. Thought does progress in these matters. Expert opinion becomes more easily available and more authoritative, and I think this parliament is entitled to the benefit of expert opinion and expert analysis of what these statistics tell us, if they tell us anything.
So, Mr. Speaker, for these and other reasons I could mention, but I do not want to abuse the courtesy and tolerance of the house, if it had been in order I would have moved this motion:
That Special Order No. 66 be not further dealt with at this time, but that the subject matter thereof, together with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the defence of insanity, be referred to a special committee to consist of such number of members of this house as shall be determined after consultation between the house leaders, and that the Honourable the Senate be invited to join in the deliberations of such committee and to name thereto such number of members as shall be determined after consultation between the two houses;-
Then I would have gone on to provide the usual powers to send for persons and papers, to ask for leave to sit while the house is sitting, and the other usual powers of such a committee.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I am not going to make that motion now, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have indicated, but I trust that those who have brought the present motion before us and others who are concerned with arranging the business of the house will give it their earnest consideration because I think it has great merit. I think that only as a result of some such procedure will this parliament be in a position where it can and should vote on the motion and the subject matter now before us. If my idea is not accepted, Mr. Speaker, then I repeat that with a clear conscience I shall vote against the motion, although with great reluctance
March 28, 1966

and with a great deal of uncertainty of the sort that I have outlined.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have followed, here in the house or in Hansard, our discussion on the death penalty. I have analysed the arguments and statistics brought before the house and tried to come to a conclusion on the basis of arguments of a statistical or strictly legal nature. I must confess that I did not succeed. We may be shown that, during a certain period, more murders were committed than in another, that capital punishment actually does prevent some people from killing, but I confess that the records I looked at did not convince me one way or the other. So, to form an opinion that could satisfy me, I have to rely on certain basic principles in which I believe and to which I must refer when considering such a serious matter.
Now Mr. Speaker, if we were dealing with perfect human societies, that is to say human societies with no structural flaws and led by men who always stood at the highest level of perfection, who could understand the body and the heart and the soul of men, perhaps I might be inclined to think favourably of retention.
On the other hand, when we consider the kind of society we form, not only here in Canada but all over the world, when we discover our imperfections, those of men themselves and those of their constitutions and institutions, I ask myself how we could, without misgivings, lay down rules for judging men to their innermost depths. I realize that, in order to function, a society must apply certain rules and set down certain limits, so that it may not be abused. Society may even provide penalties which, although they cannot be often strictly justified, may be warranted failing any better alternative.
When society is depriving an individual of his liberty for a period of time, it is not doing him irreparable harm. Even if there is a mistake, after all necessary precautions had been taken, this risk may be taken to protect society. But in the case of the death penalty, we are dealing with the most important and fundamental element in man, that is life.
If society must forgive deficiencies inherent to man, I do not see why its attitude would change radically when life itself is at stake. When looking at societies which engender war, societies which for years literally let 23033-207
Criminal Code
people die in filthy conditions by permitting men to exploit other men to death, not a brutal but a slow, asphyxiating death, while we sat looking on then as now; when we let hit-and-run drivers endanger people's lives on the highways and professional killers run loose; when we let drug peddling go on legally, finding out later on that drugs are a menace to health and life; when we consider all the flaws in the means we have to control men and their intentions, I wonder why, suddenly, we transform ourselves into some sort of tribunal with divine qualities which can only be attributes of the Creator, and I am concerned.
It is that imperfection in life which strikes me in the circumstances and it is ridiculous to try to ignore it artificially.
Civilization has always strived to lead man out of the paths of violence. Since the beginning of the world, mankind has tried to avoid using violence, the law of retaliation, the rules of revenge.
I think that, as mentioned by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), as long as we do not turn away from that state of violence which was the primitive state of man, we are moving away from justice. To sentence someone to death, Mr. Speaker, is to sentence someone to a punishment one knows nothing about.
I will be told: He killed, he deserves to be killed; but has society, which must strive toward perfection, a perfect organization to judge people? How can society accept to use the same methods used by bandits and sick people? No, we must not use the same methods. If we are reduced to using the same methods, I say that we are going back to barbarism, because whoever stole will have to be stolen from, whoever injured the physical integrity of a man will have to suffer the same thing, that is to say that it will become necessary to apply a punishment equal to the crime.
I think that society has progressed much farther. We are told about modern psychiatric methods. If I were sure that psychiatry is perfect, that it cannot make mistakes, that it can truly judge man in depth and determine exactly the responsibilties, I would feel quite comfortable and I would be in favour of the death penalty because we would have found in psychiatry some kind of substitute for divine attributes. But psychiatry is only just beginning. I read recently that, after forty years of imprisonment, a man judged to be insane had been found of sound mind and

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
had been granted a compensation of $105,000 or $125,000. There has been some progress. At that time, psychiatry was far from perfect.
I am convinced that psychiatry was very imperfect and that it found people guilty who, today, would not be found guilty. Faced with the weakness of our methods, I say that in all good faith we cannot judge another man.
[DOT] (5:10 p.ra.)
I had the opportunity once to study the file of a young criminal. Everything seemed to point to a murder committed in cold blood. That might have been the case.
But reviewing the life of this young man-he had been brought up in an orphanage-I wondered about a few things. He had been frustrated in his family life, had had a hard time earning a living and, at one point, he had fallen into ways of murder, theft and, in short, of moral depravity.
When society produces such a child, that is, when society deprives a child of a proper education and of a normal life, no wonder he no longer complies with the rules of the community, and when we pass judgment on him, it is on society itself that we pass judgment.
Which reminds me of what Charles Peguy said-I do not know how one would say it in English, but in French it is beautiful-he said:
The father against whom the son raises his hand is responsible (the father is responsible) for having sired a son who raises his hand against him.
Therein lies our problem, Mr. Speaker, where lies the responsibility? Could we but find a human institution capable of making an objective appreciation, I would agree to the death penalty. But if that guarantee cannot be given, then I cannot agree.
This entails great responsibility, very much as we encounter in other fields.
I am thinking of those workers who were exploited throughout a lifetime of meager salaries, who could not afford to send their children to school, who could not get an education nor afford one for their children, and then were told suddenly: You cannot have higher salaries, for you are ignorant, for your children did not go to school.
This means that we take the product of our society and hold it responsible for our own incompetence.
It is possible, it is even certain, that some criminals are responsible. I am not saying that some killers should not be hanged. I

merely say that we do not have the means to judge them, especially if the penalty concerns life itself. The only sanctions we can enforce are those which protect society by depriving of their freedom, for a greater or a shorter length of time, those who are guilty of crimes.
I know of no man who could say: I have just passed judgment and I am sure that judgment is a fair one. The risk of committing an injustice is intolerable when life itself is at stake.
Well, when one finds oneself in such a situation, Mr. Speaker, one's own conscience is deeply involved. I am not suggesting that those who favour the death penalty are wicked or have no conscience. I am saying that, as far as my own conscience is concerned, unless the law were to impose upon me a certain conduct in line with duties I had accepted to discharge, I do not see how I could pass judgment on an actual fact that is beyond my grasp. I will never do it according to my own judgment and conscience, once more for the simple reason that I could not be sure, and I do not know many men who could be.
At this stage, I should like to quote words which probably do not go to well with the rules and purposes of this house. But sometimes poetry comes closer to the truth than other means of expression. Here then is what a great French poet, Charles Baudelaire, said:
Oh, Creator! can monsters exist in the eyes of the one and only one who knows why they do exist, how they came to be, and what could have prevented them from being-
He is the only one to know and so, obviously, those who pretend to replace Him are running a very great risk, that of being unjust.
Now, is there some way of protecting society, because it certainly must be protected? I think there is. The hon. member for Kamloops referred a while ago to life sentences. As long as they are really life sentences, I entirely agree. But if we sentence murderers to prison and let them out after five or six years, especially when we do not know whether or not they are rehabilitated and particularly for the same reasons I have already indicated, because we do not really know what is in them, then I feel that society is responsible and should not place the population as a whole under such a risk. It must really be life imprisonment.
Some would like exceptions to be made. Reference was made to policemen and jail guards. All my sympathy goes to policemen
March 28, 1966

and jail guards. But let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that all those who work on this earth, all members of our society run a number of risks.
Workers who are engaged in digging tunnels where many lose their lives run risks. Employees who tend sick, particularly persons affected by contagious diseases, run risks. Here, in this chamber, we take risks; if the political situation should ever turn to violence we could be threatened in our lives and we have to accept that condition.
I do not know that jail guards and police-ment themselves run risks of such an exceptional nature that they should constitute a special category all by themselves. I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
Workers who work on steel structures on our construction sites run risks which are surely as serious as those run in prisons or in the performance of the duties of a policeman. Besides, British bobbies have even been unarmed; they no longer carry revolvers. I do not think their lives are more imperiled than that of several other categories of citizens.
Obviously, there are risks which, in my opinion, are not of an exceptional character.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if techniques were found to keep in cages lions, rattlesnakes and other kinds of dangerous animals, then surely techniques can be found to keep murderers in jail without society as a whole, guards and policemen being subjected to very serious risks.
Let us say, then, at any rate, Mr. Speaker, that for me the death penalty is first of all a moral question. And I think that hon. members had the right, and it might have been the proper thing to do, to consult their constituents. I am not at all convinced that what I am saying this afternoon reflects the views of all my constituents. I am rather inclined to think that it is the opposite. But, in spite of all that, I think we are here also to try to give leadership. We are here also a little to try to open horizons to people and not only to call on their instinct of self-preservation or their vengefulness which they often express in these words: He killed, he will be killed. That may be simple and effective but it does not bring out the best in them. The same instinct would wake up in me if I learned that a member of my family had been stupidly murdered in the street, but I would have to overcome it not to betray the ideas I have just voiced.
Criminal Code
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are faced here with not one but two risks. We have to choose between two risks this afternoon. It is possible that if we abolish the death penalty, the number of murders will increase. But it is possible that if we retain it, we will continue to commit serious injustices and go on living with a troubled conscience.
If we were willing to make an experiment together for five years to see what it would give, we would assume the noblest of the two risks. We would lean, in our uncertainty, take the side of charity and generosity. I would rather make a mistake on that side than on the other. Should we make a mistake, it could not be so serious. The death penalty was abolished in some countries and nothing catostrophic happened. The risk in abolishing it is not so great that we should refuse to run it; we could change our stand should events prove that we erred.
We cannot say that if we abolish it, we run a greater risk than if we retain it. There are risks in both cases. Mr. Speaker, there are risks. Reducing the deterrent power may be a risk. But there is also the other risk of murdering innocent people in cold blood because our knowledge of man is not deep enough and our institutions are too imperfect.
I will not give a list of judicial errors. But I think that we are protected well enough to afford to make that great human experiment.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I am wholly in agreement with the minister who has just spoken.
[English1
I only hope that in the future I shall have many opportunities of agreeing with him.
There have been many suggestions, Mr. Speaker, that we should not use emotion or sentiment in this debate but I have been glad to note, listening to hon. members, that they have used their emotions and their sentiments. What we are concerned with is a matter of moral behaviour by society as a whole, and it would be impossible for any one who has any deep feeling on the matter to speak without deep emotion. What we really mean is that we should not be so blinded by our emotions and sentiments as to ignore facts which are ascertainable and reason which can be applied.

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
I start with the proposition that there are several matters about which all of us are agreed, and I think it is wrong for speakers on either side to suggest that the other side is unaware of any of these matters. First of all, I believe we are all agreed, abolitionists and retentionists alike, that the greatest thing in our society is the protection of human life and the sanctity of every human being. We are all agreed that that is the case and we are all earnestly concerned about taking the life of the accused, as I will call him, or seeing the accused take the life of his victim.
Let us make that assumption and let not those who are for retention say, as some of them have said, that we who are for abolition of the death penalty are soft on murderers, that we are concerned with protecting them and not their victims. That is really unfair to those of us who are presenting the abolitionist side. We are fully concerned with the welfare of the victims and of those who are related to the victims of murder.
Second, I take it that we are all concerned to protect society. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is concerned about it. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) is concerned about it just as deeply, just as much, just as earnestly and just as anxiously as the hon. member for Kamloops. We are all concerned about making the police protection of our society as efficient as possible. I repeat that we are all equally concerned about that, those of us who believe the abolition of the death penalty will assist rather than hinder as well as those of us who believe the opposite.
Finally we are concerned-some of us who support abolition and I imagine many of those who are retentionists-to see that at some appropriate point parliament and the legislatures will pass legislation to protect the victims of murder and of murderers. Let us assume all of those things and let us discuss the issues before us on the basis of some of the moral precepts by which we live, and on victims of murder and of murderers. Let us also, as we discuss these things, be as objective about the facts as we can.
The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) said in her very moving and carefully enunciated speech that she believes the most heinous crime is that of rape followed by murder, and she says for this most heinous crime the most heinous punishment should be administered. I do not really follow that. If what the hon. lady means is that regardless of whether or not the protection of society follows from it

and regardless of whether or not anybody else is deterred from committing that kind of detestable crime-and I agree with her it is perhaps the most detestable of all-if she means that and that regardless of the effect of the execution of the person responsible for such a murder she would nonetheless want to see him killed for some reason of retribution or something like that, then I respectfully disagree with her.
I do not think our system of justice in 1966 has any right to have within it any element of vengeance, any element of retribution, any element of punishment for its own sake.
I believe that in our society, in all our actions in Canada and in those of every other modern society, these elements connected with punishment have disappeared. The only acceptable reason for punishment is protection of society by deterring other similar crimes, which the punishment may do, or removal of the criminal so that he will not again be able to commit such a crime. Those and those alone are the reasons which morally justify punishment of any sort. Therefore people who suggest they are not concerned with vengeance or retribution and at the same time indicate the kind of crime for which under any circumstances they would provide capital punishment seem to me to be indulging in a contradiction that is very serious from the point of view of a sensible consideration of this subject.
I suggest to the house that there is a basic illogicality in the division made in our present law. I was very much impressed some time ago to read in the British Hansard for December 21, 1964, beginning at column 905, a speech made by a Conservative member, Mr. Henry Brooke, member of parliament for Hampstead, who had been Home Secretary in that country. He informed the British parliament that he had started out by being a retentionist but his experience as Home Secretary had persuaded him that capital punishment should be abolished entirely.
I commend to all hon. members, and particularly to the hon. member for Kamloops who was minister of justice when the division of murder was made in our Criminal Code, several of Mr. Brooke's statements. At column 907 Mr. Brooke is reported as saying:
I was aware of It-
The anomaly.
-from my experience in considering death-sentence cases that came to me. 1 gave all of them a very long thought, yet every now and again it used to come over me that while I was having to determine whether persons sentenced to death
March 28, 1966

for capital murder should be hanged or not, other murderers, whose crimes were indeed worse than the one which I had under consideration at that moment were not liable to the death penalty.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you are dealing with the question either of the protection of society or of retribution or with any other angle-and do not anybody misunderstand me or think I am advocating it-that the person who is mentally ill, the psychotic guilty of desiring to commit murder not for any gain, for any purpose but as a part of his psychotic personality, is a greater danger to society than even the murderous criminal who murders for gain.
And it is an obvious illogicality to provide that the person who kills for kicks, to put it in simple terms, can escape the gallows because he is mentally ill whereas the person who kills presumably only if it pays him to do so will receive the gallows. I am not suggesting that the mentally ill be taken to the gallows. What I am suggesting, what I am earnestly asking hon. members to contemplate, is that when we decided that the mentally ill person should not suffer execution we made an important step forward in our consideration of the administration of justice and of punishment.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I submit we should now take another step forward in recognizing that if we are not doing any good to society, and I submit we are not, by taking the life of the other kind of murderer we ought to take the next step and abolish execution altogether. This would be a forward and progressive step based on a sensible and intelligent scientific analysis of punishment and the way in which we treat those who contravene our laws.
The hon. member for Kamloops and many other people have said that statistics prove neither one nor the other; they do not prove either deterrence or the lack of deterrence. May I stop there for a moment and say that the hon. member for Kamloops did a little violence to the statistics he cited this afternoon. He cited from page 104 of the White Paper on Capital Punishment and he indicated there was an increase in the number of murders reported by the police from 1961 onwards. What he should have told the house, and I am sure he would have had he noticed it, is that the footnote to the table indicates that from 1954 to 1960 adjustments were made in the previous years' figures as the result of revised R.C.M.P. and O.P.P. figures on murder offences known to the police.
Criminal Code
From 1954 to 1960 inclusive the Quebec Provincial Police did not report but from 1961 to 1963 inclusive they did report to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Obviously that accounts for some of the increase over the previous years.
Another point the hon. member for Kamloops failed to draw to the attention of this house, which is obviously relevant, is that while there was an increase in the absolute number of murders reported there was hardly any appreciable increase in the rate per 100,000 population. One does not have to be a statistical genius to know that if you have a smaller population you will have a smaller number of murders and that if you have a larger population the likelihood is that you will have a larger number of crimes of all sorts.
When you look at page 104, table E, you find that in 1954 the ratio was 1.0; in 1955 it was .9; in 1956 it was 1.0; in 1957 it was .9; in 1958 it was 1.1; in 1959 it was 1.0; in 1960 it was 1.3; in 1961 it was 1.2; and in 1962 and 1963 it was 1.4. Those figures all are related to 100,000 of population. If anything can be clear it is clear on the whole-this is something that has been proved by statistics for many other jurisdictions-that there appears to be a level of this kind of crime over a large number of years.
Finally, in order for the statistics which the hon. member quoted to have any meaning at all to our present discussion, I respectfully suggest to him that the murders ought to be divided between capital and non-capital ones. They are not so divided. His point would be well taken only if these statistics showed that non-capital murders increased in number while capital murders decreased. The likelihood is that nothing of this sort occurred but that both increased in the same way.
Mr. Brooke of the British parliament, to whom I referred earlier, said that one of the things which convinced him in regard to abolition, one of the points which convinced him that continuing the death sentence was worthless to society, was the fact that he found that the statistics covering the five years before the change made in Britain in 1957 and the five years after the change indicated that the proportion of murders which were capital and the proportion which were not were about the same for both periods. The proportion that were capital murders before 1957 was 14.4 and the proportion that were capital after 1957 was 13.5. You can make your own calculations as to

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
the balance which were non-capital. So again there was no evidence before him, and I am certain that the figures in Canada, if the information were available, would show precisely the same result that would indicate that the removal of the death penalty for non-capital murder affected the number of non-capital nurders which were committed during the years since 1961. So why do we continue the death penalty?
There have been a great many Scriptural references made in this house and I am not going to add to them. I will merely content myself by telling hon. members who have quoted the Scriptures that all the leaders of the religion which is based on the Old Testament are in favour of abolishing the death penalty or at least those with whom I have consulted. I also ask those who have quoted the Scriptures to realize that there are men of all denominations who hold views for abolition as well as for retention. I am sure that they would be the first to want to admit that the Christians, Jews and Buddhists, whatever their religion may be, who are in favour of abolition accept and follow their religion just as strongly as the people who are in favour of retention.
I want to draw something to the attention of the house that has not been drawn to its attention before. I refer to a most significant thing which occurred during the period of this debate. There was one member of this house, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), who spoke magnificently; he was a prison chaplain and he spoke on the basis of his experience, he Devoir of last Thursday and Friday printed an article on the subject in two parts written by Father Jean Paul Regimbald who is "un ancien aumonier des prisons". If my French is good, he also is an ex-prison chaplain. He is a Catholic and the hon. member for Prince is a Protestant. They both are experienced as prison chaplains and they both argued for abolition of capital punishment on the basis of their experience. Both of them appealed to this house, and I echo their appeal, that society has no right collectively, by design and by deliberation, after a carefully contrived procedure, after months of delay and frequently after years of delay in the lower courts and appeal courts, and after consideration by a cabinet, to take a human life unless there is overwhelming proof that the taking of that human life will serve some kind of social purpose.

It is an error in my respectful submission to place on those of us who want to abolish capital punishment the onus of proving our case, as in fact has been done, although I may add that I am prepared to accept that onus as I am sure are my colleagues who support abolition. Surely it is wrong to place that onus upon us. If I may refer again to my Conservative friend, whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting, Mr. Brooke of the British parliament, I should like to ask hon. members whether his statement was not absolutely correct when he said, as recorded in column 907 of the British Hansard as I have mentioned:
I hope that I shall carry the House with me in saying that the taking ol life is so grave a matter that the onus of proof must be on those who very sincerely believe that the death penalty should be retained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I say to the hon. member for Kamloops and to others who have spoken as he has spoken that if, as he has said, he has some doubt, we all have a duty to resolve that doubt in favour of abolition of the death penalty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Like all hon. members, I have tried to read a great deal of the history of my country and of others, particularly the history of thought and philosophy and more particularly the history of thought in ethics. I have yet to come across any proposition involving morality and the question of ethics, involving weighing the possible consequences of one act or another, about which anyone with any mind at all can be absolutely dogmatic and certain that he is right. No moral proposition worth making is capable of that kind of certainty, that kind of absoluteness. I am sure that many of us who are on the side of abolition are aware of the fact that there may be somewhere, as the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said, a little doubt as to what the exact consequences may be, just as the sincere retentionist has doubt on his side. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if any of us has any doubt at all, then because we are concerned with the collective taking of life, which is prima facie questionable unless justified, the doubt should be resolved in favour of not taking human life.
A great deal has been said about jail guards.
March 28, 1966


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: I express my gratitude to the house for its kindness. A great deal has been said about jail guards. The people in our jails are undoubtedly very concerned about the consequences to them and I have great sympathy with them. I do not know how you settle these things. Perhaps the factual evidence does not prove anything conclusively, but I noticed when I read the White Paper that on page 108 Table H gives the details of four killings in prison. After studying the table I was struck by the fact that in the cases where the killer was found not one killing was committed by a lifer.
The first one deals with someone who was killed in Kingston penitentiary in 1948 by an inmate who was serving ten years imprisonment for armed robbery. He was not a lifer. With regard to the second one, the murderer was not discovered. The third case deals with a guard who was shot and killed at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in the province of Quebec. He had been forced into a cell by two inmates who were threatening and stabbing him. When the guards fired into the cell, Tellier, the guard who was forced into it, was apparently hit accidentally. Who were the inmates who were detaining Tellier? Neither of them was a lifer. One of the men concerned had been sentenced to ten years imprisonment for armed robbery and the other was serving four years for robbery. Edwin James Masterton the fourth case, was stabbed to death at Dorchester penitentiary, New Brunswick, on Sepembter 23, 1964, by an inmate 18 years of age who was serving concurrent sentences of 10 and 12 years respectively for robbery with violence.
I am not for one moment suggesting that there is any conclusive proof in this; I am merely saying that certainly it is not proof that if you gave the murderer life imprisonment instead of executing him he would necessarily be the one to kill the guard. It could just as easily be someone serving four years imprisonment for robbery rather than any more serious crime, although robbery is a serious enough crime.
Criminal Code
The same argument applies to the police. I have had the pleasure of working with police associations in my professional, legal capacity. I have met these people and no one here can possibly have greater regard than I have for the men, and women now, who are given the job of protecting us against crime.
However, Mr. Speaker, I say with respect to them that their opposition to the abolition of capital punishment, as I have read their briefs, consists of a series of assertions and quite understandable fear but without any basis in fact for that fear at all. I believe that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is absolutely right and it can be statistically proved that there are many other occupations in our society with regard to which the death rate is greater per number of workers than it is among the police. I refer particularly to those employed in the construction industry, to those who ply the occupation of rigger, for example.
May I summarize my thoughts on this question. I shall do so briefly and will not take too much advantage of the kindness of members of the house. I believe that we ought to abolish capital punishment because we ought not to retain the practice of the collective destruction of a human being unless it can be shown that there is overwhelming proof that such destruction will serve a useful social purpose. The fact is that there is no such proof, that whatever proof there is is to the contrary, that capital punishment is not a uniquely effective deterrent but on the contrary imprisonment can be just as effective a deterrent.
Second, I urge members of the house not to overlook the possibility of judicial error, the possibility of innocent people being executed. It is impossible to rectify that situation once the person is dead. Third, I ask hon. members to consider the possibility of rehabilitating some of even the most difficult murderers. The history of this matter shows that in many cases, in cases where often you would least expect it, people who are given an opportunity come to themselves and later become useful citizens of society. I submit that we do not have any right to take from even the murderer the possibility of becoming a useful and honourable citizen. By taking his life we make it completely impossible to give him any assistance at all.
I believe there is value in setting an example to our citizens and indeed to the world, because I have always believed that our country holds a unique place among the

March 28, 1866
Criminal Code
nations of the world and that what we do in the direction of progress is bound to have some effect and influence elsewhere among nations. I ask hon. members, even if they have some little doubt, to support this resolution and see to it that we give the best possible example in this connection.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must say a few words about the suggestion that this question be sent to a committee. In my opinion there is no need for this to be done. Personally I have no difficulty in arriving at a decision and I imagine this applies to most hon. members. However, if hon. members really believe that they need more information, then the suggestion that this question be sent to a committee for study is one that should be followed. I hope they will not think this necessary and will pass the resolution as it is. [Translation]


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


David Lewis: Yes.


Henry P. Latulippe: I should like to put a question to the hon. member which is also directed to other hon. members, like the hon. gentleman from Quebec West for instance.
Does the hon. member recognize that all authority comes from God? Should we not imitate God, punish evil and do justice?
Is it not the right and the duty of society to punish evil and protect itself, even though this requires that criminals must pay with their lives their debts to society, which is duty bound to see that Divine justice is respected?


Maurice Sauvé: There is only one God.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I say very simply to the hon. member as seriously as he asked the question that in all the teaching I received about God and about the duties of all men to God the central point was that mercy and charity in the human breast and human mind are the most obvious and most essential characteristics of a religious and godly life. This is as true for society collectively as it is for every individual in society. Second, all the teaching I received on the subject has taught me that it is not right for me to state certain ideas and seek refuge in the assertion that they come from God but that it is much more important for me, as it 
is for all members in this house, to use the intelligence and the conscience which God gave us to arrive at the conclusion at which we are intended to arrive as human beings exercising our own wills.


Mr.   L.-P. Neveu@Shefford: Mr. Speaker, in this important debate, I am happy to have the privilege of expressing my views before such a distinguished audience.
I do not pretend to be the strongest light in the debate but I am happy to bring to it my humble contribution.
I know that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the house are making very well documented speeches which will help to better explore that very controversial question.
I heard from all corners of the house excellent speeches dealing objectively with that matter, trying to find a solution as well as to exchange ideas to get light which we hope will be strong and brilliant.
However, someone, on the side of the party to which I belong, particularly impressed me this afternoon, and that is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), whose speech was very intelligent, clear, to the point, truly magnificent.
I am pleased to add, in passing, that this man represents not only an asset for our party, but for politics in general which I consider to be the science of the common good.
We noticed that the minister advanced convincing arguments which will probably influence several of us who did not have any definite opinion. We saw that, as in the past, our colleague stands out again with his intelligence, his effectiveness, his honesty and his greatness.
On the combined harmony of those three factors depends the emotional and mental equilibrium of individuals.
Like many others, I believed that it was necessary to punish, that it was necessary to apply the death penalty. I was emotionally sensitive to crimes of all kinds which were committed. I also wanted that the method of punishment be adopted. But after thinking it over a little, after studying the human being instead of the human soul, I could not help but reconsider my decision because, as someone said earlier, to ask for punishment, members of society at large and those in charge of the administration of justice should feel above reproach. It is extremely difficult to
March 28, 1966

judge, especially when there is no appeal, because it is impossible to say: "Whoever has never sinned shall cast the first stone."
My social science studies have enabled me to understand, to a certain extent, mass behaviour. Later on, I turned to psychology in my personal studies, with a view to acquiring a deeper understanding-up to a point, of course, since everything is relative-of human feelings and the importance of emotions in individual behaviour.
All human beings act, consciously or unconsciously, in order to love or to be loved. Individual behaviour differs, but in its outward form only.
All human beings are influenced directly by three important factors:
1.	Family.
2.	Sexuality.
3.	Religion.
Mr. Speaker, we are reaching the climax of the debate. If you will allow me, I shall go back to the positive arguments, which are the most conclusive, in favour of abolition of the death penalty.
Abolition or suspension of capital punishment does not immediately lead to a much greater number of crimes. Statistics may be quoted in favour of both alternatives, but they should be based on the human plane, where two criteria motivate human beings-not generally, but always-namely, the wish to acquire and the fear of losing, as I wish to progress with my learned colleagues of the house, I too say, to put it mildly, that the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent has yet to be proved.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Even certain countries such as Spain, Greece, Turkey, particularly the United Kingdom and, with certain reservations, Japan, which retain the death penalty, have doubts as to its value as a deterrent.
All available information seem to confirm that the removal of an offence from the list of offences punishable by death never gave rise to any substantial outbreak of that offence.
Certain crimes, including petty larceny, larceny, counterfeit and rape were even reduced after the abolition of capital punishment for such crimes in the 19th century.
The experience was the same with murders which are no longer considered as capital 23033-208
Criminal Code
murders, and the same general observation usually applies total abolition of capital punishment.
In Canada, from 1951 to 1958, there was an average of six executions; but there were 12 in 1952, and 11 in 1953. However, throughout this period, the criminality rate remained about the same. In western and southern Australia, there had been an average of two executions per year since 1935 but in the last five years there was none and criminality seems to remain substantially at the same level.
I say that perhaps the best deterrent to crime is primary education given in concrete form the example set by adults. I do not believe any criminal became one as an adult. He was predestinated in his younger years. He suffered traumatisms which had serious consequences. I do not think there are basically bad people. I would rather think there are unfortunate people. That is what we must see through, Mr. Speaker, there is a real risk of executing an innocent or of improperly carrying out an execution.
It does not always take the same time to die.
The state should set the example by recognizing that human life is sacred and that it is wrong to kill.
For the state, an execution is a "voluntary mutilation". By doing away with a citizen, the state does not remove the crime: it only commits another.
The health penalty can only be justified as a collective revenge, an atonement or a supreme punishment.
It is considered nowadays that penalties have no other purpose than to serve as a deterrent or as a punishment. Now, this end may be achieved otherwise than by taking a life.
The law of retaliation is obsolete. An execution is a kind of judicial or legal murder. And the existence of the death penalty degrades justice.
The inclusion of the death penalty among the punishments provided for distorts the meaning of trials for murder which turn into a sinister tragi-comedy. Such" punishment makes criminal justice dubious.
The death penalty is based on a metaphysical concept of human freedom, whereas according to social science, an offender usually does not enjoy complete freedom. Absolute justice is then an illusion and integral atonement, a fiction. Human justice cannot assess individual responsibility positively. In fact,

March 28, 1986
Criminal Code
the condemned pays for others or suffers as a warning to others; therefore, his execution is not morally justified.
The death penalty is not the deterrent it is credited to be and statistics prove that its abolition will not result in an increase in crime. Therefore, capital punishment loses its basic traditional justification.
Capital punishment is a form of cruelty and inhumanity unworthy of a civilization purporting to be humanitarian. Physicians state that even the most efficient methods cannot bring about instant and painless death.
The major drawback to capital punishment is that it is past recall. Notwithstanding all official statements, a miscarriage of justice always remains possible. There have been some and this is why capital punishment is society's unforgiveable crime.
Society can protect itself by means other than capital punishment which is just an easy way out. It saves looking for efficient methods of fighting crime and for a rational prevention plan.
Capital punishment is unjust because it strikes not only the criminal but his relatives, and his whole family is branded with shame.
To claim that capital punishment is the only way to full repentance is a paradox. One thing sure, with it, rehabilitation of the human being involved becomes impossible.
Due to its absolute nature, capital punishment cannot be measured to the degree of guilt and the grievousness of the crime and all the differences that were sought between capital murder and other kinds of homicide have been shown to be arbitrary.
It is a contradiction to claim that capital punishment is a deterrent while it is being meted out in secret.
Curiosity aroused by an execution is morbid, it is a well-known fact, and more and more it is being realized that capital punishment in itself may lead to crime, especially in the case of mental defectives who, in spite of all legal and judicial precautions, are often executed.
From a racial and social point of view, the death penalty is not applied on an equal footing. Some people cannot afford legal counsel, others are morally incapable of securing such counsel. This punishment which should be the expression of justice for all often ends up, in practice, an injustice for the individual.

Mr. Speaker, if we sincerely want a better society that we can be proud of and when we cast our vote, on this most important question, we should do so according to our own conscience.
If prisoner rehabilitation is to truly be achieved I think prisoners should be classified so as to make a distinction between categories of criminals.
Another equally important step would be to improve our security systems so as to protect the people in general and the guards in particular.
Christians should be guided by the scriptural message in their daily and earthly tasks. I say this because, at the beginning of each sitting of the house we, as members of parliament, representatives of the people and legislators, always ask to be guided by our faith in God and his divine providence. And we ask him now to enlighten us in this regard.
The Holy Scriptures are clear in this matter. Moses' law prescribed that "Thou shall not kill", and Christ, without changing this law, came to abolish the law of retaliation known as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
The originality of Christianity was in advocating absolute love. A Christian must not only love, but forgive his enemies. Like Peter, therefore, justice must be told "Put up thy sword into the sheath."
I can hear you say: Will society then allow everything? Not at all, to forgive has never meant to abandon everything. It means to forget the wrong, not the offender who should be taken care of, helped and put back on the right path.
But there is the terrible danger of recurrence. I know, Mr. Speaker, that statistics plainly show that no one who was hanged ever relapsed into crime. Others, unfortunately... have done so. This means that a pardon cannot be granted without useful and necessary precautions. What we need is adequate maximum security penitentiaries. It is not the Dion trial that should be reopened, but that of the jails and the guards, of those who set him free or let him escape.
Besides it is becoming increasingly evident that our judiciary feels guilty in inflicting capital punishment.
Why not replace insecurity and guilt by feelings born of pride and greatness?
It has become very important to establish definitely in the sight of everybody a truly better society, a humane society that knows
March 28. 1966

how to forgive. We must humanize our justice. Capital punishment is a product of hate. If we stop to think, we see that love and hate are bound together like two sides of a coin.
Love is positive, hate engenders a negative attitude.
It may be noticed that man and beast are most alike in hate. It must therefore be concluded that reason is mostly absent from hate.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Then, I hear voices saying: We will pay to give food and lodging to useless and evil-minded beings who killed, and still kill and who pollute society? Mr. Speaker, you can say that this is one of the prices we have to pay to live in society. Otherwise, if we eliminate all the useless members of society, all the hideous, all the dunces, we decide in favour of selective euthanasia.
And who will decide between those to be eliminated and the others? Why, then, would we keep the mentally deficient? And who will be considered as mentally ill? No, decidedly, the point concerning the price to pay does not have much value. When will Christians accept the mystery of suffering which is distributed in society and contribute to its redemption?
You may tell me that God acts through secondary causes. It is strange to note that Catholics and pagans, in France, in Spain and in Latin America, have in common this anachronism which is the death penalty.
It seems that we are still in the Constantine era. We have to act as absolute masters; we need a temporal strength to defend God and his love, to propose God and his forgiveness. And if this had proved useful? At any rate, all the murders which took place in Canada occurred despite the death penalty.
It is thus that we condone violence. I am aware of the point often made by the reten-tionists. They say: Murderers, be the first to stop. It is as if one asked children to be teachers in their classes and sick people to be doctors. The murder is made with passion, often the meanest, that of filthy lucre or sexual madness; but death administered by the hangman is carried out with calm, control and lucidity. Who then should be the first to stop?
Mr. Speaker, everything on this earth is made by inference of a gesture to another. To abolish the death penalty is to act for life in many other fields where the murderers are numerous. There are murders of abortion,
Criminal Code
murders when inebriated drivers persist in driving, murders during the war, and for which decorations are awarded, murders committed by rich people who refuse to give food to starving people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Neveu:: I am grateful to the hon. gentleman and to my colleagues in the house for their generosity.
In the Middle Ages, noblemen believed in torture, the Church resorted to implacable inquisitions, teachers used whips to educate young people . . . Thanks to God, this is no more. Man gains in refinement and in spiritual values, and every day the meaning of love is gaining. Hon. friends, we have to help the human race along in this direction.
Let us suppose that, aware of the true facts, we are before the accused. A major crime has been committed and a guilty verdict is to be rendered. The first question that should be asked is this: Is this person guilty? And why? This is when the problem can become terribly agonizing for those who have to face the problem in all its significance.
We blush with shame over the behaviour of human beings on economic matters, prime source of deliquency.
Crowds of people under social services at 16 cents a meal; others with meager salaries half-living, in want of everything, buried under debts from birth to their dying day, living a life of toil, with too many hours under bad working conditions and as a result, father, mother, youngsters, all living socially unbalanced lives.
Mr. Speaker, we must give our suffering humiliated and thirsting humanity a normal life.
A humane justice, civilized and loved.
A justice that will burn the whips instead of human flesh.
A justice that will transform our prisons into hospitals according to classified cases.
A justice that will give to the organization of justice what it needs for its new and magnificent rehabilitation, work, not only consideration but also the support of all of
3290
March 28. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion those who have not erred as well as of those who have erred.
Finally a justice that will no longer kill.
In closing, the horrible murders quoted by my retentionist colleagues were committed while capital punishment was in force.
When capital punishment is inflicted, the guilty one is not the most punished it is the following generations, and this is important.
I should like to give you an example and appeal not only to your heart but also to your intelligence, because your decision will be very significant in the future. When I was at school in my riding, I remember with emotion two young men whose father was hanged. Those two fellow-students attending the same college were bright and had a fine future before them. They lived in the beautiful riding of Shefford I represent, and after dropping out of school because of this horrible situation, they left for an unknown destination. I feel that even though they might still be living today, a truly deep feeling was extinguished in them, that is, the hope for a better world, for a better society.
That is why, and for all the other reasons given as well, I am in favour of the abolition of the death penalty.
In conclusion, I remember the most famous condemned to death, Christ made man. Even though he was mistried, he accepted to ascend Calvary and to be crucified in spite of his power to appeal to his father to reduce to silence those who had insulted him. He was deeply hurt. Naturally, he could have put his enemies to confusion, but in his agony, when he addressed himself to his father, he did not say: Lord, kill them, but rather: Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.
That is why I shall vote for the abolition of the death penalty.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Herridge): Finance-Reported discrimination against women requesting bank loans; the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston): Increase in 
pulmonary tuberculosis; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand): Penitentiaries-St. Vincent-de-Paul-Suicide of a prisoner.
[English1



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Messrs. Byrne, Nugent, Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purposes of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
(b)	substituting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in those cases where the death penalty is now mandatory; and
(c)	providing that no person upon whom a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is imposed shall be released from imprisonment without the prior approval of the governor in council.
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this intellectual and stimulating debate, surely one of the most interesting this house has had in recent years, I first of all want to take issue with what I regard to be a serious mistake in the very foundation of the arguments of those in the abolitionist camp. The argument goes something like this: The philosophy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is set forth in the Hammurabic and Mosaic codes. Therefore, building on this foundation, society is pictured as becoming an avenger and as seeking vengeance. I think this a mistaken view. I think that the philosophy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in the Hammurabic and Mosaic codes was not an incentive to vengeance; it was not a request that society go out of its way to become brutal.
It has been suggested that society ought to be modern. In the codes I have referred to it is held that an eye ought to be taken for an eye and that two eyes ought not to be taken in return, that one tooth should be taken for a tooth and not that a whole mouthful of teeth should be knocked out in reprisal. I think that the Hammurabic and Mosaic codes, which stand at the dawn of our civilization, were a deliberate and intelligent attempt to bring some order to society. Hammurabi and Moses were telling the gangs and clans of those days that if a member of one of their clans was killed other members of other clans ought not to go forth and exact two lives
March 28, 1966

where one life had been taken. In short, sir, Hammurabi and Moses as ancient law givers had the very sensible objective of the protection of society in mind. That is the same objective we must have in mind today.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
In this debate I do not intend to make a complete speech. After three days we are hearing arguments over and over again. Many speakers have gone beyond the 20 minute mark. 1 think the practice adopted some time ago at UNESCO might be a good one, limiting speeches to ten minutes for a while to see how that works out and then cutting them down to five. I have heard many fine debates where speakers were limited to one minute apiece and could give expression only to novel ideas.
Applying these remarks as an injunction to myself I will make a few random points before reaching my conclusion. We have heard much about deterrence as a basis for arguments favouring hanging or abolition. My view is that it is a purely utilitarian concept and that we should divest ourselves of this concept when deciding whether or not capital punishment should be retained.
We have been inundated with statistics. I am impressed by the large number of murders, 40 per cent, I believe, which are committed within family or domestic circles. I do not believe deterrence is a factor in such cases but I believe it is in other cases when one is dealing with criminals.
I make the point that to retain capital punishment is to afford protection for the criminal himself. I say this having talked with policemen about this question. I know something of the police attitude. Two points were made to me by a veteran inspector of the Halifax police department. They show how much the policeman feels he is protected by the presence of capital punishment as part of our legal system. Frequently when on duty this inspector has to go into dark buildings at night which have either been broken into by criminals or left unlocked. He does not know. He has to go in with other officers and make a search.
If by mischance a criminal were to kill one of the police the other policemen might take the attitude that if the criminal were not going to be hanged, they themselves might very quickly become judge, jury and executioner. The second point he makes is that in a similar situation, faced with the possibility that he might meet an armed criminal in a building or elsewhere, it might well be a
Criminal Code
matter of his life or the criminal's, depending on who shot first. So I say, knowing the attitude of the police on this question, that there is a strong case for retaining capital punishment in order to protect criminals themselves as well as the police.
I should like to make my second point very briefly because it was dealt with most ably in my view by my hon. friend the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). It concerns syndicated crime. There is fear of the growth of syndicated crime in this country. When I hear hon. members talking about the reform and rehabilitation which can be brought about in a criminal I ask, when does this reform and rehabilitation set in?
Does it set in after the second victim has been killed? It does not. Do any of the gang go to the police to advise them that a third victim has been chosen? No. Do reform and rehabilitation set in after the fourth victim is killed, or is any potential victim warned or are the police consulted so as to prevent all the misery which the sudden removal of a human being brings with it? No. When does rehabilitation set in? I suggest it sets in when the long arm of the law has reached down and put these people behind bars. I reject the notion of reform and rehabilitation in these very tough cases.
We talk about deterrence, but the penitentiaries are filled with thieves who go to prison over and over again. Obviously imprisonment does not deter these people. But it does have the effect of protecting society from their mischievous presence.
My attitude on the issue of hanging is what it was during the discussions culminating in the debate of 1961. We must have some form of awesome punishment which shows some appreciation for the value of human life, an appreciation which I suggest has become softened and diluted in our time.
What should we do about this problem? One suggestion is that we should hold a referendum to determine the views of the Canadian people. I know that each one of us did not go before the electorate on November 8 spelling out our views for or against the retention of capital punishment. Yet this is a subject on which the Canadian people could easily express their views. Most people have views on this subject.
I share the abhorrence expressed by my hon. friend from Kamloops for life imprisonment which, it seems to me, is worse than death. However, if there were to be an alternative to capital punishment I would

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
suggest a term certain of 25 years or 30 years, about double the sentence given to those who now take part in armed hold-ups.
Like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), I have seen a hanging. It took place in Winnipeg in 1948. It was a clean hanging, if one can use that expression about such a brutal event. The memory of it clings to me to this day. It seems to me that the hanging process is capable of being bungled. It is capable of causing torture. It is capable of miscarriage. The graphic description which the hon. member for Vancouver East gave us of the hangman having to jump in to clutch the legs of the person being hanged is one which will stay with a good many of us.
I think we should have some alternative to hanging. In 1961 after considerable debate a formula was achieved which was, I think, a fair one. Murder was divided into capital and non-capital categories. As a matter of fact, the debate could be said to have extended over the previous decade during which a committee of both houses sat to consider this whole matter.
I believe that the formula reached in 1961 should have been given a fair chance to work, say for a period of five years. I still think it should be given a fair chance to work and that is why I intend to vote against the resolution.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, we will probably be called to vote on capital punishment tonight. This question has produced differences of opinion among the hon. members of this house in the last few days and will continue to do so. It is not a subject to be treated lightly and a discussion of several days cannot produce a solution.
Thus it was an excellent idea to present a resolution before bringing in the bill itself.
I wish to congratulate the sponsors of this resolution who have helped us to go beyond the framework of ordinary politics and given everyone an opportunity to express his opinion according to his beliefs and principles.
Although the matter under consideration is looked at in many different ways, a uniform dignity in dealing with the subject marks its importance. The most varied opinions have been voiced, including sometimes legitimate feelings, and a real effort has been made to adduce sound arguments. Some members even quoted from the Bible in support of
[Mr. McCleave.l
retention of capital punishment, while others quoted different excerpts of the Good Book in support of abolition.
All Christian religions were mentioned, and we found that the great majority of the united and Protestant churches seem to favour the abolition of capital punishment. For what reasons? I shall not venture to discuss them.
Besides, this is not the place nor the time for such discussions. I respect their view, without accepting that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), as reported in the right-hand column of page 3148 of the official report for March 24 when he said
Roman Catholics in the main agree with abolition.
It would have been more correct for him to say: A minority of them agree with abolition.
In fact, the supreme authority of the Roman Catholic church, since we have only one Roman Catholic church, under one authority, did not yet make its position clear and definite on this issue.
Perhaps it is because they wait for the government to take a decision first in this field which belongs to it.
The sole letter of Father Kelly, in favour of abolition, is exactly the exception which confirms the general rule of the status quo for the time being. Besides, Father Kelly himself admits that it is generally the voice of laymen that was heard.
I also listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald). As a theologian, with an experience as chaplain of certain prisoners, he spoke about difficulties in backing our allegations and our negations in this connection by a single excerpt from the Bible.
Therefore, without repeating quotations from the Holy Scriptures, which were referred to by those who spoke before me, I will admit that I have studied theology myself and that I have yet to come upon a single text which would definitely determine my judgement for or against the abolition of capital punishment.
In fact, religion is not a question of punishment, but rather of love which calls for charity.
Does not the first commandment read as follows: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart? And the second, just as important: And thou shalt love thy neighbour like thyself.
March 28. 1966

Coming back to human law, we can infer that, following the divine commandment, the constituted civil authority must take all the necessary means to protect the neighbour which is society.
And, among those means, the death penalty is precisely the final one given by God to Moses in the judaic law which provided for death as a punishment for certain crimes.
But also, I am not afraid to admit that the application of the death penalty is so dependent on the conditions of people, places and times, that today not one of us can legislate without fear of making a mistake.
The major difficulty is not to find the guilty one but to determine his degree of guilt among the intricate extenuating or aggravating circumstances and, therefore, to unable the established authority to act for the greatest good of our modern society.
I am not a man of law but I have, so to speak, lived the law.
Indeed, in the last 30 years, having been constantly involved in all kinds of judicial inquiries, having been called upon to help medical experts with several autopsies in order to detect the mobile of a crime or the cause of death, to establish the degree of guilt of the alleged criminal, I have come to the point that today I ask myself if the condemned was really the guilty one and to what extent?
In our so-called civilized society, full of contradictions and hypocrisy, I wonder if those who made certain laws were more serious than some others who apply them today?
After having lived, so to speak, so many tragic events, I come to the conclusion that the two main things that lead to crime are: money and sex.
It is in the light of those causes, when one goes down to the bottom of the extenuating circumstances, that it is difficult to give a name to the guilty one. To such an extent that when one hears some sentences, an inner voice shouts other names. Who? A partner, a friend, a police officer, a lawyer, a judge, finance, society itself, what?
So, I pity certain policemen, investigators, solicitors, counsel and judges, especially when they hold functions for which they are totally unsuited.
Therefore, I shall always be opposed to purely political or financial appointments in the field of justice.
Criminal Code
Tell me who you serve, tell me who pays you and I might show you who is the guilty one.
Shake up your personal memories when you are alone in your room tonight and you will agree with me that society is far from having the protection it should have.
Instead of making speeches on whether or not we should abolish capital punishment, it would be much more beneficial to study means to free society from those financiers without conscience and their parasites who find supporters at every level of our cocial structure.
The one and only thing I am interested in tonight is last degree capital murder, thereby casting aside all the others.
I also wish to look at things from the standpoint of our democratic society, on the political plane since we are no longer dealing with economic and financial matters where the opinion of the majority of responsible people becomes law.
Therefore, I will pay no attention to the opinion of socialists or communists pleading for the abolition of capital punishment in our democracies, while every day their leaders abroad are placing those who oppose their will before the firing squad.
Shall we find a disciple of Lenin or Karl Marx crying over Canadians sent to the gallows when their own master himself boasted that, as far as he was concerned, human life was not worth more than that of a guinea pig? Is that what you call respect for the human person?
Or, perhaps, these goods disciples, putting forward the absolute certainty of guilt? When after having crushed a revolution they will execute out of hand all their opponents.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the house on an article written by Renaude Lapointe, entitled "Tears over a murderer" ("Pleurons sur l'assassin") which reads as follows:
For several months the abolitionists in Canada, have been carrying out a well organized campaign in favour of their cause. A long article published Monday in the Globe and Mail of Toronto, had this tear-jerking headline.: "He was alone, defenceless and was killed". Whom were they talking about? Not about the innocent victim of the murderer (who also was alone, defenceless and murdered), but about the murderer himself when he had to pay for his crime.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this should be a cause for reflexion for many people and members of this house, especially when we

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
look back and find what has happened following the socialist revolutions, what happened to great jurists and scientists, executed out of hand; today, the same people travel all over democratic countries to promote the abolition of capital punishment.
I admit that since the opening of this debate on capital punishment, I have assiduously been collecting information, both pro and con, to be certain to reflect the opinion of the majority in my riding, while keeping a happy medium.
Several persons, as a matter of fact, contended that in abolitionist countries murders have not increased, and others have proved that the retention of capital punishment provided security to their country.
There are contradictory statements such as these I have read on the first page of a document dealing with capital punishment and I quote:
It appears from these figures that the abolition of capital punishment was followed by a considerable increase in the number of murders known to the police during the years 1941-48. But this does not necessarily imply a causal connection, there were increases during that decade also in Queensland, where capital punishment was discontinued many years ago, and in New South Wales, where executions were carried out up to 1939 but have been stopped since.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
Finally, other countries found it necessary to re-establish capital punishment. Even England is considering re-establishment of capital punishment today.
This is the dilemma we will face when we vote.
Our society can best be guaranteed protection by the deterrent effect of the death penalty. After all, this punishment should not be considered from the point of view of the murderer himself, but from the point of view of the whole society requiring the fullest protection from such individuals.
If the punishment must fit the crime as far as the guilty person is concerned, it must above all be a deterrent factor as far as society is concerned.
Laws are primarily made for the protection of society in general and, second, for the protection of the individual. And, I soon realized that this was borne in mind by the thousands of people I have questioned right across my riding on this matter.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of the people, nearly 2,000, to whom I put the question: are you for or against capital punishment? answered they were in

favour of maintaining the death penalty, while only 10 per cent were against.
Can this be explained by the many murders of all sorts committed in our regions these last few years? Murders as foul as that of Dion and others and all the murders involved in criminal fires and fraudulent bankruptcies? Are honest people terrified by all these sentences commuted to life imprisonment? I think that this sight alone and the resurgence of organized crime and theft should incite the government to return to full capital punishment instead of asking questions. It is often said that the voice of the people is the voice of God, or that in a true democracy the voice of the majority should rule.
Therefore, it would be very difficult for me to vote against the wish of 90 per cent of my constituents. For that reason, I will vote for the retention of capital punishment.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move an amendment, in order to make clearer the motion now before the house, for I find it too categorical-


David Réal Caouette: Unacceptable.


Mr. Gauihier:: -and unacceptable in its present form.
Consequently, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the motion be amended as follows:
First, by adding after paragraph (a), the following words: "except for capital murders, as currently defined, committed while a sentence of life imprisonment is served".
Second, by adding, after paragraph (b), the following words: "except in the case of a capital murder committed while a person is serving a sentence of life imprisonment".
Third, by inserting in paragraph (c) immediately after the word "imposed" the words "or with regard to whom a death sentence was commuted".
Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, I respect the opinion of the 10 per cent who believe that capital punishment should be abolished, for various reasons.
On the basis of the answers of all those who favour retention, human nature being what it is, I think fear remains the strongest argument to invite men to abide by the law. Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke before me stated that the prisoners were fear-ridden.
Well, let me tell you that some prisoners have so little fear of prisons that, especially during the winter, they get into mischief in order to spend the winter there . ..
March 28. 196G

Criminal Code


David Réal Caouette: Where they are secure.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Call it security or what you will, but I say prison is not a deterrent to murder. Far from it, to some people, prisons are boarding schools. I heard it from no other source than the prisoners themselves.
In fact, if you discuss at all with these people, you will see to what extent they have grown perfect. Which means that, so long as man has not reached that degree of spirituality where the senses no longer influence the spirit, laws will be needed to protect society from certain individuals, in whom the beast dominates the spirit.
I believe we still have a long way to go before we reach that level of idealist perfection.
Let us keep both feet on the ground, and listen to those individuals or groups who want to retain the death penalty in certain specific cases.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of referring to literature gleaned out of some 2,000 letters I have received, of which I shall quote only a few.
At a meeting of the Normandin Local of the Catholic Farmers' Union in my riding, the following resolution was adopted unanimously:
Whereas criminal deaths and armed robberies are constantly increasing, even with the death penalty in Canada, the C.F.U. local of this parish, in general assembly, through this resolution, protests strongly against the eventuality of the abolition of said penalty, in the sincere belief that even now, capital punishment instills fear into criminals.
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely this resolution which confirms the arguments I expressed a moment ago to the effect that fear is the beginning of wisdom, for prisoners as well as others.
I received today, as other members probably-
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I only have for two or three minutes more, just to say that the hon. members have probably received the same telegram which reads as follows:
During the general assembly of the Federation of municipal policemen of the province of Quebec representing more than 6,000 municipal policemen, which took place on March 26, 1966, it was decided unanimously:
(A)	To object to the abolition of the death
penalty.
(B)	To promote the creation of a national compensation fund to assist dependants of murder victims.
The Federation of municipal policemen of the province of Quebec.
Paul-Emile Blain, secretary.
I have also a letter from the party of the National Unity of Canada, whose members are strongly opposed to the abolition of the death penalty. It is too long to be read in the house.
I have another letter from the UCC of La Dore, who are also against the abolition of the death penalty.
Moreover, I have before me a letter from the Federation of retail business and services of the province of Quebec, of which hon. members have probably received a copy. The members of this association are also against the abolition of the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on quoting the many documents I received, pointing out the reasons why the various associations are against the abolition of the death penalty.
As a matter of fact, in most cases, those reasons have already been put forward by members who required that the house should not vote in favour of the resolution now before us, or at least that the death penalty should be maintained until society had reached, as I said earlier, a degree of perfection that will only be attained in the angelic state, because we must tell ourselves over and over again that what gives a man food for thought today is fear. I believe that by removing this fear, the murderer will commit more murders.
If a murderer gets a life sentence, he must say to himself: It is not worse to be in jail for murdering one person than for killing two, three or even ten more. This amounts to saying: I shall spend my life in jail just the same.
Can you imagine such reasoning, Mr. Speaker? You realize what might happen. That is why some people even ask that the law should be made more severe and strict,

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
and provide for the execution of a sentenced man. In order to prevent any backtracking, let us start by giving a life sentence to a murderer and if he ever commits another murder, he should be hanged unremittingly.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that my amendment is in accordance with the wishes of the people, because I am convinced that they are not ready to accept the resolution in its present form. That is impossible. As a matter of fact, as I said earlier, some socialist or socialist-minded people would want us to pass the resolution in its present form. It is absolutely necessary to come to an agreement on this matter, because there is no agreement at all.
In fact, I am almost certain that the house is actually split in the middle. As we must pass a most important law for the nation, I feel we should reach an agreement, so that this house may be unanimous and I hope that through the members, good will will make an understanding possible.
lEnglishl


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before I put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Roberval, perhaps the hon. member would allow me to point out that it might be more in conformity with our regular procedure if the hon. member were to find as his seconder a member who has not already spoken in this debate.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I propose the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) as the seconder, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is in order.


Mr. Ovide Lafiamme (Quebec-Monimorency):: Mr. Speaker, in accepting to take part in this important debate, I tried to stay away from emotionalism which it is so easy to fall into.
In my view, to state the debate by calling on leniency for the convicted criminal, or tc quote eloquently words from the Bible or to reduce the issue to a personal experience, gives an unrealistic picture to the mind, creates confusion and does not meet the requirements of reason.
For my part, it is regrettable to use expressions such as: "The killer state", "evolution of society", "civilized society", "barbaric deed", and so on.
It is the bounden duty for a state to provide security for its citizens and to curb crime by appropriate means. This responsibility weighs heavily when it is necessary to protect innocent lives, and there is no room for slackness, candour and pity.
To dream of a society where the rights of each citizen are respected by everyone is the final hope of every reasonable being. It is even unthinkable that human beings should kill without pity, take the life of others, of those they do not even know, or kill for money. Unfortunately, this is sadly true.
We shall not have a civilized society as long as we have organized crime, the underworld, paid killers, armed robbery experts, indiscriminately gunning down policemen and people in the street.
This picture is degrading, disgraceful, but it is real and true, and it does not call for hypothetical uncertainty nor poetry.
Compassion toward these traitors is premature. Let us consider together the means of eliminating potential murderers at the outset. Let us get our youth interested in useful occupations, particularly those subjected to the evil example of parents of broken homes. Let us eliminate hate literature; let us remove from children's eyes films of violence, showing ways to steal and commit murder; let us ensure respect and dignity of those in authority, of civil and judiciary power. When the sense of values will have meaning for the whole of our society, such as debate will have long since lost its usefulness.
In 1961, as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) observed, this house approved important amendments to the Criminal Code establishing categories of murder and reducing death sentences considerably and giving the provincial departments of justice certain discretion in the framing of charges.
In fact, this legislation was well inspired and brought about a significant change in government thinking on the punishment of the crime of murder.
It should nevertheless be admitted that the implementation was considerably altered by the number of commutations passed since so that it is most difficult to gauge the benefits of those amendments. Abuse of commutation has disrupted the results.
The concept of abolition is generous, idealistic and also emotional. I should like to emphasize to the house the numerous speeches heard this afternoon in support of the abolition of capital punishment. These

March 28, 1966

speeches are easy. They stem from good nature and sentiments. But, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, I shall not tolerate the implication in this house that those who rise against the abolition of capital punishment are not up to date, are still deprived of charitable feelings which the abolitionists naturally bear in their hearts.
This principle is based sometimes on the Bible, sometimes on the sacred right to life, but too much optimism is shown when one relies on the services which a convicted person could eventually render to society.
I was amazed that in the course of the present debate, not four, not even three abolitionists said a few words about the murderers' victims. They commiserated, and this went on again today, with the convicted offender, but forgot the unfortunate victims of those who went as far as to commit the terrible crime of murder.
The abolition concept is completely out of context in our present day society. The death penalty argument for capital, passionate or non premeditated murders has been defeated ever since 1961 because the law itself provides otherwise.
Abolitionists point out to possible miscarriage of justice. Although they cannot dig up one serious example in the past decades in support of their argument, they question the country's judicial system, the good faith of our police forces and the established principle that the innocent shouts his innocence, that innocence always creates a reasonable doubt permitting acquittal. One has to be quite imaginative to presume that a crime was committed and that, under the circumstances, an innocent person could be convicted without a doubt being cast if he explains those circumstances, and one would be rather naive to think a person charged with murder would refuse to testify at his own trial when he is innocent and when there are only circumstantial evidence against him.
It is also said that capital punishment will in no way influence the criminal as he does not think of it when committing a crime. Who can tell? This is an important factor. Who really knows? I wonder whether there is in this house an abolitionist who would agree to support the abolition of capital punishment for twenty years if he knew that the murder of an innocent man would have been avoided had capital punishment been retained? What would be his attitude? It is possible that the criminal does not think of capital punishment when committing his crime. This may very
Criminal Code
well be true for the unpremeditated crime, for which the law provides punishment other than death.
I also find weak the argument of religious scruples; I think it shows a false conception of virtue and, although it stems from natural goodness, it is totally removed from the basic subject matter of this debate which is the fundamental obligation of society to protect itself against dangerous individuals, organized crime, contract crime and traitors to the state.
One of the basic methods of society to ensure the protection of life and property is the police. Can a police officer do his duty properly if he is not morally convinced that whoever makes an attempt on his life while he is on duty will pay with his own?
Nowadays the policeman on duty is on a battlefield. If you want to abolish capital punishment, you have to disarm him. At least, the criminal will know then that he does not have to shoot him down to avoid being captured and so the policeman will not use his weapon unduly.
Have you ever stopped to think that, if capital punishment is abolished, the policeman on duty will use his weapon at the first sign of danger in the discharge of his difficult duties?
Now what about the prison guard-I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that those arguments have already been used-who has to keep an eye on murderers sentenced to life imprisonment? The prisoner will be continually tempted to kill him in order to escape. In any case, he would have nothing to lose.
The reply given to that is that nearly all the guards killed were killed by convicts other than murderers. Does it not rather mean that, having already had his sentence commuted once, the murderer is sure that this would never be repeated?
Our country, Mr. Speaker, is not without subversive elements. In this world of ours, sedition is always possible. I am willing to close my eyes and believe that never again will anybody be evil enough to plan to murder his neighbour. But then I would be dreaming and forgetting that I am living in a country where, more than elsewhere, people are killed in cold blood.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
The death penalty is a deterrent. Even if that provision of the act only protected the life of a single innocent victim in 20 years, who would dare remove it?

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
It is neither humiliating nor degrading for a society to retain the death penalty in its statute books when that same society has to recognize that organized or syndicated crimes exists in its midst and that gang killings are numerous.
I am ready to open the Bible and read one of God's commandments: "Thou shalt not kill". It applies to all. And in spite of what the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Forest) said this afternoon, I would like the criminals to start respecting it. Abolitionists talk at length about the murderers' right to live; but what about the right of the innocent victims sacrificed or who would be sacrificed in the future?
What the potential murderer is most afraid of is having to pay with his life for the life he will have taken.
There is talk about possible judicial errors but not a single case was quoted to make us feel sorry.
The real known judicial errors are those where our judiciary, through compassion, allowed criminals to regain their freedom and later commit odious murders.
Leopold Dion enjoyed the mercy of the state. If justice had been allowed to take its course, four more young men would be alive today. If fear is the beginning of wisdom, fear of the death penalty will surely influence anyone who has premeditated or is premeditating a crime.
Whoever is premeditating a crime must be made to fear that he will pay with his life for that of the innocent he is trying to sacrifice; he must not feel that if he does it, he can also have his sentence commuted.
Commutations in themselves destroy the deterrent factor of the death penalty. There was a time in Quebec when Leopold Dion would have been killed on sight by the people because of their deep resentment against such odious criminals.
That man took young lives, he cowardly killed four children, one after the other, and in so doing, he killed the courage, morale and strength of the families concerned. And people will say that it is society that corrupted him; I would rather say that he laughed at society, he was granted all the remissions he begged for.
Commutation by the crown goes back to ancient times when kings, more concerned with their magnanimity and renown, reprieved criminals in special circumstances. In my opinion, this concept distorts the judicial [Mr. Laflamme.l
power and weakens the efficiency of our courts.
Without raising air-tight barriers between the public powers, let us say that it does not rest with legislators to downgrade their own laws. They have the power to amend, to repeal or to strengthen them.
Nowadays, when a man is sentenced, peo-ply say: he will not serve his sentence.
When reference is made to miscarriages of justice,-and I shall return to it-I say: To refrain from carrying out a death sentence through fear of a miscarriage of justice is not worth maintaining capital punishment through fear that otherwise there will be further innocent victims. At least, I for one am not ready to run this risk.
Instead of being beneficial to society, murder trials become soap operas. Instead of showing murder in all its ugliness, the accused becomes the leading actor, if not the hero of a story in which minor details and excitement exceed or obliterate the atrocity committed.
How many opportunities are lost to educate society usefully. The horror of the crime committed gives way to the behaviour of the accused; the innocent victim and the grief of the survivors are replaced by the emotions of the crowd, the attitude of the jury. Emotion takes precedence over reason, and the society which would have agreed before to do away with the accused, weeps the next day over the sad plight of the poor man being condemned to death.
Instead of being confronted with all his unforgivable failures and his unconcern for others, our society, in short, has lived through a marvelous thriller. And as all emotions are of a fleeting nature, everything will be forgotten the next day, pending the next instalment.
Before dreaming of an ideal society, let us first consider the following problems:
Slum removal; social disparities; the urgent need for social organizations for young people ranging from 12 to 20 years of age; the social integration of young people; the elimination of hate literature, especially that which undermines authority; the elimination of murder movies and crime gadgets; respect for civic and judiciary powers.
Being convinced that there is direct link between crime and the corresponding forms of punishment, I am against the abolition of capital punishment, thus reflecting the opinion of nearly all my constituents.
March 28. 1966

And on that point, Mr. Speaker, I shall not allow any supporter of abolition to try and point out that those who take into account the opinion of their constituents are only voting against abolition for a partisan purpose. I merely wish to say that, if it were put forward, such a theory would render our debate unadvisable at this time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the proposed amendment be replaced by the following subamendment.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay), that after paragraph (a) of the motion now before us, paragraphs (b) and (c) be replaced by the following:
(a) With the exception of murders committed in the following circumstances:
1.	The murder of any person exercising public, civil or judicial authority.
2.	The murder of a peace officer in the discharge of his duties.
3.	The murder of a jail guard.
4.	A murder committed by a person already sentenced to life imprisonment.
5.	A murder committed while committing another crime in order to escape from the law.
Mr. Speaker, in proposing-


Some hon. Members:: Wait.


Ovide Laflamme: I am proposing that subamendment not because I am against the amendment already moved by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), but I feel that his amendment does not clearly refer to all the essential elements that must be laid down to provide for what all members of the house wish to ensure: the protection of society. If society is to be protected, it is at least necessary that those who maintain power, a right or a public obligation and protect public property and individuals, have the moral guarantee that whoever would dare take their life while they are discharging their duties, will atone with his own.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I feel that any offender who commits a second crime to elude the arm of justice is every bit as heinous; I am thinking of murders committed during robberies, of sexual crimes or others.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that accepting the principle of abolition, while remaining aware of the necessity to protect our society, as it is today, but not an imaginary, idealized society which unfortunately does not exist at home, it is the duty of all members of the house to guarantee the safety of human lives and of public property.
Criminal Code
Indeed, as I have already said, we harbour unfortunately underworld gangdom and syndicated crime, perhaps more than any other country in the world; those are people who will do anything to rob or to attain other ends.
I respectfully submit that this amendment should deserve the approval of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member submitted an amendment. I think it would be preferable that the decision on the value of the amendment as well as its form, concerning procedure, be given later, so that we have time to consider the subject matter and the form of this amendment.
[English1


Mr. R. E. Regimbal (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, after discussing and reading on this subject of capital punishment
for several months, and after analysing contents of letters and petitions for and against, and listening very closely to arguments presented in this house during the past few days, I have been, as I suspect most members have been, shuttling back and forth from one set of convictions to the other. This only bears witness to the fact that a good many reasons exist to justify this hesitancy. The sad part of the situation is that all we have been able to produce, until now, besides this constant switching of positions, is a number of apologetic retentionists on the one hand and a number of apologetic abolitionists on the other. In other words, there are still many reservations in everyone's mind. No one can forecast the result of the forthcoming vote, unless political considerations are interjected somewhere along the line, which we all agree would be a most objectionable and a revolting development.
Therefore, working on the assumption that this will remain a free issue, I wonder if the remaining and prevailing doubts are not due to the fact that the motion itself and the orientations of opinions with regard to it have confused the one and only real issue involved, which is that of capital punishment.
Each and every speech to date almost inevitably has presented a close and tight weave of a number of different notions and ideas which are often in conflict and often in contradiction with one another. They have dealt with notions of life, death, punishment, vengence, retribution, charity, humanity, rehabilitation, conditional release, deferment, deterrence, common good, protection, aggression, barbarism, humanism, rights, obligations

March 28. 1968
Criminal Code
and so on. In the debate we have answered passages from scripture with passages from scripture, quotations with quotations, statistics with statistics and authorities with authorities.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we take a few minutes to dissect the fabric, separate the warp from the weft and clearly re-establish the various problems involved. These are, first, the abolition of capital punishment; second, the proper and adequate substitution for capital punishment; third, conditional release and fourth, rehabilitation and reform.
These are different problems and they must be dealt with separately and severally, otherwise no-decent progress can be made toward their solution. In this regard my first grievance is that the motion before us does not make these distinctions, does not enumerate the various problems which have to be faced, does not establish any priority in the importance of those problems, and does not indicate any solutions. In the matter of a few lines the motion tries to define a question which has bothered and beleaguered jurists, criminologists, scientists, moralists and sociologists for centuries.
Finally, what the specialists I have enumerated have been unable to settle throughout the years we, as relative amateurs, are expected to solve in three or four days with a free and peaceful conscience.
I should like to return to this later, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, I am left in the ridiculous position of being against capital punishment but of being forced to vote against the motion to abolish it.
In expounding my views on that one most important issue of capital punishment, and in trying to remain strictly within the boundaries of that subject, may I touch briefly on four main considerations having to do with it. The first one is the right of the individual to life. The second is the problem of civilization. The third is death as an example, or as a deterrent to murder. The fourth one is death as a divine prerogative.
In developing these points my main source of inspiration, after months of resistance to it on my own part, has been my own brother, Father Jean-Paul Regimbal-mentioned by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) -who, besides being a priest is also the holder of a master's degree in criminology. He has served some four years as chaplain at Bordeaux jail, and as such has had to prepare seven persons for the gallows. I have had to

resist some emotional arguments from time to time, but I have never been able to deny his knowledgeability on the subject. In developing the three following points, I take pride and pleasure in quoting him almost verbatim:
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will speak of the right of life. Any citizen living in society does it for two purposes: to fully insure his human and indefeasible rights, and to pursue his human development and full achievement of his personality, in a manner consistent with the common weal. If this common weal compels a person to sacrifice certain individual interest to the benefit of the community, other indefeasible rights can not be surrendered: the rights of life, of religious freedom, of education, etc.
The right of life is a priority right and the state cannot use its authority to deprive any of its citizens of it. Thus, resorting to death penalty, for the purpose of protecting society and eliminating the wrong-doer, is evidently a misuse of authority and a direct violation of the priority right of the human being.
If it is true that the criminal himself by committing a deliberate murder, has violated this same right, this is not a sufficient reason why in its turn the state should apply death penalty against a convicted citizen.
The state can resort to other means, more compatible with its dignity and the nobleness of its purpose to achieve this dual aim: protection of society and elimination of the dangerous criminal: this means can be found in life imprisonment in specialized institutions where the convict would be confined until death, in conditions which are yet deferent to the sacred nature of his person.
This is not false pity or maudlin philanthropy: this is a logical conclusion which has been reached through a fair philosophy of the human being, of right, and of society. Every human being, by essence, is a value in himself whose life and fate rest in the hands of God and whose spiritual and immortal nature calls for the most complete respect.
Every human being has some priority rights which prevail at all times over those of the state.
Human society should make sure that primary rights of men are respected by all its citizens.
It is a precisely defined duty for the state to protect all citizens even the criminal against vindication of society. Despite his
March 28, 1366

crime, despite even his indignity, the criminal still remains a human being and deserves the protection of the state.
To maintain the principle of capital punishment merely because we do not know exactly yet what to do with the criminal, this is to pervert the whole problem; this is to deny a duly based principle, for purely pragmatic considerations. On the contrary to accept the final demands of a principle in spite of the serious hindrances involved, is to show maturity and sense of responsibility.
On the other hand, if this house votes by a majority for capital punishment, it would admit publicly its helplessness and incompetence because it would reflect, in its decision, its deep conviction that there is nothing to do with a criminal or a human being or one of our own citizens.
Furthermore, it is a question of civilization. The level of progress of a civilization can be measured by the fundamental attitude of a society toward its crippled members. In primitive societies one never had scruples about merely eliminating the useless members: crippled, old men, insane persons, criminals, offenders all used to share the same fate: death. It was the era of private vengeance. Followed the era of private justice where society managed to guide and limit the carrying out of private vengeance. In so doing, civilization took a giant step toward some form of social justice.
The death penalty was as rigorous and as vigorous, but at least, its application was partially limited to voluntary crimes, and still only in extreme cases where agreement between the parties was impossible to reach.
Nevertheless, that was implanting a prolific principle of evolution in society. Prolific and irreversible indeed for, from that time onward, society progressed toward public justice. Followed the progressive organization of justice: various codifications, systems of judgments and repressive measures and multiple forms of execution.
Without going into all the historical details of that evolution of the law, it might be well to point out here how society grew to claim as its own exclusively, the right to judge and condemn its citizens, removing them completely from the personal or popular vindication of private vengeance. And so, in its own name and for its own benefit, society decided to systematically organize the fight against crime, the administration of justice and the execution of its penalties.
Criminal Code
About this last point, it is to be noted that the evolution of civilization is reflected through the humanizing of the law and, consequently of the legal punishments. The old mosaic law listed over 650 crimes as punishable by death. In the 13th century, there were over 350. In the 15th century, only 17 remained, while early in the 19th century, 15 major crimes were still punishable by death.
Under the impetus of numerous social, judicial and penal reforms occurring during the 19th century, all countries of the world have reconsidered and revised their penal system and their criminal laws. As a concrete result, 58 countries to date have abolished capital punishment and more than one hundred countries have introduced major reforms in their penal code.
It is then becoming obvious that the position of a civilization or a society on capital punishment is in direct ratio to its degree of social progress. As the laws become more humane, capital punishment loses ground.
How can we stick to capital punishment as the ultimate method to preserve justice and maintain order? It might as well be said that progress stops there.
Deterrent effect of capital punishment: many hon. members have already touched upon this point, Mr. Speaker, and I shall briefly go over the main conclusions.
First of all, capital punishment has not deterred criminals from their crimes since crime and murders are constantly on the increase.
Then, even if capital punishment is a protection for society, no one can claim it is the only protection, nor the best, since it does not produce the desired results; crime is not eliminated when the criminal is eliminated, any more than tuberculosis is eliminated when the tubercular patient is eliminated. Solution is not at that level but at the level of scientific research, of penal philosophy and judicial reform.
Finally, to act as a deterrent, capital punishment should be carried out in public, a method abolished long ago.
Since these facts prove beyond any doubt that the death penalty serves none of the three purposes it is designed to serve, that is to deter criminals, to give complete protection to society and to act as a warning to all citizens, there remains but one logical choice-the abolition of capital punishment.
Death or the taking of life is a divine right.

March 23. 1366
Criminal Code
We all agree with this, but supporters of capital punishment argue that it is in the name of God that the state exercises this right.
It is true that authority comes from God and that exercises its power in the name of God, but nowhere has it ever been said that the state should put murderers to death. After the expostulations of my colleague to my right, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. David MacDonald), in his brilliant speech of last Thursday, I shall steer clear from the Holy Scriptures, but my recollection is that the Lord did not sentence to death Cain, murderer of his brother and the very model of heinous criminals (Genesis 4, 9-15). On the contrary, the Lord set a mark upon him, lest any finding him should kill him and said: "Whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."
Considering these four points, Mr. Speaker, we may then conclude, first, that capital punishment is not essential and necessary to the protection of society against murder and above all that it is not the only means to that end; second, that the retention of the death penalty is a step backwards in the march of civilization and social progress; however, I make haste to add: provided that an alternate punishment is found.
This is precisely where the difficulty lies. 1 followed closely the argument of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) and I agree with him, save when he suggests that any change involves some risk. If the risk is too certain and too great, I shall not follow him at all.
If we are deciding on change for the sake of change, as I feel we are now doing, the risk is too great. What is the alternative to the motion we have before us?
If paragraph (a) suggests a definite move on which agreement could be reached, paragraphs (b) and (c) are vague, indefinite, without specifications, without the least suggestion or indication of the means to be taken to implement this substitution for capital punishment or even a definition of the words used.
Is this not the weakness of this procedure? Up to now, the government has taken no responsibility whatever, has no alternative to suggest and it is significant that only two members of the Cabinet have spoken to date. Personally, I cannot accept proposal (a) without knowing in advance the provisions which will be made under (b) and (c), the judicial reforms which will influence these provisions

and the institutions to which the condemned will be sent.
But in fact, why the hurry? I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is advisable to refer this whole question to a parliamentary committee which could secure experts in all areas concerned and present the house with an informed opinion on the appropriate alternative to capital punishment. Therefore, I suggest that debate on this motion be adjourned and that items (b) and (c) be further seriously studied after which the government can introduce a public bill properly drafted with all the necessary shadings.
Unless this is done, I believe that many honourable members will find themselves, as I am, forced to vote against the present motion which is unacceptable in its present form and incomplete in substance.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
lEnglish]
Mr. Speaker, I must confess my inability and incompetence to propose an amendment to the motion, and I am sorry for it because it seeems to me that if we could so arrange the motion that paragraph (a) could be accepted in principle, we would have accomplished a great step forward in progress. And if we could amend paragraphs (b) and (c) to give us the assurance that no implementation shall be carried out until a majority of members are satisfied, through expert counsel, that adequate and complete substitution as well as judicial and penal reforms are completed, we might then allay the legitimate fears and premonitions of retentionists.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the resolution which refers to "abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act," there have been many speeches made for and against the abolition of capital punishment, all made conscientiously by hon. members after seriously studying all information available.
During the last session of parliament members received an abundance of literature from various religious groups and other associations, together with many publications on the pros and cons of capital punishment. We have all read and carefully studied this literature. In most of this literature on capital punishment it has been found that, although the impression made is that the authors were looking at both sides, the statistics shown were assembled by abolitionists to support their conclusion that the death penalty be
March 28, 196$

abolished, rather than to help reach an unbiased conclusion. The statistics they have given were chosen to show that capital punishment has no deterrent effect; but these people have not given any statistics on crime in general.
In my opinion crime statistics do not offer proof either for or against, and it is easy to assemble statistics in such a fashion as to prove capital punishment is or is not a deterrent. For example, it can be shown by statistics that five states which have the death penalty have a lower ratio of murder per
100.000	population than the state of Michigan, which does not have the death penalty. For example, Massachusetts, including the large city of Boston, had a ratio of only 1.3 per
100.000	population compared to the state of Michigan, in which is included the city of Detroit, and which had a ratio of 4.5.
It can also be shown that the state of Ohio, which has capital punishment, has a ratio in total crime offences of 838.9 per 100,000 population, compared to the neighbouring state of Michigan, which has no death penalty, but has a ratio in total crime of 1,348.6, and is close to 40 per cent higher; while the state of New York which has a ratio of 1,289.7 per
100.000	population is lower than the ratio of Michigan, and New York state has capital punishment in force. Therefore statistics could be used to prove that it has a deterrent effect on murder and crime in general.
Statistics are unreliable and misleading, and cannot be compared from state to state, country to country, or continent to continent because of differences in nationality, religion, politics, and their social and economic makeup. Literature which we have received from many of the religious authorities has included a great many quotations from the Bible to support abolition and also to support retention, and thus there is confusion.
In Great Britain since the abolition of capital punishment, crime in general, and murder in particular, are at an all-time high. British Bobbies who traditionally never carry a revolver are now taking marksmanship courses and may be obliged to carry arms in order to protect themselves. At present a petition is being signed by thousands of British citizens demanding that parliament restore capital punishment.
In 1961 the Canadian Criminal Code was amended to classify murder as capital or non-capital. In Canada murder is capital when it is planned and deliberate, when it is committed in the course of certain crimes of
Criminal Code
violence, and when committed upon a police officer, a prison warden, etc. . . .Otherwise murder is non-capital in Canada.
It is strange that whenever there is a bloody murder the names of the victims and the problems of their widows, families, children, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers are completely forgotten. But the murderers' names like Marcotte, Mathew Kerry Smith, Leopold Dion, Phileas Oscar Letourneau, Fournel, Jack Graham, etc., are publicized and remembered by all. But society completely forgets the names of the victims and their relatives who have suffered so much.
Many hon. members have argued in favour of the abolition of capital punishment because of their fright at a possible error in judgment resulting in an innocent persons' being hanged unjustly. They say it is better to let 50 guilty murderers live than let one innocent man die, but the abolition of the death penalty may still send an innocent man to prison for life, and there is the other argument that only the rich can afford a proper defence while the poor usually hang. They also make no attempt whatsoever to correct this machinery which is supposed to make errors.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that since the state provides public prosecutors and a police force to solve and investigate crimes of murder, it should also provide for the accused a public defender who would have a staff of investigators, so that no stone be left unturned. I also submit that before any sentence of death be decided by a judge, the Department of Justice, with a specialized staff, could scrutinize all evidence in order to submit to the judge that, to their knowledge, and opinion, there is no doubt, or that there may be a possible doubt. Further, when there is a death sentence there should be an automatic appeal whether requested or not.
I cannot comprehend the attitude of so many who have so quickly forgotten the victims and their families and have so readily gone to bat for the murderers, the persons who have coldbloodedly killed innocent storekeepers, taxi drivers, police officers, bank managers and little children. These abolitionists are ready to say to a murderer, "You have been a bad person; now stay in that corner for life"-whatever that means-"and we will provide you with a life pension, with food, bed and clothing, and recreational facilities and, who knows, maybe after 20 years we will be able to rehabilitate

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
you to be a useful citizen at the expense of the state."
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
Some hon. members are ready to compromise by moving amendments to provide that the murder of a police officer or prison guard be considered capital murder. In other words, if a gangster robs a bank and kills the teller and manager of the bank he does not hang, but if he kills a police officer during that robbery in the bank, he would hang. This would be an infantile compromise which cannot be accepted. Our duty is to protect society in general, not the criminal.
I should now like to read a few paragraphs in favour of capital punishment to be found in a book published by the Department of Justice entitled "Capital Punishment, Material Relating to its Purpose and Value". Paragraph 9 reads:
Law enforcement authorities entertain the view that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder and that it is particularly effective in deterring professional criminals from carrying weapons and committing crimes of violence.
Paragraph 10 reads:
The death penalty safeguards police because a criminal seeking to avoid arrest would have much less fear of the consequences of the use of firearms or of violence if there were no death penalty.
Paragraph 23 reads:
The whole experience of mankind is to the effect that the threat of instant death is the most effective deterrent of all; death is death and its terrors cannot be described more forcibly.
Paragraph 25 reads:
The fact that capital punishment has obviously failed as a deterent when a murder is committed does not mean that it may not have deterred many other people from committing murder.
And finally, paragraph 26 reads:
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.
I believe that if we abolish the death penalty we will be putting into the hands of the criminal, murderers and crime syndicates an extra strong weapon; that is, the right and licence to kill-to murder without being punished by death when convicted and, if convicted, the right to a pension of care for life by the state.
If we abolish the death penalty we will be depriving our citizens-the police officers, taxi 
drivers, storekeepers, bank managers, operators of garages, pay clerks, tellers and jewellers-of their greatest weapon, the knowledge that "if you kill us you will be hanged when convicted". The abolition of the death penalty will put police officers, watchmen, guards, wardens, detectives, witnesses and prosecutors in a strait-jacket. They will be reluctant to do their duty as before. They will not take the chances they took before to protect our citizens. On the other hand, the abolition of the death penalty will give an added weapon to the criminal because criminals would use violence, especially those who had been in and out of jails many times and following conviction, may face a long sentence, possibly equal to life. They would not hesitate to kill and take the chance of not being apprehended.
I am not prepared to vote for the abolition of the death penalty until parliament makes drastic changes in the administration of justice and adopts proper penal reforms. At this time my conscience guides me in voting to retain the death penalty, without a compromise, for the protection of society. I take my stand on the side of the victims, on the side of the mounted police, provincial police, municipal police and other law officers, guards, wardens, bank managers, storekeepers, paymasters, garage owners, taxi drivers, watchmen and children, as well as all other victims of this horrible crime of murder. I will not take away from them and society the most important invisible protective weapon they have in their favour, the death penalty.
I will vote against the motion, without compromise.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point in the debate neither as an abolitionist nor as a retentionist in the generally accepted sense of those terms. I am opposed to the death penalty, but not for the same reasons as many classical abolitionists. I am opposed to the death penalty because it brutalizes me and brutalizes society. It forces me to descend to the same level as the murderer I am hanging. It is sanctioned murder and I resent having to participate in it or have any part in it because it drags me down to the level of the person who is sentenced to death.
Many of the classical abolitionists buttress their opposition to the death penalty by insisting that it is no deterrent. In this regard I emphatically disagree. My colleague, the
March 28, 1966

member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald), delivered a distinguished dissertation last Thursday evening in this chamber on behalf of abolition. He made many interesting references to the fact that he had spent a considerable time in penal institutions working with criminals and law breakers.
Although I am paraphrasing his remarks, I have a copy of Hansard in front of me in the event someone wishes me to quote him verbatim. He said in effect that he never, during the time he worked in penal institutions, talked to anyone who thought he was going to be caught. I would ask that hon. gentleman, whom I respect, why he never encountered any who thought they might be caught.
1 suggest that he did not because they are not in prison. With all due respect to my hon. friend and colleague, I suggest he talked to people whose intelligence leaves something to be desired. They did not think they were going to get caught, but the fact that they are in prison indicates the degree of intelligence they possess.
I suggest there are people who have contemplated committing a crime but have been deterred from doing so as a result of having thought out the consequences of their act, confronting themselves, at a mental and psychological level, with the possible punishment they would face. I suggest many of them have chosen not to commit those crimes they contemplated for this very reason.
I find it extremely difficult to understand how the classical abolitionist can argue so omnisciently that the death penalty is no deterrent to murder, and that people think they are never going to be caught. I wonder how these abolitionists know that, sir. Just because those in prison did not stop to think before committing their crimes does not prove that somewhere in our free society there are no men who would have committed a crime except for the fact that they stopped to think about the consequences.
I would ask whether these abolitionists really believe that no one has been deterred from doing wrong because of the threat of punishment. It seems to me that it is logical and reasonable to assume that there are men and women in our society who covet money, possessions, power, estates and other's spouses, but have not done murder because they knew what the consequence of such an act would be. It seems to me to be obviously illogical and unreasonable to suggest that punishment is no deterrent to crime. It
Criminal Code
strikes at the very heart of our institution of law and order.
I think of youngsters in school who conform to discipline and regulations in their classes because of the threat of punishment. That threat acts as a deterrent. I think of myself when driving through speed zones, if you like. I conform to certain regulations and rules because of the punishment which would confront me if I broke those laws. Punishment acts as a deterrent. Perhaps I drive carefully because I do not want to kill some child, and that acts as a deterrent, and ensures that I conform to the law and order of the particular milieu in which I am involved at the time.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I think of teenage boys who would not steal a car or rob a store at the encouragement of their friends because they had considered the fact that they would go to prison if they were caught and were probably gambling against odds stacked too heavily against them if they undertook such nefarious adventures. So it is with some people who have been tempted to commit the ultimate crime, I suggest. It is naturally impossible to measure this number, so the classical abolitionist never has to face scientific refutation of his argument that the death penalty is no deterrent. Naturally those who have ever contemplated murder and have decided against it do not go around talking about it, but in my view the death penalty is demonstrably a deterrent to murder.
I am convinced that certain murders have not been committed in this society, in this continent and throughout the world because of the existence of the death penalty. The fact that other murderers have not been deterred is no counter-argument. I think you cannot escape this view if you think the matter through. Therefore I start with the conviction that the death penalty is a deterrent and thus, while I am an abolitionist, I differ from the classical one. I cannot say, like the classical abolitionist, that we should abolish the death penalty and let it go at that, because it is no deterrent. I do not want to let the murderer reduce me to his level and turn me into a murderer too, but I require a deterrent as powerful as the death penalty, and this is my dilemma.
My solution to the death penalty is the life penalty. I believe it is our responsibility-and I am not talking merely as a member of this house but as a citizen-to protect society. Many people who advocate the abolition of

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
the death penalty, and others, talk about revenge and retribution and the fact that the death penalty is invoked for those reasons. In my opinion it is not revenge or retribution but it is punishment, and it is punishment not for its sake after the fact but for its sake before the fact, its sake as a deterrent to protect society.
A distinguished Queen's Counsel in Winnipeg, Mr. Maurice J. Arpin was outlining the case for the retention of the death penalty in a Winnipeg newspaper last week end and quoted a statement by a Lord Halifax speaking in the reign of King Charles II, who said:
Men are not hanged for stealing horses but that horses may not be stolen.
This is my view, sir, of the ultimate penalty, the death penalty or my choice as an alternative, the life penalty. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in a distinguished address earlier today said that the abolition of the death penalty for non-capital murder has not affected the number of noncapital murders since 1961. With all respect I would ask, what sort of ammunition is that for abolishing the death penalty for capital murder-and this is what we are talking about.
It seems to me self-evident that the incidence of non-capital murder is not going to increase or decrease no matter what the law is, because under our judicial system noncapital murder is by definition unpremeditated and therefore unpredictable. What we are talking about here is capital murder, premeditated murder, plotted murder, syndicated murder, for which we still have the death penalty; and what we are asking ourselves is whether we should perhaps abolish the death penalty for it, too.
We are not debating this issue as something calculated to lift Canada out of the Dark Ages. We left the Dark Ages long ago in regard to the subject of capital punishment. We have come a long way in Canada on this question. I do not think enough debaters and participants in this debate have given the country and our society credit for this. There is a very enlightened law on our statute books today distinguishing and differentiating between capital and non-capital murder. Only a certain type of killer can be executed in Canada today, the adult killer over 18 years of age who chooses to take another person's life in cold blood. So when we talk about abolition of the death penalty we must not confuse the issue. We are talking about abolition of the death penalty for this type of 
killer; not for our Steven Truscotts, not for our mentally ill, not for our killers by accident, not for our killers by passion. We have already abolished the death penalty for all of them and substituted a prison sentence from which they can be freed, conceivably, in something less than 10 years.
We are talking about abolition of the death penalty for the community's arch-foe, the deliberate killer who chooses to take another person's life in cold blood. I want abolition of the death penalty for him, too, sir-not for his sake but for my sake, and only if an equally strong deterrent is substituted in its place, something like the death penalty, that stops certain would-be murderers right now from carrying out their deeds of death.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only alternative is the life penalty; not the type of life sentence our non-capital murderers get, because the deterrent must be as strong as the death penalty. I refer again to the Lord Halifax of the reign of Charles II, who said:
Men are not hanged for stealing horses but that horses may not be stolen.
Some hon. members, such as the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) insist that you cannot send a man to prison for life. This logic bothers me somewhat, sir. The hon. member says that you can send a man to the gallows, you can string him up like an animal and take his life by violence, but you cannot send him to prison for life. Certainly the life penalty is harsh, but then so is the death penalty. I say that the latter act brutalizes me and all society, and I do not want to do it. But it has its deterrent effect. It helps protect society. It is the extreme punishment for the extreme crime and I suggest it has stopped many men committing murder.
The substitute, then, while avoiding the brutalizing aspect, must be an equally powerful deterrent. I do not mind paying taxes to feed, clothe and maintain that foe of society for the rest of his life. For our protection he must forfeit his freedom. I will maintain him in an institution for the rest of his life.
What is so hideous about the life penalty, the life sentence, when it is only going to be meted out to a cold-blooded, deliberate, premeditated murderer? It is not something that is going to be sprung upon our capital murderers without warning. Once it goes into the statute books, the warning goes out to everyone: If you plot and carry out deliberate murder, if you choose to murder someone, then you forfeit your freedom, your life as a
March 28. 1966

free man or woman-not your flesh and blood, not your breath and your beating heart, but your freedom, your right to live as a free citizen.
If, in the teeth of that warning, a man still chooses to kill another, he must be prepared to suffer the consequences. Certainly life imprisonment is harsh, but the deliberate killer, after all, would have had the choice and would have chosen. If it were not harsh, it would be no deterrent; society would not have the protection that a harsh deterrent provides. Perhaps in fact some killer living out a sentence of imprisonment for life might some day be paroled. I am not prepared to say that no single such killer ever would be paroled: But the possibility of parole should not be admitted or included in the life penalty, as I see it.
My strongest objection to the resolution as it appears on the order paper at the present time is in regard to paragraph (c). I would be in favour of a resolution that did not contain paragraph (c), because once the possibility of parole is admitted, even though in a humane heart and charitable spirit it must be there, once it is committed to print, the effect of the deterrent value of a sentence for life loses a great deal of its strength and a great deal of its sinew. As I have suggested, I see the life penalty as a means of abolishing the death penalty. Once you admit the possibility of parole, you take the teeth out of the life penalty as an effective deterrent.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.^
So, I stand for a life penalty which contains, to all intents and purposes, no hope of parole. Before the classical abolitionists throw up their hands in horror, Mr. Speaker, let me remind them once again that we are talking here about killers who have chosen to kill knowing the penalty. We are talking also about law abiding men, women and children who have a right to be protected.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo South):: I join those who have spoken in this debate and wish to add my support for the abolition of capital punishment. I am convinced that capital punishment is not a proven deterrent or protection to society. On the contrary, through our reliance on this method, our view is distracted from the only real protection society can have, that is the prevention of crime itself. Like other members, I have not taken this position lightly. It is a grave responsibility that we all carry, and this
Criminal Code
decision has not been reached without a struggle.
Like all members, I have received many letters regarding both abolition and retention. This morning, before entering the house, I received a letter which I should like to read. It is a letter in favour of retention, but I should like to read it because it strikes at the heart of the problem every abolitionist must consider. I quote:
Dear Mr. Saltsman:
Before you vote on the capital punishment question, I urge you to think long and hard about the little children who are innocent victims of sex murderers. Just try to imagine what these poor children have to endure before they are Anally put to death-and they don't even have a flghting chance. So far, there has been only one member who mentioned the child victims. These are the most defenceless members of our society. How is it that so many men can dig up so many arguments in favour of prolonging the lives of these offenders, the lowest of the low?
As you know, after the initial wave of public revulsion, the case and circumstances are forgotten; then months later when a conviction is obtained, what a hue and cry for mercy is heard for these evil men. Have you ever studied their pictures? But it is barbaric to think that they should receive the ultimate punishment for the crimes they have committed. No, they must be rehabilitated and returned to society. And at what cost! As a taxpayer, I am infuriated that one cent of my tax money should be used to house and feed these most despicable creatures.
In recent speeches in the house, there was great concern for policemen and pen guards. Rightly so. But what about society at large . . . Those M.P.'s who abhor the rope might hold a very different opinion were they ever to witness the work of these monsters. The police have seen the victims. No wonder they are in favour of retaining capital punishment.
So much talk about the deterrent factor! Let us have justice. Spell it out plainly. If you take a life then you forfeit your own. Even the most stupid criminal should be able to understand those terms.
This letter, Mr. Speaker, has special significance for me, not only because it comes on the eve of a potential vote but it comes from a lady I admire greatly and who has been the teacher of my children. It is written, I am certain, with the sincerest motivation and concern. She poses a question that must be answered not only to her but to every child in this country. She asks, what protection do we afford the children of this nation?
If I thought that I could save lives by maintaining the death penalty, anybody's life, I would have to vote for the retention of capital punishment. There are many of us in this house who are not strangers to death. There are many in this house who have served in wars or served in other capacities

March 28, 1866
Criminal Code
where death was not a stranger. They learned to live with it, they learned to abide with it. If we thought the maintenance of the death penalty for crime in this country could save lives, I do not believe there would be any squeamishness on anybody's part about retaining the death penalty.
However, I am convinced from the evidence I have seen that the death penalty does not serve this purpose, the death penalty does not preserve the victim from those who would attack. If I thought that the justice for which this lady asks could be accomplished by the maintenance of the death penalty, I would maintain that penalty. But we have to ask if the taking of the lives of those who would murder really constitutes justice, whether the drunk who kills with a car is guilty, whether the child is less dead, whether that crime is less premeditated.
I am sure that if I, and other members who are in favour of abolition, thought that the stupid criminal described in this letter would understand the death penalty, was in some position to make a reasonable, rational judgment before he committed his crime, and that the death penalty acted as a deterrent on him at that moment, then I would say the death penalty would have to be maintained. Apparently this is not so. We have heard from people who have talked with criminals in prisons who have indicated that at the moment they were about to commit a crime they were not thinking about being caught or paying the penalty. I am not in favour of society taking vengeance, but even if society had to take vengeance to recall a life or to save another, I think it would be incumbent upon society to do that. I believe there may have been a time in our civilization when society had to do that sort of thing in order to preserve the peace. Under present circumstances I do not know that the carrying out of capital punishment saves any lives in our civilization.
I feel that capital punishment not only fails to accomplish the purpose it is supposed to accomplish, but its very presence may contribute to further murder because society, out of shock and abhorrence, makes a ritual of murder and pretends justice has been done, society has been protected. No such thing has happened. We cannot shirk the real task which must be carried out, that is to seek out the sick and potentially deadly before they commit their crime. This is the only way to cut down on death and murder and devia-tionist attacks. We have to rehabilitate those

we release from prisons who are serving terms as dope addicts and as haters of the world. We must be certain, regardless of the crime for which they were incarcerated, that when they are released they are ready to face the world. Many of these people come out of prisons unreformed, not ready to serve some purpose in society, but as a potential menace to everyone they encounter.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Our society and our prisons are frequently the spawning grounds for further violence and for murder. Unless we tackle this problem at the source children will continue to die despite all the people we may hang. It is expensive to prevent crime and to cure the sick. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we have never done it. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we have taken the easy and the cheap way out and simply hanged a few people to assuage our consciences that justice has been done or that we have accomplished something in our society.
The hon. member who preceded me gave us the reason horse thieves were hanged. The reason was so that horses would be protected, so people would not steal horses, or something along that line. We do not hang people any more for stealing horses; and not too many horses are stolen, not even in the west where there are still a fair number. This is because times have changed and do not require this kind of penalty for that kind of crime.
In times when there was no bread for the people, when society could not provide it, a 12-year old boy was hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. We no longer have to do this because there is bread for the people. The cure was not hanging the 12-year old boy; the cure was making bread available.
When society could not tolerate its weak it exposed them as an ancient Spartan on the mountain, and that was the solution. But we have become too humanitarian for this. We can tolerate them nowadays; we do not expose them any more. Society has undertaken this task.
As mentioned by former speakers, when society could not support its old it left them to die at the roadside. They were left there, not out of some perverse form of cruelty; society left them there because it was one means of preserving that kind of society. We have now gone beyond that stage. We no longer leave our old to die. Today we look after our old, and we have taken this upon ourselves as the cost of being civilized.
March 28. 1966

However, Mr. Speaker, we are still unwilling today to face up to the problem posed by the sick minds and twisted brains in our society. Instead of trying to help such unfortunates prevent the ravages they will inflict upon others, we say that when we catch them we will kill them. It is really no different from hanging somebody for stealing a loaf of bread.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we have progressed to the stage where we must accept the responsibility of protecting life in our society. I certainly feel that the only protection we can give our society is to deter the kind of conditions in our civilization which encourage potential criminals. I suggest that hanging a man after the fact does not change anything at all.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would have to define the two terms "retentionist" and "abolitionist", but I now find we have another differentiation in the form of the "classical abolitionist", and I dare say there is also the "classical retentionist".
It has been said that on this issue it will be impossible for members to speak unemotionally or as logically or rationally as they are able. I deny that. I think most of the speeches made in this house have been very logical, showing little emotion. I also deny the statement that has been made that most members have already made up their minds. I do not believe they have. I believe, like myself, that they have listened to the arguments and read the debates. I have tried to dissect some of the very able arguments presented and to carry others a little further; and I believe, as in my own case, that many hon. members have considerably changed their minds.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Truscott case has much to do with the issue of capital punishment, so I feel the abolitionists, who depend on this case, stand on weak ground. If this was a debate concerning reform in our administration of justice, I would say that the Truscott case was a very pertinent one. If this were a debate on doing away with this antiquated jury system of trusting 12 amateurs to decide the truth or falsehood of a statement, I would say that the Truscott case had a great deal to do with it. If this were a question of why in this day and age we do not accept scientific and very sophisticated methods of deciding between truth and falsehood, then this case would apply. If it were being argued that it is
Criminal Code
nonsensical in this day and age that promotions in police departments or in the administration of justice should depend on prosecutions and convictions, I would say that that case had something to do with the matter. It is not fair today that justice should depend on the size of the purse.
We are dealing with the question of capital punishment, something to which, I believe, the Truscott case is not applicable.
I also do not believe that the retentionists who plead deterrence are on much stronger ground. I am not going to repeat what has been said so many times in the arguments which have been presented so well, namely that retention and deterrence are one and the same thing. I believe the retentionists have not made a strong case for retaining capital punishment as a deterrent to future murderers. Indeed, I am inclined to think that a lot of people in this house and elsewhere who argue deterrence are really arguing vengeance.
Looking at the matter coldly, it seems vengeance is not alien to human nature or to man. We are the only creatures on earth with the capacity to do good or to do evil-which includes vengeance. If we were to go back thousands of years we would find that society accepted unlimited vengeance. That is to say, if somebody took your possessions or your family's possessions you were perfectly free and justified in not only taking the thief's possessions, but of killing, and exercising unlimited vengeance. It was not until our inheritance of Samarian culture that the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was introduced.
This debate then comes down to the issue whether we are yet ready to do away with vengeance entirely. So it is a question of philosophy. We are debating a philosophical issue. I have heard members talk of the sanctity of life, the right to live, and so on. Probing deeper in an effort to try to simplify it there seems to be a conviction on the part of all of us, a haunting conviction, sometimes uncertain and vague but a conviction nevertheless, that we are more than animals, that man has a destiny.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
With that it becomes a question of philosophy. Unfortunately, in this century we have had difficulty in adjusting our philosophy to our technology. In some phases of our society, such as in science for example, we have advanced technologically far beyond our philosophy. We have been able to split the

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
atom. We have gained tremendous power, but we do not know what to do with it. We are afraid of it. We have been able to prolong life, but we do not know how to deal with the problem of overpopulation and the problem of the aged. We have advanced scientifically in many fields where our philosophy has failed to keep up.
In this case, in considering what is now before us, we are advancing philosophically, knowing full well that our technology is faulty. Indeed, we do not have technology. In the field of rehabilitation, criminology and criminal reform we recognize that we are almost stupid. We have not paid attention to these fields. We have hidden preserves in penitentiaries, away from life. We have adopted an ostrich attitude, and now, when we want to move society forward we find that we know almost nothing about rehabilitation.
Is that surprising, considering that we have spent more money on shoes and boots for convicts than we have in the whole field of rehabilitation? This, then, presents a problem. What is the solution to it? Having expressed a desire to abolish capital punishment we are faced with trying to find solutions to our past negligence-negligence that we have accepted over a period of decades.
We have had recommendations such as that put forward by the hon. gentleman for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), to establish a subarctic devil's island where prisoners could be put away. Those committed there would get life sentences which could not be voided; in other words, prisoners going there should be put away for life.
In the very idea of putting them away for life sentences, from which they have no hope of freedom, we have denied that man is more than an animal, because we shall have made him an animal. A human being must have a destiny; he must have hope. Without hope he is no longer man. Otherwise, he is an animal. Therefore the abolitionists, or the quasi-abolitionists who desire to abolish the death sentence, and in its place substitute this idea of life imprisonment, substitute an idea which indeed may be worse than death.
If this resolution passes and this house indeed does abolish the death sentence, there are many alive who will rue the day that that has been done. Many who have to administer the law, such as police departments, attorneys, wardens, guards, will rue the day the death penalty is abolished. We have not

convinced them any more than we have convinced ourselves that the introduction of the abolition of the death penalty is plausible. They are the ones we must convince that it is plausible, and they are the administrators of the law we are trying to introduce. Consequently they will take every precaution they think necessary to protect their lives. Within a short time we shall hear of barbaric cruelties toward inmates of prisons the like of which have not been heard of for centuries. This will happen because we are not prepared as yet to abolish the death penalty.
Having said what I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the abolition of the death penalty, because if it is not abolished nothing will be done in the whole field of research and criminology. With the abolition of the death penalty these problems will live with us, and the news media will remind us from time to time that we are away behind the times in this regard. They will remind us that we must put more time, more effort and more money into research with respect to criminology. We must find out why criminals become criminals. We must find out what to do about them.
I am quite sincere in my beliefs, Mr. Speaker, I have more than a haunting conviction that man is more than an animal. I must express my belief that we have reached the time when we must change our philosophy of life, and in changing develop new ideas in the whole sphere of rehabilitation so that we shall do away with this whole question of capital punishment once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, I urge hon. members to vote for the abolition, without a false sense of security or pride that this will do away with all the problems. It will not do away with them. We shall have the problems of criminals; we shall have the problems of what to do with the lifers. We shall have to spend more time, more energy and more money in doing that which we have not done. We shall have to devote more energies to research, to bringing about new ideas in the sphere of rehabilitation and criminal reform.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, while I think all hon. members have given a lot of thought to this very important question of capital punishment, I have done some soul searching in an attempt to come to a decision that I can in conscience live with. Having done that, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot, in conscience, support the resolution that has been proposed.
March 28, 1966

I am unlike the last speaker. I rise to take part in this debate, not to try to change anyone else to my own way of thinking, but simply to report to the people I represent in my constituency, and to Canadians generally, why I feel that I have no other choice in conscience but to vote against this resolution.
I know that many hon. members sincerely hold the opposite point of view, and I have no quarrel with them. However, I recognize that in common with others who will wish to vote against this resolution, I shall be branded by some as being opposed to progress, as being reactionary, and perhaps being even less civilized than they are. I accept these unjust and unjustifiable charges as one of the burdens of conscientious public service, in an age when the majority of people may not yet have realized that haphazard change is infinitely more likely to be retrogression than it is to be progress.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Progress is not so easily attained. Progress is achieved only by a carefully judged assessment of the possible courses open to us and by rejection of those which cannot reasonably be demonstrated to be expected to lead to an improvement on the course we are already steering. The theory that because progress is change, therefore change is progress is so outrageously illogical that it is a mystery to me why so many seemingly rational people reason in this way. It is as illogical as saying that because people who live in London live in England, therefore the people who live in England live in London. It is even less logical than that, because the chance of an Englishman being a Londoner is much greater than the chance of change for the sake of change being progress.
A great philosopher once said that when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. We shall be accused of being reactionary. I do not accept this charge. I stand where I do on this question because I believe that those who favour the abolition of capital punishment have not been able to establish that what they propose would likely be an improvement over the law as it now stands.
Third, I wish to deal with the implication that nations which retain capital punishment are in some way less civilized than those which have abolished it-stemming from which, I suppose, is the inference that those of us who support the retention of capital punishment are in some way less 23033-209
Criminal Code
civilized than those who wish to abolish it. This is nonsense and I reject it categorically as being wholly unproven. As a matter of fact I could cite cases which would seem to support the opposite view. Three hundred years ago my own ancestors in the western isles of Scotland feuded among themselves, and with the ancestors of many other hon. members here. In those days it was not considered a capital offence to knock off some of your neighbours during these feuds. There were other penalties. You might be fined or outlawed or something of that sort, but capital punishment was not the usual thing. I should like to think we are more civilized in this respect in this day and age than my ancestors were 300 years ago.
Capital punishment is, of course, not a pleasant thing. It is a gruesome thing, no doubt. But there are many things in life which are necessary and which are unpleasant. Today, especially, when contract murder is being carried out as part of organized crime throughout North America we must be very careful where we go. The fact that capital punishment is not a pleasant thing is no reason for rejecting it. It is hard to find a suitable comparison to make, but the abolition of capital punishment would, in the thinking of many people, be similar to our passing a law prohibiting surgeons from carrying out extensive and gruesome operations on persons suffering from particularly bad diseases. It is the only choice. It is not a pleasant one, but in my judgment it is the least of a number of evils in a given situation.
Capital punishment has been referred to by some as just legalized murder. To me this is a shamefully irresponsible statement. I think the main difference between capital punishment and murder, legalized or otherwise, is the effect on the citizens of this country. No citizen who has even a minimum of respect for the law or for the rights of his fellow men need have any fear that he will be the victim of capital punishment. A citizen can even commit murder-as a crime of passion-and not suffer capital punishment. Yet what about the victims of murderers? The most upright citizen in the land may be slaughtered in cold blood, or his children may be abducted and murdered on their way from Sunday school, as has happened many times in the past. To call capital punishment legalized murder is a complete distortion of anything which is logical. It is, I suppose, an attempt to play on the emotions of those who must deal with the

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
fact that we do have murderers in our society.
What we are all interested in, I believe, in the fairly enlightened society in which we live, is the achievement of a net saving of human life, because we respect human life and recognize that the right to live is the primary right of all individuals. However, I think there has been a great deal of misplaced sympathy for the murderer. I suppose this is understandable. The murderer is fairly tried in public in a court of law. He is the subject of news broadcasts and newspaper stories. He is probably photographed daily and his story is given on television every day.
But what about his victim? Nobody hears anything about the victim, though he, or she, may have been killed in cold blood. The public achieves some affinity with the murderer but none with the victim, because the victim is already dead and buried before the trial takes place. There is no word said about the orphans and widows. There is no concern about them, because their story has not been publicized.
I think, too, that insufficient attention has been given to the fact that we in the Canadian parliament in 1962 made extensive amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to capital punishment.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We are not dealing with a law that is 100 years old. We are dealing with a law in respect to capital punishment that is very new, and that has not even been tried out properly as yet. Under it, in order to be liable for capital punishment, murder must be deliberate, or it must be the murder of a peace officer or jailer. There are many types of murder to which capital punishment no longer applies.
I have great sympathy for the position of law enforcement officers. After all, society depends a great deal on law enforcement officers so that we can walk in safety on our streets, and sleep at night knowing that our houses will not be broken into. Only today I received a telegram, as I am sure did most hon. members, from the annual meeting of the Federation of Quebec Municipal Policemen, representing more than 6,000 municipal policemen, conveying the text of a resolution saying it had been unanimously resolved (a) to oppose the abolition of the death penalty,
tMr. MacLean (Queens).]
and (b) to establish a national fund of indemnification concerning dependants of murder victims. I cannot help but support their point of view.
There has been a great deal of argument about whether the death penalty is a deterrent, how much of a deterrent, and whether it is a greater or lesser deterrent than life imprisonment. This is an argument that cannot be proven on either side but I would not like to have to try to convince anyone that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Statistically this cannot be proven because the deterrent effect of both capital punishment and life imprisonment is obscured by the fact that most criminals plan a crime on the basis that they are going to avoid any penalty, and that is the basis on which cold-blooded murders are committed.
To say that you can judge the deterrent effect of capital punishment or life imprisonment by interviewing the criminals who have been caught, tried and convicted, is not logical, because there you are dealing with cases where the deterrent did not work. I say the deterrent value is with respect to people who did not commit crimes, who were deterred from becoming murderers by the fact that capital punishment or some other heavy penalty would be meted out to them if caught.
In this connection it is interesting to note that within recent years in Canada one murderer was condemned to death and it was only after all his appeals were exhausted that he confessed the crime for which he was sentenced was not the only murder he had committed, that he had murdered four or five other persons. It was possible to prove his statement because the bodies were found where he said he buried them, and their location had been unknown to anyone else prior to that time. This was a case where the criminal carried on murdering when he had not been apprehended. He got away scot free on the first occasion, and that encouraged him to murder five other persons.
Generally speaking murders are less frequent than they were 100 years ago, but this is not due so much to the type of penalty as to improvements in methods of detection and improvements in forensic medicine. It is now possible to prove a murderer guilty in many cases where it would have been entirely impossible a century ago. As a matter of fact, in the days before a reliable chemical test had been developed to discover small quantities of arsenic, murder by arsenic poisoning
March 28, 1966

was so common in Europe that arsenic powder was known as inheritance powder. It was only after this development, and after a few murderers had been convicted, that the practice of murder by arsenic poisoning dropped to almost zero in Europe.
I do not know what the deterrent effect of life imprisonment is, but I am told that in criminal society in some cases there is a kind of inverted status, where the bigger the crime one is convicted of, then the more of a big shot one is. Indeed it frequently happens that criminals convicted for minor crimes, after serving their time return to society and commit more serious ones, and are then returned to prison for longer periods. I do not know how valid this is, but if there is any validity to it, then the person who is put away for his entire natural life is going to become the dean of the house in a very short time. I doubt if this would have the deterrent effect that so many anticipate.
Far more important than the question of capital punishment is the question of the root cause of crime. In the United States this is a matter which is receiving careful consideration. In today's Christian Science Monitor there is a report about a special United States Senate committee which has been set up to explore this problem, which states that Senator McClellan, in his opening remarks as committee chairman, pointed out that major crimes in the United States are increasing six times faster than the population growth.
This is the problem we should be considering in Canada. We should be doing research into the root cause of crime.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless he has leave of the house to continue. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Angus MacLean: Have I unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret very much there is not unanimous consent.

During the debate, earlier tonight the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), seconded by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) moved the following amendment: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane, that para-
Criminal Code
graphs (a), (b) and (c) be replaced by the following-I shall not read the amendment then moved by the member for Quebec-Montmorency.
But I shall now consider briefly whether this amendment is in order. The hon. member for Montreal-Saint-Jacques (Mr. Rinfret), who was then in the chair, expressed very grave doubts as to whether the amendment was in order. He indicated that the amendment would be considered by the Chair at the earliest opportunity.
Since then, I had the opportunity to examine the proposal of the member for Quebec-Montmorency.
I refer the hon. member to citation 203(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:
It is an Imperative rule, that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
It seems to me that the proposal of the member for Quebec-Montmorency is under the form of an amendment to the main motion rather than a subamendment.
That is why the Chair does not think the amendment can be accepted and suggests to the mover and the seconder that the proposal should rather form the subject of an amendment to the main motion.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, most members who have participated in this debate have reflected their deep interest in this subject, and it has been obvious from the calibre of the debate that they have done a lot of research and a lot of soul-searching. I should like to think that I am not an exception in this regard.
My position in this house is unique in that I represent the city of Verdun which, in the provincial legislature, is represented by the Minister of Justice, Hon. Claude Wagner. That minister is a very close friend of mine. We share the same political views, or at least we belong to a certain degree to the same political party. We both claim to represent the thinking of the 90,000 people of the city of Verdun, but he is an avowed retentionist and I will vote for abolition.

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
That minister, perhaps in one of his weaker moments,-and he does not have many- referred to me as one who had the courage of his convictions. I hope that if he has time to read Hansard tomorrow he will realize that I voted for abolition. In spite of his convictions, I will do what every member of this House of Commons has done and will continue to do on many occasions, that is, vote with the courage of my convictions for what I think is in the best interests of myself, the country and the people I represent.
Hanging to me is a symbol of the imperfections and hypocrisy of our affluent society. I say this because I know too many people who find security and salve for their conscience in the mistaken belief that hanging produces for them at least a degree of protection against what they seem to think is a segment of society with which they have nothing in common, and will never come into contact.
I suggest that the conscience of this country must be awakened to the fact that no one is born to be a murderer. Murderers, with very few exceptions, are victims of certain circumstances such as mental illness or, to our shame, are the products of man's inhumanity to man. I hope when hanging is abolished public opinion will demand that the pockets of poverty in this country be eradicated, that the slum areas in our big cities be demolished, because society will then realize, in their search for some other form of protection, that the areas of poverty and slums in big cities create strong forces that breed crime and criminals. I fully believe that as long as we resort to periodic hangings to convince ourselves that law and order reigns and that crime is under control, people will continue to resist providing moneys that are needed for new penal institutions, new forms of rehabilitation and new universities to train the psychiatrists and psychologists that are needed in such vast numbers if rehabilitation is to have any effect.
A few weeks ago during our consideration of the Department of Justice estimates I traced very briefly the story of a young man in my riding. Unfortunately that sorry story is far from over. This young boy at age 12 was arrested for breaking a window in a back lane. He was arrested again at age 14 for damage to property. At 15 he was arrested for breaking into a school and throwing school books around. He was arrested just recently, at age 17, on a charge of arson. It does not stretch our imagination to presume that at

age 18, 19 or 20 that boy might be arrested and charged with murder. I wonder, if by chance he is arrested on a charge of capital murder, and hanged, will it not be on the conscience of all of us, that our great affluent Canadian society was unable to put that young man back on the track when he was 12, 13 or 14 when society first came to grips with him.
I am an avowed abolitionist and I approached this debate expecting that some speakers would speak in a clinical manner while others would approach it emotionally. That has been the case, but frankly I am surprised to find that in general it is the retentionists who fall back on emotional arguments, and those who support abolition who have attempted to bring a certain degree of science to their arguments.
One of the characteristics of this debate is the respect we all have for each other's opinion. Whether my remarks are appreciated or not I hope that I will be given the same courtesy.
There are many who have advanced the argument that murderers must be hanged as a protection to society. Not so many years ago a dictator advanced the same reason as an excuse for the mass extermination of what he considered to be insane people, so that society could be protected by the killing of mentally ill people before they had the opportunity of murdering their fellow men. It is ironic that violence breeds violence, and that in the mass extermination of so many hundreds of thousands of Jewish people in Europe the exterminators were able to find many willing hands to carry out that plan.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There has been a lot said before about the fact that the commission of theft of over five shillings was a crime punishable by death in England, and now the death penalty has now been abolished there. Nothing has been said of the fact that in those days certain prosecutors and juries tempered justice with mercy in evaluating what was stolen as four shillings or four shillings and sixpence in order to avoid the penalty of hanging being imposed. I wonder whether that has not been done in this country and whether there are not times when juries are tempted to free, and indeed do free a guilty man rather than face the possibility of being the indirect cause of his being hanged.
I do not intend to be emotional in this connection, Mr. Speaker. I should like to do what others more learned than I have done,
March 28. 1966

and try to apply statistics to the problem at hand. There is an old saying that there are liars and statistics. But of course I believe all of us realize that statistics do play a very important part in Canadian life. Statistics are the basis of much of the legislation on Canada's statute books; statistics provide information figures on unemployment in this country; statistics are the basis of the insurance industry. There is nothing wrong with statistics-unless there are those who, including myself, would use them without a thorough knowledge-because this is a science. But that does not prevent me or anyone else in this house relying upon the findings of those who are trained in the use of statistics. There are statisticians, social scientists, criminologists, men capable and trained to interpret figures accurately and objectively. Such a man is Professor Sellin, a professor of sociology, President of the International Society of Criminology and a pioneer in the field of criminology and the prevention of crime. Statistics coming from him would be those of a man trained for a very long time in the field of criminology and should carry some weight in a debate such as this, particularly among people who are trying to be objective in forming a conclusion.
Time does not permit a review of all the remarks of this learned professor, but some statistics are very relevant and I think should be read into the record. I do this because a subject of some misgivings in this debate has been the danger or so-called danger to prison guards and policemen from a man convicted of murder and serving time. In this instance the figures relate to American penitentiaries. Professor Sellin in reviewing the incidence of murder in United States penitentiaries in the year 1964 found that in 30 states there were 26 murders. But significantly, of the 26 murders all but two took place in states which have the death penalty, and those two took place in the state of Michigan which is an abolition state.
The policemen in this country have my sympathy but, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) mentioned today, there are occupational hazards in all lines of endeavour. In reviewing statistics concerning the danger of policemen being murdered, Professor Sellin considered the statistics made available to him by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the years 1961, 1962 and 1963. The professor found that 140 policemen were killed by suspects or offenders in that 23033-210
Criminal Code
period, or an average of 47 policemen a year. Of these 47 policemen killed, nine were killed in abolition states, two in Michigan, four in Wisconsin, 2 in Minnesota and one in North Dakota. In the nine states bordering these nine abolition states, 21 were killed, four in Massachusetts, four in Indiana, four in Illinois, five in Ohio, one in Iowa and one in Montana; there were two killed in Michigan, an abolition state, but five killed in Ohio and four in Indiana which border Michigan and are retention states.
I should like to refer to statistics a little closer to home. One of the arguments advanced by the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec is that since it has become the policy of this government, and was that of the previous government, to hand out commutations on a rather generous basis, this has had a tremendous effect on the crime rate, particularly in the case of capital murder, in the province of Quebec. I went to what I thought was the most reliable source of statistics in this regard, namely the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I had hoped to draw a pattern or draft of the incidence of murder in my province. I found that before 1960 murders were not reported to Ottawa by the province of Quebec, at least not through the provincial police department, although they were gathered haphazardly from different communities.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, much as I would have liked to take in the period 1960 to 1964 and compare it with 1956 to 1960, those figures were not available from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. They are available, of course, from 1961 to 1964. In the year 1961 there were 39 incidents of murder in the province of Quebec; in 1962 there were 42; in 1963 it jumped to 50, giving some credence to the theory that criminals were taking advantage of the policy of commutation. Then in 1964, the last year for which statistics are available, the number of murders decreased from 50 to 45. The number of victims follows a similar pattern. In 1961 there were 42; in 1962, 44; in 1963, 57. But in 1964 it dropped to 46.
Whether we are abolitionists or retention-ists, all of us, I am happy to say, realize that relatively few murderers fall into the category of cold, callous killers. Most people in justifying their argument for retention, and I respect this argument, emphasize the role that syndicated crime takes right now. I agree with them to the extent that I would

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
not particularly care if one of these particular murderers was captured and hanged, because I suppose they must be called the dregs of society.
That is the emotional answer I would give; but the cold, clinical answer is that statistically, at least on the information available in the United States, where some states are abolition and some retention, this type of professional killer does not expect to be captured. They are so cynical of the death penalty that they continue to operate in the main from those states that retain the death penalty when they could quite easily have their base of operations in what is known as an abolition state. I believe that the greatest deterrent the Canadian people can put at the disposal of law and order is not a continuation of the death penalty but an increase in the number of people captured.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The greatest deterrent, I suggest, is the fear of capture, not the fear of penalty in so far as hardened criminals are concerned. If we want to do something about murder, and I presume that is what this debate is all about, we have to hire more policemen. Most of the police forces of the large cities are badly understaffed, as the police chiefs will tell you.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, most of the retentionists have advanced but two good arguments. The first one has been that the death penalty is a deterrent. I hope I have proven to someone's satisfaction, as I have proven to my own, that according to statistics retention does not prevent crime. Second, of course, there are those who, like the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), quote the Bible so profusely. I can appreciate and understand those who want to retain the death penalty as a form of punishment. A man is entitled to his religious convictions, but quoting the Bible almost indiscriminately as justification for retention of capital punishment does not hold water when one realizes that the state of Israel has abolished the death penalty.
I imagine the Hebrew people have much stronger religious convictions than most people in this room. The Hebrew religion has been the basis of just about every religion. If anyone would respect the letter of the law and interpret the Bible accurately, it should be the people of the state of Israel. Well, they saw fit to abolish the death penalty many years ago. I have promised the whip I would

be brief, and I know there are many people who would like to participate in this debate. I thank you.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the many good arguments which have been advanced on both sides of this question of capital punishment, I find I am more and more persuaded that sincere differences exist between us. After having heard 40 or more members speak to the motion, I find myself in a position of having no really new argument to justify my intervention in the debate at this time. This fact, together with the lateness of the hour, invites me to refrain from delivering what I thought was a well prepared speech. I should like to see the question put tonight and I, for one, am ready for the question.
I rise merely to indicate that when the question is put I will vote in support of the abolition of capital punishment.


Mr. Yves Forest (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, the abolition or retention of capital punishment is an important and most controversial matter; opinions are divided and both sides have valid and serious arguments in support of their views.
It is a very emotional subject if one pictures a hanged man or if one thinks of the parents of the victim, so one gets carried away by ones feelings and it becomes difficult to discuss the real issue reasonably and logically. This has too often led to controversy while it should have been discussed coolly and reasonably. We have a heavy responsibility, for human lives are at stake now and in the future.
In view of the situation prevailing these past few years, when capital punishment was abolished in fact if not in theory, it has become imperative for the only competent authority, parliament of the country, finally to take a decision in order to determine whether the government is acting according to the wishes of the majority of the members or whether it is making undue use of its discretionary powers which, in fact, no longer exist when all death sentences are all commuted automatically and indiscriminately. The government was right to put this question to the representatives of the people as soon as possible at this session, because if capital punishment is to be abolished it should be done by appropriate legislation voted by the majority of members of parliament.
March 28, 1966

I entirely disagree with those who hold that this question should be put to the electorate by means of a national referendum. The representatives of the people can and must come to a decision on this matter in the light of studies and information made available to all hon. members.
Since the 1961 amendment of the criminal code, capital punishment is applicable only in cases of capital murder, that is one which has been committed deliberately and with premeditation, a crime with violence, the murder of a police officer or a jail guard. Providing for compulsory review by a court of appeal, the right of appeal to the supreme court and the recommendation of the jury for or against clemency in that category of murders, those were logical amendments restricting capital punishment to the most horrible crimes, those where the criminal was in full possession of his faculties and the charge was proved beyond all doubt, crimes committed in such circumstances that the criminal deserves no sympathy, there being no extenuating circumstances. I do not think there has been since sufficient motivation to change the law again and abolish capital punishment, which is now only applied in very specific cases.
It is unfortunately true that the crime wave now sweeping the country, as elsewhere, is growing yearly. Not a day goes by without newspapers reporting details of murders, thefts with violence, serious attacks, rapes and all sorts of other crimes. I read recently that in the United States a major crime is committed every 12 seconds and a murder, an attack with intent to kill or a rape, every two and a half minutes. In 1964, one policeman out of 10 was the victim of a deliberate attack; 57 were killed. It is remarkable that adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17 were responsible for almost half of all crimes against property. Three quarters of the individuals involved had already been up before the law. The percentage is comparable in Canada. It is obvious that this avalanche of different crimes has frightened the public which does not feel safe and well enough protected.
We must not be surprised at that and blame it considering the methods used and the daring of certain bandits who fear nothing. This is not the time, in my opinion, to reduce the protection given to society by abolishing the death penalty for the most hateful crime of all.
Criminal Code
An outstanding justice of the Ontario appeal court said a few years ago, and I quote:
The irrevocable character of the death penalty is a reason why all possible measures should be taken against injustice-not for its abolition. Nowadays, with the advent of armed criminals and the substantial increase in armed robberies, criminals of long standing if arrested, must expect long sentences. However, if they run no risk of hanging, when found guilty of murder, they will kill policemen and witnesses with the prospect of a future no more unhappy, as of one of them put it, than being fed, lodged and clothed for the rest of their lives. In addition, once in prison, such people who are capable of anything could kill their guards and their fellow inmates with relative impunity.
It is clear that those words are as timely as ever. Nobody will deny that the execution of a murderer and everything that surrounds it is a terrible thing but the murder itself is even more so.
Capital punishment must be retained to prove the sanctity of that most precious thing which is the gift of life; it embodies the repulsion and horror that we feel for the greatest of crimes.
Society has the right to protect the integrity of the human being and the life of its members against what threatens them. That is why it exists. Because the government of a country has the duty to protect and defend the common good, it has the right to take the necessary legal steps to protect the physical, moral, emotional and intellectual welfare of the community as a whole.
If the state has the right and the duty to defend the community against outside aggression, such as in time of war, and within the country, for instance, in case of treason, crimes against the state, etc., and that to the extent of taking the life of the aggressors and guilty parties, if the citizen wants to protect his own life by killing whoever attacks him without any reason, the state can do the same when a criminal attacks and endangers the life of the community by deciding to eliminate summarily another human being. I think that society represented by the government can use capital punishment to eliminate a person who, willfully, does not follow the laws of society and endangers the life of a member of the community, if it is proven that such a punishment, by its nature, is a good protection for that same society, particularly against the repetition of this odious crime by protecting people who otherwise would be future victims.

March 28, 1966
Criminal Code
Would life imprisonment, which often is nothing of the kind, advocated by the abolitionists, have that effect to the same extent as capital punishment?
Personally, I am morally convinced that the death penalty alone constitutes a measure with enough deterrent power to prevent such crimes and that is the main reason why I intend to vote for retaining the death penalty. That does not mean that I am in favour of retaining hanging as the only method of execution; I would like to see it replaced by the electric chair or even the gas chamber.
I am convinced that, in this day and age, to spare hardened murderers, who are beyond rehabilitation, is to condemn other people to pay for this with their lives.
How many of them will there be? How will it happen? Who will be killed? Will it be the policeman, the peaceful citizen or perchance, another criminal, for they make no bones about killing each other off in the underworld. On the other hand, society must protect them until 'such time as they are found guilty.
Mr. Speaker, if retaining capital punishment means that murders are prevented, certainly an incalculable number of them, then is it not imperative to keep that law in our statutes, for the protection of society?
Capital punishment certainly acts as a deterrent.
For most people, life is priceless and they will do anything and suffer the worst privations to preserve it, even when life itself does not hold many consolations or bright prospects for the future.
Acccording to an old proverb, fear is the beginning of wisdom, and undoubtedly capital punishment is an effective deterrent. This fear protects criminal organizations against indiscretions and blunders of their accomplices. What holds back professional criminals should all the more hold back potential criminals.
A prison chaplain said that often people found guilty of serious assaults would have killed their victim were it not for the innate and very real fear of hanging. Those who maintain that a severe sentence does not influence the behaviour of criminals and that life imprisonment would have the same effect should be asked why then those sentenced to death try by all available means and make every representation to obtain a commutation and escape hanging. For only death is final in this world and where there is life there is hope.

As a deterrent, the death penalty is playing its part for which there is no substitute. To this, abolitionists answer mainly that statistics, in countries and states where the death penalty was abolished, compared with those where it was retained or reestablished, would show that the homicide rates do not increase in the first case. I suggest that statistics do not prove much, either on one side or the other, as far as the efficiency or non-efficiency of capital punishment is concerned. There are too many variations, too many changes as regards circumstances, conditions, between one period and the other, to enable us to make worthy comparisons. To those who rely upon statistics, we could say that according to the press, in Great Britain, during the first year of abolition of capital punishment, namely in 1965, the number of murders is reported to have increased by one third, from 182 in 1964 to 249 in 1965.
* (9:30 p.m.)
Thousands of persons are alleged to have signed petitions asking that the death penalty be brought back. It will never be possible to appreciate adequately the deterrent effect of capital punishment, but I am sure it exists and to a greater extent perhaps in our society than in others. Prison guards and other people have referred to the beneficial effect a hanging has on inmates of a jail where it takes place. You can feel then an atmosphere of meditation which reflects a general feeling of disapproval for this most odious of all crimes.
One of the chief arguments used by those who advocate abolition is the possibility of a miscarriage of justice taking place where an innocent person would be executed instead of the actual murderer.
First, I believe no case can be quoted where, in Canada, it has been found that an innocent person has been executed. Under our judiciary system, the accused is deemed to be innocent, and the Crown has to prove beyond every doubt that he is guilty. Theoretically, there is room for an error, but in practice it is almost impossible. The accused is judged by 12 jurors whose verdict must be unanimous; if he is found guilty, the decision is reviewed by the Court of appeal and, normally, it is then brought before the Supreme Court. Finally, the case is submitted to the Cabinet with a view to commutation. The execution of an innocent person is almost impossible, and the chances of a miscarriage of justice are reduced to a minimum.
March 28, 1966

So, one has to choose between the protection of society and this very remote possibility of miscarriage of justice.
According to our law, it is obvious that murderers escape their just sentence because of the principle that it is better to acquit a criminal than to run the risk of condemning an innocent.
Mr. Speaker, I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer all the arguments advanced against capital punishment, but I should like to point out that almost all who, as members of the police force or penitentiary staff have come into contact with criminals for several years, are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment, and it seems that this is also the opinion of the Canadian people.
I believe that this is a realistic and practical view of the problem.
Before closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the general regulations or principles concerning crime punishment, have been carried out by our courts time and again for generations, and have had for effect to castigate or to punish a crime, but not to seek revenge. Their aims were, namely, to stop the criminal from committing a second crime, to prevent other people from committing similar offences, and in a wider sense, to make the court itself feel that crime is really an offence against the state that should be punished by the state for the common good of society. If an individual has shown through his conduct that he is antisocial, or is a threat to the community, he should then be temporarily or permanently excluded from it.
This is the expression of reproof, on the part of the state, of the harm done to society as a whole. However, punishment must always fit the crime. It is in that light that a penalty or a sentence must be considered and not as revenge or retribution.
Arguments brought up by abolitionists did not convince me of the need for further amendments to the legislation and for the elimination of the ultimate protection that society has against criminals of that kind, which will be the only ones to be executed, namely those who deliberately and wilfully take the life of other people.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the basic question we must consider when deciding whether to retain or to abolish capital punishment is the
Criminal Code
protection of the general public. All other matters are secondary and subservient to this. Every organized society has, as a matter of necessity, provided sanctions for this purpose. The fundamental reason for these sanctions is to prevent or to deter those actions which would take the lives, injure the bodies or impair the property rights of the members of the society to which they belong.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I do not think there is anybody in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, who would argue that there should be no deterrent to crime, or that there should be no police forces or prisons or nothing to prevent anybody doing just as he likes. I do not think that there are any in this chamber who argue that way.
Therefore, the argument in connection with this matter really comes down to this: Is capital punishment an effective deterrent to capital murder and treason, is it necessary as a deterrent, or are there other deterrents which would serve the purpose as well.
I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that no other deterrent is as effective, and I firmly believe that for the general protection of society we cannot afford to do without this final sanction of capital punishment for those people who have committed the crime of capital murder, or of treason. Statistics have been very much used, particularly by the abolitionists in this debate and to some extent by the retentionists, and in the great mass of literature which has come to my office. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that nothing can be proved one way or another from statistics. You an take the same statistics provided in a book put out by the government, and issued to all of us, in order to prove either side of this question to your own satisfaction. Hon. members can take the statistics to prove one position, and others may use them in a different way, to prove the opposite. As an example, turning to page 118 of this book and looking at the statistics for the state of Vermont, we see that the murder rate for that state from 1958 to 1963 was 3.2 per hundred thousand; .5, .3, 1.5, .3 and .5. Vermont is a state which has capital punishment. The abolitionists will take the year 1958 and say that the murder rate was 3.2, and they will compare that rate for the same year with the one in the state of Maine, for example, which happened to have a murder rate of 2.5, where they have not got the death penalty.
However, if you compare all the other years, you will find that the rate in Vermont

March 28. 1966
Criminal Code
is very much less than it is in the state of Maine. The only reason I quote from statistics is to give examples, because I want to show how the same figures exactly can be taken, and for the uninformed person who is listening, those figures will prove either side of the case.
My colleague from Royal (Mr. Fairweather) mentioned the situation in Maine and in New Brunswick. The only reason I mention it is because I heard this subject mentioned on the radio on Sunday. The commentators on the radio said that what the hon. member for Royal had pointed out constituted a great argument in favour of abolition; that the murder rates in these two areas next door to each other with similar types of population, and so on, were practically the same, although in Maine there is no death penalty and in New Brunswick there is.
However, look at the statistics provided about the states of South Dakota and North Dakota. These two states are more alike than are Maine and New Brunswick. The populations are very similar in their ethnic origins. They are the same in their general means of getting a livelihood, and so on. It is just an accident that the states of South Dakota and North Dakota are not one state. If you look at the murder rate of these states, you will see a considerable difference, which illustrates once again how impossible it is to take statistics for two areas next door to each other and try to prove anything from them. In many cases there is just no relationship between statistics. The figures may be found on pages 116 and 117 of the book on capital punishment. The same sort of thing holds true, if you go right through the figures.
If you look at the rates for different countries on page 86, you will find El Salvador with the highest rate, with 44.3 murders per hundred thousand. It has the death penalty. The next two countries, in order of murder rate are Colombia, with 15.9 and Puerto Rico with 14.1. Both these countries are without the death penalty.
What do these kinds of statistics prove? I think they simply prove that this is not a means by which you can determine whether the death penalty is a deterrent or whether it is not.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the best way to determine this, and the best way for any hon. member to determine this is to examine what his own reactions are to different situations, and then to observe what other people's reactions are, and to apply common sense. I

submit when you begin to apply that type of test to the particular question which we are debating that you will realize right away how you, yourself, are very subject to deterrents because of the fear of punishment of some sort or other. Is there any single person here who throughout his school days was not prevented practically, every day during the whole period he went to school from committing some offence against the regulations because of fear of punishment? This problem that we discuss is just as simple. I think there is no question at all but that everybody is deterred from actions of all kinds throughout his life because of the fear of consequences.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest fear of any, and therefore the greatest deterrent of any is the fear of death. Anyone who has crouched in a ditch or shallow trench with a lot of shell and machine-gun fire going on around him realizes how strong the fear of death is. Anyone who tries to persuade me, and who tries to persuade the majority of people that the fear of death is not much greater than the fear of life imprisonment, is not going to get very far with his argument.
We have the argument that life imprisonment is a great deterrent.


David Lewis: Would the hon. member answer a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will answer it when I have finished.
It is argued that life imprisonment is as great a deterrent as hanging, that the fear of life imprisonment is just as great, and will therefore serve as just as effective a deterrent as capital punishment. I submit that fear of life imprisonment is nothing like as great a deterrent as is the fear of death, because a man sentenced to life imprisonment knows that in most cases he is going to be paroled; in other words, he still has hope. First of all, he has the hope of parole and in most cases people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment have been paroled. Second, he has the hope of escape. With these twin hopes of parole and escape, the fear of life imprisonment, and thus the deterrent effect of life imprisonment, is nothing like as great as the fear of death.


An hon. Member:: Let us take the vote.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to point out also, and I will not dwell on this very long because it has been pointed out many times before, that capital punishment is used at the
March 28, 1966

present time only for a limited number of the homicides which take place. First of all you have all the manslaughter cases, secondly you have all the non-capital murder cases, and then, it is only for capital murder and treason that the punishment of death takes place.
Capital murder means cold-blooded murder. It means murder which takes place in the commission of a planned crime, or it is the murder of a policeman who is attempting to apprehend a criminal, or who is attempting to prevent an escape, or something along that line. Under these circumstances, the concern of the abolitionists, as far as I can gather it, is that a very large number of people are going to have their lives taken from them. But, as far as the death penalty is concerned, we generally are not talking about too many people.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
One of the great arguments put forward by the abolitionists involves the possibility of hanging an innocent man. I will not say that this is impossible but I will assert that it is close to being impossible, bearing in mind the way in which justice is administered at this time and considering the number of commutations which have taken place.
The other night the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) brought up the Truscott case. I was sorry to see this case introduced into the discussion because it has nothing to do with the question of the abolition or retention of capital punishment. This is the case of a minor whose sentence was automatically commuted. At the present time the sentence of hanging could not be imposed upon him. However, after going into this case at considerable length, evidently with the idea of stirring up horror and making converts to the abolitionists cause, the hon. member for Greenwood said as reported at page 3077:
Had Truscott been an older man, he would have been hanged by the neck until he was dead and there would be no way of reversing this irreversible verdict.
That statement was just not correct. I can state, without impinging on my oath of cabinet secrecy, I think, that the sentence would have been commuted in a case of this sort. There is every reason to think so. I say the case would have been commuted in any event, had the man been 20 or 25 years of age, on the basis of the evidence presented in the book which Mrs. LeBourdais has written. This is the sort of thing I deplore in the present debate-statements which are made as
Criminal Code
though they were completely truthful whereas in fact they will not stand up to examination at all.
I do not wish to delay the vote on the resolution. I merely state in conclusion that I intend to vote against it and I trust that a majority of the members of this house will do likewise.
I think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) wished to ask a question. I would be happy to answer it now.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, well and good to shout "question, question", but I think we did not give enough thought yet to this question and that is more serious than any of us seems to believe. In fact, it is a fundamental question.
We must give due reflection to this question of abolishing the death penalty. It has been given a great deal of consideration and much approbation. Several members declared themselves in favour and others against, so much so that I think wide differences of opinion prevail among the members.
Before reaching a decision on such a question, it behooves us to analyse the matter of criminality and its consequences, to consider the solutions we should bring in to various problems, because there are several reasons for this crime wave in Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there are causes for crimes. All the crimes committed are not all premeditated crimes.
[English1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac but there does appear to be more noise in the chamber than usual and it is hard to hear what the hon. member is saying.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with several decisions in our discussions on capital punishment, because it is a question of life or death. And the issue, as I have mentioned a moment ago, is very serious, and the responsibility which bears over the shoulders of every member of the house is fraught with consequences.
We must struggle until the end to maintain life, as it is due to a supreme power. We must consider this problem with a great deal of calm and impartiality.
We must accept the evidence that man and society should be protected; both are related

March 28. 1968
Business of the House
since society creates man and man creates society. Man has needs and a conscience; he wants the first to be satisfied and the second to be respected and protected.
Society's first responsibility is to see to it that this is achieved.
If society does not stand in the way of man's self-accomplishment, if he finds in the state which represents him a conscience that understands his own, man will integrate in that state; if not, he will rise against society. The fault is not in man, but in society itself, because in society there are human beings and it is inhuman for society not to meet its basic responsibility.
Man has rights, but without the strength to enforce them, how can he defend them? When man and society face each other, the state always wins, since it is stronger; even in case of a revolution, where, of biological necessity, the state rises again from its ashes, the discrepancy in strength is so great between the two, that the very concept of rights is always ridiculous and inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, many people have become human wrecks, hardened sinners, criminals or gangsters. Whose fault is it? Let me analyse the situation.
How did it come about? If such disorder exists in our society and our country, it is above all because our economy, in several respects, does not play a proper part.
It is mainly because it is antisocial, inhuman, deceitful, depriving people from their needs and of their sacred right to the necessaries of life-
May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in order to
reply to that question, if the member for Compton-Frontenac is to speak at greater length and the vote is taken afterwards, if there are any others who wish to talk, perhaps he could go on with his remarks tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Cowan:: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Does the Minister of Public Works desire to make a statement at this time?

[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to confirm the announcement made earlier, that the budget will be delivered tomorrow night at eight o'clock. In that connection I would ask that the house agree to suspend the sitting tomorrow night from seven until eight o'clock, bearing in mind that the budget must be delivered at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Then I would like to ask the house to consider extending the special order on the order paper to make government time available for the capital punishment debate, until seven o'clock tomorrow night. If I have unanimous consent I would put that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair heard an objection.


David Réal Caouette: When the budget is presented tomorrow night, are we going to debate it right afterwards?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to be helpful I was going to go on to give some indication of the business ahead for the next few days. I had asked, as hon. members will have noticed, that we continue with the capital punishment debate tomorrow, then have the budget at eight o'clock. Our plans for Wednesday had been the supplementary estimates, and the two judges bills which I thought would take very little time. When these were completed we would resume the capital punishment debate on Wednesday, and if necessary continue on Thursday.
I was giving this outline in the hope that the resolution could come to a vote after all hon. members who wish to speak had made their speeches, perhaps tomorrow, or on Wednesday, or Thursday. Then we would like to resume the budget debate on Friday and have four continuous days of budget debate. That is the plan of business we had in mind; but in view of the inability to get consent to continue with the capital punishment debate tomorrow, the house should be ready for the government to call any item of business on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us some advance notice of what it will be.


George James McIlraith: I have sought to give advance notice, and I have given notice of what we plan right from now until April 6. I really think the interests of the house would be
March 28, 1966

better served if we could go on with the capital punishment debate but, not being able to do that, the government will have to revise its plans and do what we can with other business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I estimate that only 20 per cent of the members of the house have participated in the debate on capital punishment. Does the house leader consider it possible to provide an opportunity for the remaining 80 per cent to make speeches, if they so desire, tomorrow or on Thursday, and complete the debate?


George James McIlraith: The fundamental difference between myself and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre on this point is that I find myself completely unable to accept the figures he has given in his estimate. That is the difficulty on a matter like this, which is a private members measure. It is difficult to be sure of how many members wish to speak. According to the best information I could get by consulting members of the different parties, and having other people do so, the resolution could probably come to a vote by tomorrow night, or certainly on Wednesday, or failing that, sometime on Thursday at the latest. That was what was in my mind in announcing the business for the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder I if I may put a question to the government house leader. It is based on the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to make arrangements for a decision to be reached concerning capital punishment. If a way can be found within the rules, and I believe it can, for government time to be given to this debate tomorrow, is the government willing to make that arrangement?


George James McIlraith: That was the point I was considering. I think we can do this without unanimous consent. But since I did have the courtesy to ask the house for unanimous consent and was refused, I may be forced into the position of using other methods which I heartily dislike.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is entitled to know which hon. member did have the discourtesy to refuse unanimous consent to a very reasonable request.


Mr. Lambert:: I do not think it was discourteous.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Perhaps you do not, Edmonton, but I do.
Business of the House


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it would be extremely useful to the house if the government house leader could either now or tomorrow give some assurance that the government will allow sufficient time for this debate on abolition of capital punishment to go on until there is a determination by the house, rather than facing the prospect that the motion may be talked out.


George James McIlraith: We are caught in a difficult situation here. It would be an act of irresponsibility to say that the government will continue this debate until there is a vote. If there is no will in the house to reach a decision there could be one amendment after another, with debate, for the sake of preventing a decision. That would mean that all other legislation would have to be put aside. There is a responsibility for parliament to provide an opportunity for consideration of government business and its acceptance or rejection, as hon. members see fit, after proper debate.
Our problem is really to find a technique that will provide private members with a full and proper opportunity to discuss this matter. Having done that, and having made that government time available by taking it away from government matters, I think we are entitled to have a decision made by parliament. I am prepared to be as reasonable as one can properly be, with any sense of responsibility, in order that this matter can be completely debated and a vote taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I just say to the minister that I was not suggesting that the debate go beyond Thursday. I realize that the budget debate has to begin and that government legislation must be proceeded with, but if there can be some agreement that if the vote is not reached by Thursday time will be allowed later in the session so that this matter can be considered, it would be helpful.


George James McIlraith: I think we are getting involved in another question as to how much government time should responsibly be taken away from government business in order to make it available for this debate, because such an order would simply mean there would be no vote on Thursday. Surely that is not what is desired by the vast majority of members on all sides of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister one question. What will be the first item on orders of the day tomorrow?
March 28. 1966
3324	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


George James McIlraith: For the reasons I have given earlier this evening, I regret that I am not able to say with precision at the moment. I hope we can return to the debate on capital punishment. If we cannot I think hon. members should be ready for any item of government business on the order paper.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the government house leader of the suggestion I made earlier, and ask him to keep it in mind as a possible way out of an impasse which would serve us all well. If the mood of the house permits, at some time unanimous consent should be sought for a motion to refer the subject matter of this motion to a special committee of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is now before the house a motion to adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, as one who has always been a firm supporter of the principle of human rights, and as one who is intellectually opposed to discrimination on the basis of sex, I have always been interested in equal rights for all people. Some years ago I was approached by a lady who informed me she had been refused a loan by one of the banks, strictly because she was a woman. At that time I thought this was a passing phase in our evolution toward a complete democracy and that the situation would soon be changed. However, two or three years ago several ladies informed me that they had been refused loans by various banks, although they had some limited security, on the grounds that they were women and were therefore not considered capable of carrying on a business profitably, thereby assuring repayment of the loans in question.
I asked them to give me their names and the facts surrounding the refusal of these loans, but with the usual modesty displayed by the fair sex on such occasions, they did not wish any publicity in the matter. However quite recently my attention was drawn


to an article in the South Edmonton Sun of Saturday, March 19, this year, entitled "Sex Discrimination in Canadian Banking". I wish to quote from this article:
By secret agreement the eight chartered banks of Canada have banned the transfer of loan accounts from one bank to another. They are also accused of discrimination against their employees because if a member of the staff of one bank quits his job none of the other seven banks will hire him.
All this by secret agreement. Now we have evidence that the banks also (apparently by secret agreement) refuse to loan money to Canadian women-simply because of their sex.
I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully.
In response to our current series on Canada's banking system, Miss Audrey Tyndall of Provost, Alta., agreed to be interviewed by one of our reporters. And here is the interview:
Reporter: Miss Tyndall, how did you become involved in farming?


Miss   Tyndall@: For 14 years I was an unpaid worker on my father's farm. During this time I bought a quarter-section, adjacent to my father's land, for $200 annually. I worked as a school bus driver and used the money I earned to buy several calves. I raised the calves and eventually paid for the quarter-section. By working at Wainwright during the summer I earned enough money to buy additional calves.
Reporter: Were you in the cattle business long?


Miss   Tyndall@: No. Because 1955 was a hard year for raising cattle, I decided to raise horses because they are easier to care for during the winter. Having decided to raise horses, I obtained grazing leases from the Lands and Forests Branch for 11 quarter-sections. I bought and paid for another half-section; all this land has been fenced. Now I have 39 horses and I wish to buy my father's farm. It has the proper buildings and good soil for raising feed. The farm is worth $12,000 and I require $1,000 for operating expenses.
Reporter: What financial arrangements have you made to buy the farm?


Miss   Tyndall@: None. I tried several times to negotiate a loan, but everywhere I went I was refused a loan because I am a woman.
I see hon. gentlemen laughing over there, but they did always see me standing up for the women. This article continues:
The people at the Industrial Development Bank suggested that I turn my money or land over to one Cecil Fleming-who does not own his land-for security, and that he would get the loan on my behalf. An application made with the Farm Purchase Board passes at the municipal level, but was rejected by Ken Taylor of the Department of Agriculture. They just say, "It's too bad you are not a man!" The Farm Credit Bureau adopted the same attitude. Various banks and our treasury branches have also refused to lend me money.
Reporter: Why must you buy the farm now?


Miss   Tyndall@: Because my father is anxious to sell and there are many other prospective buyers for a good farm.
Reporter: Thank you, Miss Tyndall.
March 28. 1966

Well, when Ottawa gets through with the Spencer case and the sex-security trials maybe parliament will have time to deal with Canada's banking system.
Down in the deep south they discriminate against human beings because of their colour. In Canada our banking institutions discriminate against women because of their sex. Should the people of Canada tolerate this sort of thing?
Because of my experience on two occasions of women bringing their complaints to my attention, and having read this very interesting article in the South Edmonton Sun, I asked the minister this question in the house on March 24:
Has the minister's attention been drawn to press reports to the effect that loans to women have been refused by the Industrial Development Bank and other banks, simply on the grounds that they were women? Would the minister make inquiries of the Industrial Development Bank and other banks . . . in this respect?
I look forward to an answer from the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are all happy to see that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) stands up again to fight for the rights of minorities, and particularly the rights of women in the business world. I wish to make the following reply:-

I have not seen the press reports to which my hon. friend referred. I should say, however, I am advised by the Industrial Development Bank that it does not discriminate, and would not dream of discriminating, amongst loan applicants on the basis of sex, if I may use that word. We know of no reason why women should not be regarded as creditworthy. The Industrial Development Bank does in fact make loans to women applicants. The fact that these are relatively few in number simply reflects I suggest the relatively small number of women who are in business. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think we should follow the suggestion of my hon. friend and give every consideration to women in business.	*



HEALTH AND WELFARE-REPORTED INCREASE IN THE INCIDENCE OF TUBERCULOSIS

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: I asked a question on Thursday, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) which grew out of an article in the Globe and Mail in

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which it was reported that Dr. Gregoire, when speaking to the College of General Practitioners, had indicated a rather surprising increase in the incidence of tuberculosis. The number of new, active cases in 1965 had increased by 5 per cent over those reported in the previous year. He further stated that more than $50 million was spent annually in Canada for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of tuberculosis. He said that people over 50 were more prone to develop tuberculosis today.
I was concerned at the time because of the national significance. Then this morning, in the mail, I received the most recent edition of the Vernon News. I discovered that the medical director of the North Okanagan Health Unit, Dr. M. R. Smart, had reported there had been an increase in the incidence of tuberculosis in that health district. The increase is small, namely five new cases within the last year as opposed to two in the previous year. However, if you consider the percentage increase, it is rather dramatic in this local constituency situation.
He also gave some figures that were rather revealing on the ages of the people involved. The number who are known to have had tuberculosis in the past and are now considered inactive cases totalled 289. There were 121 of those in the 20 to 49 age group, and 167 in the 50 and over bracket. This seems to bear out the statement made in the Globe and Mail.
I do not really know whether Dr. Gregoire made a proper statement when he said people over 50 are more prone to develop tuberculosis. I think he should have said that people 60 and 70 are less able to resist tuberculosis. One of the reasons they are less able to resist this disease is that the old age pension is extremely low. I was interested in knowing what steps the Department of National Health and Welfare was contemplating in order to bring this very dreaded disease under greater control.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I was hoping that one of the measures, one which I think would do most in this regard, would be dramatically to increase the size of the old age security pension. If $50 million-I realize this is not federal funds by any means but is a sum which will be divided up among many levels of government-is spent annually in Canada on diagnosis, treatment and following up cases of tuberculosis, it must be somewhat disheartening to people conducting that program to realize that there are many
March 28, 1966
3326	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion who would have very little resistance to tuberculosis. Because such things as vitamin pills, fresh fruit and a balanced diet would really become something of a luxury in view of the size of the old age security pension at the present time.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) can say what he likes about its being difficult for him to vote against an increase in the old age security pension, but we in this party did not vote against an increase in the old age security pension: We voted an opportunity for this government to take some action in this regard.
The question I raise of the increased incidence of tuberculosis is quite closely related to the difficult time that many older people are having. Dr. Gregoire quoted a study made in California in which every known case of tuberculosis was followed up. The study showed that 5 per cent of 100,000 arrested cases were actually still positive-and that in California, where the climate is much more salubrious than anywhere in Canada. I would wonder what sort of figures would be produced by the same sort of study among Canadians who are cases of arrested tuberculosis, particularly those in the elderly age group.


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the hon. member and I should like to tell him that the department is reviewing continuously the indications of any increase in the number of tuberculosis cases in the country.
I am glad to inform the hon. member that a conference was held recently involving organizations and persons interested in this problem, as a result of the interest taken by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, the Canadian Tuberculosis Association and the provincial ministers of health.
The Department of National Health and Welfare officials stated on behalf of the government at that conference that we are prepared to offer every assistance to the provincial departments of health, including the continuation of the federal tuberculosis grant, in efforts to combat the disease.



PENITENTIARIES-ST. VINCENT DE PAUL- SUICIDE OP PRISONER

Mr. Warren AUmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 24, Conrad Brunelle, a prisoner at St. Vincent de


Paul penitentiary, committed suicide by hanging himself with a belt. Mr. Brunelle was serving a three-year term for a series of armed robberies. He was also believed to be implicated in certain undertakings with Lucien Rivard and was considered a possible witness to other crimes.
This suicide has attracted special attention because Mr. Brunelle had attempted to cut his throat three months earlier but was stopped before he could complete the damage. That is why on Friday, March 25, I asked the Solicitor General whether he intended to undertake any investigation in this case.
It seems to me and to many others that something must be wrong with the administration of penitentiaries when a prisoner is left in a situation to commit suicide, having already survived a previous attempt made three months earlier. It seems strange that he should have access to materials that could be used for violent purposes either against himself or against others. One would have thought that a prisoner such as Brunelle would have been placed under special care and given special medical and psychiatric care.
We are presently debating the abolition of capital punishment. Some hon. members have suggested that if we abolish capital punishment society will be left unprotected. But I maintain, Mr. Speaker, we shall be left unprotected if we do not attack the real causes of crime and violence. It seems to me that one of those causes is the inadequacy of our prison reform and of our criminal rehabilitation systems. If we are going to prevent murder, we must get at the core of the problem.
Several radio stations and newspapers, including the Montreal Gazette, have raised the issue of this particular suicide. The Montreal Gazette on Saturday had an editorial with respect to it. Many of us believe that the government ought to conduct an investigation into this suicide, to find out how it could have taken place. Once this is done, we should see to it that those responsible are disciplined and that reforms are introduced.


Mr. Paul Beaulieu (Sainl-Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to point out that the house should adjourn, because we do not have a quorum.
March 28, 1966	COMMONS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but only the member who has put the question can state his case and the minister concerned or his representative can answer.
[English1


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the death referred to by the hon.
DEBATES	3327
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion member will be the subject of a coroner's inquest. All the facts will be laid before the coroner. As a result of the inquest I hope that this question will be clarified to the satisfaction of the hon. member.
[Translation}
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.29 p.m.



END OF VOLUME III