1967-11-14

CONGRATULATIONS TO MEMBER FOR ONTARIO ON SERVICE AS LEADER OF OPPOSITION

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to the fact that barring unforeseen and unexpected circumstances, this is the last day on which the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) will be the Leader of the Opposition, and I would like to congratulate him if I may. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I offer the congratulations of the house on the way he has carried out his responsibilities. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there have been times when he has been quite unreasonable and strong headed in his criticism of the government, but he seems to get away with that sort of thing yet maintain the regard, respect and affection of us all. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that he will move over in a political but not a physical sense, and we are delighted that he will still be around.
Perhaps a more important reason for rising on this day is that the hon. gentleman's last day as Leader of the Opposition is his first day as a young man of 57. I should like to extend to him our congratulations and to wish him many happy returns.


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the right hon. Prime Minister for his flattering and kind words. They almost made me feel like a blushing bride. I appreciate his thoughtfulness in directing these words to me.
May I say that as a short term interim leader I have had the good fortune to receive the full co-operation of the members of our party, and thus my task was made easier. I know the new leader on his arrival in the house tomorrow will receive the same cooperation, and I am sure, the Prime Minister will suitably welcome him.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the members of this party may be allowed to associate themselves
with the words of the right hon. Prime Minister in extending congratulations to the hon. member for Ontario on the able manner in which he has discharged his duties as acting Leader of the Opposition. We also wish him good health and good fortune on his birthday anniversary.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we want to join with the other hon. members in offering our best wishes to the present Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, lest our silence be misunderstood, we in this group want to associate ourselves with the expressions of good wishes to the hon. member for Ontario.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m)



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-183, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 and Publication of Statutes Act (proceedings to be printed in French and English on the same page).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister was so kind to me earlier today I shall refrain from asking him a question about the C.B.C. Instead I shall direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether the statement he made yesterday to the effect that the United States has no right to be in Viet Nam-I might say this was widely quoted in the press-represents a new hardening of the government's attitude on this matter, or does it now represent the government's policy?

November 14, 1367
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I did not make any such reference to the United States action in Viet Nam. I understand that the Canadian Press have corrected this erroneous report, and I am grateful to them for correcting it as quickly as they did.


Michael Starr: I wish to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since there seems to be confusion in the minds of members of the press when quoting the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will the Prime Minister very shortly make a clear cut statement of the government's policy on Viet Nam, as well as other matters, and allow a day for discussion of this very important matter in the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it might be very useful, in due course, to have a discussion of this matter if the parliamentary timetable will make that possible. I could, of course, call my hon. friend's attention to the fact there will be a supply motion very shortly, and this would be a wonderful opportunity to introduce that subject.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: May
I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Canadian Press is singularly accurate in its reporting of what public figures say, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs outline to us just what it was he did say on this very important matter; because it is important to the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that no question can be asked about a statement made outside the house by a minister. The only question that is generally accepted is one directed to the Prime Minister requesting information as to whether the alleged statement represents government policy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has replied to the first question on the subject.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a further supplementary question. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider that the United States has a right to be in Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of External Affairs. Can the minister say whether the partial broadcast of his remarks in his own voice to this effect and also the Canadian Press quote are incorrect?
[Mr. Starr 1


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, they were not incorrect; but so that my hon. friend will not convey the wrong impression, what I said over the radio had nothing to do with the question put by the acting Leader of the Opposition.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of another newspaper report concerning a purported statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Canadian Club in Toronto, to the effect that Canada intends to remain loyal to NATO and NORAD, will the minister make a statement to the house on this important decision so the members will be officially informed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will look at Hansard for April 11 he will see that I did make a statement on behalf of the government outlining our position with regard to NATO. He will find also in the records of the external affairs committee of the other house a full statement on these two collective security arrangements. Likewise if he will examine the records of the external affairs committee of this house he will find some very edifying reading material.

REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN CASH ADVANCES On the orders of the day:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask if he has received a telegram from the National Farmers' Union requesting an increase in cash advances on farm stored grain to $1.10 per bushel on wheat, 70 cents per bushel on barley and 40 cents per bushel on oats. If the minister has received such a request, what action does the government intend to take in respect of this very reasonable proposition?


Hon. Roberl Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have
received such a request, and I received a similar request from the president of the Manitoba wheat pool. I am now in the process of preparing an answer, but my answer will be the same as that given in the house previously, namely that the government is not currently contemplating a change in the cash advances program.
November 14, 1967


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that competitive trading has compelled the Canadian Wheat Board to sell wheat at 4 cents a bushel below the proposed floor in the new international grains arrangement, 1967, is the government initiating discussions with other wheat exporting countries with a view to trying to get some agreement to remain within the price range set out in the proposed agreement? If so, with what countries have these discussions been held and what response has been received?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, not all grades of wheat are trading below the minimum agreed to at Geneva. I think the hon. member is referring particularly to No. 1 northern which has shown the result of highly competitive market conditions recently. I can assure the hon. member that we are discussing this problem with other wheat producing and exporting countries.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the startling criticism of the Secretary of State contained in the statement read by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation President Alphonse Ouimet on behalf of the directors of the C.B.C., has the government asked for the resignation of these directors?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is any reply contemplated by the government and, if so, what is the nature of that reply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am examining the statement at the moment.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether by his last reply he intends the house to understand that he will be making a statement on this matter in the very near future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will decide that after examining the statement very carefully.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member for Kamloops that things are getting a little too complicated. The hon. member for Yukon asked a supplementary which had nothing to do with the matter being discussed at the moment. The hon. member for Kamloops wants to return to that question. We will return to him eventually.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question I wanted to ask was whether the Prime Minister is satisfied that leaving the matter in its present state with this controversy raging will not create great difficulties in obtaining reputable people to serve on the board in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is too pessimistic in this regard.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saini-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the excessive increase in the cost of living, does the government realize the necessity of increasing unemployment insurance benefits?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: If the Minister of Finance were here, Mr. Speaker, I should probably address this question to him. Perhaps it ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister in any event. Have the provinces indicated that they will ask the federal government at the financial conference this week to share with them in the responsibility for delaying medicare? If so, how many provinces are making such a request and will the federal government go along with them or not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge to that effect, but I shall be glad to discuss the

November 14, 1967
Inquires of the Ministry matter with the Minister of Finance when he returns this evening. But I have no information to that effect in the form in which the question was put by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it still the government's position that there will be no amendment to the medicare legislation which provides that medicare is to come into effect on July 1, 1968?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that question yesterday.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if his government has arrived at any conclusion about what medicare will cost the federal government if it is implemented on July 1, 1968.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is impossible to come to that conclusion until we know the intentions of the provinces, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, since the secretary of transport of the United States government has just announced in Washington new federal tire standards for the protection of the United States motoring public, when does the Minister of Transport intend to announce similar Canadian standards for the protection of the Canadian motoring public?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: We are busily working on this problem at the present time, Mr. Speaker, to see what we can do and what should be done as expeditiously as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put to the Solicitor General a question of which I gave him notice yesterday.
In view of the fact that, on or about September 16, two young Canadians, Marjorie Sharp and Bertram Kidd, disappeared at the

Mexican border and also that the parents have been complaining since that date that they are not getting the sympathy and the assistance of the authorities, could the minister inform the house whether the R.C.M.P. has been alerted and report on the progress of the measures taken?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Before answering, Mr. Speaker, I should acknowledge that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) wrote to me on October 24 about the same matter. The R.C.M. Police have been in touch with Interpol, Mexico, and with the F.B.I. Inquiries are continuing in Mexico and the United States on the part of Mexican authorities and the F.B.I. respectively. The R.C.M. Police have made all possible efforts and later this day will let the parents of both persons concerned know the results to date of the R.C.M. Police investigation.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wish to ask him whether, in view of Canada's position on the international joint commission in Viet Nam, he or his government will or will not re-examine what can be done to prevent war material for use in Viet Nam from being exported from Canada.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dealt with this matter at some length a few months ago. I add that this government's policy is not to export military equipment to Viet Nam. This policy is being implemented effectively by the control procedures established pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act.
Because of the open border between Canada and the United States there are no controls with respect to goods exported to that country. I ask my hon. friend who criticizes Canada, I know with no ill feeling, to recognize at the same time that another member of the commission has sent aid to the north.


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a question of privilege, I did not criticize Canada by my question; I criticized the Canadian government.
November 14, 1967



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most appropriate minister for me to address my question to is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Further to the announcement yesterday by the Minister of Labour respecting the difficulties in the port of Montreal, has the Minister of Trade and Commerce received any complaints concerning the recently announced 25 per cent surcharge on port handling charges at Montreal? Also, is the minister investigating the serious effects of these added costs on the sale of Canadian products abroad?


Robert Henry Winters: No, sir, I have not.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When will the government report on its position with respect to the recommendations of the Mclvor commission on fresh water fish marketing?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, we completed our preliminary studies. With respect to the provincial governments concerned we are prepared to collaborate with them in developing suitable joint marketing arrangements and we have told them so. The Minister of Fisheries, I understand, plans to meet with representatives of the provinces concerned to determine to what extent the other aspects of the commission report should be implemented, having regard, of course, to the provincial and federal respective jurisdictions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as leader of the house. Does the government intend to present its supplementary budget 27053-2681
Inquiries of the Ministry before we deal with the resolutions pertaining to last June's budget, so we can deal with the resolutions of both budgets together?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The announcement of business last night indicated that we would wish to proceed with the budget resolutions following the committee stage of the corporate and consumer affairs bill. However, I would be happy to consider the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask whether his criticism yesterday was directed against Australia, New Zealand and other countries which are engaged in the war in Viet Nam when he used these words:
No nation has a right to interfere in the matters of other countries except under the auspices of the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not in order, because he is inviting the minister to comment on a speech he made outside the house. There might be some other way of asking the question. It might be asked directly by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was using the direct words of the minister; I thought he would like to give the house an explanation. Against whom was he directing his criticism? Surely he would not be going back to the Russian entry into Hungary a few years ago?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: The hon. gentleman was apparently basing his question on a press report. I might say to him that there is no one in these matters who is a greater master of distortion and confusion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a question of privilege, I want to save the dean of the house from a grievous error. In the 32 years he has been here I do not think he has committed an error like that, and I am sure he wishes to withdraw and apologize to the house and set a better example to junior members like myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

November 14, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister of Mr. Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary external affairs did not want to impute false of State for External Affairs is now trying to motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg make a joke of a very serious matter. All he South Centre, and perhaps he should be has to do is withdraw the accusations and given an opportunity to explain.	the situation will be cleared up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not want to impute motives, of course. Perhaps the word I should have used was the word "forged".
An hen. Member: Shame.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am grateful to the minister now for giving me the opportunity to rise on another question of privilege with which I hope you will deal, Mr. Speaker, as it was dealt with several years ago by the former Speaker.
The minister is using the word "forged" in relation to an allegation made by himself and others on that side at the time I read into Hansard a letter which had come into my possession bearing the signature of Mr. But-terworth. At that time, when this matter was considered, the Speaker ruled that such an accusation could not be made with regard to my action.
As the minister has now, in an attempt to malign me, used this word, I hope further encouragement from me will suggest to his alert mind that he should withdraw such an expression because he must, I think, watch his image across the country in connection with future leadership capabilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remember the incident to which the hon. member refers because 1 believe I was accidentally in the chair at that moment, and I would think that again the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be given an opportunity to indicate to the house that he does not want to impute motives. Certainly hon. members of the house, and particularly senior members, should be particularly careful in the expressions they use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has said I have been in the house a long time, and I think I do understand the motives of members opposite. I sat in the opposition myself. But when hon. gentlemen start needling they must expect a response. I do not want to impute any motives. I do not want to be unfair to my hon. friend, and I forgive him for anything he may have said about me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I made no accusations against my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I expect it would be using unparliamentary language if the minister, or any other hon. member, accused another hon. member of knowingly using forged documents. There is no question whatever that forged documents can come accidentally into the hands of any member of the house. If an hon. member represented such documents as authentic certainly this would be wrong, and it would be unparliamentary to suggest that documents are being used in this way. I suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he should indicate to the house that he did not make a reference to the use of documents in this way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I made no accusation against my hon. friend. He is the last person in the world against whom I would make such an accusation, and that is the situation. I told him that I did not impute motives. Within the rules of the house I had no right to do so and in fact was not doing so. I would ask him to be equally generous.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I regret I am still not satisfied with this. The suggestion that I have at any time used in this house a forged document is a despicable attempt to attack my reputation. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, mentioned that forged documents might accidentally come into the hands of members. I have no knowledge that ever in my lifetime has a forged document appeared in my possession.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without getting into an argument that may go on for hours I submit it is not unparliamentary- and this is what I have said before-to suggest that a member has had in his possession or has quoted a document which is not authentic if the hon. member does not know it is not authentic. Unless the minister has said anything beyond this I really do not see what he has to withdraw.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question of privilege. I think we have come pretty low in this house when a senior member like the
November 14, 1S67

Secretary of State for External Affairs uses the word "forged" in connection with another hon. member, because it reveals to me that he is returning to the cannibalism he practised when he was in the opposition. I think the word "forged" should be withdrawn so the record is clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that on reflection hon. members will agree with me that it is not unparliamentary to refer to a document as a forged document. I certainly cannot see what is unparliamentary in this. What is against the rules of the house is for an hon. member to say that another member has used a document which he represented as being authentic, knowing it was not. This certainly would be unparliamentary and would have to be withdrawn. There is a clear line between the two, but I must suggest to hon. members that not much can be gained by pursuing the matter further.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I did not start this interchange; the Secretary of State for External Affairs did. I now ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to prove his implied charge that I used a forged document in the house. Now then, if he has the evidence let us have it. He has not got the evidence; that is why he is afraid to do it.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I may be accused of many things but my hon. friend will not be able to accuse me of being afraid to deal in debate with him or anyone else in this house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I accuse you right now.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I had made no accusation against my hon. friend, and I readily accept his denial of something which had not been said in this instance. Since he has made a denial, under the rules of the house willingly I accept it without any reservations.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There is nothing to withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Starr: Now you are back to your normal state, something you have kept in check for three years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This exchange between the two members is getting someinquiries of the Ministry what out of control. I really do not think, and I repeat, that there was anything to withdraw. The minister has just made a statement in which he said he did not impute any motives to the hon. member. To all intents and purposes he has withdrawn anything he might have said which might have hurt the hon. member, and which might have been unparliamentary. I now recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the uncertainty as to what the minister did say or did not say in his speech to the Canadian Club over the week end, I wonder if he would make available copies of that speech to members of the house.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I would be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Will she communicate with the officials of the C.B.C. to ensure that the tape of the minister's speech, to which reference has been made, will be preserved and be available for the external affairs committee?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slale):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that really my hon. friend himself has pretty good lines of communication with the C.B.C.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, would the minister answer my question and give the house the assurance that she will see the officials of the C.B.C. in order to preserve that tape?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Surely that is the responsibility of the external affairs committee. It is its business; it isn't my business.


Erik Nielsen: As a further supplementary, will she communicate with the officials of the C.B.C. to see that the tape is preserved and not destroyed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Further to my inquiry of yesterday

November 14, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry concerning a reported protest from the government of North Viet Nam, has the Prime Minister as yet had an opportunity to consult with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and has the government of North Viet Nam in fact sent a protest to the government of Canada concerning Canada's alleged non-neutral behaviour as a member of the international control commission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoil (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very non-controversial question to pose to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister who, when he isn't the Minister of Labour, devotes his spare time-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reid Scott: - to Canada's outstanding social problem, namely the housing crisis-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, this can't go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is unhappy with the reaction, but I must say he does not help his own cause very much.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I spent all week end thinking of a nice, non-controversial way in which to pose this question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not been very successful.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Reid Scott: Well, I will try again. In any event it is a question to our part time minister of housing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Reid Scott: Can the minister now give an answer to the very reasonable requests that we have been making for four or five weeks? Can he now inform the house as to the agenda for the forthcoming housing conference, and has he reached-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
fMr. Nesbitt.]


Reid Scott: Can we have no order on the government side? In particular, has the minister reached any decision on his agreement to consider the possibility of having our municipalities represented, and also having representatives from the opposition parties?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question has been answered almost every day of late, or nearly two or three times a week and, as late as yesterday, I believe, to the effect that the agenda has not yet been settled and I have said that when it has been settled it will be announced. It also has been stated that it is not expected to be settled before at least a couple of weeks. That part of the question was answered yesterday.
The second part of the question, as to whether the municipalities would take part in this conference, also has been dealt with. The Prime Minister in his letter to the provincial premiers suggested that they might bring along some advisers. The municipalities, to use a colloquialism, are creatures of the provinces. The door is open for them to make suggestions at that time.
In respect of the last point, I should like to say that that matter is still under advisement.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been in touch with the house leader or the chairman of the committee on housing, urban development and public works to determine whether this committee should be convened in order to hear the complaints from the cities and towns as well as from the national associations in Canada?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when this question was asked on an earlier occasion I stated that the committee does exist, and said that what it does is the responsibility of the committee.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata. Has any action been taken toward convening the committee?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to hold a meeting of the committee as soon as the house refers to it some matters for consideration.
November 14, 1967



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of a statement made last night by the minister to the effect that the department has delayed the building of a runway at Dorval airport, I should like to ask whether there are to be similar delays in respect of other Canadian airports.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there are some other airports in the same predicament. I should like to say, however, that it is a matter of regret that we are not in a position to proceed with the new runway at Dorval at this time. I hope it will not be long before we are in a position to do so in order to ameliorate the noise.


Raymond Rock: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is a new runway to be built for the Toronto airport?


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



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. My question is that which I posed to the acting minister on November 3. Perhaps I might read the question again:
I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I ask the minister whether a statement can be made as soon as possible as to why the province of British Columbia is not participating with the department to bring handicapped refugees and their families to Canada this year, as is the situation with eight other provinces.
I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to reply.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisler of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that this question was not drawn to my attention. I hope I will be in a position to answer it tomorrow or the day after.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH RAILWAY MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister met with the president of the C.N.R. regarding lay-offs of railway employees in the Atlantic region? May I also ask what efforts are being made by the minister to rescind these lay-offs?
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question has been raised before. I have met with the president of the C.N.R. and have discussed with him the root cause of the lay-offs. In addition to the seasonal lay-offs which normally occur during this time of year they are attributable to the reduction in the bulk loadings of freight cars in all parts of Canada, including the mari-times. I hope the level of activity in respect of car loadings will increase substantially in the months ahead and that this will make it possible to rehire as quickly as possible many of the men who are presently without work.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister what this government intends to do with regard to the many men across Canada who are being laid off and find themselves in dire circumstances due to the fact that they do not have any employment because of the neglect on the part of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has been involved with this problem from the beginning, and all government departments are interested in seeing what they can do to ameliorate the lay-offs.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister on the same matter. Has the Prime Minister received the representations from the Canadian federation of mayors urging that the Atlantic provinces and northern Ontario be exempt from the federal government's economic restraint policy and, if so, has he had an opportunity to consider it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall seeing that telegram but I will look into it right away.

November 14, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister in the meantime give every assurance that no more of these economic restraint measures will be applied in the Atlantic provinces?


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. May I ask in a little different way a question I have asked him previously. What efforts are being made by the minister or by the officials of his department to assist the 400 or 450 employees who are being laid off in the Atlantic region by the C.N.R.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member said that he would ask the same question in a different manner. The question does not seem to be much different than the one he asked before.


Robert Muir: May I rephrase my question. Apart from recommending that they get out of the Atlantic region and apart from grants for the removal of people from the Atlantic region, what is the minister doing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. On November 7 the minister assured the house that the matter of contributions under the Canada Pension Plan legislation for transient labour on farms would be discussed with the provinces. Can the minister say whether this discussion is expected to take place at the coming conference?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the representations which were received and which came from the farm organizations and some hon. members on this side of the house including the hon. member for Norfolk were in respect of three matters. The first had to do with the matter of deducting income tax from wages of employees. The second had to do with the matter of unemployment insurance exemptions in the case of farm workers and the third was in respect of the Canada Pension Plan.
The first two questions were settled to the satisfaction of the farmers, because these are matters which come within the powers of the federal government. The third one has to be discussed with the provinces. It is not a matter to be considered at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference but is one which will require consultation when the Canada Pension Plan as such is being dealt with.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is a little more temperate than those of a moment ago but I am sure is equally important. It is prompted by a statement made by Commonwealth Relations Secretary Thompson to the British House of Commons to the effect that the rebel Smith regime and the United Kingdom government are further apart than ever on the question of U.D.I. Can he advise whether in these regrettable circumstances Canada, as a leader in commonwealth action, is contemplating any initiative to narrow the gap and improve this most serious situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian government were in a position to further this matter outside the context of United Nations, where this problem presently resides, my hon. friend may be assured that the government would be only too anxious to do all it could consistent with its declared policy, a policy which is supported by all the commonwealth governments.
However, the matter is now before the United Nations. The Secretary General will shortly be making a report on the operation of sanctions, and I think until that report has been made it would not be prudent to go any further at this moment.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether this means that he feels there is no further course of action within the commonwealth context that Canada can take?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe that is the present situation, Mr. Speaker.

November 14, 1967



PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN MATTERS DEBATED ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order dealing with a rule of the house that has application to the question period and the adjournment motion which comes at ten o'clock at night. I raise this point of order so that we may obtain a ruling from Your Honour to guide us in the future. I think there has crept in a flagrant abuse of rule No. 39, section 5, which reads in part as follows:
A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject matter of his question on the adjournment of the house.
I suggest that at times hon. members have had questions ruled out of order by Your Honour but nevertheless have raised those questions on the adjournment motion. I do not believe this was the intention of the rule. Second, it was understood when this rule was first introduced that during the course of the adjournment debate we would not raise points of order or questions of privilege during that very short period, because a member has only seven minutes in which to present his case and the minister has only three minutes in which to reply.
I had to raise a question of privilege last night, and I notice that on other occasions points of order have been raised. On October 23, as reported at page 3410 of Hansard, Mr. Deputy Speaker interrupted to point out the following:
I should point out to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) that it is not usual, and certainly was not contemplated at the time when adjournment proceedings were instituted, that there should be any points of order during an adjournment debate.
I think that was understood when we introduced this rule. I suggest it was never contemplated that attacks would be made on members of this house during the adjournment debate; there would be simply a statement with regard to a question asked earlier in the house to which the member had not received a complete answer from the minister, and the minister would then be in a position to give a more comprehensive answer.
It appears now that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) is using this type
Inquiries of the Ministry of debate to make attacks. The attacks are being made on me, on other members of our party and on the Conservative party as such. I do not object to that provided this privilege is extended to others. I have not yet participated in adjournment debates, but I may do so.
I direct your attention, sir, to these facts. On October 4 a question was asked by the hon. member whom I have mentioned. It was not commented upon by Mr. Speaker. On October 5 a similar question was asked by the hon. member, as appears at page 2835 of Hansard, and it was declared out of order. Nevertheless the member somehow or other had the subject matter discussed on October 23. If you will examine page 3409 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the title of his statement is "Federal-Provincial Conference. The Two Nations Concept."
I cannot find any preceding question, addressed to a minister on that subject. There was no question addressed to a minister in the course of the hon. member's statement. It was just an expression of opinion by the hon. member, followed by interruptions and points of order by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and others.
I ask the following question. First, how did that subject matter get on the order paper without a previous question having been put to a minister? The second question refers to yesterday's occurrence. On November 13 the hon. member for Lotbiniere asked the following question, as reported at page 4228 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) a question to determine whether the agenda of the federal-provincial conference which is to take place shortly had been decided upon.
The matter was discussed by the hon. member last night. In the course of his remarks he was chiefly concerned with making an attack upon me, which I was able to refute on a question of privilege. Then followed a statement by the Minister of Justice.
I am asking, sir, whether you will undertake-I am not asking for a ruling at this moment unless Your Honour feels you are prepared to give it-to review the use of this particular procedure in our house and decide whether there is validity to my claim that this rule is being flagrantly abused, by inadvertence or by hon. members not understanding the rule as it was put before us in the past.
November 14, 1967
4244	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We do not want to become involved in another procedural debate today. I will not prevent the hon. member for Lotbiniere making a reply in respect of this matter, but I suggest to him that I understand the situation very well and am prepared to answer the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, briefly and calmly, I should like to say, in order to assist you in making a ruling if it were at all possible, that when we put a question which is judged by you as not being urgent, it is normal to postpone it until 10 o'clock. I think that, in the cases referred to by the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), the questions were of national concern but were not deemed urgent, and normally they were postponed until 10 o'clock.
Moreover, the member greatly exaggerates when he says that I attacked him. Mr. Speaker, on this point I think I am entitled to say that I have never attacked him; I had the misfortune of telling him that he had supported the concept of two founding peoples. That he considers that as an insult, I understand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Auguste Choquette: I understand that he may consider this as an insult-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is what I was afraid of when I suggested to hon. members that we should not get into a further procedural debate. I am in full sympathy with the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. On the other hand, I do not think much could be gained by reviewing in detail the two incidents to which he has referred. There is no question but that the rule specifies that a question can be debated at the time of adjournment at ten o'clock only if the hon. member who has asked a question is not satisfied with the answer given or if the Speaker rules that the matter is not urgent.
The difficulty is that very often under pressure the Chair will call a question out of order meaning that it is out of order because it is not urgent. I am sure it would be helpful to all hon. members if this distinction were made by the Chair. On the other hand, I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that a special effort will be made by

both those at the table and the Chair to police the questions perhaps a little more closely.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, to continue my remarks of a few days ago, I should like to suggest that it is normal to accentuate curative justice rather than punitive justice although the latter does not exclude the former.
Penalty is a form of therapy and in a society wishing to be more civilized than vindictive, it is proper to eliminate any revenge factor in the application of any sentence.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the corrective viewpoint, in the light of rehabilitation within which any good system of justice must try to operate is not inconsistent with the retention of a penalty to fit the crime.
Human sciences have progressed immeasurably in the past decades but have never gone and never will go far enough to uproot the major principle of individual responsibility.
Sociology, psychiatry, criminology have thrown light on a multitude of human phenomena; they often are the X-rays of the conscience of the individual. They make transparent reasons for the exoneration or the extenuation of guilt. But the day those sciences attempt to encompass all human acts within rigid determinism or airtight fatalism, I say those sciences will then betray their mission, betray their ideal, that is leading man towards ever greater heights of dignity.
That is the danger that threatens our society today, Mr. Speaker. That is the trap that lies open to our modern society: that of explaining everything, that of justifying everything outside man's free will, of reducing all human activity, all individual behaviour to a science of phenomena, abstracting the concepts of responsibility, the concepts of reward and punishment, which are intrinsically bound to the exercise of one's free will.
We all agree, Mr. Speaker, that society must aim at the highest degree of civilization
November 14, 1967

and that the state must make its indispensable contribution towards its achievement. But there is another imperative task, the burden of which must be assumed by the state, and that is contributing to the security of the public. There is more than that, Mr. Speaker.
Not only is it the prime duty of the state to ensure the security of the public but it is also its duty to see to it that there is a feeling of security; in other words, not only is it the right of the people to have the protection which they may normally expect from society, but it is also their right to feel protected. The higher crime rate, its violent and brutal manifestations, the numerous prison breaks decrease the feeling of security among the population. The role of the state, as I said, is not only to ensure an effective degree of security but also to strengthen the feeling of security, that is to say the population has the right to be protected and also to feel protected.
What is happening today with all the measures which the people feel will improve the lot of the criminals? All of them contribute to decrease the feeling of security, and even if the people are effectively and truly protected, it remains that they are losing more and more the feeling of security and they feel less protected.
For that reason, I would say that it is essential, before initiating any reform in depth, to enlighten public opinion. Even though the abolitionists' argument be philosophically right and well grounded upon facts or statistics, if the public is worried, concerned, and doubtful as to the protection and security to which they are entitled from the state, abolition becomes improper and its advocates are wrong; it is necessary to reassure the people. Mr. Speaker, even if the abolition of the death penalty may be justified, the government has not completely fulfilled its task if the Canadian people still feel worried and insecure. This is why I say the government should launch a widespread campaign of education to prove that its action is appropriate, so that the people may feel more secure.
When we visit our ridings, rural ones in particular, we see that a great many country people are afraid. I think this fright could lead to social confusion, Mr. Speaker, and even to collective panic. Not only must the government ensure a real and effective protection, it must also provide a feeling of security which is lacking at the present time.
The people who are not very well informed and who hear about all sorts of bills to ease
DEBATES	4245
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence the burden or the condition of criminals wonder to what extent they are being protected. Mr. Speaker I repeat that even if they are really protected, the state must do more than just that. It must give them the feeling that they are protected and that they live in security.
That is why I urge the government, in implementing all the amendments to the Criminal Code, to undertake an information campaign to show the people that they are well protected; to shed light on the maximum security system which exists in some of our prisons and penitentiaries; to illustrate the efficiency of our police force. Otherwise, the feeling of insecurity may bring about a social breakdown and a collective panic.
Secondly, I feel that the bill, even though I am not satisfied with it, deserves to be supported for the simple reason that I am against hypocritical laws. I cannot accept a law which departs from its true significance.
There exists now, on the one hand, a law which is not enforced and, on the other hand, a state of affairs which contradicts the existence of this law; in other words, capital punishment has in practice been abolished. Therefore, it is abnormal that our statutes should contain a provision which is never enforced and that is why, being against hypocritical laws, I feel I should support this measure in the form in which it has been presented to the house, so that the law may be amended in accordance with the existing state of affairs.
However, this bill has a shortcoming in that it makes no distinction, practically speaking, between capital and non-capital murder. Capital murder implies premeditation and this is explained in section 202 (a), which is to be amended; in other words, according to this section as it now stands, capital murder is premeditated, and noncapital murder is not.
With such an amendment that distinction no longer exists and it is precisely in the case of policemen's murders that there is more often a lack of premeditation, because criminals will immediately murder policemen, when caught red-handed, to permit or facilitate their escape. There is then no premeditation. This is why the oversight in the bill is such that the distinction between capital murder and non-capital murder does not exist for all practical purposes.
However, I object and intend to move an amendment before third reading, because I think that any person convicted of premeditated murder-if capital punishment is to be
November 14, 1967
4246	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence abolished, it should be so, and for all practical purposes, it is abolished-in accordance with the present section 202(a), should necessarily be sentenced to life imprisonment. I also feel that there should not be any commutation. In my opinion, it is essential to convince the people that there is a justice and that they are secure and protected.
There are too many escapes from our penitentiaries. If the population is led to believe that those who have the right to kill can eventually be released after ten or fifteen years, we contribute to lessen that feeling of security and, from a social and collective point of view, this is disastrous and detrimental. That is why I believe that every individual convicted of premeditated murder should be imprisoned for life.
May I be allowed as third- c (3:40 p.m.)


Reid Scott: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Auguste Choquette: Yes.


Reid Scott: I am very interested in his thoughtful speech. He has mentioned the need for a murderer to hang in the case of a premeditated murder. I wonder whether in his research he has come across a case where a person who deliberately premeditated a murder had in his mind the thought of arrest and conviction and therefore the deterrent value of hanging.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker it is in fact an interesting question, but I think this is all a matter of surmise. There is no unshakeable proof. The hon. member knows very well- his interest in this question is very well known

that statistics themselves prove nothing; it is admitted that nothing can be proved with statistics. The only thing there is, I feel, is intuitive evidence and this is often stronger than a legal proof.
Many women have unfaithful husbands but will never be able to prove it but they know it intuitively. In this case, it cannot be proved legally but by intuition, it is known. Humanly speaking, it is obvious. I see that some members have a really distraught look when I speak like this-do not worry, I shall not betray any secret.


Some hon. Members:: Ha, ha.
IMr. Choquette.]


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean.


Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix):: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member for Charlevoix wants me to quote examples. I have too much consideration for him; far be it from me to compromise-


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not understand very well. Could the hon. member say that again?


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member asks me to quote examples. I answer him that I have too much consideration for him and far be it from me to compromise him.


Martial Asselin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am fully aware that the hon. member is not alluding to me personally, but I must tell him that by quoting examples, he is in no danger whatsoever, because being a bachelor, he can do what he likes.


Auguste Choquette: Thank you. I would even say that on occasion I have eyed the wife of the hon. member for Charlevoix, who is most charming and whom I know as a faithful spouse.
Mr. Speaker, to return to a living subject rather than a mortal one, I should like to point out the following: should such a bill be accepted, it would mean that the abolition of the death penalty had been ratified legally. Everyone knows that. Now, I feel that if we want to go that far, an information campaign is the first requisite to give more security, that is a greater sense of security. It is important for the people to feel protected, to feel secure.
Secondly, I would say that, to strengthen this feeling of security, we ought also to make of life imprisonment a mandatory, noncommutative form of punishment. This would be inflicted on anyone convicted of wilful murder, if it should be found actually desirable to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary homicide, between wilful and unintentional murder. As the former is much more serious than the latter, a more severe form of punishment is called for.
Moreover-and this is the most important point I wanted to make in my remarks this afternoon-I feel that it is high time a compensation system was introduced in this country in behalf of the criminals' victims. Criminals are always present in our minds and we always deem it sadder and more horrible when the criminal is being led to a
November 14, 1967

cell after committing a crime but the heartbreaking situation in which the victims or the wives of the victims of murderers or of criminals without conscience is always ignored or set aside.
If I may refer to a few notes which I had the opportunity of picking up and studying

it might be good to draw the attention of the house to the fact that in the province of Ontario for instance the government is seriously studying the possibility of establishing a system of compensation. A similar study is also under way in Alberta, but no concrete action has been taken. On the other hand, a white paper has been submitted to the Manitoba legislature, in which the operation of such a compensation system is described. I think that the Solicitor General or the senior officials of his department would be well advised to study closely the proposals contained in this white paper.
It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that section 474 of the municipal by-laws of the city of Vancouver contain the following provision:

Upon the recommendation of the board, the council may in its discretion award compensation not exceeding the sum of $5,000 to any person who has sustained loss by reason of property damage or by reason of personal injuries to or the death of a person occasioned by such person having assisted a police constable in the execution of his duties.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

Of course, the rules which exist in Vancouver aim simply at protecting or rewarding in some way those who help police officers acting in the course of their duties.
A compensation system in Canada could consist of a federal-provincial fund to which the federal government and the various provincial governments would subscribe and which would be used to compensate the crime victims or the families of crime victims. This compensation fund, Mr. Speaker, could be administered by a special board which could be set up by each province, or by a crime victims compensation board, and the money used to compensate the unfortunate victims of crime would come from this federal-provincial fund.
And I think that it is urgent to have such a thought, once again, to give confidence to the people who are worrying, and rightly so. As for the members who do not believe that, let them travel through their ridings and ask their constituents what they think. People tell us: You always do something for the
DEBATES	4247
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence criminals; now do something for the victims. That is what we hear in our ridings; sometimes we hear startling remarks from these people who wonder to what extent they will be protected in the future. That is why the government should launch an information campaign which would show clearly the generous attention given by the government to criminals' victims.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make. I wish to say, in closing, that in 1967, especially for a government which set up the whole social machinery we are enjoying today, it might be its greatest achievement if it perfected that procedure and took with the provinces the initiative of creating a compensation system in favour of the victims of criminals or the families of those victims, and not only of those who came to the help of police officers on duty. That is urgent, essential and fundamental if we want to create, in the minds of the people, the image of a government which is concerned, not only about the criminals, but also about society in general, about its protection and especially about the protection of the victims of those scoundrels, those bandits without conscience or respect for anything except fear.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable attention and respect to the speech made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I think it is one of his serious speeches. I congratulate him and exhort him to continue in this vein.
I must also say that I was impressed by the way the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) introduced his bill to the house. I want to congratulate him and I must say that it is the most important and the most difficult case that he has pleaded in his political career. He has done so with complete objectivity and I must say that it was most agreeable to hear him, particularly to read over the arguments he submitted to the consideration of the house.
Obviously, we could recapitulate all the arguments brought forth during this debate and ask: Was it necessary for the government to require the house to make a decision once again on such an important question?
Last year, we had the opportunity, through a free vote, to reject private bills to abolish capital punishment. This year, according to reports and surveys by the Canadian Press and other papers, the spread in the 142 to 112 vote may be still reduced. We may well
4248	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence see this bill passed to abolish capital punishment, except in cases of murder of prison guards or policemen. This would certainly mean considerable extension of the scope of the legislation.
In 1961, our government had brought down legislation to define capital and non-capital murder. I believe that this difference has helped the judge presiding over a murder case to address the jury more intelligently. It was sometimes difficult in the past, under the former legislation, to instruct the jury in helping them reach a verdict.
We had thought last year that the extension of the scope of the 1961 legislation would have been sufficient to give food for thought to the people who are inclined to disrupt the established social order.
The minister tells us that the bill is a compromise; it is really a compromise which will impede the freedom of every member in deciding for or against the abolition of capital punishment, except in the two cases stipulated in the bill.
Of course, I respect the opinion of the member for Lotbiniere on this question, because it is so personal, almost a matter of conscience. I would not want for anything in the world to try and influence the decision of any member. Last year, the hon. member for Lotbiniere was a keen retentionist, and this year, he tells us he will vote in favour of the bill introduced by the Solicitor General. His main argument is to get the government out of the dilemma in which it finds itself at present.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I know what throes and difficulties the Solicitor General sometimes goes through when he has to review a death sentence, when he has to submit the case for examination to his colleagues of the cabinet, when, as the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette) pointed out this afternoon, we know that since 1963 the cabinet has practically abolished the death penalty.
That is the situation. It was the member for Lotbiniere who told us, last Friday, November 10, 1967 I believe, in his opening remarks, that one of the arguments that led him to change his mind was that the government has reached a dead-end, since the laws in our statutes must be respected by the government and parliament, and the situation being what it is he felt bound to support the compromise bill introduced by the Solicitor General.
Perhaps, as I said earlier, this is such a personal matter that I would not want to find

DEBATES	November 14, 1967
fault with the hon. member for Lotbiniere,. but I would say this is a case in point, that the way this government has introduced this bill to the House of Commons will infirm the freedom of choice of several members.
In this respect, of course, I cannot agree with the way in which this compromise bill, was introduced. If a free vote had really been wanted with regard to the bill before us, I would have preferred it to be introduced as a private member's bill, like last year, so that each member could have complete personal freedom to decide upon such an important matter.
Of course, I do not intend to recapitulate the arguments for the retention of the death penalty. During this debate, I have heard some very objective arguments for and against the death penalty.
The abolitionists tell us that the onus is on those of us who are still in favour of retaining the death penalty to prove that it is a deterrent for those who are about to kill someone.
Such arguments have been rehashed for years. If we look at the white paper which was presented in 1965 by the late Hon. Guy Favreau then minister of justice, we find that the United Nations were unanimous in their statement on that subject that the deterrent factor was still important enough to prevent the commission of a murder. It is an argument of natural law, I think that any person has the human desire of self-preservation.
We can see it every day. When you are on the sidewalk, you will not attempt to cross the street if you think that you may be run over by a car. If you take a fishing trip, you will take every precaution not to drown.
Man is inclined to preserve his precious life. All our actions, all our personal activities, twenty-four hours a day, are aimed at this goal.
When abolitionists say that today the death penalty is no longer a deterrent on criminals, I say that they are wrong, and if they will just scrutinize the arguments of the royal commission on that matter, they will see that judges, expert criminologists who testified before the commission unanimously agreed that the deterrence of the death penalty is still the main reason which prevents criminals from committing crimes.
In order not to take up too much time, Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat all the arguments I presented last year on this subject. I shall
November 14, 1967

simply say that I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Lotbiniere when he says that our society suffers from feelings of insecurity with regard to the murders so often committed in Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec. The hon. Registrar General (Mr. Turner) could certainly confirm that not a week passes without the newspapers in Montreal or the province of Quebec reporting one or two murders, and sometimes more, committed in the Montreal area.
According to the weekend newspapers, a building watchman was killed in Montreal because he had not paid his share.
The same thing happened in Rimouski over the weekend. Murder is increasing considerably in the province of Quebec and has been in fact since the death penalty has been abolished in Canada.
The police in the province of Quebec and in some parts of Canada, society, the police forces are not fighting at the present time against two or three murderers but against syndicates of murderers, hired gunmen who kill people disliked by other people. Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that police machinery is powerless to destroy such syndicates, those networks of criminals breeding not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada.
The question we ask, on becoming aware of such increases in crime, is the following: Is it the proper time for the government and parliament to broaden out the legislation which I think is necessary to punish adequately people who take the lives of others?
It is often claimed that statistics prove little, but to support my statement that the number of crimes has considerably increased in Quebec, I must say that I received, last year, from the province of Quebec, certain statistics on the fearful rate of increase in the number of murders in Quebec. I quoted them last year, but to support my statement this year, I shall read to you the table I have received for the years 1946 to 1967, showing the horrifying and enormously convincing fact which will inspire us to think twice before proceeding with the abolition of capital punishment.


Auguste Choquette: Are those Mr. Wagner's figures?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Those are the figures given by the Attorney General of the province, and also, the results of investigations we made. I think that you made some also, Nevertheless, we should refresh the
DEBATES	4249
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence memory of the members of the house, who will be called upon to vote on such an important matter; we should think twice before voting freely on that bill.
There were 36 murders in Quebec in 1946, 32 in 1947, 32 in 1948, 29 in 1949, 34 in 1950, that is an average of 32 murders a year during five years. There	were 40	in	1951, 42in 1952, 43 in	1953, 32	in 1954,	36	in 1955,that is an average of 38 murders a year for those five years, and an increase of 13 per cent compared with the five previous years. There were 40	murders	in 1956,	37	in 1957,39 in 1958, 44	in 1959	and 47	in	1960, an
average of 41 murders for those five years, and an increase of 12 per cent compared to the five previous years.
We now come to the year when death sentences have been systematically commuted. In 1960, there were 47 murders; in 1961, 57; in 1962, a little less, that is, 45, but in 1963, there were 63; in 1960, there were 47; in 1964, 54 and in 1965, 65, throughout the province, or a yearly average of 57 murders over five years, and an increase of 28 per cent as compared to the five previous years.
Mr. Speaker, those are figures which in my opinion, should give cause for reflection to those who have not studied this question in depth.
When the time comes to vote for the abolition or the retention of the death penalty, I feel that the members of this house should have a sole object in view. We are here, Mr. Speaker, to enforce the laws enacted by parliament, to watch over the established social order and to pass legislation intended for the majority of the people.
If, sometimes, we pass ad hoc legislation, it is because there is a need for it. The bill under consideration is a piece of ad hoc legislation, since the majority of people will not feel safe, as was said so eloquently this afternoon by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, if we abolish the death penalty in all cases except for the murder of prison guards.
I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker: Is my life, your life, the life of other members of this house not as precious as that of any prison guard or police officer? We know, of course, that when those people chose the job of a prison guard, they accepted the risk inherent thereto: We must protect the people's life. When bandits hold up a bank, they are usually armed. They can shoot, on the slightest provocation and kill all the people on the premises. They are fully armed, they have already premeditated their crime, their
November 14, 19B7
4250	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence murder and we are going to protect them from capital punishment?
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the death penalty is the most important argument for dissuading those crime syndicates that have no other profession, and live off their crimes. I say that the people of the province of Quebec are concerned. Go meet your electors, members from the province of Quebec; you will see that our people feel apprehensive about this bill, they feel insecure, they wonder where we are going.
Mr. Speaker, these days, for the sake of stealing $5 or $10, one does not hesitate to turn a family of seven or eight into the street. It happened in Montreal. A taxi driver was murdered in order to steal $5 or $10 from him. It sometimes happens that five or six children are left homeless as a result of murder.
We are here to protect society, and if criminal themselves do not exhibit any sign of rehabilitation, I do not think we should show them any sympathy. If they show any desire to be rehabilitated, to live within an organized society such as ours, we might be inclined toward greater sympathy for them.
Mr. Speaker, I wish also to support the proposal-I had it here, in my notes-made this afternoon by the hon. member for Lotbiniere as to a compensation fund for the victims of criminals. In 1967, in a modern society such as ours, I think we should have an adequate compensation fund for assisting 

as I said a few months ago-orphans left homeless just because a gangster or a gunman killed a man, the sole support of a family, for a mere $10.
But we must go farther than that, and I think that is the mistake of the laws contained in our statute books. We should deal with the root of the evil and set up appropriate mechanisms to fight juvenile delinquency.
During my leisure time, I still have the opportunity to go to court. Every time I attend a sitting of the court of sessions of the peace, I see about ten young people, between the ages of 10 and 20. Some of them are appearing before the court for the third time at 17. Of course, if these young people are not rehabilitated, if we do not have the means to help them, to keep in touch with them, to give them good advice and to find them employment, these people will certainly become the murderers of tomorrow. It is not when they reach 40 that we should, in my opinion, think of rehabilitating hardened criminals. An article which I read recently


concerning the psychiatric care provided in penitentiaries for hardened criminals said that when a man reaches 35 or 40 years of age, psychiatry can no longer help him. Therefore, I think the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, should organize to fight juvenile delinquency effectively. That is where we must begin, at the root of the evil.
Of course, one cannot always lay the blame at the door of parents and say that it is solely their responsibility. There are cases where the parents cannot intervene and, I repeat, it is then up to society to provide efficient means to prevent juvenile delinquency in the country. That is the only way to build an honest society made up of honest people.
Before closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a final suggestion. Everyone knows that the matter under consideration is extremely important. It will have widespread social repercussions, it will also have an impact on established order, on social order. I wonder whether, instead of submitting, for the second time, this bill to the approval of the house or to a free vote of the hon. members, the government should not have determined through a referendum, the views of the people of Canada with respect to the abolition of capital punishment as advocated by the Solicitor General of Canada? If our people are as concerned as they seem to be, I think they ought to be consulted on a question of such momentous importance.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that each member of this house will conscientiously face up to his responsibilities when the question of the abolition of capital punishment is put to the house. I think each of us will have to act not only having regard to the implications of the bill now under consideration, but bearing in mind also the protection which the community expects from the legislation passed in this house. This is why I cannot accept the bill introduced as a compromise by the Solicitor General and I will not change my mind; I will vote for the retention of capital punishment.
9 (4:20 p.m.)


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this very urgent debate with a great deal of personal feeling-
November 14, 1967


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege at this time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
hon. member for York-Humber on a point of privilege.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is being debated in the house at the present time is going to be decided by a free vote, and I would like to point out to you that all the speakers from the Liberal side of the house so far have been for the bill and for the abolition of capital punishment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Why can't some retentionist Liberals be given an opportunity to speak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the Chair cannot foresee the opinions which are to be submitted by hon. members on either side of the house. If any one of the 264 members wishes to participate in this debate I think in due course he or she will have all the time allowable and the opportunity to do so.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, not all of the
opposition to the bill is from the other side of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The
Registrar General.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it is with a great deal of personal emotion that I participate in this debate. I want to emphasize to the house that no subject has given me more concern or caused me more personal anguish since my election to this chamber. At the outset I want to pay tribute to the very many outstanding speeches that have been made, some of them quite remarkable, on both sides of the house, not only in this debate but in the debate that preceded it 18 months ago.
No matter what his convictions may be I think each member of the house would say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell)-I have the advantage of friendship here, which makes it even more imperative for me to say through you, sir, to him-that his speech was as sincere and as eloquent as any I have read, and I regret I was not here to listen to him. He was as convinced and convincing, at one and the same time, as he always is when something of great moment to him is in his heart and on his lips.
There are legitimate, heartfelt differences of opinion in the house on this subject, as
DEBATES	4251
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence there must be because what we say here and how we think here reflect the differences of opinion across the country. I suppose one's personal reaction toward capital punishment depends very much on one's views of the purpose of punishment. What is the purpose of punishment? Is it retribution? Is it deterrence? Is it remedial, reformatory or a means of rehabilitation? As professor Thorsten Sel-lin put it, "Is punishment a matter of dogma or is it empirical or utilitarian? I would say there must be a basic emotional conflict in everyone who contemplates the subject and attempts to make up his mind about it.
I would think that everyone must be divided between his reactions or feelings with regard to doing away with a particularly repugnant penalty which represents a collective killing by society, and an equally valid instinct on the other side, grounded in the moral law of reward and punishment, which would contemplate the death penalty as the only just punishment capable of symbolizing society's revulsion for the ultimate crime of murder. There is a strong instinct in many people that the sanction of the law against murder should properly reflect the importance which society attaches to the maintenance of that law. Those Canadians who hold that view attach so high a value to the sanctity of human life that they feel that the law which translates this feeling into effective form should provide the maximum sanction for its deliberate breach, and no other penalty should be considered adequate.
One's judgment about this question depends largely on whether one accepts primarily the old moral law of punishment in retributive terms or whether one is influenced by the behavioural sciences which tend to diminish the scope of free will and to emphasize the factors of heredity, environment, stress, and so on. Capital punishment is an area of human concern in which intellectual and emotional liberalism in people may well come into conflict with an upbringing based on the strictness of the moral law and the inevitability of retributive punishment for wrongs committed. There are two pools within every man.
This is not the only area of this type of difficult personal decision. What about divorce, where our instincts for a pluralistic society and our instincts for not legislating against somebody else's morals come into conflict with our belief that the family unit is fundamental to the structure of western society? What about abortion where the liberal instinct in favour of individual choice runs
November 14, 1967
4252	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence up against the feelings tor the sanctity of human life?
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that intellectually and emotionally I advocate the abolition of the death penalty, but I recognize the deep instincts of what I believe still to be the majority of the people of this country for retribution for the heinous crime of murder.
I believe that although we in this chamber do have a duty to lead public opinion we must not move too far in advance of that opinion. I believe that the ordinary person in this country has the right to expect that the law will be respected and crime punished. I believe also that many people in Canada will not easily be convinced that the abolition of the death penalty will not offend against that principle.
My vote, sir, the last time this measure came before the house on April 5, 1966, was cast against the main motion but in favour of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein). The amendment introduced by that hon. member, for which I voted, called for the abolition of the death penalty except in the case of the murder of a police officer or a prison guard acting in the course of his duty.
The substance of the hon. member's amendment has been substantially reproduced in the Solicitor General's bill, subject of course to the additional rider that no one in respect of whom a death sentence has been commuted to imprisonment, or upon whom a sentence of imprisonment for life has been imposed as a minimum punishment, shall be released from prison without the prior approval of the governor in council, and subject to the additional rider, as the Solicitor General now reminds me, of the five year trial period. I do not particularly fancy substituting for the discretion of the National Parole Board the judgment of the governor in council, but I do recognize that if this is to be a trial period and if we are to assure the people of Canada that commutation will not be lightly undertaken and this law lightly based, then perhaps during this trial period the judgment of the parole board should be substituted by that of the cabinet.
I supported the amendment of the hon. member for Cartier. I now support the bill of the Solicitor General as being a progressive step toward the abolition of the death penalty within the limits of the present climate of public opinion, within the present climate of opinion within the House of Commons and within the current state of our laws and practices in penal reform.


[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I believe I owe it to the members of this house and certainly to my own constituents to give my reasons for supporting the abolition of the death penalty within the context of this bill. First of all, I think the statistics advanced on either side of the argument do not prove anything one way or the other. I, therefore, am reasonably persuaded that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent. It may be that the deterrent factor may operate in the case of protecting prison guards or police officers, particularly where the prisoner has nothing to lose.
I do reject, however, the argument recited from time to time on behalf of those who support the abolition of the death penalty that because the deterrent value of capital punishment has not been proven the burden of proof is on the retentionists in view of the enormity of the crime and the fact that the taking of life is so unnatural and repugnant. I do not think the burden of proof argument adds anything. I believe the answer is that the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to change a law regarding the protection of society or the isolation of crime. In any event I feel that capital punishment has not been established as a deterrent to murder sufficient to justify its retention.
As a lawyer I must also admit that despite the improvements in our legal procedures, including exhaustive appeals, there is always the possibility of error. There is always the question of the fallibility of human judgment. There is always the possibility of the execution of an innocent man, and I need do no more than cite the case of Timothy Evans which was brought to our attention by my colleague the Solicitor General. I admit that this is rare; thank God it has not happened too often. When it does happen, however, the consequences are beyond redemption and beyond our contemplation, because when an innocent man is so wronged there is no possibility for society thereafter to redeem itself to him.
It has been an old principle of common law that it is better that 99 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be hanged. This was the basis for the burden of proof as it still exists in our criminal law, "beyond any reasonable doubt." It is because I question whether it is ever beyond any reasonable doubt that I support the abolition of the death penalty. No human institution is perfect. Society does not have the type of perfect organization which can judge properly
November 14, 1967

in cases where the risks involved in judgment are so high. No human institution is capable of objectively analysing the motives of men, the provocation they may be under or the pressures to which because of environment they may be subjected, or the extent to which these factors affect the action or conduct of every man and woman. Without this objective analysis no one can be sure that the ultimate punishment-death-is a proper one. With that punishment and that risk the judgment would have to be perfect.
I believe that surely we have now reached the degree of civilization which enables the community to protect itself against murderers by means other than the death penalty. Is capital punishment the only method of prevention? If one discards the theory of retribution, and if one dismisses the effectiveness of the deterrent, then the question remains whether capital punishment is any longer the only indispensable protection against murderers. As the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) said during the last debate, this is more than a police matter. It is a problem of civilization, it is a matter of social progress, moving away from the horrible resort of society's collective execution of one's fellow human being.
Although I say this reluctantly as a lawyer, because we are taught in the practice of law to believe that everyone is equal before the bar, I also feel there is some risk that the penalty may be applied unequally. The lawyers in this chamber know that the conduct of any trial, whether it be civil or criminal, depends a good deal on the mood of the community. It depends, if it is a jury case as a capital case is, on the composition of the jury. It certainly depends on the competence of the judge and depends very much on the skill of the advocates on either side at the trial, whether for the prosecution or the defence. It depends a good deal upon the bearing, conduct or appearance of the accused. It depends also a good deal upon the resources of the accused and whom he is able to retain, although I am glad to say that legal aid in most of our provinces will tend to minimize that. Judge Jerome Frank used to say that a trial was the product of the witnesses' prejudices and the court's state of indigestion. I never went so far as to accept that cynical view of the law, but it brings home in rather a startling way what I was trying to say, that is, that there are unequal risks before the bar. The law does inflict its penalties unequally upon us.
DEBATES	4253
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
These arguments seem convincing and persuasive to me. They are not overwhelming because, as many members have pointed out during the course of this and the last debate, no one is really absolutely certain of the position to take. The decision is as much intuitive as rational. I also admit that these arguments I have recited out of the collective intuition of my mind should lead us to vote for total abolition. I feel as I felt last time that the arguments carry persuasive weight, but I recognize that for a great part of the population of Canada-and this is reflected in the views of hon. members who disagree with what I am saying-probably the majority of the people of Canada, the death penalty symbolizes the moral repugnance of society for the most heinous act a person can commit-murder. Retribution is a profound instinct which is difficult to dislodge. I agree with Father Kelly of St. Michael's College who said that retribution is no longer a ground for punishment, but for a great many people that will take some convincing.
There is also a profound feeling in many people that the death penalty is a deterrent. That feeling is very deep-rooted in many people and we ought to respect that belief particularly in view of the possibility that it may be right. What I am saying is that there is no moral absolutism or certainty about this question. The police and prison officials are particularly strong advocates of retention. Law enforcement authorities almost unanimously entertain the view that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder. They believe that the death penalty protects the police against the criminal. I do not agree, but they believe it. In the mind of the law enforcement officer the time-proven deterrents to crime are sure detection, swift apprehension and proper punishment. To his mind each of those elements is a necessary ingredient. Proper punishment for murder, in his opinion, is the death penalty. I believe that in view of the difficult and dangerous responsibility we place upon prison guards and police officers we have a duty to deem them deserving of support and respect. They do have a special knowledge, they do have a special feeling, and they have delicate and dangerous responsibilities.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There is also a very wide public feeling-it was expressed in the house just recently by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette)-that it is premature to abolish the death penalty until substantial reforms in
4254	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence penology, psychiatry and measures tor the rehabilitation of criminals have been made. There are also many people who feel deeply that there is ambiguity in an attitude which calls for eliminating the death penalty for murder while at the same time making no provision out of public funds for the support of victims of such a crime. I agree with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who said during the last debate that, logically, compensation for victims of crime has nothing to do with the argument for abolition. I admit that. But there is plenty of emotional connection between the two subjects.
In the light of this divided public climate, in the light of the divided opinion which reflects that climate in the House of Commons, the bill introduced by the Solicitor General is in my opinion a compromise which can be accepted. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in the last debate said that the argument on abolition should relate to the nature of the crime and not to the individuality of the victim. But if there is any logic in this it is that both the exceptions, police officers and prison guards acting in the course of their duty, represent not a crime against an individual as such but a crime against the state itself since both guards and police officers represent the authority of the state in its preservation of law and order.
If treason is still punishable by death, and it is under articles 46 and 47 of the Criminal Code, as are offences under the National Defence Act such as cowardice in time of war-hon. members will find these offences listed in sections 64 to 71 of that act-they are so punishable because they are offences against the state.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Would he not concede that offences such as treason and those under the National Defence Act are much more likely to be premeditated than the offences of murder?


John Napier Turner: I would say that some of the offences under the National Defence Act are committed on the spur of the moment in time of war, and yet they are punishable by death. If we are to be really logical we should eliminate the death penalty for treason and for offences committed under the National Defence Act. These offences still carry the death penalty because they are offences against the state. Therefore there is still a good deal of logic in protecting those 
DEBATES	November 14, 1967
officers of the state who are acting in support of public order. Eliminate one of these and eliminate them all. But if we are talking about logic, there is here a possibility of logic.
So I say again, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is a progressive step toward the abolition of the death penalty within the limits of reasonable persuasion of the public in the present climate. I am confident that the bill will carry the house. If on April 5, 1966, those who supported total abolition had also voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Cartier, that amendment would have carried. If the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) wants to ask why this bill is being brought once again before the house I would say-I am expressing my personal opinion-that the justification I see in it is that I do not believe the proper opinion of the house was registered in the last debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: No, I should not say that.


An hon. Member:: That is out of order.


John Napier Turner: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the way I put that offends the rules of the house and I apologize to hon. members for putting it that way. All I am saying is that if the amendments had been brought forward in a different order, there might well have been a different result.


An hon. Member:: It is quite possible.


John Napier Turner: Yes, it is quite possible. I did not mean to reflect upon a vote of the house. I put it in an indelicate way. I intend to exercise my vote with the greatest concern. I want to say, before concluding, that I do not believe any vote on the death penalty can be isolated from the whole context of criminal law reform. I think we have neglected criminal law reform in this country. The lawyers of this house have to take their share of the blame because I do not think we have been as vociferous in the vanguard of legal reform as we should have been.
I accept my share of responsibility in this connection. I was director of the legal aid bureau of Montreal for a number of years before I came into this house. I do not think that as a member of parliament I have done or said enough on the question of legal reform since I was elected. I hope that one of the results of this debate will be to prompt those of us us who have legal training to work toward this reform.
November 14, 19B7

Our state of penology is not contemporary. We have made no efforts at the national level to compensate the victims of crime. Our rehabilitation procedures are backward. The Juvenile Delinquents Act needs to be updated. A commission has inquired into this and made a report. The Solicitor General has told us that he has submitted a draft bill to all the provincial attorneys general. The Juvenile Delinquents Act should provide for uniformity of treatment on a national basis because it is a subject of common concern to all Canadians.
I think we need a sweeping review of the entire question of law enforcement. We must attack the causes as well as the effects of crime, the war on poverty, housing, the environmental causes such as broken homes, the whole question of marriage and divorce, the problem of drugs. I believe we need to stimulate research and establish in universities across this country institutes of criminology, assigning to each university some specialized branch of the subject. I believe we have to review questions of sentencing, bail, detention before trial, indefinite detention, uniformity of treatment and educating judges after their appointment. If judges with only civil experience are to sit in criminal courts, there is nothing wrong with educating them in this regard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We do it for years when we are practising law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: All this is a national responsibility. I believe we must be humane as a government but we must also respect our responsibility to protect citizens from the threat and injury arising from breaches of the criminal law. I hope this debate will do more than determine merely the question of abolition, however important that is. I hope it will stimulate a new Canadian concern and a new concern within the bounds of this house for the larger questions of rooting out and minimizing criminal acts in the future. I want to thank the house for its attention, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question. I listened with
DEBATES	4255
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence great attention to his speech. With regard to the reasons he gave for accepting this compromise would he be fair enough to say-I am sure he would-that the reason for the compromise is that we have actually had abolition de facto, if not de jure, since 1963 or even before?


John Napier Turner: I am being absolutely sincere in my reply, Mr. Speaker. I said that I believe this bill to be drafted in a form that will carry the house. I believe also that if a similar procedure had been attempted on an earlier occasion it might well have achieved the same result. I cannot accept the premise in the hon. member's question. This is my sincere view.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister as he has had some experience as cabinet member.
Does he not agree that there should be a commutation court, or some other court of last resort, to whose discretion commutations could be referred instead of to the cabinet? The latter really does not have time to study thoroughly the files submitted to it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I would say that, eventually the whole question of commutation must be entrusted either to a court or to the National Parole Board; but, as I said in my speech, in order to impress the public with the seriousness of the situation, I feel that for a five-year trial period it might be preferable to leave commutations to the discretion of the cabinet.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I simply wish to renew a kind of act of faith. Since I came to this house, I have tried, as far as possible, to support the government and to refrain from causing trouble with regard to its administrative responsibilities. Besides, that is what I had promised my constituents when they elected me as their representative in the House of Commons. I have disagreed with the government on a few occasions, and I shall disagree again on this bill.
4256	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
The other aside I wish to make is to stress, along with all members of this house, my great respect for the personal integrity of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) and the strong impression he created by his intervention the other day.
After this, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the privilege, like all other members, to state frankly and quite openly, what this free discussion enables us to say even though in my case, being independent, discussion is always free. I may be more explicit and slightly more violent this afternoon. Some hon. members said that feelings should not be involved in our interventions and yet, having listened to all the speeches, I did not see many who did not plead their case with a feeling shared by the whole house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after this, I shall categorically oppose this bill and I will vote against it for two reasons. First, my electors were categorical. I had a questionnaire distributed in my riding and 95 per cent of the people answered that they were in favour of retaining capital punishment in cases of capital murders proven beyond any doubt. The second reason why I shall oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, is because of the obvious and numerous defects that it contains.
I was even surprised to see that the hon. Solicitor General of Canada, who is an upright man and everybody's friend, was chosen to submit this bill to the house, which bill I find, for certain reasons, unacceptable and scandalous. It was even called a compromise, and this is true; it is a kind of subterfuge to impress the members and to obtain a majority vote which will run counter to the general feeling of parliament as was expressed last year.
Mr. Speaker, I even think that this bill brings discredit on the government.
I am one of those who have heard it said several times-and again, recently, by the hon. member for York-Humber, who quoted many instances in support of his argument -that the government gave indications of being vacillating, of lacking in firmness, of being compelled to make all kinds of compromises to rule the country, to such an extent that throughout the land, editorial writers and the man in the street doubt that it possesses these steadfast qualities

DEBATES	November 14, 1967
required by governments to show that kind of leadership which is required at this time.
I think that this bill is a case in point that the government hems and haws, fails to accept its responsibilities and has to resort to subterfuges so that its proposed legislation is enacted by parliament, while being aware that most members of parliament, as well as the majority of the Canadian people, are against it.
When I see a government use subterfuge to obtain the good will of parliament, I am led to question this respect towards our parliamentary institutions which are several hundred years old, towards our parliament which is supposed to be sovereign and to express the will of the people.
The bill is unacceptable and I submit as proof the very arguments advanced in support of the bill. In my opinion, these arguments are questionable. For instance, false figures have been quoted, distorting the truth. I should like to give an example-I do not have time to give more than one-taken from an editorial published in the November 13 issue of the Ottawa Citizen under the title:
Does hanging deter? Abolition foes must offer proof.
Here is the last paragraph:

-But the Solicitor General produced heartening figures: 45 prisoners whose death sentences were commuted were released on parole between 1957 and 1965. Forty are now living useful lives. Five had their parole revoked but not for murder offences.

Mr. Speaker, these releases on parole were authorized at a time when people were hanged on circumstantial evidence. I submit that those figures do not reflect the truth. Now people are hanged because they are found guilty of capital murder beyond any suspicion, for which proof has been made beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, that is not the case any more, and figures do not reflect the truth; furthermore, the same devices were used in many other cases. Arguments as misleading were advanced, for instance, when someone recalled the tortures of the middle ages, when people were quartered, scalded, or amputated of their ears, their fingers and their feet, and all that.
November 14, 1967

Everyone knows that that has not been done for many centuries and it is false representation to bring forth such arguments.
People speak of judicial errors, some of which have been quoted. But everybody knows that, today, criminals are hanged for capital murder only, that is for murders that have been proved without any doubt. Why then speak of judicial errors?
The hon. Registrar General of Canada (Mr. Turner) said that the legal or judicial system or the legislation are deficient and that even the judges would need to complete their education. Therefore, let them complete their education, but do not free criminals while waiting for the law to be improved and for the judges to learn how to deal with the cases that come before them.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It has been said among other things that public opinion favours abolition. I say that it is untrue, I say that if a referendum were held throughout Canada today the vast majority of Canadians would oppose abolition of the death penalty. In fact, I know that several of my colleagues tried in their ridings the experiment I carried out in mine, that is to day they sent a questionnaire to their electors to find out what public opinion was and the great majority was in favour of retaining the death penalty.
I am told, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members should educate the people. I think that is true but we should wait until the people have been educated before foisting on them measures they do not want. We have been sent here to serve the people and to comply with their wishes. Now, if it is deemed advisable to abolish the death penalty, let us start by educating the people and make them understand the reasons for its abolition, but let us not abolish the death penalty without educating the public beforehand.
I was surprised to hear the arguments put forward by the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), because, at first, he was in favour of the bill and then, he was against it. He admitted, nevertheless, that public opinion was not ready to accept the abolition of the death penalty.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I say that this bill is unacceptable, because when one argues for the respect of human life to demand that 4 or 5 criminals not be hanged every year and that two or three be hanged for having
DEBATES	4257
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence killed peace officers, I find it a rather unexplainable ambiguousness that the Registrar General failed to clear up when he said: Those are people who commit, to a certain extent, crimes against the state.
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) were murdered, or the Solicitor General, or the member for Lotbiniere, or the chairman of the house, that would be a crime against the state. It seems to me the persons found guilty of the crime would deserve hanging every bit as much as the murderer of a prison guard who, in many cases, is uneducated. The argument is, therefore, contradictory; I dare not say misleading because I have too much respect for the hon. members and the hon. ministers who have advanced such an argument here. But if the concern for human lives is so great, so dear to the heart of all the members of this government, why then has an unanimous, eloquent and vigorous protest not been organized in this house in recent months against the wars which are killing thousands of people in some countries of the world?
At a time when Canada is accused of selling the United States arms that are used to kill the Vietnamese, why did we not raise a general protest? I am sure that the government would have had the support of all members to protest against mass killing of innocent people to satisfy questionable interests which I have no time to discuss at this point.
If the concern over the protection of human lives is so deep, let it first start by stopping these killings. On the other hand, if these cannot be stopped, let a protest rise strong enough, eloquent enough, unanimous enough to awake world conscience to this series of crime, implied in wars now being waged mostly against civilians.
I feel that if it is out of concern for the sacredness of human life that an effort is made to save two or three murderers each year, while continuing to hang two or three who kill guards, while letting thousands of civilians be massacred in unexplainable and absolutely unacceptable wars. There is something wrong somewhere, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be the responsibility of this house, in order to maintain Canada in its mission as peace-maker in the world, to maintain the respect of the smaller nations, precisely to
November 14, 1967
4258	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence raise an eloquent voice and ask that this killing of civilians in totally unjustified wars be brought to an end.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we have so much at heart the sacredness of human life, there are still thousands of Canadians who die for lack of means to pay for the expensive services their cases require; those who are rich can afford them, but the poor cannot, due to all sorts of complications in our social legislation. Hundreds, if not thousands die, Mr. Speaker, and there is an effort to be made in that area. Our time would have been better spent, these past four or five days, in looking after the welfare of these special cases and we would have saved many more lives; we would also have saved innocent lives instead of guilty lives and we would have served Canada.
Mr. Speaker, since we are speaking of the respect due to human life, thousands of people are dying throughout the world. I know that Canada is making an effort to try and supply those countries where people die of hunger, while Canadians are living in abundance, but I say we should endeavour to increase our efforts, and instead of saving the lives of two or three criminals a year, we would be saving thousands of lives. Thus, we would contribute to further increase the consideration the people of the smaller nations may have for this country called Canada, which should be a symbol of peace, charity and mutual assistance throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that our role is to provide for the rehabilitation of criminals, not for their being put to death. I agree to that, but everyone says that our penal system is obsolete and out-of-date, that our prisoners are kept like wild beasts behind bars. Everyone knows that our jails lack essential staff; we have an inadequate number of qualified guards, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, pedogogists and doctors; we are short of everyghing, even of material facilities, such as proper jails. That is so true, Mr. Speaker-unfortunately, I do not have the figures on hand-that each year, a rather large number of prisoners hang themselves in jail, because penal system is so obsolete and intolerable.
With regard to that rehabilitation argument, I say that we put the cart before the horse. Let us start by setting up an up-to-


date penitentiary system, by equipping that system with the necessary experts and then, I shall have no objection. But, let us start by reviewing our legislation, by educating our magistrates, by making sure that those we sentence to imprisonment for capital murder can really be rehabilitated to a certain extent, at least, and will not later on present a danger to society and will be able to contribute usefully to the common good, and not wallow in the emptiness of inaction, if not in other unbearable conditions.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that argument is not acceptable either. I shall even go further than that by saying that this bill represents moral compulsion for some hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, this is the proof I give now-we say that the truth comes out of the children's mouth-it is probably the youngest Liberal member who had the naivety to give us the reasons for that legislation. This is on page 4163 of the official report, and it is a statement by our friend the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for whom we have a great deal of admiration. He gave us a lesson in linguistics this afternoon. He almost fascinated us, we rushed to encyclopedias in order to follow him. But, sometimes there was a certain inconsistency in some of his statements; he happened to contradict himself. I want to quote now a candid confession for which I commend him. On occasion he speaks frankly, which is to his credit, and he tells us this:
This year, my philosophy has not changed much-
Of course, he has to be forgiven for his little capers, since they do happen sometimes in the Liberal party-
-but the context is different: the government is in a quandary.
There is the reason for the bill, the hon. member for Lotbiniere just told us: the government is in a quandary.
-This is a non-partisan debate; we must say things as they are, see facts as they present themselves. And, when I say that the government is in a quandary, I mean the whole government machinery: members of the opposition as well as government members-
Of course, it was necessary for him to camouflage that so as to avoid being sent for by his whip tomorrow morning and being
November 14, 1967	COMMONS
scolded, as it happens to him sometimes when he makes revolutionary statements.
Mr. Speaker, I say it is shameful for a government made up of such respectable men as those we have there, to be forced to introduce a bill as compromising as that, to get out of an embarrassing situation. The question should be put frankly: Are you for or against the death penalty? If a majority of members of parliament decide in favour of its retention, let us comply with the wishes of parliament if we really believe in its value as a representation of public opinion. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, there is something amiss.


Martial Asselin: We voted on that question last year.


Mr. Mongrain:: That is true; the measure was put to a vote last year and the government took it upon itself to commute the sentence of all those who have been condemned to death since.


Mr. Gauthier:: That is ridiculous.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: My colleague, the hon. member for Roberval, says that that is ridiculous. A harsher word could be used and it could be said that it is proof of that arrogance that the opposition has sometimes held against the government, that contempt for the decisions of parliament in which I did not really believe when I first came here, so guileless that I was, and I felt that opposition members treated the government too severely sometimes. But I think that in this case the government has slipped badly, as it has been accused of, and I feel that that is inadmissible.
Mr. Speaker, since when do we appraise the value of human life in the same manner as meat in a butcher shop? Since when is the life of a prison guard deemed to be worth more than that of the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance), of the hon. member for Lotbiniere or Roberval, in short, of anyone here, including the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General? Since when can this be allowed to conceal what is actually a procedural error?
I feel that the government would have behaved in a much more respectable manner
DEBATES	4259
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence if it had clearly asked the same question: Are you for or against the death penalty? A beneficial result would have been, at least, that each of these debates would have contributed to the education of the public.
As I said earlier, I shall not be forever so strongly in favour on the death penalty, but I say that we should, beforehand, pass certain measures such as, for instance, the reform of our penitentiary system and obtain the assurance that our penitentiaries will be provided with all the experts required to ensure rehabilitation.
Mr. Speaker, I think the spineless attitude of the government, an attitude I would describe as scandalous and disquieting, will contribute to deepen the menace of anarchy facing Canada today. We are at a point where so much freedom is being claimed for our people that it degenerates into licentiousness and orgies in many cases; we have reached the point of defending bandits, traitors and spies with more courage, and we might say with more eloquence and more virulence, than we seem prepared to use to protect the public weal. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not time to put a stop to this attitude and to show that the government is firm enough to fulfil its responsibilities.
It is asked: Why should the government have the right of life or death? Why? Because the government has been given the responsibility by public opinion. The government has been given authority by public opinion and they must exert it as well as all the duties and responsibilities connected with it. I would go further and say that Catholic philosophy in which I have been brought up claims that all authority stems from God, and if the government needs the authority to put an end to a life and maintain order in society, the government must fulfil their responsibilities, even if it is difficult to do so. It is even more important in this era of licentiousness we are entering, in which apparently everything is permitted, everything must be excused in the name of this sacred freedom that is claimed and which too often degenerates in orgies.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against this bill and I submit that, in view of its incoherence and its compromising appearance, they are
4260	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence almost scandalous in certain cases, the minister should rise and say: We withdraw this bill and ask simply: Are you for or against capital punishment? At least, we would have contributed to educate the public. Why waste four or five days time? Why? Mr. Speaker, I spoke a while ago of the speech made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, and I was forgetting to mention it. Has not moral pressure been practised on some hon. members who are now in favour of capital punishment but who, in conversation in the lobbies or in the offices, gathered that it might be wiser to change their opinion this year?
Yes, the government is in a tight spot. If the favours of the government are to be preserved, those at the helm of the government must not be displeased. Of course, it is a very human line of thought, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I am making a rash judgment in referring to this. Again I say that it is unworthy of respectable men, for whom I have respect, who are today at the helm of the government in this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, first things first: Let us begin by educating the public, by thoroughly amending our penal system, by educating our judges, by making sure that the law is the same for the poor as well as for the rich. If we want to prove our respect for human life, let us begin by saving the lives wasted and sacrificed by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, for stupid wars, or, at least, by raising our voices in eloquent protest to awaken the world's slumbering conscience; in this fashion, we shall have served the community and those who claim that the public demands the death penalty.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to refer to the situation in Great Britain; to this effect, I quote from the November 7 issue of the Ottawa Citizen, an article headlined:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)

Bring back noose, Britons cry.

It reads as follows:

Britain's five year experiment-

They, too wanted a five year period of trial.

Britain's five year experiment with the complete abolition of capital punishment is two years old

DEBATES	November 14, 1967
on Wednesday and already a petition to bring back hanging is gathering 5,000 signatures a week...
Home Secretary Roy Jenkins-Britain's minister of justice and police-disputes the statistical connection. But estimates made by Jenkins' own ministry shows 35 "capital murders" last year and 32 the year before-
That compares with an average of 20 a year before Britain abolished capital punishment.

And a little further, it is said:

While the Commons voted 355 to 170 to abolish the death penalty, public opinion polls showed 70 per cent of the electorate opposed the abolition-

I think that is the general feeling here, in Canada. In my opinion, this government has no right to ignore the general feeling of the people of Canada; it has no right especially to introduce a compromise ball, a subterfuge bill to mislead any hon. member who, in accordance with the wishes of his constituents, feels in his own heart and conscience that the death penalty should be maintained in cases of undisputed murder.


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Certainly, providing he asks it in French.


Auguste Choquette: The question I wanted to ask to the hon. member is the following. Not very long ago he made a rousing appeal here, in the house, in favour of convicted separatists and he asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) if it would not be appropriate to grant them an amnesty and to petition Her Majesty the Queen accordingly.
Would the hon. member agree, as a generous gesture of amnesty towards those whose cause he was pleading recently, to vote in favour of a measure which will precisely save them from the sad fate he has in mind?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Lotbiniere speaks, he always gives me the impression of being a conjurer who tries to make you see one thing while
November 14, 1967

doing something else under cover. He is wrong in saying that I pleaded the cause of the separatists. The hon. member of Lotbiniere is wrong in saying that because I have risen in the house several times to speak against separatism. When I pleaded the cause of two separatist students sentenced to prison, and not for murder, I asked, during the visit of the Queen, that she use her royal prerogative to grant amnesty to those two students who were not accused of murder. The hon. member for Lotbiniere therefore did not present the case in its true light. They were two students considered as accessory and, furthermore, minors who had been deluded. I told myself: The royal prerogative might exist. There we had youngsters who had not been accused of murder. They could be rehabilitated, and that is why I rose in the house, and I will do so any time.
In the case of capital murders, as if, for instance, someone deliberately killed the member for Lotbiniere because he is against the British crown, and if it were done by the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), then I would not intervene, not even to beg the Queen-

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness).


Auguste Choquette: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Mr. Rapp:: No.

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif):	A
moment ago, the member for Lotbiniere asked permission to put a question but, in fact, he did not put a question but made a short speech. This time, does he wish to put a question?


Auguste Choquette: If the hon. member for Three Rivers allows the question it is my right to ask it.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Order. The hon. member for Calgary North has been recognized by the chair.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: November 14, 1967	COMMONS
prove very much, but I think they do disprove the statement of the Solicitor General that the weight of the statistics supports his case for abolition. I think the reverse is the situation.
The statistics which have much more value from any point of view are those showing the homicide rates for different countries and these are to be found at page 86 of this same book. Homicide death rates per 100,000 of population are shown in two tables. Beginning with El Salvador, which has by far the highest rate of any country with 44.3, here are some rates in various countries where the death penalty exists: Bolivia, 6.6; U.S.A., 5.8; Spain 1.4; Canada, 1.2; Australia, 1.1; New Zealand, 1.1; France 0.8; Ireland, 0.6; Scotland, 0.6; England and Wales, 0.5. I wonder why there should be such a difference between the situation in Spain and the situation in Italy, a country without the death penalty, where the rate is 2.4. In many respects these are similar countries. The indication is that the absence of the death penalty in Italy is a factor to which the difference might be attributed.
In the next column we find a list of countries where the death penalty is not imposed. The rates are: Columbia, 15.9; Puerto Rico, 14.1; Costa Rica, 5.0; Dominican Republic, 4.9; Finland, 4.6; Italy, 2.4; Austria, 2.1; Portugal, 1.6; Belgium, 1.4; West Germany, 1.2; Denmark, 1.0; Switzerland, 1.0; Sweden, 0.8; Norway, 0.5; The Netherlands, 0.4. These statistics are not conclusive in terms of evidence but in my opinion they demonstrate strongly that where a tradition of respect for the law is strong the homicide rate is low, and that where a tradition of violence exists the homicide rate is high. We note this particularly in the United States where there is a low rate in the New England states and a much higher rate in the southern and some of the western states where a tradition of violence has existed since pioneer days.
If we turn from statistics, as I think most of us do when considering this subject, as a means of proving the value of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder, we are left with the question: What is there to fall back on? I suggest that what we have to rely on chiefly is the application of common sense to our own reactions and the reactions of other people we have observed throughout our lives in connection with the effect of deterrents on them in dissuading them from entering on a life of crime or breaching regulations and laws in any way. I submit that the chief reason the majority of people do not
DEBATES	4263
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence break the law is fear of the consequences. I further submit that the greatest fear known to a human being is the fear of death.
The argument has been advanced that the fear of life imprisonment is just as great as the fear of death; some have suggested it is even greater. I do not believe that those who argue in this way have examined their own reactions and their own thinking. If they were to do so I do not think they could possibly put forward such as argument honestly. No one who has had experience in a war and has seen men under fire can fail to be convinced that the fear of death is the greatest fear there is so far as the vast majority of people are concerned. There may be the exceptional individual who does not fear death but such people are few indeed, and I have yet to see one when under fire.
It has been argued that the criminal mind does not fear death. I reject the idea that there is a criminal mind as such. I believe that all human beings react to basic situations in the same way and that criminals have the same reactions as the rest of us. In my opinion their fear of death is just as great as that of any other individual. They may overcome that fear and carry out certain actions just as soldiers do in a war but nevertheless the fear is there, and I am convinced in my own mind that in a large number of cases it serves as a deterrent to crimes of murder which would otherwise be committed.
I reject the argument that life imprisonment is just as great a deterrent as capital punishment. I reject it because along with the punishment of life imprisonment there is always hope. Hope is the emotion which keeps people going in any type of activity and as long as a prisoner has hope that he will one day be free a life sentence will not be nearly as powerful a deterrent as the death penalty, particularly since the so-called life sentence very rarely amounts to that. The Solicitor General himself knows that practically every one of these sentences has been reviewed and the prisoner paroled in the course of time. Again, there is always the hope of escape. For these reasons I reject the argument that life imprisonment is anywhere near as powerful a deterrent to the commission of murder as the fear of death, particularly the fear of death by hanging which is a particularly repugnant way to die according to most people's thinking.
Another argument put forward by the Registrar General is that an innocent man might be executed in error. An instance of
November 14, 1967
4264	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
this was given by the Solicitor General. I admit there is a chance of this happening but I submit that as things are at the present time, and as they have been for the last ten years in Canada, the likelihood of such an error is infinitesimal. First of all, the whole trial process makes it most unlikely that a jury would bring in a verdict against an innocent man, though this might happen. Let us not forget, though, that these cases are all reviewed by the cabinet, and if there is any chance whatever that the man concerned is not guilty the sentence is commuted. In these circumstances I say that the chance of an innocent man having been executed in Canada during the last ten years has been infinitesimal. The chance always exists, there is no doubt about that, but it is so small that I think it could be left out of consideration entirely. Certainly it does not weigh with me as a strong argument in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.
I take objection to the present bill even more strongly than I did to the abolition bill we discussed a year and a half ago. I say that instead of a compromise it is really a bill of expediency. It is contrary to the principle of abolition. I do not see how any conscientious abolitionist can vote for this bill because it retains the death penalty in the case of policemen and jail guards. Of course I do not see how any conscientious retentionist can vote for it either. Therefore, in my view everyone who firmly and conscientiously believes in abolition should vote against the bill and everyone who firmly and conscientiously believes in retention should also vote against it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Undoubtedly the bill is contrary to the general theory of deterrence and in addition it is objectionable because it makes two classes of citizens in this country so far as the imposition of the death penalty is concerned. On the one hand you have policemen and jail guards. If they are murdered, presumably their murderers are to be executed. If you or I or any other member of the general public is murdered, our murderer is not to be executed. Why should Canadians be divided into two classes of citizens from the point of view of the punishment which is to be given to their murderers? It is completely illogical and in my view contrary to good law as well as contrary to the whole concept of the equality of people before the law.
In this debate up to now I have not heard any really good reasons advanced why there should be these two classes of citizens. Inas-
much as the bill provides for the death penalty so far as prison guards and policemen are concerned, certainly it admits that it is a deterrent. It retains the death penalty in those cases on the very grounds that it is a deterrent. Therefore why abolish it so far as the general public is concerned, about whose protection the government should, in my view, be much more concerned than with a limited number of policemen and jail guards? I think that the real reason for the introduction of this bill so soon after the last one was defeated is that it is an attempt to rescue members of the government from the position of defying the law. In effect that is what they have been doing because they have commuted every death sentence. They have refused to accept their responsibilities in regard to reviewing death sentences. They have been defying the will of parliament as expressed here only a year and a half ago. I can see no other reason why this bill is introduced now except to get the government off the hook.
The bill is repugnant to me on that ground. It is repugnant to me on the gound of dividing Canadians into two classes from the point of view of punishment. In addition, I am opposed to it on the general philosophical ground that a deterrent of this kind is necessary. I think members of the government should have accepted their legal responsibility over the past several years and seen, to it that in cases where there was no question of guilt whatsoever the law as it stands on the statute books was carried out. The members of the government have refused to do that. They have commuted every case, no matter how bad it was, and thus refused to accept their legal responsibility. For all these reasons I trust that the majority of the members of the house will vote against this bill, as they did a year and a half ago, and that it will be defeated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with other hon. members who have paid their compliments to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) for the excellent way in which he presented this bill when he moved its second reading last Tuesday. I should also like to agree with the remark made this afternoon by the Registrar General (Mr. Turner), which has also been made by other members, that once again we have been having an excellent debate. Our views vary from one extreme to the other, but somehow or other this kind of debate does seem to inspire members to speak both from the heart and
November 14, 1967	COMMONS
from the mind and I am sure it can be said of this debate, as it was said of the capital punishment debate of 1966, that it is parliament at its best.
I should like to divide the remarks I wish to make and put them under two general headings. That in itself is unique for me. My speeches usually have three headings and a few amendments as well. But today I have just two general headings. First I would like to indicate, even though it is a case of repeating some things that have been said, why I stand with those who favour total abolition of capital punishment. After I have done that I should like to take a look at the present bill in what I think is its proper perspective.
With respect to the question of capital punishment itself it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General was perfectly right the other day when he pointed out that it is the last survival of the idea that punishment has to fit the crime. As he pointed out, we do not burn down the house of an arsonist. Neither do we maim or disfigure a person who may have maimed or disfigured a victim. If I may go on, we do not steal the property of a person who has committed a theft. We do not practice punishment or vengeance in this way except in the case of murder. Here we still seem to carry on the idea that there is something valid about the concept of a life for a life. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is completely uncivilized. It is a barbaric practice which is not worthy of a twentieth century society.
I know that there are those who say they are concerned about the victims of crime and that we should not be concerned in a softhearted way about the criminals who commit crime. But I would like to say, as I have said before, that what bothers me most about capital punishment is what it does to society itself. When a hanging takes place-and I am grateful that there has not been one in Canada for almost five years-it is not just the hangman who is performing it. It is not just the law in some detached way which is going through its processes. We, the people of Canada, are there. We, the citizens of this country, acting through the state of which we are a part, are committing the act of destroying a life. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the mark of a civilized society, that it is not the answer to the seriousness of the crime of murder.
It is interesting, although a bit staggering, to read the sections of the Criminal Code that deal with capital punishment. If there are members of the house who have not read
DEBATES	4265
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence them recently I would suggest that they do so. As a matter of fact I read them a day or two ago to a visitor to my office and after I had finished reading them my visitor asked me, "When were those sections written"? The saveregy and the barbarity with which the details are spelled out as to how society takes the life of a criminal, arranges for his body to be buried within the prison walls and so on, sounded to him like something out of the middle ages. I urge that we face up to the fact, if we ask that capital punishment be part of the law of this land, that we are asking for a barbaric practice which does not go with modern society.
I feel also that the retention of capital punishment on society's part is an admission of failure, a counsel of despair. We live in an age when we are conscious of the wonderful things we can do. Any day now we are likely to pick up the newspaper or turn on the radio and learn that we have put a man on the moon. Before long there may be many men and women on the moon. We have built computers which can do the work of hundreds, even thousands of people. We have made tremendous advances in medical science and we have even made some advances in the social sciences. We are in an age which has seen an explosion of knowledge. As after-dinner speakers sometimes remark, there are more scientists alive today than existed in all the previous ages of man's history. Indeed, more knowledge is accumulated in a generation today than was accumulated in centuries before.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It strikes me that it is a terrible commentary for us to boast of living in a wonderful age among intelligent people and yet not have any better answer to the problem of crime, particularly the problem of the supreme crime of murder, than just that we put the person out of the way. I submit that to follow that counsel of despair is an admission of failure which society ought not to be making. I know the argument is advanced- it has been advanced by the last speaker and others who have taken the side of capital punishment-that we must consider the matter of the protection of human life, indeed, that we must consider the sanctity of human life. I go along with that phrase 100 per cent, or 1,000 per cent if you like; but I submit that life imprisonment or imprisonment until there is no danger of the crime being repeated is just as much a protection for the individual as is capital punishment. I suggest, on the other hand, that so long as the state
3	COMMONS DEBATES	November 14, 1967
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
continues to practice violence-because that is what it is when the state puts a man to death-we are keeping alive the practice of violence in a way which is against the protection of the people themselves. It really is no protection to these innocent victims who are mentioned, the people who might be molested if criminals escape or are released. There is no protection provided by the state keeping alive the practice of violence. That practice does the very opposite.
I agree with the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) and others who have spoken in this debate when they say there are other forms of violence which we must get rid of, especially the violence of war such as we have in Viet Nam today. I agree also that other forms of violence such as those depicted on some of our television screens, and so on, contribute to this whole atmosphere, because the idea of persons killing each other is thus kept alive. However, the fact that other forms of violence which take place create the wrong ideas in people's minds is no reason for keeping extant this form of violence, namely, the actual deliberate legal taking of a human life by the state. I believe that if we want to recognize the idea that human life is sacred and that life must be protected, we must see to it that the state does not indulge in the practice of violence and does not indulge in the taking of human life.
This afternoon the Registrar General said one or two things which were well put, although I feel I must comment on them. He said he thought it was not proper to use statistics in this debate to argue that the burden of proof was on one side or the other. Then he said where, in his opinion, he thought the burden of proof lay. He said the burden of proof rested on those who want to change the law. That is a plausible argument, but I think it could well be modified and put this way: The burden of proof rests not merely on those who would change the law but on those who would change the practice. I am delighted that the practice in Canada at the present time is not to hang people. We have not had a state exection in this country since the end of 1962, nearly five years.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Despite parliament's vote of a year ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall refer to that. If I do not get to it before six o'clock I shall do so at eight o'clock. For five years the practice of this country has been that we have not had capital punishment. I suggest that any vote of parliament which would require-and I

will return later to that word as I use it in this sense

the government again to start hanging people would be a vote which would change our practice and would result in a backward step being taken. I believe also that those who wish that we take that step are the ones on whom the onus of proof rests.
In his defence of the retention of the death sentence to some extent, namely, the extent set out in this bill, the Registrar General also said that the death sentence symbolizes the repugnance of society for the crime of murder. If I may use his own words, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the death sentence does something else. It symbolizes society's resort to violence, society's recognition that it has not found the answer to crime. It is an admission of our failure; it is a counsel of despair in which we ought not to indulge.
These are the reasons I hold to the view, which I have held through all my adult life, that we should not have capital punishment in this country. I hope the day will come when we will get rid of it altogether. This leads me to the second part of my remarks, namely the things I wish to say concerning the bill which is before us. However, I see from the clock and from your posture, Mr. Speaker, that it is about six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), National Defence-possibility of joining South American nuclear-free treaty; the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman), National Defence-Winnipeg 

theft of arms from Minto armouries; the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos), Veterans Affairs-maintenance of preference in defence establishment appointments.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultation with a
November 14, 1967

number of hon. members of the house, including those in whose names bills numbered 1 to 7 appear on the order paper, I believe there may be a general inclination to give unanimous consent to the consideration of Bill No. S-20, to incorporate the Co-operative Trust Company Limited, which stands in my name.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Does the house give unanimous consent that Bill No. S-20 be now considered?


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I consent on the assumption that there will be a very limited debate on the bill or in fact no debate at all. The hon. member for Rosthern spoke to us about this matter and it was agreed that his bill would receive priority if there were no debate on it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to giving unanimous consent to having the bill called for second reading but I would point out that the assumption just expressed by the hon. member for High Park is purely that, just an assumption, and should not form part of any agreement to proceed with the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I should point out to the house that of the items preceding No. 8, Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 could be stood at the request of the hon. members sponsoring the bills and each could retain its place if there were a request from the government to do so. Items Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are for resuming debates; therefore they are orders of the house and unanimous consent would be required to stand them. Perhaps we could proceed with the order standing in the name of the hon. member for Rosthern if the house would agree by unanimous consent to stand items Nos. 1 to 7 inclusive for the time being and that they retain their positions on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will then proceed to-


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I want to accommodate my hon. friend to the greatest possible extent. However, when this matter was mentioned to me I was given to understand it had been arranged that this
Private Bills
bill would receive second reading with no debate. I referred just now to a minimum of debate. Under the circumstances I do not see how I can consent to this bill being proceeded with now. I regret it very much, but if there is not unanimous consent I believe we should proceed with the items as they appear on the order paper.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to move the motion without any debate at all and without making any introductory remarks. I understand there might be very limited remarks by an hon. member of another party. I do not think this bill would take very long at all. I would really appreciate the co-operation of the house if I could have it.


Mr. Barneii:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to indulge in semantics but it is my understanding that the arrangement was that there would be a reasonable amount of debate on the bill. I have had a chance to look at the bill. I think it is an important one and should not simply be passed as certain bills have been at other times in this chamber without any comment at all from interested members. I was not a party to any private discussion on the matter. It would seem to me that this is the kind of bill that could be given second reading after a reasonable amount of debate.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I am relying on my good friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that there will not be an extended debate. I understand that hon. members have explored the ambit of the bill and are prepared to give it the attention they think it deserves but they do not think it will take too long.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that by unanimous consent we proceed with item No. 8?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Nasserden: the second reading of Bill No. S-20, respecting Co-operative Trust Company Limited.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. S-20 provides for the incorporation of the Co-operative Trust Company of Canada. I should like to thank all hon. members for their co-operation in giving precedence to this bill today.
Co-operative Trust was first incorporated by an act of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan 15 years ago. It was created to serve a special purpose in that province and

November 14, 1987
Private Bills
has shown consistent growth. The share capital and reserves have grown from $50,000 in 1952 to $1,473,000 in 1966. Offices of the company are maintained at Saskatoon, Regina, Melfort and Swift Current. The officers of the company are: Gordon South, Melfort, president; William Cummins, Saskatoon, vice president; H. A. Wagner, Saskatoon, general manager, and A1 Martin, Saskatoon, secretary treasurer.
The main functions of the company are to provide long-term mortgage funds and trustee services for co-operators and credit union members. I believe the passage of the bill will improve the efficiency and service of this company. It is with pleasure that I leave it to the disposition of the members of the house.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the understanding that there would be no debate on this bill I should perhaps make my position clear so there will be no misunderstanding on this aspect of the matter. I am sure the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) will not mind if I disclose the tenor of the conversation we had on the telephone about this matter. The hon. member called earlier today and pointed out that he would like to proceed, with unanimous consent, with this bill. He asked if there was any objection

I am not sure whether he said on my part or on our part, meaning members of our party-and I told him there was no objection but that he should consult members who had bills on the order paper in a position of priority over this bill. I mentioned specifically the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) because I know he is interested in one bill that stands in second position on the order paper and another, which is a resumed debate, a little farther down the order paper. That was the extent of the conversation. There was no request at any time by the hon. member for Rosthern with regard to limiting the debate and certainly no mention of no debate at all.
I think hon. members who know my position with regard to limiting or dispensing with debate on any item before the house will probably understand that I would not have agreed in any event to such a proposition made privately. In this respect I am always reminded of the motto of Benito Mussolini and the Fascist party when they took office in Italy some time in the 1920's. It was adopted from an old Roman slogan and simply said: No debate, just obedience.
I do not think we can agree in a matter such as this to the concept of no debate. We want to know what this bill is all about. I

have related the extent of the conversation 1 had with the hon. member for Rosthern. We look upon the bill before us in a light and from a point of view entirely different from that with which we look at other bills that come before the house during this hour. This is the second occasion, as I recall, when we have dealt with a bill during private members' hour to incorporate a co-operative or credit union under one or other of the federal laws relating to companies engaged in the financial field in one way or another. Accordingly, we look upon it from an entirely different point of view than we do other bills which are dealt with during this hour, e (6:10 p.m.)
I am sure that the Senate banking and commerce committee which considered this bill looked at it from a similar point of view. I say this because of the speed with which the bill proceeded through the Senate once it came up for consideration there. It was given second reading on the first day of November, just 14 days ago, and referred to a standing committee which presumably held hearings, although I do not know that for sure, and considered the bill. It then came back to the Senate, was considered in committee of the whole of the Senate and passed on November
8.	It was then sent here for consideration of the house on November 9. So it took eight days for the Senate to consider the bill, including the days on which it was given second and third reading.
There is an aspect of the bill about which I feel some doubt and reluctance. However, I do not mean to imply that I have any regrets about giving the bill passage at this or at any other stage. My doubts relate to a principle we discussed on another occasion with respect to another bill which was before parliament during the last session and is now before us again. I refer specifically to the bill seeking to incorporate the Excelsior Life Insurance Company. If my memory serves me correctly, that bill contains a provision stating that the company is not to be incorporated as a federal company by the parliament of Canada but is to be continued as a federal company. Yet the fact is that until that time that company had been a provincially incorporated company. We expressed some concern about parliament being asked to declare something which is not a fact and had not been a fact until that time, namely, that the Excelsior Life Insurance Company has been a federal company ever since May 4, 1910, when in fact it has been a provincially incorporated company under the laws of Ontario,
November 14, 1967

if I recall correctly. Parliament is being asked to pass a law saying that the Excelsior Life Insurance Company shall be considered to have been incorporated as a federal company on May 4, 1910 when that is in fact not so. We expressed some concern about that when the Excelsior Life Insurance bill was being considered both in the house and before the committee.
The bill before us respecting the Co-operative Trust Company Limited seeks to do the same thing, and this gives me some concern. The situation is almost parallel to the one with regard to the Excelsior Life Insurance Company bill. I say "almost parallel" because Excelsior Life is a foreign owned company incorporated as a promoter while the company we are now considering is more in the nature of a co-operative credit union and has a different control structure within the trust company. However, Co-operative Trust Company Limited seeks to be continued as a body corporate under the new name of Co-operative Trust Company of Canada and "shall be deemed to be a company incorporated by special act of the parliament of Canada". In other words, this company is asking parliament to say that it shall be deemed that Co-operative Trust Company Limited has been a federally incorporated company since March 24, 1952, the day upon which it was incorporated by a special act of the legislative assembly of the province of Saskatchewan. We know that this is not the case.
This is a matter which must be explored and which undoubtedly will be explored by the standing committee to which this bill is referred. Basically there is a difference between the Co-operative Trust Company Which is now seeking to be incorporated and the Excelsior Life Insurance Company and all the other privately incorporated companies which fall within this category. This being so, perhaps we should approach this company in a different way.
The basic principle of ownership within a privately owned company is that money counts and money talks, and there is a relationship between the amount of money invested in the company by way of share capital and the degree of control ever the company. Let us take as an example the Seaboard Finance Company of Canada, in which the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) has a great interest. As I understand the system, if a person owns 1,000 shares in that company he has 1,000 votes and if he has one share he has one vote. The basic principle is that money controls and
27053-270}
Private Bills
dictates the policy of the particular private company in question. In the credit union and co-operative movements the principle is entirely different. It is that all shareholders have the same voting power. This is the basis of the bill before us. It is not money that counts or the total number of shares which any individual, any society, credit union or co-operative owns in the company. The fact is that each shareholder is equal to the other shareholders so far as his voting power in the company is concerned.
However, there is one exclusion in the bill before us. As I read the bill it says that notwithstanding section 46 of the Trust Companies Act each shareholder shall be entitled at all general meetings of the company to one vote only and no shareholder shall vote except through its representative or representatives in accordance with the bylaws. It then goes on to provide that the company may buy from the holder or holders thereof any of the shares of the company. In other words, each shareholder is equal to the other shareholders, and the principle that people, not money, controls the company and its activities is of paramount importance in our consideration of the bill.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I point out that the shareholdings of the company are of some importance because they indicate the degree of control which exists over the company and the manner in which it may be exercised through the one vote per shareholder principle contained in the bill. As of April 30 there were 257 credit unions, all of them in the province of Saskatchewan, which were shareholders. There were also 35 provincial co-operatives and 11 central co-operatives, including the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Cooperative Credit Society and others which I shall not enumerate. All in all, there were 303 shareholders in control of the company.
It is interesting to note that the authorized capital of the company is $3 million divided into shares of $10 each which means 300,000 shares available in the treasury of the company. Of these shares, only 303 have been issued, so it would appear that if this company receives federal incorporation and goes into business under the aegis of the parliament of Canada there will be ample unissued shares in the treasury to embrace other credit unions and co-operatives in other provinces which may want to become shareholders and participate in the growth and development of the company.

November 14, 1967
Private Bills
It is interesting to note from a political point of view that it has long been the contention of the C.C.F., our predecessor, and of the New Democi'atic party that the government has a distinct role to play in the formation and development of credit unions and co-operatives. We believe that the government should be in the forefront in assisting the development and formation of credit unions and co-operatives because it is through either or both of these organizations that people have an opportunity of regulating the economy in so far as its effects on them are concerned. Through credit unions there is perhaps as good an opportunity as exists anywhere in the world for people to have some control over inflation because credit unions are, in effect, a banking system and the members of credit unions are able to control interest rates and lending activities. This gives them more control over inflationary pressures than is provided through the chartered banks which are able to do whatever they wish.
It is interesting to note that the provincial government of Saskatchewan gave some assistance to this company following its incorporation in 1952 by providing a fund of approximately $4.5 million so that it could get into operation as a credit union. In 1965 the government withdrew that assistance on the understanding that the co-operative trust company had developed to the point where it could operate on its own. It has continually expanded its operations since the discontinuance of that assistance in 1965.
I see you rising in your seat, Mr. Speaker, so I assume that my time has expired. I think I should conclude my remarks by saying that I look forward to the consideration that will be given this bill when it reaches the committee stage.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, there are just a few words I should like to add to the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in connection with this bill. One reason why I feel this bill requires at least some discussion in the house is that it should be made clear it is a different type of financial bill from many of those with which we are called upon to deal during this part of our proceedings. The purpose of the bill is to incorporate Co-operative Trust Company Limited. I suppose one might assume from the title that the company is a true co-operative organization. However, I do not know that the word "co-operative" has any copyright attached to it.

One has to consider the activities that have taken place from time to time in this chamber. I recall an application for a change of name of a company. I have forgotten the original name of the company but it was proposed that the name be changed to "Beneficial Finance Company". We had some discussion about who was going to be the beneficiary of that change in name. I think it is quite proper that there be sufficient discussion and explanation of this bill so it is clear that this proposal, in fact as well as in mane, concerns the establishment of a co-operative organization.
The hon. member for Skeena has set out a good deal of the factual background and the present composition of the shareholders of this organization. It is also a fact that the company expects to operate in other provinces than Saskatchewan where it originally established its operations.
I believe the only other point I should like to make relates to the fact there is a specific clause in the bill which would exempt this company from certain operations of the Trust Companies Act. In other words, this bill, as well as another one which was put forward earlier in the session, emphasizes the need for that long-promised piece of legislation in respect of the federal incorporation of cooperatives. The provinces have acts which enable the chartering of co-operative organizations. There have been passing references from time to time to the introduction of parallel legislation by the federal government but so far we have been waiting in vain for such a proposal to appear on the order paper.
I should like to reiterate what I have said in earlier debates on this subject, namely, that the fact this bill is being introduced in this way emphasizes once more the lack of federal legislation in this field. I should like to take this opportunity to urge the government once again to take steps to close this gap. There are at the present time artificial restrictions on the operation of co-operative organizations in this country because they are not able in the ordinary way to transcend the limitations of their provincial charters as co-operatives.
I was interested to note that this bill was introduced in the other place by an honourable senator whom some of us remember as the distinguished former member for Spadina in this house. Knowing his longstanding interest in the type of organization under discussion, so far as I am concerned that fact is some recommendation for the favourable consideration of the bill in this house. I think it is quite appropriate that the hon. member
November 14, 1967


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Alan John Patrick Cameron: the second reading of Bill No. S-15, to incorporate Seaboard Finance Company of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate a small loans company within the meaning of the Small Loans Act, revised statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 251. Section 2 (f) of the Small Loans Act defines a small loans company as being "a company incorporated by a special act of parliament and authorized to lend money on promissory notes or other personal security and on chattel mortgages". Thus the formation of a federal small loans company can only be effected by way of a petition to parliament.
Also it is possible for a provincial company incorporated by way of letters patent to obtain a licence from the federal department of insurance and thereby become authorized to carry on the business of making small loans. Federal companies incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Small Loans Act are obliged to conform with many of the regulatory provisions, both financial and otherwise, of another federal act known as the Loan Companies Act, revised statutes of Canada, 1952, chapter 170.
The general operations of provincially incorporated companies licensed to make small loans are of course governed by provincial legislation. All companies in the business of making small loans, both federal and provincial are bound by the same federal regulations with respect to the interest which may be charged in connection with small loans.
At the present time there are in existence only about six federally incorporated small loans companies. On the other hand, there are scores of provincially incorporated loan companies which have been licensed by the department of insurance to make small loans. It is of course considerably easier and less expensive to incorporate a provincial letters patent company.
The proposed small loans company would be known as Seaboard Finance Company of Canada. There is already in existence an
Private Bills
Ontario company, Seaboard Finance Company of Canada Limited. Should a charter be granted under the provisions of the Small Loans Act, the existing Ontario company would immediately proceed to sell all of its commercial paper to the new federal company. The Ontario company would also immediately proceed to effect a change in its corporate name to one completely dissimilar to that of the federal company. Also the objects of the Ontario company would be changed from those of a loan company to those of a holding company.
The existing Ontario company, Seaboard Finance Company of Canada Limited, was incorporated by Ontario letters patent on August 17, 1955. When it commenced its operation in Ontario it did so on a small scale. That being the case, it did not wish to go to the expense of petitioning parliament for its charter under the Small Loans Act. However, at the present time Seaboard is a large organization operating on a nationwide scale in every province except Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Seaboard therefore feels it should more properly be operating under a federal rather than a provincial charter. As a federally incorporated small loans company, Seaboard as I have said would be bound to many of the provisions of the Loan Companies Act and would thus come under the more direct control of the federal department of insurance. That being the case, the proposed change has, I understand, the blessings of the department of insurance.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that this company has sought to incorporate itself under federal law.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is an old friend.


Frank Howard: Yes, an old companion. I do not know whether the bill is exactly the same in its terms as it was last session. I have not checked it through and I assume it is. If it is not the same, in so far as one extremely important particular that was outlined last session when the bill came up for debate is concerned, I am sure the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) would have disclosed that fact to the house so as to ease the passage of the bill here and in the appropriate standing committee.
First of all it might be pertinent to consider the company as being, perhaps, inappropriately named. I say that, having read the proceedings which took place before the Senate banking and commerce committee on June 28 this year. Perhaps the company

November 14, 1967
Private Bills
should not be named Seaboard Finance Company of Canada but rather "Predatory Finance Company of Canada". Because there is no doubt that operations of companies incorporated under the Small Loans Act-


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My hon. friend has made an allegation in connection with the proper name of this company. I feel he should explain himself. There are many, many such companies in Canada doing this type of business. Does he include them all in this category or is he just picking out this particular company? I should like to know that.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for High Park should know better than to ask questions such as that.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Well, I don't know better.


Frank Howard: That is an admission that should really have gone unsaid. The hon. member for High Park-and I say this in a kindly way-knows that he was the one who moved second reading.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: I want no kindness from my hon. friend.


Frank Howard: 
Alan John Patrick Cameron: Might I be permitted a question? Does the hon. member for Skeena not think that it would be better to talk about the principle of the bill rather than making general comments about finance companies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena knows the rules, I am sure, and I am sure he will abide by the requirement to limit his remarks to the subject matter of the bill which is now before the house.


Frank Howard: I should be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for High Park asked a question and I tried to answer. He cannot object, I submit, if I do answer. He ought to accept remarks that I make. I might also say, since the hon. member for High Park asks me to stick to the principle of the bill, that it has no principle. He is asking too much. Companies such as this show relatively little principle in their lending operations and in the greed with which they prosecute or persecute those who fall into financial difficulties with them.
The proceedings of the Senate banking and commerce committee disclosed interesting reasons with respect to the company's incorporation. And these remarks, I submit, deal directly with the principle of this bill. The proceedings before the committee of the other place disclosed that the company has offices across the country and that it desires federal incorporation, feeling that the circumstances are appropriate. Further, the company is interested in protecting its name, Seaboard Finance Company of Canada.
The hon. member for High Park said that the company originally was incorporated 12 or 13 years ago. It will be interesting to know why a company incorporated under Ontario provincial law could obtain a name like Seaboard Finance Company of Canada Limited. That is an all embracing name for the Ontario authorities to give a company. The implications of the name are inescapable. It suggests that the company is allCanadian and that it has been given authority to conduct business by this parliament. I have no doubt that the company seeks to
November 14, 1967

protect this name. It has been using the name and exploiting it-unknowingly, perhaps-but none the less it has used it throughout all the years that it has conducted business in this country. I might add that this point did not escape the astute Senators on the committee. It might be apropos for me to quote from the proceedings of the standing committee on banking and commerce of Wednesday, June 28, 1967 where, at page 21, the following is found:
Senator Thorvaldson: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Mr. Humphrys what is the full name of the present Ontario corporation.


Mr.   Humphrys@: Seaboard Finance Company of Canada Limited.
Senator Thorvaldson: May I ask how they could get that name for an Ontario company? That takes in a lot of ground.


Mr.   Humphrys@: It certainly strikes me that they went rather far in granting that name.
Senator Thorvaldson: If I were to ask for the incorporation of a company with such comprehensive name in Manitoba or in Saskatchewan, would I get it?
The reply of Mr. Humphrys of the department of insurance is indicative of the attitude that the companies branch takes in this country, and puts in shallow light the comment of the hon. member for High Park who said that this bill has the blessings of the companies branch. Mr. .Humphrys in his reply said, "I would hope not." He would hope that no other company incorporated under provincial jurisdiction would be given such an all-inclusive, comprehensive name that embodies the word "Canada". Mr. Humphrys' remark lends force to my contention that the company is interested in protecting its name. Mr. Humphrys also says that federal incorporation will bring the company additional prestige.
Also, another aspect of this matter seems to escape hon. members. This is not an ordinary company on which parliament should place its hand and bless with incorporation. This company falls outside the circumscribed area enunciated not long ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). In a nation-wide telecast he spoke about foreign ownership and said that he and the government wanted companies operating in Canada to be controlled by Canadians. It behooves parliament to follow this lead and to assist the Prime Minister. It is inconsistent with that concept and philosophy for members of the political party which forms the government of this country to run counter to the Prime Minister's wish. By introducing before this house bills which relate to companies under foreign
Private Bills
control, hon. members are violating that spirit and that should not be permitted. I cast no reflection on the sponsors of such bills because each of them is doing what he believes is correct.
Once he has been asked to sponsor a bill in parliament either because he comes from a particular area or because he has some knowledge in the financial field, the hon. member concerned considers it an act of grace to take the step requested of him. This of course does not always imply that the hon. member sponsoring the bill necessarily endorses what is contained in it. There have been occasions in the past when hon. members have tried to get bills through the house, though they did not agree with them in all respects. Such a situation is before the house at the present time. I am not suggesting this is so in connection with the current bill, because I do not know the position taken by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron), but there is certainly such a situation existing with respect to another bill, the mover of which does not necessarily agree with what is contained therein.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
However, that is neither here nor there. I say there is a conflict between what we are being asked to do today with respect to Seaboard Finance Company on the one hand, and what we are being asked to do by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on the other hand, a course which naturally follows from the enunciations of the President of the Privy Council. I believe that is the post the hon. gentleman presently holds; and perhaps I might transgress the rules for a moment simply to say I am referring to Mr. Walter Gordon. I say this in order that there may be no confusion in cabinet ranks as to the minister to whom I am referring. Heaven knows, there is enough confusion there already without adding to it. Statements have been made by this hon. gentleman, and others, pointing out how important it is that we should try in the most earnest way to bring such companies as this into the hands of Canadians, and under Canadian control. I say there is an inconsistency between what is being asked of us with respect to this bill and what is being asked cf us, as a matter of public policy, by the Prime Minister.
On this occasion-and this may be a rare occasion in political life-we agree with the Prime Minister and we do not agree with the bill now before us. We take this attitude because the bill concerns a wholly-owned

November 14, 1967
Private Bills
subsidiary of a United States parent company. The company we are dealing with gets part of its finances from the United States parent company. I do not know the extent to which it was financed prior to the declaration by President Johnson of certain guide lines with respect to sending money out of the United States, but it certainly received a hefty chunk of finance from the parent company in years past, and this ties the company in even more directly with the United States parent.
As I understand it, even though the capital stock of the company is to be $500,000 there is no intention of disposing of any of this stock through the stock market or otherwise. I may be wrong in this assumption, but from reading the minutes of the proceedings in the other place I got the impression that this company would be in the same position as the Ontario company, that is, a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company in the United States. I also got the impression that the company which was incorporated under Ontario law would cease to function as a company making loans under the Small Loans Act, and would become a holding company engaged in some activity which escaped me, in my quick reading of the Senate minutes. It appears that the company before us will be the one engaged in the small loans field, from which it will undoubtedly realize a fairly lucrative income. I say this because, as we all know the interest rates charged by this company will be no different from those charged by other companies operating under the Small Loans Act, and these rates range in the order of 18 per cent, 20 per cent, 24 per cent or maybe even more on the borrowings made by individuals.
It seems to me that this parliament should take a long, hard look at a company which comes before us as this one does, saying: We want to be incorporated because we desire the prestige which comes from incorporation by the parliament of Canada, because we want to protect our name and because we have been doing business throughout Canada, anyway, and we should like the sanction of the federal parliament to continue.
I say we should take a serious look at this bill before giving endorsation to a company which is charging interest rates up to 24 per cent, and maybe more. We all know how difficult it is for an individual in present circumstances to meet even what we now consider to be normal interest rates in the area of 7 per cent or 9 per cent. When people are faced with repayment of the capital they [Mr. Howard.!
borrowed, plus these extremely high interest rates we can realize what this squeeze on their incomes means.
We are all aware of the blandishments and the enticements offered by companies such as this in order to encourage people, for example, to consolidate their debts- "Why make seven or eight payments a month when you can make just one?" Borrow from us, the advertisements say, and we will help you out. I remember an advertisement which read: "Live within your income, even if you have to borrow from us to do so." Rather than close on a note which would invoke objections from the hon. member for High Park I will refrain from repeating the name which I think should be applied to this kind of company.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour for consideration of private members business has now expired. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the portion of my remarks which I made before this debate was interrupted at six o'clock I gave in capsule form my reasons for favouring the total abolition of capital punishment. It is my belief that it is a barbaric practice for which there is no place in civilized society. I believe that an intelligent and resourceful people should find a better answer to the problem of crime.
Now I turn to a look at the bill itself which is before us and I should like to address myself in particular to those members, most of them retentionists, who have argued that we who are abolitionists cannot vote for the bill because it does not go all the way. I also want to address myself to any abolitionists in our midst who may feel
November 14. 1967	COMMONS
uneasy, as I do, about voting for this bill for the reason that it does not provide for total abolition.
I think we have to look at this bill, not as an abstraction, not as though we were legislating de novo, for the crime of murder, but rather we have to look at this bill in the perspective of Canadian history. The fact is that until a few years ago Canadian law with respect to murder was clear and absolute. The penalty for it was death. It is also true that for many years that penalty was carried out far more often than has been the case in the last decade or so.
But the day came when the arguments for the abolition of capital punishment carried such weight that various governments interpreted the feeling of society to be that the practice of capital punishment should be at least curtailed. We have carried out that desire to curtail by stages the practice of capital punishment. One of the most important stages came when the Diefenbaker government divided murder into its two categories, ordinary murder and capital murder. The purpose of that division was simply to limit the extent to which capital punishment might be practised.
In addition to that step, which reduced the number of occasions on which capital punishment could be carried out, at one stage of our development there was introduced into our law the proposition that a person under 18 years of age at the time he committed a murder was not to be hanged, even though he might be found guilty of capital murder. Those are two steps, among others, that have been taken in the development of our criminal law to limit the practice of having as the penalty for capital murder.
Another step that we have taken, even though it has not been taken by parliament itself, is that which has been taken by the present government and the government just before it in commuting an ever larger and larger number of death sentences. I see this as a response of the Diefenbaker government and of the present government to society's belief that the practice of capital punishment, if it cannot be totally abolished, should at least be cut down, should at least be curtailed. I think the commutations the previous government effected and those we have had from the present government are part of the story of our limiting the practice of capital punishment, and I submit that this bill has to be looked at in that perspective.
Again I say that the bill is not an abstraction. It is not a case of drafting for the first
DEBATES	4275
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence time the law with respect to murder. If it were, I could not accept it. Rather, it is a case of taking one more step in cutting down the number of occasions on which capital punishment can be practised. It not only cuts down the number of times that there can be capital punishment, but it cuts down the number of occasions on which a judge will pronounce the sentence upon a convicted murderer, that he is to be hanged by the neck until he is dead, and may God have mercy on his soul.
I think that even that method of pronouncing the sentence, as is done a good many times a year right now, even though it may be commuted later, is part of the barbarism of which we should rid ourselves. The point I am trying to make at this stage of my remarks is that this bill should be looked at, both by the retentionists who think there is some lack of logic in our voting for it and by the abolitionists who have honest questions, not as an abstraction, not as something that stands on its own feet, but as another step in the progress of getting rid of capital punishment altogether. I hope that day will come and I believe it will. I do not think there is any doubt about it, that just as there are many countries and jurisdictions that have done away with it, we will join the rest of the civilized countries in doing away with it ourselves.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is no doubt where I stand. I would like to see capital punishment completely done away with right now. However, from the debate of a year and a half ago, from the vote that came at the end of that debate, from speeches made in this debate I know that it is not now possible. But as one who thinks that capital punishment should be abolished completely, I could not look at myself in the mirror-


An hon. Member:: You startle me, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend looks at me as if to say that that would be more horrible than capital punishment. Perhaps I had better change the figure of speech. I could not rest easy if I were to vote in such a way as to prevent the taking of the further step which is involved in the passing of this bill. Therefore, I ask my hon. friends, like my neighbour from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who are concerned about the logic of our position, and others who are abolitionists and who worry about the logic of voting for this bill that does not go all the way, to
November 14, 19G7
4276	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence look at it in this context. I should like to say to my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre that his concern about our position reminds me of a Presbyterian being concerned because a Mohammedan is not reading the Koran. It is up to each of us to decide what is logical for himself. I make the plea to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and others, that they realize that this proposition which we have before us tonight is one more step along the road toward getting rid of capital punishment. I think therefore it is a good step, and that those of us who may wish to go further should support this bill without any question.
In the same context I should like to say a word or two in reply to those who have argued that the government had no right to bring this measure back to parliament only a year and a half after it had been dealt with here in the House of Commons. I should like to say quite frankly that I take the opposite view. I believe the government not only had the right but the responsibility to bring this question back. Some hon. members, particularly those on the majority side of the question a year and a half ago, have argued that that vote settled the question. I should like hon. members to look at the motion that was voted on, and then answer the question: What did it settle? It was not a piece of legislation; it was a resolution by four private members which expressed the hope that such and such would be done. The house did not go along with that opinion and did not agree that a change in the law should be made. That is all that can be said for that vote. We did not decide to make a change.
In the meantime, in this country we have had in power a government which holds certain views on this matter. I happen to agree with those views and happen to be glad that death sentences have been commuted. We have in this country what is known as responsible government. When there is responsible government the government is supposed to find out whether it has the endorsation of parliament for what it is doing. The present government feels that capital punishment is something it does not wish to carry out. That being the case, and since there has not been a clear decision on this issue, I think the government not only had the right but the responsibility to bring this matter back to parliament and obtain a decision on its own proposition. It is, of course, a compromise. I believe the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) was perfectly correct in


saying that as a compromise it lacks certain logic. It was difficult for him as an abolitionist to put it forward, but if it is a workable and enforcable compromise, surely it is better than the position we have been in.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would the hon. member allow a question? What in his opinion would be a clear decision? He has just mentioned that there was no clear decision. What would be a clear decision of parliament on this question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I made that statement
because the motion which was before us a year and a half ago was in the name of four private members and it contained the words which are always contained in a private member's motion, to the effect that in the opinion of this house such and such be done. It was not actual legislation. Motions of that type when passed do not make a clear-cut decision; legislation does. I believe this legislation, if passed, will contain a clearcut decision. It is precisely because that decision was not clearcut a year and a half ago, precisely because the government differs from the majority and because the government wishes guidance and wishes an understanding on the part of the house concerning its position, that it has both the right and the responsibility to bring this matter back to parliament in the form of actual legislation such as we now have before us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit another question? My question is supplementary to the one which was asked and answered a moment or two ago. What does the hon. member say about the position taken by the Prime Minister in the speech from the throne of January, 1966, when he indicated that the subject matter of capital punishment would be before the house for decision so that-he used these words-the matter might be settled once and for all? The resolution was brought forward by representatives of the various parties in the house and despite the fact that it was a private member's resolution it was in response to the Prime Minister's suggestion in the speech from the throne that it be done in that way. A decision of the house was made, but it was not once and for all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are many things in the course of human development which just do not become settled once and for all. We are not that kind of society. I realize this is perhaps difficult for me to say, when I happen to think as I do, but the road
November 14, 1967

to progress is in the direction of the abolition of capital punishment. Those who disagree may not feel this way; but I think that is the way of progress and that the issue will not be settled until we have gone all the way. However, whatever the Prime Minister may have said in the speech from the throne in 1966 in the words which he put into the Governor General's mouth, it is obvious that the vote did not settle the question once and for all.


An hon. Member:: No, no. We did vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have there been any hangings since that vote was taken?


Auguste Choquette: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right; at least in the eyes of the government the matter was not settled once and for all. I believe the government had the right and the responsibility, since it was not prepared to accept that vote as an indication of the way it should go, to bring its own measure before parliament. The motion of 1966 was not a government measure; it was a measure brought in by four private members. Now we have a measure brought in, which is a cabinet measure. Even though there is a so-called free vote, it is government legislation. I suggest this is a much clearer way to determine the will of parliament on this issue. What will happen, if there should be a murder of a prison guard or a policeman, when the conviction comes before the cabinet, is another question. There still may be commutation, and therefore even that part of the issue may not be settled by this. But if we pass this bill, then at least in 99 out of 100 cases we will be doing away with the death sentence and the law which requires that society do away with certain human beings.
I suggest, even though I would have preferred to see a bill which provides for total abolition, that the government is to be commended for bringing before the house a workable compromise and one which moves in the right direction. Because it moves in the right direction I hope the house will give this bill its endorsation.


Mr. Korchinski:: May I ask the hon. member a question? In view of the fact that this now is a government bill before the house, does he not think that conceivably it could be construed as a vote of confidence in this government and that a measure like this might bring on an election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
DEBATES	4277
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, because of the way in which the government has introduced the bill I hardly believe it could be considered as a measure which would bring about a vote of confidence in the government in the usual political sense. However, I think it is a crucial test of the government's moral authority. I think the government is morally right in the stand it has taken, and I hope the house will support it.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, could I venture to put another question to the hon. member?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Will the hon. member have the same attitude when the government refuses to increase pensions to civil servants after dozens and indeed hundreds of interventions by the hon. member?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I take the same attitude. No question is settled once and for all until it is settled the right way.


An hon. Member:: And the right way is your way.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: 
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I know we speak for the vast majority of the Canadian people when we deplore the actions of this government whereby, despite the serious economic ills which now beset our country and the need for useful and beneficial legislation concerning economic matters, the government now wastes the time of parliament by sponsoring this bill dealing with the Criminal Code, which will be productive of nothing of benefit to Canada. In fact, this bill tampers with the safety of the citizens. I was surprised also a few moments ago to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say that a compromise is better than the direct will of the Canadian people as expressed by the majority in parliament not very long ago.
I have followed this debate with interest, and I now have some remarks I wish to
DEBATES	4281
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence make concerning this Bill No. C-168. It is only 18 months ago that this government received instructions from the parliament of Canada, and thereby from the people of Canada, to maintain and enforce capital punishment for capital murder. These instructions have been flouted, Mr. Speaker, and disobeyed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) and by all the cabinet.
In the meantime I have endeavoured, as an advocate of the retention of capital punishment, to point out a few of the facts of government to the members of the cabinet whose duty it is, from time to time, to make the painful and sometimes unpleasant decision as to the life or death of certain citizens. These cabinet members receive certain added emoluments because of these other onerous duties. This cabinet has said, in effect, by its actions, right from the time it was sworn into office, "We want to be rid of this obligation; we will not back up the dutiful decisions of the judges of our courts".
Surely, Mr. Speaker, every capital murder case that comes before the cabinet for either confirmation of the death sentence or for commutation has not been always worthy of commutation. The position of the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General, yes, and the government as a whole, regarding the protection of persons and property, the upholding or obeying of the law, the support of the judiciary, has been completely indefensible. Having regard for our system of responsible government, I might say that the actions of the government, or lack of them, might have resulted in the resignation of the government in days gone by. But no, Mr. Speaker, this government just has a little conference with some of its crutches, namely the members of the N.D.P., and that great sentimentalist the Solicitor General trots out Bill No. C-168, which is the greatest anomaly of compromise and contradiction in the sad history of the Pearson regime.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not need to repeat the clauses of the bill. Hon. members know the bill provides for the abolition of capital punishment for a trial period of five years in cases of capital murder, except for the murder of certain categories of policemen and prison guards.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
On April 5, 1966 we voted in this house on what was known as the Klein amendment, which had pretty much the same effect as the
4282	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence provisions of this bill. A minute ago I mentioned the New Democratic party in connection with the bill that is before us. I note that on the night of April 5 when the house voted on the Klein amendment, which was negatived 179 to 74, only two members of the N.D.P. voted for the amendment. Yet 18 months later, I note that one of their members last week on a television appearance affirmed and reaffirmed that-and I quote his words-"We are supporting the bill". How politically inconsistent can the N.D.P. members be, Mr. Speaker?
I also ask the question: How inconsistent can the government become? Both the government members and the members of the N.D.P. are whipped into line on this so-called free vote; and in terming it a so-called free vote I am only quoting the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who a few minutes ago referred to the vote in his speech as a "so-called free vote".
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the meaning of the term "so-called" in everyday life? It is an expression of artificiality; it is an expression of phonyness. Yet here we have the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, an able spokesman for his party, admitting that it is a so-called free vote. It is nothing of the kind, as far as the members of the government party and the N.D.P. are concerned.
What a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, when the government discriminates in its legislation and meddles with the well tried law of the land. By the proviso in the bill which excepts murders of policemen and prison guards the government hope to attract my vote, the vote of a retentionist. By the provision of a five year trial period of abolition of the death penalty they are wooing the abolitionists. By doing this they hope to make the Monday morning sessions in the cabinet room more pleasant in the future in spite of the rise in the crime rate. This bill does nothing to protect the rights of the masses in Canada.
I now have something to say, Mr. Speaker, regarding this five year trial abolition period. On April 4, 1966 I reminded this house of the historical fact that in many cases where capital punishment has been abolished by an act of government in other countries and states, it has been reimposed within a short time to combat the homicide which continued and increased, finally incensing the population to the point that its return was demanded.
We now have the case of Great Britain, that great, generous and enlightened country,

DEBATES	November 14, 1967
a leader down through the centuries in responsible government and legislation; and in this connection I quote an article by Don MacGillivray in the Ottawa Citizen of November 7, 1967. Headed "After two years of abolition, bring back noose, Britons cry", the article commences:
Britain's five-year experiment with the complete abolition of capital punishment is two years old on Wednesday and already a petition to bring back hanging is gathering 5,000 signatures a week.
Led by Duncan Sandys, former Conservative cabinet minister and now one of the most effective opposition members of the British House of Commons, the campaigners for renewal of the death penalty claim the murder rate and incidence of violent crime have both risen since abolition ...
The list of capital crimes was whittled down until, in 1955, an experimental "no-hanging" period was begun during which all death sentences were commuted. This was similar to the undeclared nohanging policy followed for the past four years by the Pearson government in Canada.
In 1956, the British House of Commons voted to abolish capital punishment but the House of Lords refused. Then, in 1957, the Homicide Act limited the death penalty to "capital murder" defined as murder committed during a theft, in resisting or avoiding arrest, or escaping legal custody, murder of police and prison officers and murder by shooting or causing explosions.
This latter offence is also becoming common to Canada.
Although this act stood unchanged for eight years it contained almost incredible anomalies. It was capital murder to shoot someone with intent to kill, but not to poison or drown them with the same intention. A man might rape and kill a woman and not be guilty of capital murder- unless he stole her handbag.
Although capital murders averaged 20 a year, the maximum number of executions was five a year, and this dropped to three in 1962, two each in 1963 and 1964, and none in the 10 months of 1965 while the death penalty remained in effect.
During the debates that led to temporary abolition it was evident that M.P.'s and their constituents didn't see eye to eye.
I claim this is now the case in this country, Mr. Speaker.
While the Commons voted 355 to 170 to abolish the death penalty, public opinion polls showed 70 per cent of the electorate opposed to abolition and only 23 per cent favouring it. Partly because of this public attitude, abolition was made a five-year experiment. Unless parliament renews it by July 31, 1970, the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act will expire and Britain will return to the 1957 law.
Both in the last debate on capital punishment and also in this one, Mr. Speaker, much has been made of the claim that execution is not a deterrent. Such negative thoughts and statements are nothing but a myth. Britain
November 14, 1967	COMMONS
has tried abolition and found it wanting, as this recent article to which I have referred informs us.
I have also looked in the bill, Mr. Speaker, for penalties which you would think a government bill would provide in cases of treason. What about punishment for acts of treason? Those found guilty of such crimes are certainly just as deserving of the ultimate penalty as any perpetrator of capital or premeditated murder. Forces are working both in this country and in this chamber right now, Mr. Speaker, for the dissolution of confederation in Canada. If these people do not change their ways they will certainly one day have to stand trial for sedition and/or treason. By having no farsighted provision for such eventualities in Bill No. C-168, this government in its soft and foolish policy of being all things to all people is only inviting another "Northwest rebellion", only this time in some other part of the country.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is nothing but a strange contradiction of well founded principle. It further confuses the situation. All through the life of the present government we have had an oligarchic, arbitrary commutation of all death sentences by the cabinet. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there has been abolition of the death penalty by what I have to refer to as an "absolute power", which is vested in the prerogative of the cabinet. Indeed the Solicitor General, who is an avowed abolitionist, by this bill is now asking for a form of conditional capital punishment.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
With all the deep regard that I have for the police departments of this country, for before coming here, while in municipal government, I was associated with them for ten years, and with all the deep regard that I feel for our valued prison guards, for I was associated with them in the protection of persons and property in county affairs before coming here, I still will not vote in a way that will classify and evaluate human life in Canada. The lives of all law abiding citizens of this country I hold in equal regard with the lives of persons belonging to any group or category. I will not be lured into voting for this bill because it has some hypocritical government connection with provision of capital punishment for murderers of police and prison guards. I have a basic reason for saying this, Mr. Speaker, because I do not believe the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General or the cabinet, when they say in this bill
DEBATES	4283
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence that they will back up the judgment of the courts in case a murder of this kind happens in the future. Even then I do not believe that the cabinet will do their duty. Any cabinet capable of commuting the sentence of the infamous Santa Claus murderer in Montreal of a few years ago, is incapable of any performance of justice.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Hear, hear.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Another point I wish to make is that the government should watch carefully, not just the murder rate but the general crime rate in the country as a whole. The general crime rate, if we include crimes that range from petty crime to major and capital crimes, is the criterion. The murder rate of course is variable. When the general crime rate is increasing, as it is today, this is no time to reduce capital penalties. Our unsolved crime rate, especially the unsolved murder rate, is increasing.
I shall now talk of something with which hon. members no doubt are familiar. I wish to quote from the Ottawa Journal of October 3. The headline of the column reads, "Offer Reward For Fireman's Murderer", and it is followed by a question mark. The column reads in part:
City council will ask the Ottawa police commission whether a reward can be issued for information leading to the arrest of the murderer of an Ottawa fireman.
Alderman Claude Bennett contended a reward might assist police in their apparently fruitless search for the killer of Leopold Roy.
Mr. Roy, who served as caretaker of a Sandy Hill apartment building in addition to his position on the fire department, was stabbed to death this summer by an intruder he was trying to eject from the building.
I do not wish to support legislation that will bring solace or relief to Mr. Roy's murderer. In Canada, today, we have many unsolved murders. We have one in the county of Lennox and Addington. The murderer of Aubrey Sedore, a trapper who was murdered in the 1930's in Kaladar township more than 30 years ago, has never been solved. His murderer is still at large or, if dead, unconfessed.
I say to this house that it is not the wish of the majority of the people of Canada to abolish capital punishment for a trial period, or for any period. And he who would fly in the face of and in contempt of the will of the Canadian people is a presumptuous and foolish person.
I wish to raise another point along the same lines, Mr. Speaker. I have before me a
November 14, 1967

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence letter addressed to the editor in this morning's edition of the Montreal Gazette, a great and informative newspaper. The headline over the letter reads, "Capital Punishment: The People's Choice?" The body of the letter reads as follows:
Sir,-In the Canada pavilion at Expo, there were several displays at which visitors could register their opinion on a variety of controversial subjects. One of these carried the question "Should we abolish capital punishment?" The numbers registered on the panel during the last week of Expo were, 19,000 for abolition, 5,500,000 for retention. Even allowing for all possible forms of error, this would seem sufficient to indicate an overwhelming public sentiment against abolition.
Does this have any effect on the people whom we send to Ottawa to represent us?
I am reading the words of the letter addressed to the Montreal Gazette. They continue:
It does not appear to. Our M.P.'s obviously do not give two hoots what we, the people, think, or else a bill for abolition could not expect to get any support whatever.
It is my opinion that the main purpose of the instigator of the present bill, the Attorney General, Mr. Larry Pennell, is to avoid the responsibility for carrying out an unpleasant duty. In parenthesis, one may remark, he does not carry out his duty, since all death sentences are automatically commuted.
If Mr. Pennell finds it so distasteful to perform a duty which is part of the job he undertook to do, does he find it equally distasteful to accept the stipendiary emoluments attached thereto?
The logic of capital punishment may be argued from either side, with equal lack of success. This is not a question for thinking; it is a gut feeling. Therefore it is something on which none can be an expert. It only remains then, for the legislators in parliament, to be guided by the obvious wishes of the people they are supposed to be serving.
It is a paradox of our times, that those whose hearts bleed for those guilty of blood by choice, are probably the same people who will support measures to snuff out the lives of the innocent unborn.
The letter is signed, "D. E. Scrimshaw". I do not know the man who wrote the letter but I agree with much that he said. Mr. Scrimshaw's last paragraph also contains a point worth noting. He reminds us that there are other forms of murder, such as the killing of an unborn baby by aborting the mother. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is strange that there are parties and members in this house who would deny the state its undeniable right to take life but yet, in another facet of so-called human progress and survival, would freely allow and vote for abortion on demand. For all I know, and this may be beside the point, the same people might allow the indiscriminate practice of euthanasia in our hospitals.
[Mr. Alkenbrack.l
Before taking my seat I wish to ask some questions. In bringing this bill forward did the Solicitor General consult the Minister of Justice? We have heard nothing from the Minister of Justice in this regard-at least I have not heard him speak. He has as much jurisdiction and seniority in this matter as the Solicitor General has-perhaps more. I should not think that the office of the Solicitor General ought to have powers greater than those of the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Surely the Minister of Justice does not and cannot totally agree with this bill.


Mr. Orlikow:: Did he vote for abolition?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The people of Canada are asking this question. Moreover, did the Solicitor General consult the attorneys general of the provinces before drafting this bill? I am sure that they are not satisfied with it either, and they are called on to enforce and administer the criminal law. Did the Solicitor General consult the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Reeves? Did he consult the municipal associations of the provinces? Did he consult the Association of Chiefs of Police?


Erik Nielsen: There was no consultation.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Did he consult the Police Officers Association of Canada, which is a separate association These are some of the questions that the Canadian people are asking.
I wish to ask a question about certain murders committed by immigrants in this country. I shall refer to this matter, Mr. Speaker, because it is of local and national interest. I am informed that last spring here in the city of Ottawa an Italian immigrant was acquitted of the murder of his brother-in-law. The murder arose as a result of a family quarrel.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty, though it was the opinion of the general public, of the law enforcement officers and of Judge Donnelly who presided that this was a ridiculously lenient action on the part of the jury. I believe this man shot his brother-inlaw twice, using a shotgun. I understand that the accused and his friends put on a real demonstration and celebration in the courtroom after, reluctantly, the judge had to tell the accused he was free to go.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Is this man still in Canada? He had only been here some 15 months before committing this act. I
November 14, 19S7

ask the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister of immigration (Mr. Marchand) whether it is intended to allow him to remain in Canada. Is he a desirable candidate for Canadian citizenship? Yes, Mr. Speaker, he was acquitted of this charge. But for taking the law into his own hands he should be returned to the country of his origin. I leave this question with the Solicitor General for whom I have the greatest personal respect, and with the minister of immigration, because I think it is a timely one. What is to be done in a case like this? I await their information regarding this case.
Mr. Speaker, I have outlined some of the thoughts which arise in my mind as 1 am confronted by my personal sense of responsibility for the continuance of responsible government, justice, and the protection of human life and property in this great country of 20 million people, all of whom are engrossed in the battle of life in all its stern severity across the far reaches of three and three quarter million square miles. I told this house 18 months ago that it is my firm opinion the state has the prerogative of retaining the right to demand the life of any of its citizens for any of the varied offences of capital crime, and crimes against the state. I have not changed that opinion and I cannot and will not support this bill because of the unwise and conflicting, discriminatory duplicity of its component clauses.


Mr. Yves Forest (Stanstead):: 
ultimate way of protecting our community against this category of criminals. Besides, they will be the only ones to be executed. I mean those who, deliberately and knowingly, deprive their fellowmen of their sacred right to live.
The reason for the existence of capital punishment is the duty of society to protect the integrity and the lives of its members against those who threaten them. In the present circumstances, this protection against a conscious murderer is impossible without the death penalty, unless you submit him to an imprisonment that is humanly unbearable. Society and, therefore, the state have the right and the duty to defend the community against aggressors, from without, as in times of war, and from within, as in the case of treason, by demanding the death of the guilty; if the citizen may defend his life by taking that of his attacker, so can the state when a criminal attacks and endangers the life of the community by taking upon himself to murder his fellowman. There is really no other efficient means to protect the public against those who have defied the supreme law, namely that the individual does not have the right to kill.
That the death penalty should also be a deterrent, that it should force the potential murderer to pause, is a secondary effect that adds to its usefulness. But, alone, it would not make it legitimate, because society would not have the right to hang a murderer merely to scare others or to discourage them from doing the same thing.
But I am convinced that the death penalty has a true deterrent effect and that the fear of death really acts as a check. To think otherwise is deluding oneself because that is the conviction of every human being. There is nothing as final on earth as death, and where there is life there is hope.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to count those who were checked on the road to murder by fear of being hanged, but that is obvious and I am convinced that as a deterrent no substitute can be found for the death penalty.
Imprisonment of murderers for life will also encourage repeaters especially in case of escape. Despite the exception contained in the bill in regard to police officers and prison guards in the exercise of their functions, the prisoner would then be practically safe from any sentence other than the life sentence he already has to serve.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go over all the arguments against abolition of the death
November 14, 1967	COMMONS
penalty, but I am convinced that since the last vote on that question nothing has happened to make me change the views I expressed here in March 1966 and it is not the change in the bill which will have any bearing on them.
The statistics quoted on both sides about the crime rate after and before the abolition of the death penalty in some countries or states do not impress me much because they can be interpreted in various ways and there are too many differences between one country and another, one period and another, to reach safe and valid conclusions.
The abolishment of capital punishment is also premature, because we are far from having reached the stage where we can do without it. Our organizations for crime prevention, our system for the rehabilitation of criminals, and our social classes still need some considerable improvement before it can be considered. In this connection, I especially hope that the methods for the imprisonment of younger delinquents, who are often placed with hardened criminals, will be improved. In the matter of rehabilitation, we must specially think about them, because we should look after them when they can still become useful citizens.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding and in order not to repeat the arguments already raised, I consider that this penalty, which moreover could be the electric chair as well as the gas chamber, etc., is not a brutal nor a vengeful act, but solely tends to prevent the culprit from repeating the same crime, or others from doing the same and it is particularly aimed at enabling the community to do its duty, protect the life of its deserving citizens and finally to provide for its own security.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, my position on the subject of capital punishment is known in this chamber. I disclosed it some 19 months ago when members of the house first had the opportunity to debate and vote upon this urgent social question. At that time, sir, as the record will show, I stood for abolition of the death penalty. That is the position, sir, for which I still stand, and I deeply regret that the members of the house have not been given the opportunity again to weigh this question in its full ramifications in their hearts, and to express their honest opinions on it in its full ramifications, freely and openly.
DEBATES	4287
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
I am keenly disappointed that the bill now placed before us by the government does not go as far as it should. It is only a part way measure, retraining the death penalty for those who kill policemen or prison guards, and abolishing it in other categories of murder, for a five year trial period only.
I offer these remarks with no reflection intended on the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). I believe that he has waged a sincere and conscientious battle for a long time to achieve abolition in this country, and I believe he has been hamstrung by his colleagues to the extent that expresses and manifests itself in this part-way bill, this part measure, this compromise piece of legislation that we have before us today, which I am certain does not satisfy the Solicitor General any more than it satisfies me. My criticism, sir, is not directed toward him; it is directed to the government in general.
I suggest that the members of the government have ignored their responsibilities, as few governments in our time have ignored responsibilities on so pressing and compelling a question as this. For four years the members of the government have flouted the law of the land. They have lacked the courage to resolve the problem. They have lacked the spine to show any leadership in this area, and now they have put an abolitionist like me, sir, in an almost impossible position by trying to use me in this confrontation to get themselves out of trouble.
For four years we have had de facto abolition, because of a spineless government. For four years they have flouted the law of this land. Now they want to take the consciences and the sincere principles of every abolitionist in this chamber and twist them and use them to their own advantage, merely to achieve justification and vindication for what they have been doing, and for what they have not had the courage to do. In my opinion this is four years of despicable hypocrisy, and now we come to the greatest hypocrisy of them all, a so-called free vote on capital punishment.
I submit that this is not a legitimate free vote, because the universal ramifications of the question, and the implications of the question, are not involved in the issue on which we are voting. The principles at stake here are principles with which and in which there is no honest compromise. Why should there not be a bill on the subject before this chamber, sponsored by representatives of all parties, so that there would be a true, legitimate, free vote on the government side of the
November 14, 1967
4288	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
chamber as well as on the opposition side? This, sir, is little short of scandalous. I think it is a travesty of parliament, and a prostitution of the concept of the free vote.
The members on the government side-and I state this just as my own opinion-would appear in many instances to be paying only lip service to the principle, the compromise principle embodied in the legislation which is being piloted through the house by the Solicitor General. To me they do not appear to be speaking with any sincerity, with any conviction, with any conscientiousness, where the basic question of capital punishment and its abolition is concerned. This factor, combined with the compromise aspect of the bill itself and the compromise philosophy behind it, makes me feel that if I vote for the bill I am allowing myself to be used by government in a cynical travesty of parliamentary honesty.
And yet, as an abolitionist, how can I vote against this bill? How, in all conscience, can I vote against a measure that, no matter how cynical, takes us at least partially along the path of what I consider to be progress, along the path to total abolition? But it leaves an unsavory taste in my mouth as I participate in this debate and as I subsequently will rise to participate in the vote on this question. It puts me in an excruciating position as far as my conscience is concerned.
I am not concerned here, at this moment, with the pros and cons of the capital punishment argument. They were argued knowledgeably, in a scholarly fashion and most eloquently 19 months ago in this house, and again during the past few days by experts in jurisprudence, experts in social work, and experts in living. These speeches have contributed an expertise, knowledgeability and impact to the argument that I could not hope to match. I said what I had to say on this subject 19 months ago.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
As I said, I believe in the abolition of the death penalty in all cases and I believe in a sentence of life imprisonment which means life imprisonment. So far as I am concerned the aspect of the bill which calls for cabinet review of any parole possibility satisfies me substantially on the question of the meaning of the term "life imprisonment", the question of the validity of the penalty and the enforcement of the same.
The two positions pro and con the death penalty have been well, adequately and interestingly argued. I do not intend to go 
into that argument again tonight. At the moment I am concerned only with the propriety of the action and the position of the government in bringing in a bill of this kind. I have great respect for the hon. Registrar General (Mr. Turner), but as I listened to him this afternoon I almost decided to change my position from abolitionist to retentionist. I thought that he dealt in rampant superficialities. He seemed to be rationalizing all the way through his speech. I have heard him give much more compelling and impressive speeches than the one he gave this afternoon, and I am left wondering what faction or element in the Liberal party the Registrar General was trying to accommodate in that exercise in legalistic convolution.
He spoke of compromise. Why is it that the Registrar General, who is one of the rising stars in Canadian public life, or perhaps I should say one of the risen stars, should be so concerned with compromise. He spoke of logic and raised the argument that people still can be sentenced to death for treason, and therefore we should not concern ourselves with the abolition of the death penalty in cases of murder unless we go all the way and include treason. I believe there is a good argument for including treason in the overall umbrella. I believe, however, that all these things are diversionary tactics, smoke screens, red herrings and side issues. There are not nearly as many people in this country who go about overtly or accidentally committing treason as there are people who for one reason or another commit murder. We are dealing with a subject which is far more urgent and compelling. I do not know whether there is anyone who is incarcerated in an institution in this land today under sentence of death for treason; there may be.
This question of treason came up only this afternoon. I had not considered it until the Registrar General raised it and I have not had an opportunity to investigate it. I submit, however, that there must be far fewer people in this country who have been sentenced for treason than have been sentenced for murder. In my question to the Registrar General this afternoon I suggested that in any event I doubt that it would be possible for a man to commit treason inadvertently, because by definition treason is a deliberate, premeditated act. Murder, in most cases, is neither deliberate nor premeditated. So we are dealing with an entirely different situation. When the Registrar General drags in these other issues I think he is obscuring the basic agonizing confrontation of conscience with
November 14, 1967

which we are faced in this chamber at this time.
The Registrar General spoke of the desirability of compensation for the victims of murder. I suggest to him that the victims of a murder include the relatives of the murderer. They are the victims of the crime just as much as are the relatives of the person who died as a consequence of the act. I hold no brief for brutality, killing or murder. But I suggest that if any of my relatives should commit a murder I would feel just as much a victim of that crime as members of the family of the direct victim. I say that the bill which is before this house at the present time, in essence, does in fact concern itself with victims of murders, because part of the charity and part of the Judaic-Christianity contained in the compromise legislation being piloted through the house at the present time by the Solicitor General is intended for the relatives of the murderer. The bill says that the family of the unfortunate man or woman who happened to be the instrument of fatal forces over which, for one reason or another, he or she had no control, or failed to exercise the proper control, should be shown some charity. That family would be given hope that such a soul might be saved, and that such a person need not necessarily be committed to the gallows.
Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Registrar General, that on one level it could be argued that this legislation does concern itself with the victims of murder. However, with respect to the specific category of the direct victim about which he was speaking, I concur in his point of view. I believe this is something to which long ago we should have addressed ourselves. But I suggest that he is obscuring the basic issue at this time by talking about matters of that kind. There are many such things which are needed in this society. Perhaps this will come next. But let us not drag red herrings into a highly emotional issue.
The Registrar General said in effect that he would be voting for this compromise bill because the majority of Canadians stand for retention, and only such a limited bill could pass. I hope I am not misconstruing the import of his remarks. I think this reflects a pretty serious repudiation of the whole responsibility of leadership. I suggest that in his capacity as a minister of the crown, it is his duty to give the people of Canada some leadership and some direction on a question like this, not merely to follow.
DEBATES	4289
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
Early in his remarks he said he was intellectually in favour of abolition. I wonder how one can be intellectually committed, be a minister of the crown, be a man who has the capacity for leadership and the potential which he has, and fail to bring more than compromise, accommodation and acquiescence into an issue such as this.
In respect of the bill itself, I suggest that it is impossible for a retentionist to support it in full conscience. It is equally difficult for the abolitionist to do so. A few moments ago my Winnipeg colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that this is a difficulty which should not be allowed to cloud, sidetrack or abort our deliberations on this bill. He suggested that merely because it is not perfect, because it does not go all the way, because it does not satisfy the full conscience either of the retentionist or the abolitionist, we should not conclude that it compromises our positions, and decide to hold out for something better. I believe this is a valid anxiety and I feel the same way myself.
Some people like myself, who believe in abolition, very well might feel that this bill is not worth voting for because it does not go all the way. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has given expression to this anxiety, and has pointed out that it would be unfortunate if people came to this conclusion. He suggested that those of us who are in favour of abolition should be willing to take half a loaf if we cannot have the whole thing, and that we should regard this as a kind of milestone and worry about the next half of the path after we have passed the first milestone. I believe I subscribe to the position of the hon. member in this regard, although I am not happy about the compromise and accommodation into which I am forced.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I wonder why special consideration for police officers and prison officials has been written into this legislation. My friend and colleague from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) said in a speech on this subject last Friday that police officers and prison officials have been delegated by society to work with the offenders about whom we are talking. I do not often disagree with my colleague the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, but I disagree with that assumption. I do not believe these prison officials and police officers have been delegated by society to work with these offenders. I believe they have chosen that line of work for themselves. I
4290	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence agree there is a great deal of risk involved and that they are not paid enough. I say we should pay them more to compensate them for the risk.
I do not think they should be put into a special category wherein their lives are set up as something more sacred than the life of a Jewish storekeeper, such as the one in Toronto who was shot in cold blood the other day and whose wife subsequently died of a broken heart. I believe that man's life is just as valuable and important as the life of any police officer or prison official that I know. I think if we paid them properly they would not mind undertaking the risks that they do; they would undertake them happily and willingly just as men in many walks of life undertake risks. What about nuclear scientists, what about radiation technologists, what about medical men in certain categories working with certain viruses, what about soldiers, what about pilots? They risk their lives every day.
Police officers and prison officials also risk their lives every day. I agree there are probably limited instances where people are channelled into lines of work that they do not particularly aspire to or desire, but in most instances they are in that line of work because they are motivated to it and at some level of their personality, mentality and psyche they are satisfied with the kind of work they are doing. They would certainly like, and expect to be compensated for the extra risk they are taking, but I suggest there is quite a discrepancy between monetary compensation and the kind of quasi-religious compensation that we are injecting into this proposed legislation.
In conclusion I should like to attest, for the sake of the Solicitor General, that I intend to vote for this bill. I intend to vote for it while agonized and torn by conscience. It does not satisfy my heart for one moment. I feel that my position may be construed in some quarters as a rather unfortunate one, in that at one level I think it could be suggested, as I said earlier in my remarks, that I am being used here in an exercise that is not really a true and legitimate expression of conscience on this question. But I believe the Solicitor General has conscientiously and sincerely in his heart laboured and toiled in these vineyards to produce a step along the path of Canadian social progress that I believe is necessary, desirable and worth while. Because in the two years I have been here the Solicitor General has impressed me as much

DEBATES	November 14/ 1967
as anybody in this chamber, I intend to support the bill.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some remarks about Bill No. C-168, an act to amend the Criminal Code. This bill introduced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) the other day proposes to confine for an experimental period of only five years the possible imposition of the death penalty to murderers of police officers and prison guards while on duty. In short, the crux of this bill is a change in the definition of capital murder.
This new bill aims to repeal section 202A of the Criminal Code by stating that murder is capital murder only when a police officer or prison guard is murdered while on duty. This means that one class of our society is being favoured by the bill. The bill affords special protection, special treatment, favourable discrimination to people who are well trained to defend themselves, and people who are well armed.
The bill does not offer any of this special consideration to the helpless, innocent and undefended citizens such as the gentleman referred to by previous speakers, a tailor in my riding of Parkdale, who was shot to death last week. For this reason Bill No. C-168 I think can be regarded as objectionable and unfair.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is logically indefensible. Because the basis of the bill is that capital punishment does not and will not protect anyone, I ask: Why preserve capital punishment for the murderers of policemen or prison guards only?
Arguments have been made in the house that the death penalty should be abolished because life is sacred; but facts do not bear this out. The law of our country permits the police to shoot to kill if they are apprehending a suspected criminal. It also permits us to shoot to kill in self-defence, and it sends members of our armed forces to war and to kill. If life is really sacred and inviolable, logic dictates that we make no exceptions, that we carry out this principle to its full logical conclusions.
I also truly believe that this bill is ill-timed. It is ill-timed and premature because the Canadian Committee on Corrections, established by this government in June, 1965, under the chairmanship of Hon. Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet is still studying a broad field
November 14, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4291
of penal and legal problems including sentences, parole and rehabilitation. This bill could have been withheld until the committee on corrections had published its report.
I also am inclined to think that in view of the various arguments, opinions and doubts raised by many hon. members of the house during this debate, the issue of capital punishment should be referred to the justice and legal affairs committee of the House of Commons, which could also study the recommendations of the Canadian Committee on Corrections.
Most Canadians, according to various Gallup polls, feel that the fear of the death penalty does indeed act as a deterrent to murder. Repeated annual surveys which I conducted in the federal constituency of Parkdale, which I represent in this house, also reveal that the majority are against the abolition of the death penalty for capital murder.
It has also been mentioned several times during this debate that in Great Britain, where an abolition bill was approved for a trial period of five years, there has been an increase in the number of murders committed and consequently there is a widespread demand for the return of capital punishment. The federal government in Canada has virtually abolished capital punishment since 1963, and yet the number of violent crimes, murders and other forms of criminality have increased. Crime in Canada has increased even though punishment has been lessened and parole made easier.
It should also be of interest to hon. members of the house to know that the average time served on commuted death sentences where parole has been granted comes to an average of 8 years and 10 months in 13 cases paroled by the government since April, 1963.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Two murderers whose death sentences were commuted were paroled after only five years of imprisonment. I think many Canadians believe that life imprisonment means life imprisonment; but we should all be aware by now that life imprisonment does not mean incarceration for life.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the alleged deterrent effect of capital punishment can be neither proved nor denied absolutely. Many other associated aspects of the matter of murder and murderers require deep study. One of them, as mentioned before, is the question of what kind of compensation a government should make 27053-271
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence available to the families of the victims of an act of murder. Perhaps the government should now refer the whole matter to the justice and legal affairs committee of the House of Commons, because I believe it needs a very thorough examination. I do not see why we should now be forced to vote on this bill when we are not properly prepared to do so.


Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, as usual in most debates in this house we have heard some very interesting speeches, some excellent ones and some amazing ones. It seemed to me that one of the most amazing I have heard for quite some time was made this afternoon by the Registrar General (Mr. Turner). It seems to me a pity that, this afternoon at least, his good looks were not matched by logic. I do not mean to take advantage of him, since the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman) has just reviewed the minister's speech rather closely and carefully. I must say however, that I do not think it was a speech of the calibre one could expect from the minister on a subject as serious as this one.
In case I appear to be envious I must admit that he has a great deal going for him. Certainly he has all the qualities of a popular, successful and young politician. He is certainly young, he is attractive, he is bilingual, he is hard-working and he is even liked by everyone in the house. But even if he is almost too good to be true, still he cannot accomplish the impossible, that is to be all things to all men. Of course he can try, and he tried very hard this afternoon. He had the additional misfortune, however, of being followed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). I do not think anyone has ever criticized him for trying to be all things to all men. If he ever did try, he has long since given it up as a useless effort. I agree with him entirely, that this so-called compromise bill makes it very difficult for those who favour abolition of capital punishment and makes it equally difficult for those who favour retention of capital punishment to reach a decision on this matter. It cannot in all conscience be supported by either.
I have wanted to speak on this bill for two reasons, the first being that I consider it a very obvious and blatant abuse of our parliamentary system, and the second that I am against the bill itself. We hear many justified and proper criticisms of the workings of this house, but it seems to me that surely one rule of the house that has not yet been disputed is that when the majority makes a decision and
November 14, 1967
4292	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence votes on whether a measure is to be passed or rejected, this majority decision should stand. This subject was thoroughly and fairly debated only a year and a half ago and was fairly voted upon. Because some people did not like the result, the subject matter of the bill was brought before us again, although many serious and pressing social and economic problems have not yet come up for debate. If this procedure is to be followed, a swapping game might take place in the house. It would be much better to vote against one's conscience and get on to other things that are equally important and pressing.
I object strongly to the bill itself because it seems to me to be a silly compromise whereby the death penalty is considered to be sometimes right and sometimes wrong. We have heard a great deal from those who object to the harshness of the ultimate punishment. In fact those who put forward this argument go so far as to object to punishment as such. This train of thought has always been a mystery to me, since it seems very obvious that human beings must be checked in their wrongdoing to other human beings, or our progress in civilization will be halted.
I disagree with those who say that this bill represents a step forward in our society. If a child is allowed to go unchecked, his demands upon the people around him will become completely unbearable. I agree that it would be a lovely world if everybody could have everything he or she wanted, including good looks, beauty and brains, but there are some things that even this government cannot give to everyone. Until we attain this perfect world, there will be envy and jealousy, and these emotions will continue to be directed toward other people, according to the violence of the personalities involved. Our society must have some rules to check these extreme actions. I hope we can reach the stage when no one will need to steal or want to steal and when no one will want to murder, but as long as these crimes are committed, society must show its objection to them.
I do not agree that punishment is not a deterrent. It certainly is for me, and I am a human being. This opinion has been expressed by many, many people to whom I have spoken on this subject. I object strongly and completely to the theory that abolition of the death penalty constitutes social progress.
I like progress, I like speed and I like change in some things, but I do not want to be


prevented from enjoying a walk by myself in our countryside or on our city streets. It is surely reassuring to see a well-groomed policeman to remind citizens and visitors from other lands that we have law and order, and that we have people here to protect it. It is a reminder that laws must be obeyed and that human beings will be protected as they go about their work and their pleasure.
It is surely equally distressing to see these law keepers having to go about in pairs. This is a shocking reminder that we know there are people in society who will use violence to remove the enforcers of law, and that there are people determined to break our laws as they personally see fit or wish to do. I agree with those people who consider that the murderers of policemen must be punished in the most severe possible way, and that the death penalty must be retained for those who commit this crime, but this very admission overlooks the repeated argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Surely if this bill has any reason for being presented, it is to protect policemen and guards and to lessen the number of murders of these men. No one can disagree with this aim. But if the death penalty is to be a deterrent to hardened, determined criminals who will even go so far as to murder policemen and guards, then surely it must be admitted that it is some deterrent to the less hardened and the less determined murderers who only want to commit easier murders on old, defenceless people or children who have no weapons, knowledge, experience or training in how to defend themselves.
a (10:00 p.m.)
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this debate is to arrive at fewer murders, to improve our control of murder. If the death penalty is accepted as a means of improving our control of murder against one group of citizens, how can it not be an improvement in our control of murder against another group of citizens? Our whole democratic process is based on equal respect for human beings. If we are to retain the death penalty for those who murder policemen and guards because they are so important in maintaining law and order and respect for law and order, why should we not give such important people special priority in all things? Where do we draw the line? They are important, it is quite true. By this line of reasoning, they have a right to first and immediate attention from doctors, dentists, butchers, bakers, everyone who can keep them strong and in
November 14, 1967

the best shape for such an admittedly essential job in society. Can it not be argued reasonably that others who save life such as doctors, surgeons and great research men, should also have the highest protection of our society. If they are murdered, our society loses enormously and they, too, should be included in this special protection.
Sometimes it is argued that the death penalty should only be maintained for treason, and so it goes. Who is to decide what is the worst kind of murder? The murder of a young person may remove from this world the very person who might have discovered a cure for cancer or a cure for some other disease that would save millions of lives. The murder of policemen and guards is certainly not permissible, and I agree that our society should make it clear and plain that this is so; but neither is the murder of any other human being. There are thousands, probably millions, who feel the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. It is a long established practice that before repeal or revision of a statute, those who seek the alteration must accept the onus for substantiating their claim that a requirement exists for such change.
The people most immediately involved with protecting and apprehending murderers, our policemen, do not want abolition. In other areas of our society, we base our decisions on the opinions of those most closely connected with the problem, so why not do so in this important case? There are many people in the country who understand the processes of government better than we blinkered politicians sometimes realize. This is an emotional issue. Members of this house searched their souls during the last debate, as was obvious by the calibre of the speeches.
What is the Canadian public going to think of political morality if for no apparent reason an influential number of politicians now change their opinions, some 18 months later. This is supposed to be one of the most serious, if not the most serious question that we are asked to vote upon. It is a matter of life and death, not only the life or death of convicted murderers, but of life or death of the victims. It is admirable to have great pity for anyone who is in such a state that he will murder, but as much or more pity should surely be shown for the victim and those who mourn him.
It was my impression that the subject was taken very seriously in April last year, that the speeches were very carefully prepared to obtain every ounee of influence the speaker could muster, and every ounce of conviction.
DEBATES	4293
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence I would suppose, from considering carefully all speeches on the subject, that this is a decision based on the deepest roots of individual conscience. Some members of this house are more sensitive than others, some have higher I.Q.'s than others, but surely there is a rock of conscience in each of us that sets our limits and sets our values. This does not change; or if it does, there must be some new influence, some new knowledge.
If anyone can produce new influences, new knowledge, it will be worth hearing, but I feel very sure that Canadians inside or outside this house, who fear the increase of violence, can have found nothing to ease their fears in this last year or year and a half. Having been brought up in the trust of law and order, I cannot believe that it is unsafe to walk on the streets of many North American cities, even in broad daylight. Still we hear and see every day that this is so. Law and order is a vital, essential part of civilization.
I hope I am at least average in tolerance and sensitivity. I have been accused of too much individuality, and indeed I do not take second place to any member of this house in my respect for the individual. I would like to credit all my colleagues with a great respect for their fellow men; but I do not believe this involves license for those who go beyond civilized limits; and murder is beyond civilized limits.
I will not repeat the degree of emotionalism which I touched upon in my last speech on this subject, but it is indicative that not one mother expressed objection to my statement. If my much beloved child murdered, I can think of no other punishment that could allow me to face the mother of the victim. It is murder that we should be worrying about, not the punishment.
Is there great public demand for abolition of capital punishment? Was there a great public outcry 18 months ago when the majority of members of parliament did not want abolition? Was there a great public outcry, or indeed any private communications, that M.P.'s were not properly representing the country? Not to me, and I have certainly been clear enough on the subject.
I wish I could always speak with such conviction, Mr. Speaker. I speak from the depth of my own conscience and with complete confidence that I am representing a definite majority of the people in my constituency and the people I meet; and I think I get around as much as most members of this house.
November 14, 19B7

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the house leader whether there is any change in the plans, or whether we will go on with this debate tomorrow, and on Thursday if necessary?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no change in plan, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on October 24, as reported at page 3422 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Latin American nuclear-free zone treaty would ban nuclear weapons from two thirds of the western hemisphere, and in view of the fact that the NORAD agreement is up for renegotiation at this time, has the government considered the possibility of joining the South and Central American nuclear-free zone as a positive step toward nuclear disarmament?
Then, Mr. Speaker, you intimated that you thought the question was much too general in scope to be dealt with at that time.
Why are we particularly interested in this question, Mr. Speaker? The members of this group have always been very concerned about the question of nuclear weapons. So that the house will know where we stand on this issue I want to quote from the "book of words"-the New Democratic party's resolution on this subject:
The New Democratic party believes that nuclear weapons on Canadian soil and in the hands of Canadian forces abroad add nothing to the security of Canada or of the western world. They serve only to reduce the effectiveness of Canada's role in disarmament and to encourage the spread of nuclear weapons. The New Democratic party, therefore, reiterates its opposition to nuclear weapons on our soil or for our forces anywhere and calls for the cancellation of the government's plans to acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, Canada should immediately join with Norway, Sweden and other smaller countries to establish a non-nuclear club within the UN consisting of nations which undertake not to produce, stockpile, use or permit on their soil nuclear weapons of any sort.
The New Democratic government will remove the useless and dangerous nuclear warheads on Canadian soil.
[Mrs. Wadds.I
Because of our attitude to this whole question I was very interested to read of the Latin-American nuclear free zone treaty, which promises to do just that, as far as the South American continent is concerned-to keep nuclear weapons away from the territory of all sovereign states between the Rio Grande and the south. Agreement on the terms of the agreement was reached at Mexico city on February 14, 1967, at which time 17 countries signed; four more have signed and others are signing. Personally, I believe that for Canada the treaty represents an opportunity and a challenge. That is the thinking of the members of this group. It offers Canada the opportunity to get rid of the presence on Canadian soil of nuclear weapons at air defence command stations which, in the words of the treaty, "make it a target for possible nuclear attacks." The possibility of joining this great denuclearized area of South and Central America arises at a time when the North Atlantic air defence agreement is up for renegotiation. NORAD has long outlived its usefulness from our point of view, and we have advocated for some years that Canada should withdraw from NORAD. But Canadian politicians continue to give lip service to the value of NORAD to Canada, and are reluctant to change their point of view in this respect.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I note that the parliamentary secretary is prepared to give me an answer. I should like him to tell this house, in reply to my question, that Canada and the Canadian government accept the challenge and opportunity presented by the treaty I have just mentioned.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I accept the challenge presented by the ignorance of the hon. member and will respond to his question. The first remark to be made is that the North American air defence treaty has neither relation to nor implication for the recently concluded treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons in Latin America or the Caribbean. As the hon. member knows, the government of Canada has been a strong advocate of nuclear disar-manent in the 18 nation disarmanent committee and has welcomed the conclusion of the Latin American treaty.
It should be borne in mind by the hon. member and his party that this treaty very precisely establishes which countries are
November 14, 1967

entitled to membership and what the geographical boundaries are to be. In particular, the treaty is open to accession by all independent states in the western hemisphere lying south of the Mexican-United States border or in the Caribbean sea. The nuclear powers and extra-regional states having dependent territories in the zone are, moreover, asked to respect the treaty by acceding to separate protocols. As you will note, Mr. Speaker, no provision is made for the accession of countries like Canada which physically lie outside the zone and which do not possess nuclear weapons or have dependent territories in the zone. The question of Canada's joining the zone does not therefore arise.
We have of course commended the Latin American initiative in forthright terms. In his address of September 27 to the United Nations General Assembly, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) said:
X am sure we should all wish to congratulate the states of Latin America and the Caribbean for reaching agreement to establish the first nuclear-free zone in an inhabited part of the world. This treaty will lend impetus to the non-proliferation negotiations, which have now been intensified in Geneva and will shortly be before this Assembly.
Hon. members will see how warm we have been in our commendation of the Latin American initiative, and how we have, as far as possible, identified ourselves with it. More important, however, is the conclusion, we believe, of the universal non-proliferation treaty, and this is one aspect of disarmament to which the Canadian government has attached high priority within the context of the 18 nation disarmament committee held as a result of the United Nations initiative.
As a member of the Geneva disarmament committee Canada has been active in all stages of the negotiation of a non-proliferation treaty, and we shall continue to do our utmost to bring it to fruition as a logical and more universal sequel to the Latin American treaty.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-WINNIPEG-THEFT OF ARMS FROM MINTO ARMOURIES

Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, on the week end of October 29-30 there was a raid on the property of the Department of National Defence in Winnipeg, the Minto armouries. Stolen were six .303 calibre Bren guns on bipods, one .30 calibre Browning gun, one ammunition magazine for these weapons, one bayonet and several flare pistols.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
No ammunition was stolen, presumably because no ammunition was kept in the storeroom from which the other items were taken. In any event, a Winnipeg police spokesman has confirmed that suitable ammunition can be purchased easily from commercial outlets. The Bren guns and the Browning gun were chained to bolts embedded in the floor of the quartermaster's store in the armoury. The chains were cut by the thieves. The weapons were not equipped with breach blocks but the thieves took both practice and regular blocks, breaking into a locked metal cabinet in the same room to do so. The block is, of course, part of the loading mechanism and its possession makes each stolen gun completely usable.
A number of theories have been advanced as to the reason these guns were stolen. There is a great deal of speculation as to the motive, and some of the theories offered are rather imaginative. The question has been asked: What is the ultimate destination of these weapons? Are they to be delivered to Cuba or to Israel, or to an organized crime syndicate in the United States or in another part of Canada? Were they taken by thieves planning to use them in a bank or payroll hold-up, or were they taken merely as a prank?
Winnipeg police are working on the case and will undoubtedly solve it before too long. Public curiosity as to the motive of the crime will then be answered. But this aspect of the affair is really not germane to my participation in this adjournment debate. The main purport of my remarks is not directed to the question of motive, though that is undoubtedly important. The main purport of my remarks has to do with the unsupportable position of the Department of National Defence when a D.N.D. installation can be broken into and robbed in circumstances such as this.
The questions I ask tonight are those I asked earlier in the house. The basic question is why a Department of National Defence stronghold could be breached by thieves after the authorities had been warned that a raid was coming. This is the thunderbolt in the whole incident. It is bad enough that national defence property should be vulnerable to thieves at any time, but after an advance warning the situation becomes incredible.
An army spokesman has disclosed that the Winnipeg police did tip the army off a week before the raid, and Chief Constable George Blow confirms this. The police apparently told
November 14, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the army they had heard that a raid was expected at one of the city's armouries, and in response to this warning the army intensified its security guard at both Minto and McGregor armouries. One is left bewildered by such a set of circumstances. The obvious question is: How was it that in such a situation Minto armouries proved vulnerable, and how many other national defence installations across the country are similarly vulnerable?
Here are the facts, taken from Winnipeg newspapers-the Tribune and the Free Press. Internal security was checked and a mobile radio patrol was alerted to watch Minto and McGregor armouries. It appeared that the thieves knew in advance where to look for the weapons. They scaled a wire fence and sawed through two bars of a sub-ground basement window. Inside, they sawed through a steel screen mesh in an opening above the door to the quartermaster's store where the guns were kept.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Lately, in the process of investigation, it has been reported that there were no army guards on duty at Minto armoury on October 30 when the theft took place. Personnel on the grounds that night, as reported by the Winnipeg Free Press of November 8, consisted of civilians only, two caretakers and a fireman.
My question to the government, sir, is: How could this situation have occurred in the light of an advance warning by the police that they expected such a raid, and what does this hold for our Department of National Defence installations right across the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before the house wonders if there has been a re-assignment of functions I should say on behalf of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) that tonight's inclement weather has prevented him from being here and accordingly I have been asked to represent him. There is really not
much that I can add to the information which has already been given to the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman) by my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) on November 3.
I am informed that the Winnipeg city police have this matter under active investigation, and the military and the R.C.M.P. are giving them every assistance and co-operation. I am also advised by the departmental officials concerned-and the hon. member has confirmed this in his own remarks, describing the elaborate security precautions that were taken in a physical way to protect the equipment-that the precautions which were applied to the Minto armouries were considered adequate.
I am sure the hon. member will agree that no security system is perfect, and none could be perfect where these weapons have to be in continuous and frequent use. I am informed that this is the first loss of weapons through theft from an armoury in over two years. I would agree that it has been an unfortunate incident, but I have every confidence that the police authorities will apprehend these criminals.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, might I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg South on his very fine address earlier this evening, which was refreshing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria, B.C.



VETERANS AFFAIRS-MAINTENANCE OF PREFERENCE IN DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, anxious as I am to get an answer to the question I posed to one of the ministers yesterday, I must ask if you would mind deferring the question until tomorrow because the weather has prevented the spokesman for the department from being present tonight.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, November 15, 1987