1967-11-22

Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Since the news writer of Le Devoir reports on the front page today that:
Last night, Mr. Caouette contributed to save the government-
I wish to set the facts in their true light and make clear that I voted last night against the government, that is for the amendment of the Conservative leader, and that if the news writer of Le Devoir always informs his readers as he did today, he is completely misleading them.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	How many bushels of potatoes were purchased for the Royal Canadian Navy between March 31, 1964 and April 1, 1965, and March 31, 1965 and April 1, 1966?
2.	What was the total cost of such purchases for each year?
3.	What was the total number of personnel on strength in the Royal Canadian Navy (a) on April 1, 1965 (b) on March 31, 1966?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
31 Mar. 64	31 Mar. 65
1 Apr. 65	1 Apr. 66
Fresh potatoes 46,329 bushels 43,169 bushels Instant potatoes 17,243 lbs. 15,070 lbs.
2.	$105,857; $124,366.
3.	(a) 19,756; (b) 18,439.


YUKON MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Since November 1965, how many contracts for the carriage of mails into and within the Yukon have expired?
2.	How many of such expired contracts have been renewed without calling for public tenders?
3.	What contracts were so renewed, at what contract price, and to whom was each granted?
4.	How many of such expired contracts went to public tender call?
5.	For what contracts were public tenders called, who was the lowest tenderer and to whom was the contract awarded in each case?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Posimasier General):: 
POSTGRADUATE STUDIES BY ARMED FORCES MEDICAL OFFICERS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	In each of the calendar years 1960 to 1966 inclusive, how many medical officers in the Royal Canadian Medical Corps or in each of the navy, the army or the air force, as the case may be, were sent on courses of postgraduate specialist medical study and how many did complete such studies?
2.	On return to full time duty, how many of the above officers completed their terms of duty to comply fully with the conditions applicable to post graduate study and of these how many have since (a) retired or (b) left on voluntary request?
3.	Of the remainder, how many since their return to duty have retired (a) on voluntary request including those making reimbursement for undischarged balances of fees and expenses (b) for other reasons?
4.	How many formal applications for release or retirement were pending as at October 1, 1967 from (a) any in the above group (b) any who have returned to duty since January 1, 1967?
5.	What are the criteria being used for the granting or rejection of any such applications for release?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is rather long and includes many figures. I understand that the hon. member

November 22, 1967
Questions
for Edmonton West would agree to consider the answer as read and have it printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer is as follows.]
1.	Post graduate courses for medical officers in the Canadian Forces Medical Service vary in length from one to four years dependent upon the requirements of the service, and may be undertaken in civilian training hospitals, accredited D.N.D. and D.V.A. hospitals, U.S. naval and military hospitals as well as at selected university centres.
In 1960, there were 29; 1961, 37; 1962, 36; 1963, 33; 1964, 45; 1965, 38; 1966, 30 undergoing such training. So far, 58 medical officers have successfully completed post graduate training and examination to the fellowship, certification or diploma level.
2.	Of this 58, 57 have, or are in the process of completing the term of duty applicable to the training received, (a) five, (b) three.
3.	(a) one, (b) none.
4.	(a) four, (b) none.
5.	Criteria used for granting or rejecting an application for release by a medical officer is as follows: (a) medical officers undertaking post graduate training outside service resources are obligated to serve for a period of five years for each year of training, including the training year. The period of obligated service commences from the date of enrolment if the medical officer is a direct entry, or from the date the officer has completed the initial obligatory service required under the terms of the undergraduate subsidization plan applicable to him; (b) a medical officer who is granted release "on request" prior to three years from date of completion of post graduate training, is required to refund full pay and allowances, less income tax, received during the period of training and any fees or other costs directly attributable to his training. If release "on request" is granted after three years but prior to the officer concerned having completed the period of obligatory service, he is required to refund that part of the cost incurred that is equivalent in ratio of the number of years still to be served to the total number of years of obligated service; (c) each request for voluntary release is considered on its merit and, as a policy, release is granted only when "special and unforeseen circumstances" prevent the officer concerned from continuing to serve.

In considering voluntary release requests under these circumstances every effort is made to give a fair and just decision that is consistent with the needs of the service and with the welfare of the officer concerned.


ARMED FORCES RANK OF SENIOR CORPORAL
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is the rank of senior corporal or its equivalent in use in the navy, the army or the air force and, if so, since what date?
2.	Have effective promotions or appointments to this rank been made in all three branches of the armed services and, if not, in which ones?
3.	What are the significant responsibilities of the rank to classify it ahead of the rank of corporal and what is the pay differential?
Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National
Defence): 1. Senior corporal is an appointment, not a rank. It is held by an incumbent "whilst so employed", and is relinquished when the appointment is vacated. The appointment is applicable to members of the navy, army and air force, effective from 1 October, 1966.
2.	No, up to the present time only army establishments have been allotted such positions. Studies are in progress to ascertain which establishment positions within the navy and air force can be designated senior corporal.
3.	The appointment, senior corporal is for the purpose of designating a corporal with responsibility to exercise command over men in an operational or combat situation. The pay differential between corporals and senior corporals is $10 per month.


ALLOCATION OF MARRIED QUARTERS, ARMED FORCES BASES
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Was a change made In the method of allocation of permanent married quarters on Canadian forces bases for armed services personnel and, if so, what was the effective date of such change?
2.	Why was the points system based on the number of dependents, among other criteria, abandoned and a first come first served system instituted?
3.	Have protests been received from the affected personnel and of what nature?
4.	What is being done to rectify the alleged inequities of the new system?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes, a common married quarters allocation system for the Canadian forces was introduced May 16, 1967. It replaced the two different point systems in use by the army and R.C.A.F. and adopted the allocation policy in use by the R.C.N. for more than seven years.
November 22, 1967

2.	The point system was abandoned because it filled available married quarters mainly with senior personnel with long service and discriminated against junior rank, lower paid men with less service. In addition, positions on the roster were never assured as a newcomer to the base with more points could take precedence over someone who had been there for some time. The first come, first served system permits members with varying lengths of service and income levels to be treated equitably without fear of displacement and provides increased opportunity for junior men in the lower income brackets to occupy married quarters.
3.	Initially, the first come, first served allocation policy was questioned by some officers, warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s who, under the point system, enjoyed an advantage over the junior lower rank, lower paid men with less service. However, the new system appears to have gained general acceptance and support as being the most equitable method possible.
4.	Several inequities in the system have
been corrected; if others become apparent, steps will be taken to correct them. There are provisions in the system to safeguard the interest of all categories of married servicemen, such as:	(a) a married member without
children or one child is permitted to compete for a two bedroom home only, thus protecting the larger homes for larger families, (b) the available married quarters are distributed among the different rank groups in direct proportion to their numbers, thus ensuring an equitable distribution among all ranks. A member then competes on a first come, first served basis for the married quarters apportioned to his rank group.


ANTI-SUBMARINE HYDROFOIL SHIP
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much (a) time (b) money, has been expended on the all-Canadian anti-submarine hydrofoil ship?
2.	What was the original estimate of the cost of the project?
3.	When is it anticipated the hydrofoil ship will be placed in service?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. (a) Initial design leading to
construction of the anti-submarine hydrofoil ship commenced in May, 1963; (b) As of 1 October, 1967, $39.6 million, including that spent on the weapons system.
Questions
2.	The first estimate based on the present configuration of the ship and its weapons system was $20.7 million in August 1964.
3.	The prime contractor's current plan is to launch the ship in Sorel in the autumn of 1968 and to begin sea trials approximately six weeks after launch.


CONTINUATION OF ATTRACTIONS ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does the government intend to retain the centennial flame as a permanent feature of parliament hill?
2.	Will the changing of the guard ceremony be featured on parliament hill during the summer months of 1968?
3.	Is it being planned to have summer concerts on the hill during 1968?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works, National Defence and my department as follows: 1. When the decision was taken to provide a centennial flame the decision was that the flame should not be maintained in perpetuity but should be for the centennial year. That decision has not been varied.
2.	As in the past, a decision on whether or not this ceremony will be performed on the hill in 1968 will be made in the spring.
3.	No.


ARDA PROJECTS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Forest: 1.	Did the federal government, through ARDA, contribute financially to the establishment of camping grounds in Mont Orford provincial park in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, in what amount and in what proportion to the share of the provincial government?
3.	Since 1961, what projects have been accepted in the provincial counties of Stanstead, Brome and Missisquoi, and what amounts were promised or paid for each?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. There has been no direct contribution toward the cost of building camping grounds. Federal ARDA, however, has paid $7,500 for the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the development of the camping facilities.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The following projects have been approved for the provincial counties of Stanstead, Brome and Missisquoi:

November 22, 1967
Questions
	Project	Year
County	No.	approvedBrome	5045	1963Brome	24077	1966Brome and Stanstead 5044	1963Missisquoi	5013	1963Missisquoi	5107	1964Missisquoi	24010	1965Stanstead	24073	1966COST OF SEARCH	AND RESCUE	OPERATIONS
Question No. 629-	*Mr. Groos:	
Taking into account both the direct and the indirect expenditures, what were the approximate costs to the Department of National Defence attributable to its search and rescue operations on behalf of (a) non-military aircraft (b) nonmilitary vessels (c) non-military ground parties, during the years 1966, 1965 and 1964?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: See reply to question No. 255 at page 2071 in Hansard, dated June 28, 1967.


BASE FOR NEW AIRBORNE REGIMENT
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Has a decision been reached as to the location of the base for the new airborne regiment, the formation of which was announced some months ago?
2.	If so, where?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1 and 2. No decision has been reached as to the location of the Canadian airborne regiment.


ARMY TRANSPORT PLATOON, EDMONTON BASE
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is consideration being given to the basing of an army transport platoon with an air capability at Canadian forces base Edmonton and, if so, what would be the nature of such a unit in the way of personnel and equipment and the purpose thereof?
2.	If such a decision has been taken, when is it proposed to complete the establishment of such a unit?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. One transport helicopter platoon, R.C.A.S.C., has been located at C.F.B. Edmonton (Namao) since 31 August 1966. This unit is equipped with four CH113 helicopters, and has a personnel establishment of nine officers and fifty-six men. The main function of the unit is to provide air transport for logistics and casualty evacuation purposes.
2. Not applicable.

Federal
Description	cost
Classify-evaluate main resources
of Brome region	$ 48,000
Research on resources development 16,814 Classify-evaluate main resources
of Rouge valley	49,400
Improve the watercourse of
Riviere-du-Sud	17,254
Corriveau watercourse improvement 2,789 Camp site, St. Armand Est.	3,975
Camping area, Mont Orford.
Preparation of a plan	7,500


EXPO '67 DEFICIT
Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the estimated deficit from Expo '67 and how much of this estimated deficit is the responsibility of the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal?
2.	In determining the estimated deficit, what amount was estimated as salvage from existing facilities that can be disposed of?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS FROM CARIBBEAN ISLANDS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did representatives from the Department of Manpower and Immigration visit the Caribbean islands in 1967 to recruit Caribbean workers for agricultural work in Ontario?
2.	(a) How many Caribbean workers have entered Canada since January 1, 1967, for agricultural work in Ontario (b) how many of those workers are still employed in agriculture (c) how many of those workers have returned to the Caribbean islands (d) who paid their fares from the Caribbean islands and back to the Caribbean islands from Canada?
3.	Was each Caribbean worker entering Canada for agricultural employment required to make a commitment by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, that he would work for one employer and, if so, for how long?
4.	Was the contract that each Caribbean worker had to sign prepared by the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
November 22, 1967

5.	(a) Were instructions issued by the Department of Manpower and Immigration concerning hourly wage rates, daily and weekly hours of work and other employment conditions for the Caribbean workers while in Canada (b) were officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration assigned to investigate whether the hourly wage rates, daily and weekly hours of work, authorized by the department, were observed by employers (c) how many violations of the wage and hourly conditions were discovered by department officials?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	No. Representatives from the Department of Manpower and Immigration visited the Caribbean islands in 1967 to negotiate with the islands' governments the terms for the temporary entry of workers to Canada.
2.	(a) 1077; (b) None to the knowledge of the department; (c) 1053; (d) Transportation costs based on the economy return air fare from Kingston, Jamaica, to Toronto have been paid by the employers.
3.	Workers were required to work for one employer at a time. However, after harvesting the crop of one employer, a worker could be hired by another employer provided that his stay in Canada would not exceed four calendar months.
4.	Before the movement started in 1967 an agreement was prepared in consultation with employers and their associations, the Caribbean islands' governments concerned and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. This agreement was signed by the worker, employer and Caribbean governments' representative.
5.	(a) The Department of Manpower and Immigration prepared guide lines as to the minimum wage rates and minimum weekly earnings. Daily and weekly hours of work in this highly seasonal industry were not specified, with the exception of minimum weekly earnings, (b) Officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration were not assigned to investigate wage rates or hours of work. However, officials of the department assisted the Caribbean liaison officers in settling any complaints by workers and the employers, (c) None were discovered by the officials of the department.


PUBLIC SERVICE PERSONNEL AND SALARIES
Mr. Souiham: 1.	How many people were employed full time In the public service of Canada in the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and to October 31, 1967?
2.	How many of those employed in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and to October 31, 1967, were English-speaking, French-speaking or bilingual?
Questions
3.	What was the total salary cost of the public service of Canada in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and to October 31, 1967?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. Information is not available concerning the number of full time employees under the public service of Canada. However, the number of employees excluding casuals, in the public service for the specified years, as at October 31, is: 1963, 325,730; 1964, 327,942; 1965, 331,495; 1966, 348,567; 1967, information not available.
2.	This information is not available.
3.	The total annual payroll, for each of the specified years, is: 1963, $1,625 million; 1964, $1,698 million; 1965, $1,814 million; 1966, $2,048 million; 1967, information not available.


PURCHASE OF NAVAL GUNS IN ITALY
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Has the government of Canada entered into a contract to secure naval guns from Italy?
2.	If so, what number of guns are being purchased, what is the type of gun, and what is the cost?
3.	What is the specific use which is to be made of these guns?
4.	Was consideration given to producing these guns by the facilities which were installed in the early '50s at Sorel at the cost of the taxpayer for the purpose of producing naval guns and, if not, for what reason?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes.
2.	Five 5 inch 54 calibre automatic gun mountings, at an estimated cost of $8 million.
3.	Four of these gun mountings will be employed in the surface and bombardment roles in the new helicopter destroyers, the fifth is for training and logistic support.
4.	Yes.


ADOPTION OF METRIC SYSTEM
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	Is a government committee studying the possibility of adopting the metric system in Canada and, if so, where does the matter stand?
2.	Does the government intend to introduce legislation in order to adopt this system in Canada?
3.	Was Canada represented at the annual meeting of the standards organization which was held in Moscow and, if so, what was Canada's position?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. The implications of the metric system for Canada are under review by an interdepartmental committee.

November 22. 1967
Questions
2.	Metric has been a legal system of measurement in Canada for many years.
3.	Yes. Canada supports the objectives of the international standards organization, and is represented on many of the technical committees.


* EXPENDITURE ON VISIT OF PRESIDENT DE GAULLE
Mr. Smallwood: 1.	What was the total federal government expenditure on President de Gaulle's visit to the province of Quebec?
2.	How many persons were included in the president's entourage?
3.	Were these persons quartered in the Queen Elizabeth hotel, Montreal, at Canadian taxpayers expense?


Mr. John R. Mafheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of starred question No. 669 is as follows: To November 15, 1967, expenditures have totalled $7,369.80. This covers the official party only and a few small bills are yet to be paid. The answer to the second part of the question is that the official party numbered 19, plus the Canadian ambassador and his wife, the states visits escort officer and three R.C.M.P. officers.
The answer to the third part of the question is as follows: President de Gaulle, his wife, and five members of the party were quartered in a private residence in Montreal. The remainder of the official party and the Canadian officials were quartered in the Queen Elizabeth hotel at government expense.


REFERENCES FOR NURSERY AIDE TRAINING
Mrs. MacXnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway): 1.	Does the Canada manpower centre In Toronto select students to enrol for nursery aide training at the College street adult education centre?
2.	If so, how many students has it referred to that centre to date?
3.	How many of these are recent immigrants to Canada?
4.	What are the qualifications necessary for being selected, as to (a) age (b) academic standing (c) marital status?
5.	In what other Canadian cities does Canada manpower refer students to nursery aide training programs?


John Carr Munro: 1.	Yes.
2.	Fifty-eight since April 1, 1967.
[Mr. Cantin.l
3.	Eighteen (defining "recent" as an immigrant within the past four years).
4.	(a) There is no age limit except that the trainee must be at least one year older than the regular school leaving age in the province, (b) The entry requirement determined by the province is grade 10 or equivalent and mature enough to be responsible for the care of children, (c) None.
5.	Hamilton and Winnipeg.


GRANTS TO COLOMBO FLAN COUNTRIES AT EXPO
Mr. Godin: 1.	Was Canada called upon to provide special grants to certain countries which are members of the Colombo plan and which took part in Expo '67?
2.	If so (a) what were the countries involved (b) what was the amount provided to each of these countries?


Hon. Paul  Mariin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: 1. No. Canada has been providing both grants and loans to members of the Colombo Plan and also to various other nations involved in Expo '67 under its regular External Aid Program. However, no special grants whatsoever have been made to Colombo Plan countries or any others in recent years.


CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount of money in the
Canadian	forces	superannuation	account	as at
(a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the
Canadian	forces	superannuation	account	during
the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967?
4.	What	was the total amount	paid out	of theCanadian	forces	superannuation	account	during
the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. (d) $2,577,016,944.
3.	(d) $91,732,917.
4.	(d) $46,141,806.
See reply to question No. 2,233, page 10701 of Hansard, dated December 5, 1966, for the remainder of the reply.
November 22, 1967


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion for papers No. 31 is acceptable to the government.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


CONTRACT SIGNED BY FARM WORKERS FROM CARIBBEAN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Orliltow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of the contract form signed by the Caribbean workers brought to Canada for employment in agriculture.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very disturbing reports from Cyprus in recent hours can the minister give the house any indication of conditions there, and indicate what initiatives his government might be taking in order to forestall further deterioration of the situation?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows some of the Canadian participants in the United Nations force did run into some trouble with one group of the Cypriot population. The commander of the United Nations force and the commander of the Canadian contingent of that force have registered protests, as has the government itself.
With regard to the efforts being made to resolve the problem which, as I told the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre yesterday is one that has been causing concern, the Canadian government has taken an initiative with two other countries. This initiative is now the subject of discussion with the governments of Turkey and Greece. I saw the ambassadors of Turkey and Greece last evening. Our ambassador in Athens has had discussions with the minister of foreign affairs for Greece within the past 24 hours. Likewise, our ambassador in Ankara has had some conversations with the foreign minister
Inquiries of the Ministry for Turkey, and I myself have also been in touch with the latter. Our ambassador at the United Nations has been instructed to discuss this matter with the Secretary General, and the steps we have undertaken, if acceptable, I think will greatly contribute to the stabilization of the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is consideration being given to the position of the Canadian contingent in relation to measures to be taken to afford some protection for that contingent in the event the situation there should further deteriorate, creating further danger?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: As my hon. friend will be aware, once the Canadian government and the parliament of Canada approve Canadian participation in a United Nations force, the command and the course to be followed by that force is determined by the commander of the United Nations force, on instructions from the Secretary General and the security council. This will be the procedure observed in this case as it has been in other circumstances.
As my colleague the Minister of National Defence pointed out the other day, contingent plans in this situation have been made. I would not want this last reply, however, to indicate that I do not believe an improvement has not resulted from the efforts that have been made within the past 48 hours. I think the situation has improved.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the minister receive information directly two days ago from the United Nations authorities or from the Canadian commander in Cyprus that three Canadians were beaten up and held by the Cypriots, or did he derive his information today from the Globe and Mail as we did?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I learned of that from our high commissioner in Nicosia.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, would it not have been better to inform the house yesterday with regard to the peril in which our Canadian soldiers are in Cyprus rather than leaving it in mid-air, when the minister had the information?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.

November 22, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. I ask, first, with whom has the Canadian commander lodged a complaint? Is it with the government of Cyprus, the government of Turkey or the government of Greece? Second, with regard to the reports that the Prime Minister of Canada is conferring with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, what initiatives are being proposed? Has the minister any information regarding this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The protests were lodged with the Turkish-Cypriot leadership. With regard to the discussions the Prime Minister will have on this and other questions, the Prime Minister will make a report, of course, when he returns; but as my hon. friend will appreciate, the proposals that are now being discussed with the countries concerned respecting the Cyprus situation are in the stage of proposals and negotiations. Until we have had reactions from all concerned it would be inappropriate to go any further.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that press reports seem to indicate that a full scale military action is imminent, may I ask whether the minister on behalf of the Canadian government and the Secretary General on behalf of the United Nations have made it perfectly clear to both the Greek and Turkish governments that they will be held responsible for the safety and security of the Canadian and other United Nations forces in Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, sir.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have two supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of National Defence. Has the Canadian government made arrangements to evacuate Canadian forces from Cyprus should this prove necessary? Second, do the Canadian forces serving in the United Nations command have authority to defend themselves with their side arms if they are attacked?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer these two questions in a general way by saying that the plans we have are co-ordinated with the United Nations and the command in Cyprus.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us

whether the Canadian forces serving in the U.N. command have instructions to defend themselves with side arms, if necessary, if they are attacked?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: They are under the command of the general put there by the United Nations, and no doubt they would follow the instructions issued by the commander of the force.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What are those instructions?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the Canadian soldiers in Cyprus. I ask the Minister of National Defence, in what condition are the Canadians who were beaten with rifle butts? Are they in hospital? Were they seriously injured, or were these just minor injuries that they suffered?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my information is the same as that which my hon. friend read in the newspaper. I understand from this article that these people have not been seriously hurt.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of National Defence not find out directly whether these men have been seriously injured?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we have looked into this matter and the report read by the hon. member is correct. They were not seriously hurt.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us what are the instructions issued by the command of the U.N. forces to the Canadian troops with respect to their right to defend themselves?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: These general instructions include the right of Canadian troops to defend themselves.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance? It is a most serious question.
November 22, 1967	COMMONS
In view of the serious financial problems the government must face and the many restrictions Canadians will have to support, can the Minister of Finance tell us where he will find the funds to supply over $100 million to Great Britain?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this question is in order. It is much too general in character and could easily be put when we are considering the budget in a few days.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Prime Minister stated upon his arrival in London that Canada will supply more than $100 million to Great Britain within a few days. It seems to me that the minister could tell us, for instance, whether these $100 million will be taken from the funds of the Bank of Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this does not involve any drain upon the Canadian treasury or upon the Canadian people at the present time. It is the pledging of credits through the International Monetary Fund and through the central banks to support the pound. I do not anticipate that the money will be needed.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that pamphlets are presently being distributed in Quebec by the F.L.Q. urging separatists to form Cuban-style guerrilla bands in the backwoods for armed raids on Quebec cities and towns and giving specific instructions in the handling and acquisition of arms, would the minister inform the house of the results of his promised careful investigation of Cuban radio and other subversive activities of a similar nature?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I will, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us now whether he has any information that these pamphlets are emanating from the Cuban embassy here in Ottawa?
27053-288J
DEBATES	4565
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister of defence whether his department has located the arms stolen recently from the Winnipeg armories, or whether he has any news to report on this incident.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather that the question was asked and the matter discussed at the time of adjournment a few days ago.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the lay-off of 130 longshoremen in the port of Montreal yesterday, and the serious difficulties resulting from the rigid application by shipowners of certain recommendations of the Picard report?
Has the minister received communications either from longshoremen or shipowners, and what are his intentions in this matter? Is it his intention to intervene in this difficulty?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I know there are problems with regard to the port which are not new but which have been developing over recent days. I know every effort is being made to bring the parties together in the hope that the movement through the port can be re-established to its proper level so that shippers will be able to rely on the effectiveness of the operations of the port. I sincerely hope this can be achieved, because Montreal is one of the most important outlets of Canadian produce and anything that detracts from its effectiveness would have long range consequences which would be detrimental to all of Canada.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us if he intends to intervene before the conflict turns into a general strike? Does he not feel that it would be appropriate for the government to consider the possibility of keeping the port of Montreal open during the winter?

November 22, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think the two things are directly related. One is an industrial dispute which really comes within the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Labour at this stage. As to the other, as my hon. friend knows we make every effort to keep the ice out of the river so as to prevent flooding. This enables ships to take advantage of the channel which has been opened up.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with winter navigation.
Can the minister tell us if he intends this year to operate an icebreaker in the Saguenay in order to facilitate winter navigation on that river as far as Chicoutimi?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is repeating a question asked a few days ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. In answer to a question I asked him last week he indicated that he was bringing together the longshoremen's association and the Shipping Federation of Canada in the hope some agreement could be reached with regard to the implementation of the Picard report. May I ask the minister if he has been able to effect any agreement between these parties, or if he is planning to resort to appointing an administrator for the port?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: met with the representatives of the shipping federation and the stevedoring companies for some little time on Friday last in Montreal. I had hoped to meet with the representatives of the longshoremen's unions directly concerned, but that meeting did not materialize, through no fault of mine. I was there, ready to meet them. I might say they have since been in communication with the officials of my department and a meeting between the shipping federation and the unions did take place on Monday. I am sorry to say it was not too successful. The situation is tense and at the moment it would be difficult to appoint an administrator agreeable to both sides. I think an arbitrator would be more helpful.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
(Mr. Valade.]
Is he aware that large quantities of apples from Quebec orchards intended for the Great Britain market are piling up in the warehouses of Montreal harbour, and would the minister grant a very special attention to that problem, in order that Canadian producers may not incur heavy losses?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank the hon. member for having made these representations, but I would suggest that it might be more helpful if the apple producers directed their representations to the unions concerned and to the shipping federation.


Georges-J. Valade: I want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour following the answer he gave. Can the minister inform us if in his talks with the parties concerned he is going to discuss the security of the longshoremen? I think this is one of the problems, and it would be helpful to discuss that.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I take it that the hon. member is talking about the safety of the longshoremen rather than security. On that score, the collective agreements in force contain a provision dealing with the safety of the workmen. The Picard committee amended the collective agreement. The parties have rights under the agreements that can be enforced through grievance procedures. I think this matter can be safely left to both parties, who are experienced in enforcing their rights under collective agreements.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue which concerns the Canada Pension Plan. Is the minister now in a position to make refunds to employers who have contributed large overpayments to the Canada Pension Plan?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Technically, yes; legally, no.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Has the minister or his department established a formula which could be used to make these refunds?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated there is no technical problem now in the way. The problem is a legal one. We do not have any authority to do this, and we cannot
November 22, 1967

do it until we have had consultations with the provinces and the legislation has been changed.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Has the minister made arrangements with the provinces to discuss this issue, and would he also advise the house if he would be prepared to table his letter to the province of Quebec?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by my hon. friend I have written to the premier of Quebec, but I have not as yet received a reply from him.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government to appoint a superintendent of lay-offs to accommodate the government's plan to slow down the economy?



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It relates to a matter of particular concern to the recipients of war veterans allowances. In view of the 2 per cent increase in old age security and guaranteed income supplement, and questions asked of the minister in the house and put to him personally, is he now in a position to inform the house how this 2 per cent increase will affect recipients of war veterans allowances?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the 2 per cent increase in O.A.S.-G.I.S. will not affect war veterans allowance recipients. I am informed that by amending the regulations it will be possible for us to refrain from deducting those amounts from their allowances, and I have so recommended.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister assure
Inquiries of the Ministry the house and the country that ample precautions are being taken to prevent the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country in view of the fact that it is so widespread today in Britain?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that such is the case. Fortunately, the situation to date is under control in Canada.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister now in a position to answer the questions I asked him on Monday last with regard to the amount of new money raised by the last dominion government bond issue, and the amount taken up by the Bank of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me an opportunity to answer the question. The hon. member may recall that in announcing the bond issue I reserved the right to allot a total of $250 million plus or minus up to 10 per cent, and the Bank of Canada agreed to acquire a minimum of $50 million. In the event we decided to issue on December 1 a total of $225 million.
Proceeds of this bond issue, together with the proceeds of the sale of $125 million of 364-day treasury bills to be offered at competitive tender on November 28 and delivered on December 1, will be used to redeem $100 million of 303-day treasury bills due December 1, 1967 and to purchase from the Bank of Canada for cancellation $105 million par value of government of Canada bonds due January 15, 1968. The remaining proceeds amounting to approximately $145 million will be used for general purposes of the government of Canada.
It has not been the practice to disclose the actual amount of Bank of Canada participation in new issues-this has been the practice for years-although holdings of the Bank of Canada are of course reflected in their regular weekly and monthly financial statements, which are issued through the regular channels.

November 22, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry INCREASE IN BANK CHARGES FOR U.S. FUNDS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has he received the letter from the gentleman in Calgary, who has forwarded me a copy, in which the minister is informed that on November 20, 1967 a certain bank was asking an exchange rate of 9 J per cent on the purchase of United States funds? If the minister has read it and has had an opportunity to investigate the accuracy of the statement, is he prepared to proceed against the bank for its flagrant breach of the law?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the letter the hon. member refers to. I shall certainly investigate it, and if it is in breach of the law I will take the necessary action.


Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that although the published rate of exchange as between the Canadian and the United States dollar, according to Manitoba newspapers yesterday, was 1.07J in Canadian currency for $1 United States, the Canadian dollar was being discounted in some Manitoba banks at rates ranging to as much as per cent? Specifically this was the case in two chartered banks in Swan River, Manitoba. Can the minister shed any light on the reason for this?


Mitchell William Sharp: All I can suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that any discount of this kind is completely unjustified and unmerited.


Colin Cameron: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, based on another communication I have had. I should like to ask the minister whether he can assure the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must realize that we have a very short question period today.


Colin Cameron: I know, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I have to caution him that he cannot ask questions about all the letters he receives, which I am sure must be numerous.


Colin Cameron: This is a totally different matter, Mr. Speaker. This communication contains the allegation that the Bank of Canada was aware of these breaches of the law. I should like the minister to be able to assure the house that this is not the case.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to answer the question I raised yesterday, when I asked whether the government would give consideration to referring the special study on transportation in the Atlantic provinces to a committee of the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can say that we will give consideration to that.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same matter for the house leader. In his duties as over-all chief of committees has the house leader had a chance to consider the proposition which was made yesterday that the transportation committee visit the maritimes, as it did the west, so as to look over the serious transportation problems there? I ask this question knowing the minister's great interest in the maritimes.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for adding the designation "over-all chief of committees" to my responsibilities. I will be very glad to give consideration to any move of the committee that would bring it to the Atlantic provinces.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the tremendous importance of the experimental work in the field of neurosurgery being carried out by Dr. Gordon Murray of Toronto, and in view of his recent disclosure of the serious shortage of funds necessary to carry
November 22, 1967

on this very important work, has the government any plans to see that the necessary funds and facilities are made available to this distinguished Canadian surgeon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question very closely resembles one asked by the hon. member for Simcoe East the other day, and I do not think it can be asked at this time.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all deference I would hesitate to question your judgment in this regard, but I submit that this is a new question in that I am asking for the provision of funds in view of the disclosure made yesterday by Dr. Murray.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is right the matter might be discussed at the time of adjournment.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me a question that he had put to one of my colleagues a day or two earlier in connection with an application for assistance that was made to the adjustment assistance board by employees of Perfect Circle Company Limited of Don Mills.
I am pleased to be able to assure the hon. member and other members that this application has been referred to the board and will be dealt with at their sitting which opens on December 1. If the application is approved the workers will be eligible for transitional assistance benefits from the date of lay-off; in other words the assistance will be retroactive. In the meantime those employees who are entitled to unemployment insurance will get it in the usual way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the promptness of his reply, but may I ask him this question. If the hearings are held early in December at what date will the retroactive payments likely be made?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that this particular board, which is chaired by an experienced chairman, acts very promptly.
Inquiries of the Ministry COPPER-PRICE INCREASE BY NORANDA COMPANY
On the orders of the day:


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, questions have been asked in recent days about the action taken by Noranda mines re the price of copper, and I have some information to give on this subject.
At the request of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce were in touch with Noranda earlier today. The company announces that effective today until further notice the domestic price of 51 cents Canadian replaces the E. and M. J. based price of 50.96 cents Canadian, which price has applied since Monday. E. and M. J. means New York Engineering and Mining Journal, Mr. Speaker. This, and the assurances given to officials, indicates that the company will not be applying the formula announced earlier which would have led to a much higher price in December and subsequently.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister explain what the change in price means? Am I correct in assuming that the price formerly was 47J cents and now it is 51 cents?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I only gave the house information I had. I was not commenting on it. The price up to recent days had been 47J cents. I understand that it was very much feared that the price could have gone up to 60 cents. Again I am only repeating information that I have received.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have
already passed the time that is allotted for questions.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was the only one of my group who put a question within a 30-minute period today. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) got up about ten times and tried to be recognized in order to put a very simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall be pleased to recognize the hon. member for Portneuf tomorrow. I should, however, like to point
November 22, 1967
4570	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence out to the hon. member that, while one member of his party was recognized during the oral question period, not a single member was recognized on the government side.


David Réal Caouette: That is because they do not have any questions to put, Mr. Speaker.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, November 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, until the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke in this debate last Thursday I had not intended to speak. Nevertheless, intentionally or unintentionally, his remarks provoked me to such an extent that I feel I must say something. His entire speech was weak. It had little substance and put forward few arguments in support of the bill. In so many words, he said that he favoured the complete abolition of the death penalty and that retaining it for those who murder guards and policemen was a compromise. He also said that the vote, when it comes, will be free. We shall see how free it is when we see how successful have been those on this side who have tried to persuade those on the government side to vote against it. Members on the government side will not vote readily against the wishes of the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). I shall be convinced it is free only after the results of that vote are apparent. We shall compare the performances of hon. members in this house. We shall note how some of them have voted on this bill and how they voted on the bill that came up 18 months ago, which dealt with the same subject matter; and we shall then see whether pressure has been applied.
The Prime Minister also said that once the house decides the matter, the law of the land will be upheld. He said much the same sort of thing 18 months ago, after the bill then before the house had been defeated. It may be argued, of course, that since the cabinet has the right to commute sentences, the law of the land has been carried out. When one remembers the Santa Claus killer, who wielded a machine gun in Montreal two years ago and killed two policemen, for


which crime he was tried, convicted and sentenced to death, and when he recalls that after this the cabinet commuted that sentence to life imprisonment, he wonders whether the law of the land is being upheld. I find it hard to believe that this cabinet will uphold the law of the land, since, after the decision of the house 18 months ago, it has persisted in commuting death sentences.
Approximately one year ago-it may have been this spring-a policeman in Alberta was shot in cold blood. The sentence of the murderer was commuted. In commuting that sentence the cabinet has shown that it cannot be trusted to uphold the law of the land, even as it might be if this bill were to carry. Certainly anyone who is somewhat sceptical about the government's intentions-and I am sceptical about the government, period -might be pardoned for not believing that the government intends to uphold the criminal law.
The Prime Minister said that the onus is on the retentionists to prove that the death sentence is a deterrent to murder. Why, then, does he include in this bill the death sentence for convicted murderers of policemen and prison guards? Surely it is to deter would-be murderers from killing policemen and prison guards. He includes in this bill a tidbit of the retentionists' philosophy, so to speak, and thus answers his own argument.
In his speech the Prime Minister implied that retentionists are not civilized, that they are barbarians. In so many words he said that if we do not pass this bill we shall show the world that Canada still is a barbaric country.


An hon. Member:: A mentally barbaric country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a poor, negative attitude for the Prime Minister of the country to hold. I do not for a minute accept as true his accusation that retentionists are barbarians.
He also said that he believed punishment in itself to be an ineffectual deterrent. I say that one has only to consider his children. If one says to his children that if they are disobedient they will be punished, and if he punishes them when they are disobedient, then the threat of punishment becomes a deterrent to future mischief. Only when the punishment is not meted out does it lose credibility. Take another example, in the commercial field. Those supplying electricity say, "If you do not pay your bill your electric
November 22, 1987

power supply will be cut off." People know that is true; they know that power will be cut off. They pay their bills knowing that the threatened action will be carried out if they do not pay. I would expect the electric company to say to me "We will not tell you that we will cut off your power unless we are prepared to cut it off. There is no use telling you we will cut if off if we are not prepared to do that." If people know that the punishment is not going to be put into effect, then its deterrent value is destroyed. This is what has happened with respect to the government's handling of capital punishment. Members of the government can quote statistics to prove their case, but how effective a deterrent can capital punishment be if there is widespread knowledge that the government will not carry through?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) also said that our duty is to protect society, to create a society in which we can all live. That is also my aim; but I firmly believe that crime is becoming more widespread in Canada today, and that murder is becoming more widespread. One can quote the former commissioner of the R.C.M.P. to that effect. Now we have a weak kneed government, a soft government which cannot enforce the will of the country and the wishes of parliament. Members of the government now come to us and say, "Because we are weak kneed, because we are having a lot of internal troubles, we cannot carry out your wishes. We would like you to make the job easier for us. In this bill we will give you a titbit, in the hope that you will let us off the hook and allow us to live with our weaker inner selves."
Anyone who is the prime minister of this country, or anyone who occupies the position of solicitor general has some unpleasant tasks to perform, and to perform those tasks he must be strong. He must be capable of performing the job or he should not be given the job. If he cannot carry out the wishes of parliament, then he should withdraw from his job. If the Prime Minister cannot carry out the wishes of this parliament, then he should not expect to remain the leader of this parliament and of this country. This is the way I look at the matter, and the way most Canadians look at it.
In many positions in life one will find that very distasteful tasks have to be performed. One must measure up to these or else let someone else do them. It is as simple as that. Members of the government cannot come 27053-289
DEBATES	4571
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence back to parliament 18 months after the last capital punishment debate and say, "Please help us out. We are not capable of carrying out your previously expressed wishes. Let us stay in office. Let us hold on to our jobs, but make them jobs we can perform." In other words, they want a little softer task.
This bill proposes a five year trial period, and the house and country are assured that if the bill passes we will not hear any more about the subject for another five years. But if the bill is defeated, who is to say members of the government will not bring in another bill, with another titbit to offer to members of parliament, to retentionists, and to all concerned? To me, a five year trial period is not worth-while because during that period only the lives of policemen and prison guards are to be safeguarded. While I have the greatest respect for policemen and prison guards, I value their lives no more than my own, than those of my family, my children, and of the rest of the people of Canada. The five year trial period does not make the bill any more attractive.
The house has debated this question on a number of occasions. In 1961 it passed legislation differentiating between what is commonly called first and second degree murder, capital murder and non-capital murder. That was a very worth-while and progressive step. I agree wholeheartedly that anyone committing a murder in a fit of passion, or on the spur of the moment should not be sentenced to hang. But anyone who deliberately and cold bloodedly commits a murder should be prepared, and in many cases is prepared, to lose his own life. One has only to think of the number of cases where suicide has followed the committing of the dastardly crime of murder.
The bill passed by the house in 1961 has not been given a fair working trial. If the present bill passes, then what are we to compare it with five years from now? We have no recent figures in Canada for comparison purposes. In 1961 we differentiated for the first time between capital and non-capital murder. That created an altogether different picture with respect to murders committed prior to that date and murders committed since that date. But since 1963 there has been no real application of the 1961 bill, and in my estimation a two year trial period is not long enough.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, I say a deterrent cannot be effective unless it is carried out. A deterrent hinges on two things. The first is that a person must be apprehended,
4572	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence and I have full confidence in our R.C.M.P.
and other police forces throughout Canada, provincial and municipal. They have as good a record as police forces anywhere else in the world with respect to the apprehension of criminals. I would imagine that anyone about to commit a crime in this country would ask himself: Will I be caught?
The second factor is the punishment itself, whether it be life imprisonment or a death sentence. There is no question in my mind that the death sentence can be an effective deterrent only if the government intends to carry it out; but we know that this government since 1963 has had no intention of carrying it out. Yet in the last three or four years some of the worst crimes ever committed in the history of this country were perpetrated. However, the government had no stomach and was not capable of carrying out its job. Because of this widespread knowledge the deterrent is ineffective.
This bill proposes that the death sentence be supplanted by life imprisonment as the major deterrent. How long is life imprisonment? Last Thursday we were told that the average life imprisonment sentence totals eight years ten months and one day. Is this good enough? At the end of that time those under life sentence are turned loose in society again, and on a number of occasions they have not even been examined by psychiatrists before being released from prisons and mental hospitals.
Only the other day it was stated that there is no psychiatrist serving at the Prince Albert penitentiary, a federal prison, and that there is no psychiatrist in the city of Prince Albert. It can well happen that a person will be paroled without even being interviewed by a psychiatrist. Not so long ago a terrible crime was committed in Saskatchewan. A young man was released from a mental institution, possibly without being interviewed by psychiatrists before being released. In fact I am certain he was not interviewed by psychiatrists, and shortly after his release he committed one of the worst crimes northern Saskatchewan has ever known.
I can tell of an incident in my own constituency. A number of years ago a prisoner was released from Prince Albert, and within two days he did away with his own family, consisting of his mother, his father and three little children. Was that man interviewed by a psychiatrist? Without much difficulty a psychiatrist could have ascertained what his attitudes to society were. Psychiatric services are not available in many of our prisons, and

DEBATES	November 22. 1967
I believe life imprisonment is not a good deterrent if it means only eight years ten months and one day.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This is not a good protection for society because we can be given absolutely no guarantee whatsoever as to the behaviour of these people when they leave the institutions. We can only form a judgment in this regard from what has happened in many cases in the past. I do not particularly blame society for this, because I know it is difficult to ascertain the intention of anyone leaving a mental institution or prison. From past actions, however, our judgment must be that this is not a good protection for society.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in voting against this bill. There is nothing to convince me, as a representative of the people in my area, that by voting for this bill I would be creating a better place for them to live or that I would be in any way protecting them.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this Bill No. C-168 before the vote and before the house decides, definitely I hope, on this matter, that is to say capital punishment in Canada.
About a year and a half ago, a free vote was taken in the house and the result confirmed the retention of capital punishment in the country.
Since that time, murders have been committed and in spite of the wish and will of the house expressed by a majority vote, the government has nevertheless seen fit to ignore it, so that there has been no execution in Canada since 1962.
Now, the purpose of this bill is, and I quote:
-to confine the imposition of the death penalty in relation to murder to the murder of police officers and others employed for the maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of their duties, and to the murder of prison guards and other officers or permanent employees of prisons, acting in the course of their duties, for an experimental period of five years.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that since the practice of commutation was instituted, that is to say since 1962, a period of five years, there have not been any executions in Canada; nevertheless, the number of capital murders has not diminished for all that. Those who intend to kill continue to kill, and they will continue after Bill No. C-168 is passed.
November 22, 1967	COMMONS
For a month, I have been holding a referendum on capital punishment in my constituency; to date, I have received 1316 replies. I asked the people: "Are you for or against the death penalty?" Out of 1316 replies, 754 were in favour of retaining the death penalty, 502 were for abolition and 60 were uncertain, undecided.
Mr. Speaker, this breakdown is strangely similar to that of the first free vote we had in this house, a year and a half or two years ago, on capital punishment.
What I find inconsistent in this bill is that, for a trial period-a period of five years -death sentences will be limited strictly to the murder of police officers, guards and other officers or permanent employees of prisons acting in the course of their duties.
Let us suppose, for instance, that the Prime Minister of Canada, wherever he is, is attacked by a gangster and that his bodyguard is killed. The gangster or killer would then be executed. But if he did not kill the body-guard and the Prime Minister himself were killed, the same killer would be sentenced to life imprisonment. He would not be executed, he would not be hanged.
I find this bill illogical. Besides, the government has all it needs; it has been doing it for five years now. Why come again before the house with this bill when the matter was voted upon democratically in this house? The reasons still hold which moved the members to vote against the abolition of the death penalty a year and a half ago. Moreover, neither gangsters nor murderers have changed in their behaviour.
Now, I agree that the legislation should provide that the guilt of a murderer must be proven beyond any doubt before he is sentenced to hang. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is room for improvement in the present act. However, I am not in favour of abolishing capital punishment outright, except for murderers of prison guards or employees. I feel that every Canadian, without exception, is entitled to the same protection, to the same treatment, as any policeman, any prison guard or employee. Simple and elementary justice calls for the same treatment for the whole population.
If a murderer kills a police officer or a prison guard, he cannot be hanged twice, of course, but let him be hanged if the murder is really capital murder and there is not the shadow of a doubt. However, let us do the same in the case of the Prime Minister, a member of parliament, a worker in the 27053-289}
DEBATES	4573
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence Noranda mine, a white collar worker or a farmer. These people are entitled to life just like any police officer or prison guard, and no murderer has the right to make any attempt on anyone's life. Therefore, I submit that Bill No. C-168 should not have been introduced in the house. The vote taken in the house a year and a half ago should have been abided by; it was unequivocal, it seems to me. We had received all explanations; hon. members had expressed themselves freely. Today, some hon. members have changed their minds because, in my opinion, pressure has been put on them. And then they were told: Listen, let's try it for five years. And in five years, the law will stay the way it will be after this bill is passed.
Mr. Speaker, the number of murderers and bandits is increasing in Canada. Today, and for five years now, they tell themselves: No one is hanged, every sentence is commuted to life imprisonment. In the case of life imprisonment, the murderer is paroled after 12, 15 or 20 years. There have been typical cases in Quebec. A man who had murdered a young girl was put in prison, sentenced to death but later on paroled, and he killed four other young people. He was arrested again, imprisoned and sentenced to death a second time, and once again his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. They say: The man was insane. He is jailed and his execution is put off from month to month. It is not put off but the sentence is merely commuted.
Mr. Speaker, the individuals who try to kill their neighbour know what they are doing. Recently, there was a holdup in Rouyn-Noranda, my home town. A gangster broke into the Montemurro and aimed his gun at one of the employees and pulled the trigger. Fortunately, the gun did not go off. There was no shot, but the gangster actually said: I will kill you. He knew exactly what he was doing.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is said of those people who are ready to kill anyone, anywhere, even when they are in a tight spot: Oh, they were in a tight spot! Why? Because they had placed themselves in that situation. Those are premeditated assaults, and we are going to pass a legislation which will mean this: Gentlemen, kill whoever you want, except policemen and prison guards, kill the Governor General of Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Neveu), or anyone else, you will not hang,
4574	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence but keep your hands off a prison guard or a policeman.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Rallie-ment creditiste are absolutely free to vote according to their conscience. But, as far as I am concerned, I shall definitely vote for the retention of capital punishment, not in a spirit of revenge against the individual who attacks his neighbour or kills someone, but for the sake of justice in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, several persons suggest that hanging is obsolete and horrible. Surely, it is horrible. But what of the bandit who kills the father of 4 or 5 children, for instance, or the criminal who killed two Montreal policemen, in the performance of their duties, after taking the trouble of dressing up like Santa Claus-on the occasion of Christmas, on top of it all-giving young children the impression that Santa Claus can be dangerous since their father was murdered by a bandit dressed up as one?
Mr. Speaker, that murderer knew what he was doing when he dressed up as Santa Claus. He knew very well what he was going to do at the bank he went to rob; he knew very well what he was doing when he shot five or six times with his revolver, or rather with his submachine-gun, the policemen stretched out on the ground. A tommy-gun is not an ice cream cone, nor is it a pair of velvet mitts. He knew the tommy-gun was loaded, what it could cause.
And now, it is going to be claimed that vengeance moves us to sentence him to hang? If that is the way we are going to reason things out, then I say this: Why sentence a thief to five years in a penitentiary? Is it for vengeance that we condemn the thief? Why not close down all the prisons in Canada and say to the thief: We do not want revenge for ourselves, old boy. You stole, yes; only, we want no part in vengeance, and sentencing you to five or ten years in the pen would be vengeance. And so you are free; but try not to repeat your thefts, try not to steal again. Would it be logical to abolish our prison system or judicial system to that extent? Abolishing hanging is the same thing.
The execution of a murderer is no more by way of a reprisal than the sentencing of an armed robber, let us say, to 10 years in jail, with hard labour. It is the same thing. Some will say: Well, we killed him, but it satisfied nobody. Perhaps this is true, but it certainly got rid of a public menace within society. It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I will vote for the retention of the death penalty.

DEBATES	November 22, 1967
I understand the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister the other day and submitted by him to public scrutiny and to the house to influence as much as possible the members on the government side and perhaps also, some members of the opposition. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I agree. However, Mr. Speaker, there are serious dangers involved in abolition, or retention of the death penalty only for murderers of policement, jail guards or permanent jail employees while on duty.
At this stage, I repeat what I said earlier. Since 1962, there has been no hanging in Canada. Has the number of murders decreased? No. Bandits remain bandits; murderers continued to kill right and left. Therefore, we have proof that commutations or abolition of capital punishment have not deterred the murderers from killing people around them, when they were in a tight situation, if you like. However, when they are in a tight situation, it is because they decided to get into such a mess. Then, let them suffer the consequences or let them pay for the results of their actions.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) should not have presented this bill when we have lots of important matters to discuss since there is no hanging pending, at the present time, in short, when all death sentences have been commuted. However, we could have easily-and it was much more urgent-discussed the economic situation which prevails now in Canada in order to improve living conditions and to decrease the number of Canadian citizens who become robbers and bandits for many reasons, but especially because they cannot earn an honest and decent living in their own country. Such things are seen among juvenile delinquents who are willing to work and seeking jobs, who want to prepare their future, but who do not stand a chance and are led astray, commit acts of vandalism and eventually become criminals. That is the situation today.
Mr. Speaker, it is not with pieces of legislation such as Bill No. C-168 that we shall improve the situation in Canada, and the Solicitor General is aware of it and he knows that we have proof in that connection. If someone could give me proof that the number of murders has decreased in the past five years, compared to the five year period before 1962, I would readily accept the bill, but such is not the case. There were just as many murders since 1962 as before that date, when murderers were hanged. Since 1962, no
November 22, 1967	COMMONS
hanging has taken place since all sentences have been commuted. As a result, murderers have kept on killing.
So, Mr. Speaker, capital punishment at times does keep people from murder, from acts of vandalism, out of fear of the noose. When a man does not fear the noose, when he is sure he will only be put in prison, he tells himself that the state will give him bed and board and dress him properly, even if the clothes do have little stripes, but still, he will be dressed decently. Indeed, he will not be cold in winter, nor too warm in the summer. He may even have air-conditioning in some areas. Who knows, after this bill, we may even vote him a new uniform.


Mr. Prud'homme:: The old army uniforms.


David Réal Caouette: The old army uniforms; that might help him even more. All this to say that abolishing capital punishment is an injustice toward the wholesome Canadian people, it is pure and simple injustice. That is why I am opposed to such abolition. The five year trial has been made. We have been making it since 1962 and we know the results: Assaults, murders occur every day and every week in Montreal, in Toronto, in Vancouver and in small places, as in the case I mentioned a while ago when an attempt was made right in the city of Rouyn.


Mr. Laprise:: It is worse than in Viet Nam.


David Réal Caouette: My friend from Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) says it is worse than in Viet Nam. It is similar.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if we are to fight crime, vandalism, there are other solutions than the introduction of inoperative bills, legislation which will not serve the best interests of the people, will give security to bandits at the cost of their freedom, somewhat like behind the iron curtain, but in any case, they will have security. If the bandit is sick in jail, he even benefits from medicare. It costs nothing to be attended by doctors, to enter hospital; and drugs are supplied free! Do you realize that these people will be treated better than most of the honest people in our society?
Mr. Speaker, that is why I shall vote against Bill No. C-168 and I maintain that the government and the Solicitor General should have invited parliament to study bills which would assist the Canadian people as a whole, bills concerning, for instance, the economic or social fields, rather than have us discuss for days and weeks a bill to abolish
DEBATES	4575
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence the death penalty which, besides, has not been applied for five years, since 1962.
The government could have kept on doing the same thing, since nobody ever raised the matter in the house. Furthermore, we could have considered more important and more urgent matters than that. I shall continue to oppose the bill and, although we are forced to discuss it, I wish the minister would revise his stand and send back to the committee Bill No. C-168 for further consideration.
Let the house study it and decide, once and for all, what we could do with it, but only when we have nothing else to do. As long as economic and social matters in our country remain as unstable as they are at the present time and a source of problems as serious as those with which we are faced today, let us stop examining and discussing less important matters, when there are so many important problems to be solved in our country.
That is my point of view, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is shared by several other members. We do not make it a political issue. To us, it is a matter for all Canada, a patriotic matter, if you wish, in brief, a matter of life and death for all Canadians. So, let us put partisanship aside and let us act simply as Canadians; let us work in the best interests of our population. Let us stop this discussion. Let the minister withdraw his bill, and let us start considering measures that will develop our country and make Canadians happier and more aware of the fact that this wealthy country is theirs, that they are the beneficiary of a cultural, economical, political and social heritage, if we, their representatives, take our responsibilities and spend our time in legislating for the welfare of the people, instead of enacting laws that punish them to the benefit of murderers.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet made up my mind how I will vote on this bill, and it is only recently that I made up my mind that I would make a few comments about it. I agree with those who have suggested that there was in fact no need for this measure to be put before us. It is a matter of just a few months ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) produced a list of impending legislation as long as, if not as wise as, the book of Ecclesiastes. Much of this legislation we have never seen on the order paper, and of much we do not know even the title.
November 22, 1967
4576	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
I do not say that this measure is not important. Of course it is tremendously important. But I think we are all realistic enough to know that for some time we have had in this country de facto abolition. I think we know, too, that had nothing been brought before this parliament, this government as long as it remained in office for no matter how many more or how few months would have commuted every single death sentence no matter how heinous the crime which brought about the conviction. I think we all know this in our hearts.
There is something slightly unrealistic about what we are doing now, and also perhaps something slightly insulting. I believe all of us 18 months ago gave to this matter the full measure of our thought. We consulted our conscience with sincerity and arrived at our decision only after the deepest reflection. I find it rather disturbing to have the measure thrust before us once again, no election having intervened and the self-same parliament which dealt with the measure some time ago taking it up again.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I must observe as a realist that I have no belief that the government, the executive armed with the commutation authority, is overly solicitous of the attitude of the legislative branch, namely of parliament. I was sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke the other night-


An hon. Member:: Obstruction.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am disturbed, also, at the tone this debate has been taking. People who are getting to their feet are being told to sit down. I resent the suggestion that giving my views is in any way obstruction. We are not responsible for this measure having been brought before us, and I will not be accused of obstruction because I am giving my views on it. Let those who have brought this measure before us take that into consideration. The other night I heard several members being told to sit down. We are not going to sit down until we have expressed our honest views. We did not bring this measure before the house and do not take responsibility for its being on the order paper at the present time.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry that the Prime Minister spoke as he did the other night. Believing that true greatness in any man requires a measure of humility, I hope that the Prime Minister regrets his reference to mental barbarism. I certainly


regretted hearing him make it. We differ on this important question, but nothing is gained by the intellectual arrogance which casts condescending opprobrium upon the views of those who differ.
I was disturbed also by the suggestion that it is up to the retentionists to prove their case. In a matter of this kind you do not advance proof. 1 have consulted and have been consulting for years the findings, facts and figures of the sociologists and criminologists. We know that there is nothing that leads clearly to proof. You do not, in dealing with questions of human behaviour, come up with one answer which is totally right and another which is totally wrong. Indeed, some cynics say that sociology is all data and no conclusions, and yet much of our knowledge in this field is sociological.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I should also like to say that many highly civilized communities have had second thoughts about the death penalty. I do not think the people of the United Kingdom are a group of mental barbarians. Many of the people there are disturbed about the effects of abolition.
I was impressed by the suggestion that the death penalty is invoked for punishment and revenge. I cannot believe that it is there merely for punishment, and I hope it is never there for revenge. It is there because some people, applying their best mind and their best heart to the question, believe that it offers a greater measure of protection for society. I presume that the bill itself is offering a better measure of protection to a portion of society, namely those who are police guards and wardens.
I wonder how we can find proof of the validity of the argument when we seek to evaluate the deterrent value of life imprisonment as against the death penalty. If the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) would consult the great files down through the years of those unfortunate and tragic individuals who pleaded with the persons who had the authority to commute their death sentence, he would see the difference they discerned between continuing imprisonment and the termination of life by the state. If that were not sufficient, I would think that on grounds of logic the Solicitor General might consult his own bill because, as many speakers have mentioned, if the punishment for the killing of police guards does not enhance the deterrent force, I see no reason for its being there. Otherwise, if the deterrent force were equal,
November 22, 1967	COMMONS
the thing to do would be to sentence murderers of police guards and wardens once again, to life imprisonment. This seems to me to be the logical conclusion.
I am also concerned that the public is not receiving an adequate report of this debate. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) holds views, many of which I oppose very strongly. My attitude on many public questions is diametrically opposed to his. However, the other day he placed on the record some very disturbing statistics. I have been scanning the newspapers of this country and have found that very few Canadians who depend on the newspapers for their information will realize what in fact and in practice the expression "life imprisonment" has meant, and this is extremely important.
The matter of the state taking the life of an innocent man is what troubles the reten-tionists most, and is their tenderest point. This is something which would cause any thoughtful person the greatest pangs of conscience. We know that it has happened and it is something which brings sorrow to the heart of any decent person. But we also know, as Lord Justice Darling once said, that while perhaps an innocent man may hang, many guilty ones escape. I would say to those on the other side of the argument that an equally disturbing crisis in conscience faces them, and it is this: What happens to society after the individual who has killed one or more of his fellows is released into society and again takes the life of one or more of those to whom the state should give protection.
Who has a conscience problem then? I would not call anyone who allowed this to happen a mental barbarian. I would extend to him my greatest sympathy because he would bear a terrible burden. If in this debate we entertain for a moment the idea that life imprisonment in fact means life imprisonment, we deal with a delusion which could indeed be extremely dangerous. It is extremely dangerous in this country because we know that the facilities within our institutions for any sort of mental health reform are shockingly and pitifully inadequate. So the placing of a person in one of our institutions is not a sure-fire recipe for the reorientation of that man's attitude toward society. This is a very serious problem. When the Solicitor General will move to act in that field he will have the support of all of us because it is tremendously important.
The agonizing part of the problem is the protection of our society. We live in a per-
DEBATES	4577
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence missive age. Sometimes I have the feeling that the motto for our time might be: Nothing is anybody's fault. Sometimes it is the Oedipus complex that is blamed, or the fact that one is a fourth child and the other three were preferred, or else that at Sunday school one had an incompetent teacher. Of course we know there are all sorts of environmental factors, but have we yet reached the stage of viewing man as having no individual responsibility? Do we not consider that when a man takes arms against society he is never responsible for it? This is the question we must ask ourselves, and we must look inward for the answer. I think it is degrading to suggest that the human species is nothing more than something which responds to external stimuli. Psychologists say that man in all his actions and reactions is just a little higher than the ape. One can produce predictable patterns of behaviour. But some of us believe also that man is a little lower than the angels and that he wants to be given responsibility. This is not to say that when we force men to uphold the law we should accept the terribly condescending label of mental barbarians. But surely sometimes we must ask the individual to accept responsibility for his action.
I am concerned that this bill may be passed in a feeling of euphoria because it is contemporary. I have never thought that being contemporary is one of the cardinal virtues, that it is the thing to do and that you are on the side of the angels when you are progressive. I have read editorials which say that men with conscience have to vote for abolition. It is said that thoughtful people are abolitionists, and that it is only the poor, insensitive, hardhearted people and the barbaric die-hards who, when they search their conscience, come up with an answer different from that of the Solicitor General.
This is the element that is creeping into this debate, and I do not like it. I place people like the former minister of justice on a par with any member of this house in so far as sensitivity to human problems is concerned. There is no room for this kind of condemnation. We are looking for an answer, and I must confess, in all humility, that I am not yet sure of my own answer.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I do not like the bill. I am afraid it does not take into consideration the protection of society, which is surely a fundamental of law. However I hate to be so narrow minded that I would not say that, perhaps for five
November 22, 1967
4578	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence years, let the matter be tried. So I may end up, not being an abolitionist nor a retention-ist but an abstentionist. I do feel that it would have been better in many ways for this measure to have been brought up at a later date in a new parliament after it had been tested a little more by public opinion. We are in an age where we are reacting against what went on in earlier days. I heard the Prime Minister talk about the barbaric practices of the 18th and 19th centuries. Nobody wants them back. Nobody wants to hang a pickpocket, although sometimes we are disturbed when a bright young man who steals a boat gets a sentence which is longer than the man who murders.
There is a law of motion known as Newton's law which says that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. I wonder if that is not a law that applies equally to public emotion. We are perhaps reacting rather too strenuously against some of the viciousness and the callousness of earlier days. But humans are still free, and we are moving a little further on the way toward dismantling society's basic protection. For all of these reasons, and they are only some of the ones in my mind, I find it impossible to support this measure. I regret its introduction at this time because I feel there are other ways in which this house could be more gainfully, more usefully employed.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the day the government moves to introduce into this house a measure to help the victims of murder will be the day I shall become an abolitionist. This will be the day when the abolitionists achieve a balanced sense of the values of human life, and show those feelings in a practical measure. Until that day, and it certainly is not today, sir, I shall be a retentionist. We are only being asked to expand our consciences for murders, and not their victims. The question really rests on the sense of justice of the people at large. The punishment of the taker of human life on the basis of eight years, ten months and one day in jail, even if it leads to his rehabilitation, does not satisfy the community desire for justice. The public acceptance of the idea that justice is being done in all criminal cases is surely the foundation of our society. We do not satisfy that basic appetite by considering a measure whose sponsor says that hanging is wrong in principle, but applies it anyway in certain cases.
[Mr. Macquarrle.l

I am making these very brief remarks, sir, despite the experience I have had of actually seeing a hanging.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that members on both sides of this question find it necessary, for the second time in a short period, to face the same problem. It is regrettable also that members presently sitting opposite are so impatient they are now asking for the question to be decided, when only a few short days ago it was that side of the house which refused to face the issue. But refusing to face an issue is something this government has been doing continually for a number of years. The fact this measure has been introduced for a second time is made quite evident by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Pearson) approach on Thursday last, his indication that he will get on with the job of giving leadership on this particular question, and that the government will settle the question of capital punishment if parliament will make their job somewhat easier. I believe his statement amounts to exactly that.
Parliament made a decision on this matter, but the Prime Minister and his government have not had the intestinal fortitude to carry out that decision, despite all their pronouncements about respect for parliament. This government has absolutely refused to carry out a decision made by this house, but comes back with the appeal: We will see that your decisions are carried out, provided you make our decisions easy enough. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) has made a most eloquent speech and one to which I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) should have paid close attention. No doubt the Solicitor General recalls that he showed the nation how emotionally upset he was when the decision went against his wishes last time. After listening to the remarks by the hon. member for Queens he must realize that this emotion is not only on one side of the question, but on both sides. I have every respect for the minister. However, there was no real need for him to show emotion. The government has complete control of this situation and have been exercising that control for a number of years. It would be a different matter if the Solicitor General were placed in a position where the decision of parliament had to be carried out.
When I say the government has complete control of this situation, I mean they have
November 22, 1967

the power to commute sentences and have been commuting sentences. There was absolutely no need for the government to introduce this subject for the second time. According to the polls I have seen, the most recent of which being the one conducted at Expo, the people of Canada favour retention of the death penalty. As I have said, the government has complete control of this situation. The Prime Minister described as barbaric those people who favour retaining the death penalty. While I cannot do so with the eloquence of the hon. member for Queens, I should like to say this attitude on the part of the Prime Minister is most unfair.
I believe it is unfair, too, to those judges in the country who have been properly carrying out the law of this country over a period of years by imposing the death sentence on those convicted of murder.
Since this subject has been introduced for a second time, it is very difficult to avoid repetition. I should like to refer for a moment to one strong abolitionist in the house who has quoted the Bible to illustrate that capital punishment should be abolished.
I would remind him that we can point to many passages in the Bible which support the imposition of the death sentence upon a murderer. I must say this same member- and this struck me as rather strange-said there are people who are too cowardly to commit suicide, so they murder someone, realizing that they will be put to death for it. This is the way they choose to commit suicide. This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard, and it was put forward by a member of this house in favour of abolition. What makes the argument even more ridiculous is the fact that anyone contemplating suicide who adopts this method is going to wait a long while before achieving his desired result under this government, because it has commuted every sentence. I ask the Solicitor General to consider that so that he does not get emotionally upset if the vote goes the way it should go and we retain capital punishment.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have many friends in police forces whom I respect greatly, though I do not know any prison guards. In Cape Breton we are not interested in prisons and do not have much use for them. However, I do not know how the government can bring in a measure to protect two classes in our community, yet completely disregard other people about whom the Solicitor General might become far more emotional should they be the victims of
DEBATES	4579
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence a murderer. Such cases touch the emotions much more than the murder of policemen or prison guards. I submit that if we are retaining capital punishment in cases of murders of policemen or prison guards, we should also include, as other members of the house have indicated, friends and relatives.
The hon. member for Queens also referred to the charge of obstruction; and there was a bit of obstruction this afternoon. Because members are on one side of the argument they are asked to sit down, to shut up, and there are cries of "Question". I will accept the charge of obstruction from the other side of the house for the very reason that I am going to throw it right back at the government.
This government has been obstructing parliament ever since it reintroduced this issue. This government has been delaying important matters while parliament debates a matter it has already decided. This is the most obvious form of obstruction the house has ever been faced with. While the government saddles the House of Commons with this issue, on other questions it charges obstruction.
The government has been concerning itself with convicted murderers, at the expense of many innocent and law abiding citizens who today are faced with problems requiring prompt attention. Time and again the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown remind us of the value of the time of the house. I am using the time of the house now to point out to the government that this is the most blatant case of obstruction in the house that I have ever witnessed. As I have said, repetition in this matter is inevitable; yet the government refuses to deal with the problems facing our law abiding citizens.
I could take up the time of the house to give the minister many reasons why this particular issue should never have been allowed to come before parliament. The government talk of their concern about this question, but I suggest that the greatest concern the government could have shown was in connection with an event that occurred in the city of Sydney last week end, when over 20,000 people gathered to express their anxiety over a problem that the government could and should be dealing with, instead of devoting time to convicted murderers. This issue has been decided, yet the government has not in any way, shape or form carried out the wishes of this parliament or the law of the country.
November 22, 1967
4580	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
Hon. members opposite say that capital punishment is barbaric. What is barbaric about it? What have the retentionists accomplished by voting in favour of retaining capital punishment? The matter is out of their hands completely; it is within the control of a government which to my knowledge has commuted every death sentence. There may be some still awaiting the death penalty, but not one hanging has taken place since this government came into office.
No one on that side of the house can claim the retentionists have any control over capital punishment. The government has absolutely refused to exercise the law. By introducing this measure to amend the Criminal Code it is dividing the country into two classes of citizens-policemen and prison guards, and others-and I submit the measure is a complete waste of time. It is an illustration of what obstruction really is.
To bring in a measure which suggests suspending the death penalty on a five year trial basis is ridiculous. Britain legislated for a five year trial period and to date not half of the period has elapsed. After only two years the people in Britain are hollering and screaming for the death penalty to be brought back and carried out. This government goes on its merry way, ignoring the previous decision of parliament, and making decisions which suit their own need about the fate of convicted murderers.
Granted, Mr. Speaker, the life expectancy of the government is not long and perhaps it wants to put something on the record to which hon. members opposite can point in some election pamphlet, and say the Liberals did this and that. In this particular case what they want to do is unacceptable to the Canadian people. The government should concern itself with every-day problems facing the country and should keep in mind at all times the welfare of the relatives of the victims, not the murderer. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Queens, who spoke on this subject with far more ability and knowledge than I, these are matters that should be considered by the minister.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The fate of convicted murderers is in the hands of the government. The government is doing exactly the opposite of what parliament decided on a previous occasion. There is nothing that I or any other retentionist in the house can do to change the approach of the government. It has complete control over


the situation and has not carried out the law or the wishes of parliament. If the government is concerned about the matter, why could it not continue to do what it has been doing in the past. No members on this side of the house who are in favour of retention have, during the question period, asked the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice why certain men who have been sentenced to death have not been hanged. The government is in control. It should not saddle this house with a bill that obstructs other legitimate business which is of vital concern to the law abiding citizens of our country, those citizens who look to this government for guidance.


An hon. Member:: Emotional.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Yes, my argument may be emotional, but emotions run high on both sides of the argument.
I ask the government to direct its energies toward bringing economic stability to the country. Let us look after the law abiding Canadian citizen; let us look after those who suffer as a result of murder. Let us do something constructive for a change.


Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed all the speeches and listened attentively to all the speakers who were for abolition or retention of capital punishment.
Since the last free vote we had the opportunity to give hardly a few months ago, my attitude on this most important question has not changed, Mr. Speaker.
Let me refer to an article published in L'Action on October 23 under the title:
Let us become police officers or prison guards.
I quote:
Such an argument is probably put forward in Ottawa, as it was in other countries, but it is absolutely inconsistent. Let us think it over. If it is true that by maintaining the death penalty against murderers of police officers and prison guards, these persons are protected and this provides for the utmost limitation in the number of victims, why is it that the same argument could not apply to murders in general. If it is admitted that the death penalty can be effective in these two cases, how does one conclude that it is not in all other cases?
By introducing in the commons this legislation which is as inconsistent as it is dangerous, the federal cabinet by implication recognizes that capital punishment represents a protection for a group of society, so that it constitutes also a protection for all society; thus, it should be maintained completely in all cases.
November 22. 19S7	COMMONS
Now, Mr. Speaker, what does the Criminal Code provide in the circumstances?
"202a	(1) Murder is capital murder or noncapital murder.
(2) Murder is capital murder, in respect of any person, where
(a)	it is planned and deliberate on the part of such person,
(b)	it is within section 202 and such person
(i)	by his own act caused or assisted in causing the bodily harm from which the death ensued,
(ii)	by his own act administered or assisted in administering the stupefying or over-powering thing from which the death ensued,
(iii)	by his own act stopped or assisted in the stopping of the breath from which the death ensued,
(iv)	himself used or had upon his person the weapon as a consequence of which the death ensued, or
(v)	counselled or procured another person to do any act mentioned in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) or to use any weapon mentioned in subparagraph (iv), or
(c)	such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of
(i)	a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties, or
(ii)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties, or counselled or procured another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing the death.
All murder other than capital murder is noncapital murder.
Every one who commits capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death.
Every one who commits non-capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who appears to the court to have been under the age of eighteen years at the time he committed a capital murder shall not be sentenced to death upon conviction therefor but shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouras-ka (Mr. Dionne):
That Bill No. C-168 be not read for the second time now, but that all further consideration of the said bill be deferred until the Canadian people approve its principle by a referendum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I shall read the amendment while waiting for a ruling from the Chair.
Mr. Simard, seconded by Mr. Dionne, moves:
That Bill No. C-168 be not read for the second time now, but that all further consideration of the said bill be deferred until the Canadian people approve its principle by a referendum.
DEBATES	4581
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to study this amendment. I wonder if debate could be continued and I would reserve the right to study the amendment and voice an argument on it to the house at a later date.


Mr. Knowles:: Same here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Actually this amendment was read on a provisional basis.


Donald MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, do the remarks of the minister mean that the debate is going to continue today and will go into another day? Is he not anticipating a vote?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am in the hands of the house. If hon. members wish to express their views I am certainly willing to listen to them with respect. It is not for me to determine whether debate should continue or not. That is in the hands of the house.


Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago I supported the amendment of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). I suppose therefore I might be classed as an abolitionist. However, I must point out that I cannot support this bill in its present form. I cannot make a value judgment on human life. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) suggested in his remarks the other night that those who voted for retention were mental barbarians, I think he was cynically imputing unfair motives to many of us who feel we must vote against this bill in its present form. I say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell): Make it total abolition and I will support it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I think the hon. member for York-Humber has already spoken on this question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wish to ask if I can speak on the amendment? You have stated that the amendment is provisionally accepted and I am quite prepared to speak on the amendment at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Actually I do not know whether the amendment is
4582	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence acceptable. The Speaker will be in the chamber in a tew minutes and will make the decision.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Order, please. Since the amendment has not been accepted as yet we shall have to wait until a decision is taken before the hon. member is recognized.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if someone wants to speak on the main motion and has not yet spoken, can he not be heard at this time?
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): I have already indicated that until a decision is made by the Speaker we are not going to recognize any hon. members.


Mr. Forresiall:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the main motion is still before the house. Is it active and viable? If it is, I wish to point out that I have not spoken on either of the debates during the last year and a half and I would not mind making a few remarks on this, if it is just a question of killing time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question ?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think we were awaiting Your Honour's return to the chair so that there could be a consideration of the procedural validity of the amendment that has been placed before Your Honour. I do not have the text of it before me in writing, but as I heard it I believe the amendment proposes that the bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration of it be deferred until something else, namely a referendum, has taken place.
It seems to me there are precedents which suggest that an amendment not to read a bill a second time must be one of all out opposition and must not be a motion that offers some other declaration of policy
I now have the amendment before me, thanks to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who has supplied me with a copy of it in French, and I suggest it is contrary to citation 393(1) in Beauchesne's fourth edition which says:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading.
There is another citation which says that an amendment of this kind must be opposed to
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif).]
DEBATES	November 22, 1967
the bill in toto, but this amendment is not opposed to this bill in toto. It is opposed to further consideration of the bill-if my comprehension of French is as good as I hope it is-until the Canadian population has given approval to it by answering a question in a referendum. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what is placed before you in this motion is a condition, or a substantive proposition, namely that there be a referendum on this question, and that such a proposition, while perfectly proper under certain circumstances, is not valid as an amendment to the second reading of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any further submissions for the consideration of the Chair, from a procedural standpoint?

Has the hon. member who moved the amendment now before the house anything to say about its acceptability?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the amendment is quite simple and in no way contradicts or conflicts with the procedure of the house:
That Bill No. C-168 be not read for the second time now, but that all further consideration of the said bill be deferred until the Canadian people approve its principle by a referendum.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just said, that this amendment goes against the rules of the house, it seems to me that this proposal to defer a bill to the Canadian people by way a referendum in order to know their exact opinion and to find out whether or not they approve of the principle of the bill is entirely in keeping with Canadian parliamentary procedure.
Until the people vote by referendum, let us postpone the study of Bill No. C-168. I do not see at all how that amendment comes in conflict with any rule. The hon. member has the right to move his amendment and to be supported, and it seems to me that the house should have the opportunity to vote on that amendment which suggests that a referendum be held before legislation such as Bill No. C-168 is passed.
o (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling, may I say that I agree with democracy and would suggest that if you looked for a precedent under the flag debate you might find that we accepted at that time
November 22, 1967	COMMONS
an amendment similar to that which is proposed now.
fTranslation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I simply
want to say a word to show that even it the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might have seemed, at first, justified, when you read over the motion in its present form, I think that Beauchesne's citation which was just read to us, does not apply to the amendment, as it is drafted now.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, and rightly so, that an amendment to prevent the second reading of the bill means in fact a complete rejection of the bill. This is what happens here. The amendment means simply this: That Bill No. C-168 be not read the second time. It is a total rejection. And the second part, Mr. Speaker, simply adds that any new consideration of a bill such as this one cannot be undertaken unless it has been preceded by a referendum. Why was this added? Well, I suppose it is because we have been presented twice with the same problem. We considered this matter, about 11 or 2 years ago, and it is being reintroduced without having done anything about it. Therefore, it is a pure and simple rejection of the bill and it is requested also that the same matter be not considered again until such time as the Canadian population has been asked to decide through a referendum.
The argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is unacceptable because it is, in fact, a complete rejection of the bill, since the precedent still holds, namely that the matter was considered li years ago. The bill was rejected by parliament and it is felt that the matter should not be raised again unless the public has studied it or has voted on the matter through a referendum.
This is why, in my opinion, the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is unacceptable at the present time, due to the form of the amendment which is entirely legal, which does not violate any precedent and is in accordance with standing orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Would he deal with my contention that the amendment in effect is a substantive motion introducing a new proposition, namely a referendum?
DEBATES	4583
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker. It does in no way imply a referendum. As worded, the amendment does not suggest that the government hold a referendum. It does not provide for a referendum.
The amendement does not suggest at all the holding of a referendum. It simply asks that the bill be not read a second time and that, if the government wishes to reintroduce the question, it should hold a referendum beforehand. However, the government does not have to introduce the bill. In addition, the amendment does not suggest a referendum, but merely provides that any further consideration of the bill be delayed until the question, submitted to the Canadian people, has been approved in principle. It is not suggested that a referendum be held. If the government does not wish to hold one, let it refrain from doing so. The amendment does not mention that the government is required or has to hold a referendum.
If we vote for the amendment, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that we vote to request or force the government to hold a referendum on this matter. That is not mentioned in the amendment. The amendment under study does not recommend a referendum; it simply requests that the bill be not given second reading at this time, and that the matter be not submitted again to the house until a national referendum has been held. However, the government does not have to hold this referendum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a further question, Mr. Speaker. If the amendment is not suggesting a referendum, then how can it be said that the amendment calls for a total rejection of the bill? Is it not just a temporary rejection until the referendum has been taken?


Gilles Grégoire: No, it means pure and simple rejection, total rejection of the bill. Now, and this is where the precedent set 18 months ago must be taken into account, as the government was confronted with a similar motion 18 months ago, and as the motion was rejected, this amendment adds: Do not come back to us with a bill similar to this one unless you have held a referendum. You do not have to hold one; if you do not want any, then do not hold one. But if you must come back to us with a bill such as this one, then hold a referendum before doing so.
4584	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this is absolutely pure and simple rejection of the bill. At the same time, it means that if ever the government wants to introduce another bill on capital punishment, it will first have to get the principle approved by the people. But there is nothing in that amendment which compels the government to hold a referendum. There is nothing which calls for one. It is pure, simple and complete rejection of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. After hearing the arguments advanced by hon. members, I am now in a position to express and opinion and make a ruling.
I will refer, first of all, to the argument just advanced by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to the effect that this amendment is in substance a pure and simple rejection of the main motion.
If the member is right, the Chair could not accept this amendment, since we would then have a negation of the principle, and the member should merely vote against the bill instead of trying to do so by way of an amendment.

I should like to refer to the argument presented by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) in which he brought to my attention a precedent. However, I believe there is a distinction in this regard. He referred to the flag debate when we were dealing with a resolution. The type of amendment which is permitted in respect of a resolution is not the same type of amendment which is permitted in the case of second reading of a bill.
I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members citation 394, paragraph one in the French edition of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:

The principle or relevancy in an amendment governs every proposed resolution, which, on the second reading of a bill, must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the house. Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee, nor attach conditions to the second reading of the bill.
That, I believe, is the most obvious defect of this amendment. It sets a condition to approval of the bill in principle, and for that reason, I do not think it is possible to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

DEBATES	November 22, 1967


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, it is now five o'clock. I have been here all afternoon. Was unanimous consent given to abolish the private members hour?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: My information is that
although there may have been an agreement among hon. members, there is no order of the house for the suspension of private members business. In the circumstances the Chair has no alternative but to call the business for today at five o'clock, namely notices of motions and public bills.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood there was an agreement by all parties of the house that we would forgo private members hour in order that we might complete the debate on the capital punishment bill.


Mr. Speaker:: There must be more than an agreement by the parties of the house; there must be an order of the house. If there is no order there must be unanimous consent and I understand there is not unanimous consent. If hon. members agree unanimously that we should continue-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is at least one objection. We will therefore proceed with private members business as listed on today's order paper. We will proceed with notice of motion No. 15, the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to ask Your Honour to consider a request. The hon. members for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) and for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) are away from Ottawa on official business. I believe they are attending the NATO parliamentary association conference in Brussels. I am wondering, therefore, whether the house would be good enough to allow motions number 15 and 16 to stand and retain their place on the order paper until these members return from this official business on which they are engaged.
November 22, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed by the house that private members notices of motions numbers 15 and 16 stand and retain their place on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions 15 and 16 stand. Then, notice of motion No. 19, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was my understanding that we had agreed to carry on with the debate on capital punishment. For that reason I would prefer not to proceed with this motion today. I am not asking for special consideration; I will proceed with it the next day private members' motions are called.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 19 stands.



CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD


Ralph Bronson Cowan: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the expediency of introducing legislation for the creation of a criminal injuries compensation board to hear the pleas of persons who have suffered permanent injury or disability as the victims of crime and award compensation to such persons or their dependants as would seem fair in the circumstances, and wherever possible to do so, to impose payment of compensation by criminals to those they have injured.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a seconder for his motion, or would he like to suggest a seconder?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if there is no seconder, I had not noticed it, but just to allow an hon. member to express his opinions, according to the principles of democracy, I support the motion.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for relinquishing his right to speak at this time during private members hour, because this gives me the opportunity of speaking on a subject that is very, very close to my heart and fortunately running parallel to the discussion we are now having on capital punishment.
DEBATES	4585
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
As one can tell from the date of this notice of motion, May 9, 1967, I introduced this notice of motion the day after this session began. Hon. members will perhaps recall that the same subject matter was discussed for one hour in June of 1966. At that time it was talked out by a parliamentary secretary to one of the members of the cabinet. That hon. member made the very bright statement that he did not understand the motion. I regret the situation if this parliament must wait until every parliamentary assistant understands what he is talking about before a motion can come to a vote. I sincerely hope that today the parliamentary assistant understands the purpose of this motion.
There have been quite a few speakers on the capital punishment bill who have referred to compensation for innocent victims of crimes. They have stated it is necessary that action be taken under this heading. I refer particularly to the Registrar General of Canada (Mr. Turner) who, if you will look at the remarks he made in support of the abolition of capital punishment, stated that he favored compensation for the innocent victims of criminal acts.
When I listen to all the people running around this house of parliament weeping over the fate of murderers I am filled with disgust, because I weep over the fate of the victims, not the murderers. In speaking on this notice of motion fhat the government should consider the expediency of introducing legislation for the creation of a criminal injuries compendation board I am thinking in particular of a woman who lives in Scar-boro, and who has three or four children. Her husband was an insurance salesman. He was walking along Yorkville avenue in Toronto about a year ago when some words were exchanged between him and a young fellow about 17 or 18 years of age. You may remember that this young 17 or 18 year old jumped up on a parapet about 18 inches high and kicked this husband and father of three of four children on the side of the head, knocking him to the pavement. The impact broke his skull and he died in hospital shortly thereafter.
The man-perhaps I should say the youth -who kicked this insurance salesman, is now under sentence of four years in the Kingston penitentiary. The taxpayers of Canada now have the opportunity to feed him three times a day and give him a warm bed. He also gets proper recreation. In addition to this, the judge said he would send
4586	COMMONS
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board him to Kingston so he could learn a trade. The taxpayers of Canada are giving this chap an education while he is in Kingston pentitentiary in expiation of his crime. What is the federal government doing for the innocent victims of that crime, the widow and children?
I think also of a milkman in Port Credit in the riding of Peel who was endeavouring to collect an amount owing the dairy for which he worked. He had called three or four times at this particular household where there was a small bill outstanding. This milkman was going about his normal work and an ex-boxer, who was the tenant in the house, the person owing the bill, came out of the house and hit him so hard he died. One might say, well, no doubt the milkman's widow and children receive some workmen's compensation from the province of Ontario, because he was engaged in the performance of his duty.
I do not know whether the province of Ontario has stepped into the breach and now pays the widow something under workmen's compensation, but if he was working on commission, as many of these salesmen on milk and bread routes do, it may be that the widow is not getting anything from workmen's compensation.
In any event, why should a widow in a case of this nature, whose husband has been killed by a criminal, have to rely on the small sums paid out under workmen's compensation? Supposing this had been a selfemployed farmer who had been killed; how would his widow collect, and from whom? This question of compensation for innocent victims of criminal acts should have top priority, and this federal cabinet should be considering the question today-not whether to abolish capital punishment.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) in introducing his bill for the abolition of capital punishment-because that is what it amounts to; the cabinet will commute all the sentences of anybody who kills a policeman or prison guard-referred to New Zealand. I am very glad he referred to New Zealand because probably he has read some of the laws of New Zealand. I wonder whether he has read about that great forerunner of this type of legislation which was first introduced in the Dominion of New Zealand some years ago. In New Zealand the federal government makes compensation to the innocent victims of criminal acts on the basis that it is the right and duty of the state to protect all its

DEBATES	November 22, 1967
citizens; and when the state falls down, as is the case when innocent people are suffering because of criminal acts and the state is not giving the necessary protection to innocent souls, the state must pay.
This type of legislation should be on the statute books of Canada. I tell you that there is not a single, solitary more important question in the Dominion of Canada today. I am 65 years of age, and I know that lawyers stand up-they have been standing up all my life and doing this-and say; Oh, think about provincial responsibility, worry about federal responsibility. This is done just so they can put the responsibility on somebody else.
When the murderer is convicted and sentenced to be hanged, the cabinet steps in and, out of their all-pervading mercy, says: We will commute this sentence. I say, don't forget that the taxpayers of Canada are paying for three meals a day, a warm bed, recreational facilities and training facilities for the murderer. When we, the people who worry about the fate of innocent victims, say "You should supply compensation to these victims", what are we met with? Then it is said: Oh, it is a provincial responsibility, the federal cabinet cannot interfere. But the federal cabinet will feed the criminal three times a day, give him warm surroundings, recreational facilities and education. Their attitude is: To hell with the family of the innocent victim.
We have to follow the example set for us by New Zealand and Great Britain. I was fortunate enough a year or so ago to make a trip to Europe with the war veterans committee of the .House of Commons. The chairman of that committee, my very good friend the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), will tell you that When he asked whether I intended to accompany the committee to Europe I said to him: "Mr. Chairman, when I am in London I will not see the committee. I am going to talk to the officials of the compensation board about the compensation of innocent victims of criminal acts."
When that committee was in London-it spent three days in London out of the 17 days on that trip overseas-I never saw the war veterans committee because I was closeted with the officials of the compensation board, asking about the compensation of innocent victims of criminal acts. An interesting thing occurred during those three days in London. On the front page of the London Times, in dead centre, which is about as prominent a position as you can get, other
November 22, 1967

than the top of the page, there was an item about two inches long that during the month of June, 1966, the board administering compensation to the innocent victims of criminal acts had awarded something in the nature of $200,000 during that month. There was also this comment:
This is the largest amount granted during any one month since the board was first set up two years ago.
The province of Saskatchewan has established a compensation fund for innocent victims of crime. God bless Saskatchewan. They set the pattern for the hospitalization scheme we have throughout the nation, which is of benefit to everyone in this country from St. John's in the east to Victoria in the west. Since Saskatchewan has shown the way, I think the federal cabinet should follow the example, because whether it is a provincial responsibility or no-and this has not been shown to me with any conviction as yet- how can the federal government refuse to give compensation to a citizen of any province under such a heading as compensation for the innocent victims of criminal acts?
Before I leave Saskatchewan and refer to the act of British Columbia may I point out that in that terrible murder in Saskatchewan, where one man is being charged with murder when eight people were killed in one farmhouse-don't forget that is eight murders, but he is only being charged with one-the man has been judged sane and fit to stand trial. Do you realize there was one little, four year old girl in one of those beds, the only person in that house who was not killed? I believe the Lord Himself had something to do with this, to shame the federal cabinet, because that little, four-year-old girl is the first beneficiary of the act of the Saskatchewan legislature. God bless Saskatchewan and God bless the legislature for having passed an act to provide compensation to the innocent victims of criminal acts. Her entire family was wiped out. The mother, father, brothers and sisters of this little four year old girl were murdered and she was left alive and alone. What a shining example of the need for state compensation to the innocent victims of criminal acts.
British Columbia has moved along in this direction. I will not criticize British Columbia, because half a loaf is better than none. They have passed an act in the provincial legislature which provides that the municipalities can reimburse the innocent victims of crime. I referred to this before and
DEBATES	4587
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board pointed out that if you are going to be murdered in British Columbia, be sure you are murdered in Point Grey because they have more money there with which to pay compensation than if you are murdered in Skee-na or Osoyoos, for example, or some of the other municipalities. I am not criticizing the legislature of British Columbia. I bless them for having taken one step in the proper direction, which is one more than the federal cabinet of Canada has taken.
The province of Manitoba has taken a step in the right direction on this matter; they are going to offer compensation to the innocent victims of crime. An interesting thing between Manitoba and Saskatchewan is that in Saskatchewan the little girl does not have to wait until the murderer is found and a conviction is registered against him before she can collect. Manitoba plans that they will pay no compensation to the victims until every legal means has been exhausted to bring the criminal to trial. Supposing the murderer of a child's father is never found? Does that mean there is no compensation for that innocent victim because every legal means has not been exhausted, because they have not found the murderer and had a trial? Should all victims have to wait for years, maybe, before somebody comes along 15 or 20 years later and makes a deathbed confession?
The province of Ontario has taken a step in the right direction. I give Premier Robarts credit for this. But I do not like it because it does not go far enough. It does not cover the milkman's family in Port Credit nor the poor widow in Scarboro. The Ontario bill offers compensation to widows and relatives of policemen killed in the performance of their duties, and compensation to those people who might be impressed by the police to aid them in the prosecution of the law. For instance, a policeman going down the street chasing a bank robber or murderer might ask a civilian on the sidewalk to give him help. The law says that he must. If that civilian, having been impressed by the police, is killed or injured the Ontario act will pay compensation to that person or his family.
But look at what happened with the Smith murder, in Downsview. This man was holding up a bank. After he got the money he came out of the bank and a man by the name of Blanc took a rifle or pistol from one of the bank officials, went outside the bank and shot at the fleeing robber whose name was Smith. Smith evidently did not like
November 22, 1967
4588	COMMONS
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board being fired at, because he stopped the car, got out and with one rifle shot drilled the brains out of Blanc. Blanc had not been asked by the police to try and stop Smith, and his family collected nothing from the Ontario act. Is this fair? I say that the responsibility is on the federal cabinet and is not on the provincial government. I am getting fed up to the teeth hearing lawyers say this is a provincial responsibility and we should not try to put the responsibility on the federal cabinet.
All we are asked to do is keep the murderers in comfort. We are told that we should not hang them but should rehabilitate them.
I have been wondering whether we should take the rifles away from prison guards and police. When the death sentence is commuted and a convicted murderer is put in the penitentiary, we are told the cabinet is trying to rehabilitate him. The Solicitor General says: Are we going to give up hope of ever rehabilitating this poor soul? If the guard has a rifle and the man the cabinet is rehabilitating endeavours to escape, what will you do with the guard if he shoots the fellow during the course of his rehabilitation because he is trying to escape? If we are to rehabilitate these people, as the cabinet wants done, we will have to take the rifles away from police and prison guards so they will not be able to cut a fellow short in the middle of his educational course.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
To get back to Mr. Blanc who was drilled through the head, I render thanks unto God for the General Wingate branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. They set out to collect some funds to alleviate the sorrow and the misery in which the widow found herself. I believe the total came to something like $1,700. But what is $1,700 to a widow who has many years of life before her, and what is it to her family? The federal cabinet, which is so anxious to make the life of the convicted murderer serene, quiet and peaceful could not care less about the victim's family and about those who suffer, through no fault of their own, from the crime of the criminal. The cabinet is becoming known as the murderers' friend. I would prefer the cabinet to be known as the friend of innocent victims of criminal acts. I can not make it any more forceful than I have.
In the state of New York and in the state of California similar legislation was passed for the compensation of innocent victims. What are we waiting for? Do we want more


examples? We have the example of Great Britain, the site of the mother of parliaments, of New Zealand, and of the states of New York and California, the two states with the largest populations in the whole of the U.S.A.
What more examples do we want? Saskatchewan has given us a great example, and British Columbia has followed in a limited way. So will Manitoba; but I hope that province does not require the victims to get a conviction before they can collect. I hope Ontario will broaden the scope of its act, and I sincerely and from the bottom of my heart ask the federal cabinet to consider the expediency of introducing legislation for the creation of a compensation board. If it will give the cabinet any pleasure, I would be glad to act on that board. There can be a by-election called in York-Humber following my appointment to the board to hear the pleas of persons who have suffered injuries or disability as victims of criminal acts. We would award compensation to such persons or their dependants as would seem fair in the circumstances, and wherever possible it would impose on criminals the payment of compensation to those they have injured.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this resolution because I was not aware we would reach it this afternoon. However, I cannot help but say a few words in support of it. I think one of the most compelling arguments that is raised from time to time against dealing solely with the question of capital punishment, without relation to the ancillary matters that are raised, is this particular problem. One can hardly discuss the question of capital punishment and the treatment of persons who have committed crimes without discussing their victims.
I think we should start from the premise that both the crime and its consequences are related and should therefore be a matter of federal responsibility. I cannot see how anyone can argue otherwise. Second, I cannot see how anyone can say that it is our concern to deal with, punish or release the person who has committed an offence without at the same time dealing with the innocent victim. I cannot express more strongly than I have heretofore that I support this resolution. It is beyond me why the compensation of victims has not been brought into the laws of Canada, although I realize there are many gaps in our laws.
Perhaps there is a problem of federal and provincial jurisdiction; but if the government
November 22. 1967

were really anxious to enact legislation in this matter, I cannot see where the problem lies. I say this off the cuff because I have not made a detailed study of the constitutional problems, but I would think it would follow logically that if you are responsible for one half of the problem surely you are also responsible for the other.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will take this resolution seriously. I am sorry we did not have a vote on the capital punishment bill at five o'clock and that we did not dispose of it at that time. However, having raised this particular question today perhaps we can complete it, because obviously action will not be taken on the other matter immediately. I hope the government will take seriously the proposal for compensation to innocent victims of crime and will give it serious study. We are conducting many studies in the committee on justice and legal affairs. I should like to suggest that this particular resolution be referred to that committee, although I think it would be much easier to refer it if it were in the form of a bill. In any event I give my support to the resolution proposed by the hon. member.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I agree with the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), but this time, I think I can say that I agree with practically everything he said, especially with the principle of his notice of motion and with the proposal he has just made to the government to set up that board and appoint him to it, thus leaving vacant the seat for the constituency of York-Humber.
I am sure that if one of us were unfortunate enough to become the victim of a crime, the hon. member would be extremely generous and grant our families or those we would be leaving behind, all the expected compensations.
Therefore, I think that the principle is good: set up a compensation board and then compensate the victims of those crimes.
The hon. member for York-Humber mentioned several cases. Allow me to mention one specific case, news of which reached me last night and grieved me. I mention it because several members from the province of Quebec know the victim.
A week or two ago, gangsters broke into the residence of one of the most distinguished citizens of the heart of Quebec, the
DEBATES	4589
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board St. Maurice valley. Back home, Mr. Jean Crete was known as the king of the "Mauri-cie". For at least 50 years, he provided work for thousands of family heads, and contributed to charities. His contributions must amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps even millions; he was respected by all and exuded nothing but kindness and generosity. He even had another quality which my friends on the right will applaud: he was always an active Liberal. He was of those who were responsible for the election of the Hon. Jean Chretien. And so, for the fourth or fifth time in the last few years, gangsters broke into his place a week or two ago, and beat him up to get his money and his jewelry. Last night, he died of his wounds in the hospital.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter of poverty or indigence in his case, but nevertheless, I would like all the people of the heart of the province of Quebec to mourn the death of one of its most distinguished citizens, and I should say also, one of the greatest Canadians we have known in many years.
With your indulgence, I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to his family and his friends, and I know that in doing so, I meet the wishes of every citizen of that area in the heart of the province.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is reasonable to support the request of the hon. member for York-Humber, namely that the victims be compensated for the results of crimes com-mited at their places, especially if one considers that most of them are poor.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for York-Humber mentioned the constitutional barrier which could perhaps prevent the federal government from taking action in this field. However, there are several ways of getting round this difficulty.
First, I think that obstacle must be overcome, because it is important that the law be uniform throughout Canada.
If I were to go in the riding of York-Humber, which my hon. friend represents, and were killed in the smallest community there, I wonder, since I come from Quebec, if compensation would be as great as it would have been in Saskatchewan or British Columbia.
So, I think it is important that compensation be the same in every province, at a time when travel is so fast, when opportunities for
4590	COMMONS
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board travel throughout the country are so numerous and when accidents oi that kind may well happen.
And if constitutional barriers exist, I think the government should at least try to call all provincial Ministers of Justice to a meeting, in an effort to make legislation uniform in the ten provinces.
I conclude with those few words, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to fall into the bad habit that I have noticed since I have been here, that of wanting to kill private members' bills or notices of motions at all costs. On the contrary, I think that when they are as judicious as the one introduced by the hon. member for York-Humber, even those who are not close friends of his should forget the mover and say: He is right and we will support him. That is what I will do myself if I have the opportunity.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset, speaking on behalf of the members of the New Democratic party, to support the principle set forth in the motion moved by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). In his speech, he mentioned the example of the widow in Scarborough whose husband had been murdered by a young 18 year old boy. I may tell him that the 18 year old boy was a constituent of mine. I think it should be said that this young boy came from a broken home and had very little family life. He had a previous criminal conviction, but he was making his way in society and was about to be married. He happened to be in Yorkville on the night in question. It was a very unfortunate incident. The altercation between him and the man who was murdered occurred, I understand, when the man was with a group of other men and also happened to be in the Yorkville area at the time.
My friend is quite correct when he says that at the moment we have different pieces of legislation in different provinces across the country covering this situation. Ultimately, this will result in a hodge-podge of different acts covering compensation to the innocent victims of crime. The first point the federal government appears to make is that this matter falls within provincial jurisdiction because the provinces have the duty to enforce the administration of justice. It seems to me the hon. member's point that the federal government has the right and duty to protect the citizens of Canada is a good one. The federal government should therefore

DEBATES	November 22. 1967
have the full responsibility of compensating the innocent victims of criminal acts.
When I heard the different acts set forth by the minister as they apply in the different provinces, I realized the difficulty we are getting ourselves into with regard to compensating the victims of these criminal acts. There will not be the uniformity that is necessary to guarantee the people of Canada proper compensation for the acts that have been committed.
I note one part of the hon. member's motion reads:
-and wherever possible to do so, to impose payment of compensation by criminals to those they have injured.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that 18 months ago when I participated in the debate on the abolition of capital punishment I made this point in my speech, that it is not only proper to abolish capital punishment but there is also a duty imposed upon us to compensate the innocent victims of criminal acts. Of course, the best thing the government could do, in my opinion, would be to pass the abolition measure that is before the house now, then follow that up with a bill covering compensation to the victims of criminal acts. This is a very important thing. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) suggested referring the subject matter to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs. As the hon. member for York-Humber stated, there is plenty of experience in other jurisdictions to enable us to implement a similar type act without the unnecessary delay of referring the subject to a committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we in this party support the motion and ask the government to take immediate action on it.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I had a private meeting earlier with the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) was there also. We discussed in detail the resolution which stands in the name of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, perhaps especially following the comments of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), that I have often disagreed with the hon. member for York-Humber-I have sometimes called him a fanatic-who has on occasion behaved like a fanatic.
I heard him earlier use some rather violent expressions in speaking of certain members
November 22, 1967	COMMONS
of the cabinet, whom he has even accused of helping or being friends with murderers. I think that the hon. member went further than what he actually meant. He chose to resort to strong terms to express the dissatisfaction, well-founded, I think, he feels about certain attitudes.
I congratulate him warmly for the resolution he put on the order paper. I myself drew inspiration from it when I spoke briefly in the house on November 14, 1967, on the bill dealing with partial abolition of the death penalty.
The generous intention which inspires the hon. member for York-Humber deserves to be emphasized readily and with enthusiasm. Indeed, there is a marked tendency today; I wonder whether it is due to the evolution of human sciences. At all events, the hon member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) will correct me if I am mistaken; he is well versed in sociology and criminology, and being a psychoanalyst he may be in a position to give explanations concerning the alarming statements I may make. I seek his indulgence and ask him to bear with me when I say that the human sciences have evolved to the point where, sometimes, one wonders if there is not some exaggeration in the way criminals are treated. Human responsibility is a principle that no one will ever be able to eradicate. Freedom of choice is one thing. ..


Mr. Mongrain:: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Auguste Choquette: With the utmost pleasure.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: The hon. member consulted the hon. member for Mercier and they seemed edified by the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber. Has he had a chance to discuss with the hon. member for Mercier what impressed him most, the suggestion that a compensation board be set up or the suggestion that the hon. member resign and leave his seat vacant in York-Humber to become a member of the board?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am sure of one thing: a great number of people would be quite pleased in fact if the hon. member for York-Humber had yearnings other than political yearnings.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Auguste Choquette: With great pleasure.
DEBATES	4591
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board


Gilles Grégoire: Since the problem seems to interest the hon. member for Lotbiniere so much would he not take the opportunity of his stay in France to study what is done there in connection with compensation for the victims of criminals and report to us on his return? Perhaps that would be useful to us.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I would even be prepared to collect all the necessary funds in France to carry out an effective propaganda campaign in Canada to have the authorities support the resolution moved by the hon. member for York-Humber. And I will surely take that opportunity to-


Gilles Grégoire: I could give the hon. member for Lotbiniere names to help him in his work.


Auguste Choquette: With pleasure. If I may continue with what I had started to say, I think that, at times, we show too much sympathy and we neglect the principle of free will which attends every human act. If human sciences push their conclusions too far, that is to the point of saying that any abnormal act must necessarily be explained away by psychoanalysis, the person who committed it thus being exonerated that will dangerously undermine the bases of any social order.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed very generous of the hon. member for York-Humber to think of the families of victims of criminals.
When we go to the movies or watch films on television, we are always shown terrifying scenes which should overcome the criminal, but when the time comes for him to pay for his crime, the situation is made so sad, so distressing, that one is inclined to exonerate him for his evil action which is prejudicial to social order.
But the lot of the families stricken by the situation created by the wrong-doers is always overlooked. How many shows or films have we seen in which there is a filmed sequence of three or four seconds when one or two policemen are killed, but when the criminal is shown being led to his cell, then his pitiful lot is overstressed.
That is what is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we must applaud anyone who has a generous thought for the victims of criminals. It would be most appropriate if the present government, somewhat as the achievement of all the social legislation it has passed, were to consider that problem. It is
November 22, 1967
4592	COMMONS
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board the present government, the Liberal party, which has put forward all our social legislation. That is fantastic. That is why I would be proud, as a Liberal, if my party and my government were to approve the measure proposed by the hon. member for York-Humber in order that we might at last think about the sad lot which befalls the victims of criminals or their families.
This is why the suggestion of the previous speaker, namely that this resolution or this bill should be deferred to the committee on justice and legal affairs is quite interesting and I would be pleased to support it in order that we may refrain from considering in that committee some legislation which always tends to ease the onus of the guilty, bills which are liable to improve the difficult situation which they have sometimes deserved. As I am anxious to let another of my colleagues, the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), whose comments will certainly be more interesting than mine, have the chance to express his views, I will close my remarks briefly.
However, may I point out to the member for York-Humber that there is legislation now in force in New Zealand on the compensation granted to the victims of criminals.
Knowing the member for York-Humber as an unequaled statistician, as a man who collects every imaginable or unimaginable newspaper clipping-he is a real book of knowledge-I was surprised to note that he did not mention the fact that there has been since 1963 legislation in New Zealand providing compensation for the victims or the families of the victims of criminals. I will turn over the papers to the member for York-Humber in a moment so that he may complete all the notes he has on the matter and I urge him to continue in the same vein and to speak with all his well-known eloquence so that this measure may be passed shortly.
I am in full agreement with him that the argument claiming that such legislation is exclusively within provincial jurisdiction is a false argument; I agree with him, but if the administration of justice is under provincial jurisdiction, let us then pass the bill which I submitted to the house last year.
Let the power to commute death sentences remain with the lieutenant governor in council and let us relieve the cabinet of this task, of this burden. Let us ask the lieutenant governor in council and the provincial authorities to administer justice completely and thoroughly and when the commutation


of death sentences is involved, it will be up to the provincial authorities to do it, because the same argument can be used which is put forward by those who would get rid of that responsibility and who say; This is strictly a provincial jurisdiction. If the administration of justice is an exclusively provincial responsibility, the same argument stands for those who say; Hand over capital punishment to the provinces; this no longer concerns the federal government. I would then suggest to the hon. member for York-Humber that he should reply to those who put forward that fallacious argument by using the argument I have suggested to him.
In closing, my remarks, I say that the most practical solution one can suggest is the creation of a federal-provincial fund. I feel the problem could be solved by establishing such a fund to compensate the victims of criminals. I am of the opinion that asking the provinces and the federal government to cooperate in setting up such a fund would constitute an appropriate and concrete solution to the problem.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) and to my amazement, with the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette). That being so, surely, there must be unanimous agreement in this house about this matter.
The motion contains a useful suggestion and I think the house ought to pass it, so that the government may be informed that the will of parliament is that certain steps ought to be taken along these lines. That would not involve the government in any commitment other than to consider the expediency of introducing legislation for the creation of a criminal injuries compensation board. I have not heard a word against this proposal for the last two years and I think public opinion generally in the country would favour such a step. The jurisdictional problem could easily and quickly be overcome with the provinces. We are informing the government now that parliament as a whele favours action along the lines suggested in the motion. Consequently, we ought to pass the motion. If the government proceeds with the necessary legislation it can count on full support from this side of the house.
November 22, 1967

Something like this ought to have been done years ago. We should let the government know how the House of Commons feels about this motion and, if the house is agreeable, I submit that we ought to pass it.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Ricard@: Do not kill the motion.


Grant Deachman: With respect to this valuable suggestion we, on this side, consider that its subject matter ought to be sent to the justice and legal affairs standing committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: But that is a stalling
operation.


Grant Deachman: In a moment or two I propose to move a motion which will have that effect.
Before moving my motion, however, I wish to compliment the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) for bringing before the house a subject of considerable interest, well worth the consideration of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs and worthy of legislation by this house. The idea is not new. Material on it is available from the library, and hon. members who wish to find out what has been done in this regard by parliaments around the world may wish to consult a book entitled, "Restitution to Victims of Crime", by Schafer. The book was published in London in 1960 and gives a summary of legislation of this kind that is in existence around the world. I find that it deals chiefly with civil legislation and that actually there is little legislation to provide for compensation for victims of crimes of violence. That is so until one considers the legislation, or the proposals for legislation in Great Britain. The agitation for it began in about 1959 and continued, in the form of white papers and study papers, until 1964.
In my hand I have a little white paper prepared by the House of Commons in Great Britain entitled, "Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence". I do not have time to go into details this evening but I am sure that the standing committe will wish to view this material when discussing this valuable notice of motion. We are following in well
Business of the House
established footsteps if we give consideration to a piece of legislation similar to that proposed in the house in Great Britain.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette):
That the said proposed motion be deemed to have been withdrawn and that the standing committee on Justice and legal affairs be empowered to consider and report upon the provisions thereof.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are not the least bit progressive. 1 am surprised at the Liberal party. This is stalling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it the
wish of the house to adopt the said motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask what the business of the house will be, and I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the representative of Newfoundland in the cabinet. I welcome him back to the house. He will now have a chance to make a maiden speech.


Mr. Granger:: I thank the hon. gentleman for his welcome and for the opportunity of making a maiden speech, which probably will be a record for its brevity. The business for tomorrow is this. We shall continue the debate on capital punishment. If that is concluded, the schedule will be as outlined by the house leader yesterday, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, the post office legislation, the Industrial Development Bank Act and the Canadian National bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question? If we conclude second reading during the day will we continue with the committee of the whole on capital punishment tomorrow?


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: I think the answer to that is, yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is a good deal more definite than his colleagues are.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.