1967-11-23

[Stage Direction]
queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA. 1967
27053-290 £
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 23, 1967

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GREGOIRE-SPEECH BY TRANSPORT MINISTER AT AIRPORT CEREMONY
['Mr. Speaker, there is no difference between what the Prime Minister is seeking to do and what is being done in Ottawa and elsewhere. I am very grateful, as I am sure the house is, that the Prime Minister is in London discussing this matter with one of the principal countries concerned.']
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of certain words the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is now taking his seat, uttered two days ago at the opening of the Bagotville airport. On this occasion, he attempted deliberately or otherwise to mislead the population of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean as well as some members of this house. These words were that:
Paul Hellyer finally paid tribute to the hon. member for Chicoutimi in the House of Commons, Mr. Paul Langlois who was the main mover of this magnificent achievement-
He was speaking of the Bagotville airport.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the facts prove otherwise. Maurice Cote, member for Chicoutimi at the time, and I, between 1963 and 1965 have exchanged correspondence and raised the question several times in the house, so that on May 19, 1965 the then minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill, said then that he estimated an expenditure of $300,000 for the new Bagotville airport and of $175,000 for the facilities, and that tenders would be called the following September, that is in September 1965, before Mr. Langlois was even elected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. When he gave me notice of his question of privilege, I had then expressed some reservations. I must now inform him formally that there is no question of privilege in the point he has just raised.
A member cannot rise on a question of privilege in the house about a statement made outside the house in such circumstances. The hon. member may have a legitimate grievance against the minister, but I do not feel there is a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is to the effect that the statements of two ministers are contradictory.


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, I do not think this is a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if it is not a question of privilege, it is intellectual dishonesty on the part of a minister.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister could disclose to the house what practical proposals he and his government are making toward a solution of the crisis on the island of Cyprus.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that when negotiations are under way it is not always desirable to give with precision the response sought in his question. But I should like to say, to the extent that it is possible to deal with this matter now, the house will recall I stated last week that before the outbreak of fighting at Ayios Theodoros in Cyprus, Canada had been developing certain proposals for early action through the United Nations security council-designed to enable the UN and its special representative in Cyprus to act effectively to preserve peace on the island.
Since Sunday night we have been involved in a series of contacts in Ankara, Athens, Nicosia, London, Ottawa and Washington, together with representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, designed to assist in clarifying the positions and proposals of the two main parties to one another so there is no misunderstanding of a kind which could produce a catastrophe, and so that each may consider the ideas of the other with a view to evolving a compromise which is being sought at this very moment.
As the public statements of the parties have indicated, the points at issue with which the Canadian approaches have been concerned-and this deals directly with my hon. friend's question-include such topics as
November 23, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the presence of both Greek and Turkish forces on the island, the extensive military preparations that have been made by Turkey, and the question of the kind of role the United Nations could play within Cyprus to assist the authorities of that island and help bring about peaceful conditions.
The purpose of the consultations is also to see if there is any basis for moving from a solution of the immediate crisis which is before us toward some more large scale solution of the basic issues at a later stage. We are examining this together with the nature of the role of the United Nations at the present time in Cyprus. Consultations that we have had, which I referred to yesterday, in Ankara and in Greece have not yet revealed any agreement, but these contacts are continuing.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the proposals that are being discussed include enlarging the mandate of the UN contingents and enlarging the force so as to make it possible to prevent either side sending to Cyprus further troops and war material.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: That particular suggestion is not part of the effort that Canada has been undertaking.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Prime Minister has outlined a three point program and the Prime Minister over in London has outlined a five point program. Is it correct that the Prime Minister is acting as an intermediary on behalf of Turkey and that the five point program is the Turkish one?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is no difference between what the Prime Minister is seeking to do and what is being done in Ottawa and elsewhere. I am very grateful, as I am sure the house is, that the Prime Minister is in London discussing this matter with one of the principal countries concerned.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Acting Prime Minister. Since the Minister of Finance has now had ample opportunity to report to his cabinet colleagues regarding his discussions with the provincial ministers of finance here in Ottawa last week, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the house that it is the government's intention to proceed with medicare on July 1, 1968, in any province which has indicated its willingness to proceed and qualifies under the legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would refer my hon. friend to what the Prime Minister said in the house on November 14 in answer to questions put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; what he said on November 13 in answer to a question by the hon. member for Churchill, and what he said on October 25, 1967 in answer to a question by the hon. member for Ontario. The question put by the hon. member for Ontario was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of reports in the last week or so regarding the starting date of medicare which have created in the minds of the people of this country uncertainty, turmoil and doubt, will the Prime Minister issue a statement or assure those interested that no change is contemplated in the original plan to put medicare into effect on July 1, 1968?
The Prime Minister replied:
The hon. gentleman should not be disturbed by such reports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would want to revert to motions.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that all answers by the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be made as statements on motions and not be given during the question period.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: There is a very easy way of disposing of that problem. My hon. friend does not need to ask any questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then finally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the Acting Prime Minister had answered the question.
November 23, 1967


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: That is exactly what I am doing, Mr. Speaker. I am repeating what is the position of the government. The hon. member for Ontario then said:
Then I shall put the direct question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether medicare is to start on July 1, 1968.
To which the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, that is so under the law and the legislation we passed, in which no change has been made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the statements the Acting Prime Minister has just quoted were all made prior to this matter being submitted by the Minister of Finance to his cabinet colleagues following the federal-provincial conference of finance ministers last week, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there has been any change in the government's position since these statements were made, and whether we may take it that the government intends to proceed with medicare on July 1, 1968.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: The Prime Minister's statement certainly answers that question.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Would he care to advise the house as to the number of representations he has received asking him to postpone medicare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Could he tell us whether the federal government is considering a fiscal compensation for the provinces which will not benefit or will not want to benefit from the medicare plan as from July 1?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no provision for any such payments.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Will the method whereby the cost of medicare will be raised be contained in the mini budget which is to be presented early next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Until we know which provinces are going to take advantage of the legislation
Inquiries of the Ministry it would be impossible to make an estimate of the amount of revenue needed. Therefore I do not contemplate making any provision in the statement I shall be making next week.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
further supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? If there is no question of a fiscal compensation, could the minister tell us whether the federal government will grant any compensation to the provinces which do not have at present the financial means to participate in the medicare plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the federal government has the most generous system of equalization payments this country has ever known to support the position of the provinces, including the province of Quebec.



EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO INSPECTION OF FOOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister tell the house whether the food, and particularly the meat sold and eaten at Expo '67, was checked by officers of his department and whether other people besides the inspectors of his department were allowed to use inspection stamp No. 110?


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



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since the slowdown in the St. Lawrence ports is now being felt all the way back to British Columbia, can he report on the situation there today?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully advise the house that the situation on the Montreal
4598	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry docks is not good. As I think hon. members know, efforts have been made over a period of months in 1966 and 1967 to bring about a better understanding between the parties. These activities have taken place before and since the Picard commission.
There is no authority under which the Minister of Labour can intervene in cases of this kind. The parties must learn that they should try to work out their own differences. Frankly it is becoming much too common for the parties to collective bargaining arrangements to turn to government for an imposed solution. The act places the responsibility on the parties to try to work out solutions for their differences.


Michael Starr: May I ask a
supplementary question. In view of the lack of agreement on the interpretation of the Picard report as between the ship owners and the unions involved, which according to the Minister of Labour brought about the present chaotic condition-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not say conditions were chaotic.


Michael Starr: -will the Minister of Labour assume the responsibility, in the national interest, of convening a meeting of spokesmen for both sides in Ottawa at once in order to arrive at agreement on this report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At I reported to the house yesterday, I have discussed this matter at length with one side last Friday and offered to do so with the other. Officers of my department have discussed it with that other party. It has even been suggested that if there is ambiguity in one or two passages of the Picard report or at least arising out of the fact that the Picard report supplements and amends the existing agreement, that Dr. Picard himself might be asked to clarify ambiguities. One of the parties, the unions, will not accept that suggestion. They say Dr. Picard is functus officio and they stand on the agreement.
Under the agreements, there is a grievance procedure and there is provision for arbitration. The parties have their rights, but they have not attempted to exercise them in the manner agreed upon. They are looking to the government to impose a solution. I think it is about time they learned they must work out their own solutions.


Michael Starr: Will the minister use the stature and importance of his office and summon

DEBATES	November 23, 1967
both parties to Ottawa at once in order to help mediate an agreement on the understanding of the Picard report?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Earl Johnston: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Labour. Have some steamship companies placed a 25 per cent freight rate surcharge on St. Lawrence port shipments?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is my understanding, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: May I ask a supplementary question. Since one of the principal points of dispute seems to relate to the hiring of longshoremen through the hiring hall, will the minister state whether there have been any new proposals to settle this aspect of the problem?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This is not a practical possibility at the present time, Mr. Speaker, and has not been in the past. It is a well known fact that the stevedoring companies, not only in Montreal but in other Canadian ocean ports, are hired by the shipping companies to load and unload ships. They pay the bill, and in the long run they are the ones who are going to call the tune.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. I welcome his admonishment to the two sides involved, but if I may be a little more serious may I ask the minister whether he would broaden his remarks and caution the parties involved to expedite whatever moves they are going to make before this difficulty begins to affect other already severely crippled ports such as Halifax and Saint John?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to take my assurance that the minister has admonished both sides and encouraged them to take co-operative action in this difficult situation.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister inform the house whether the crisis that is affecting the port of Montreal has extended to the ports of Trois-Rivieres and Quebec?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My understanding is that it is confined to certain of the piers at Montreal, not other ports.
November 23, 1967	COMMONS


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which I hope is not going to impose upon the house another marathon talkfest. I should like to ask the minister about the welfare of two young Canadians who are reported to have been detained in a Rangoon jail and kept incommunicado for five months. Is this report correct? If so what is the present position, and what assistance is the minister's department giving?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the department was notified on October 26 by the British embassy in Rangoon that Messrs. Lalonde and Pineault had been arrested in Rangoon. The department has not yet been informed of the outcome of the hearing which took place a short time ago. However, an officer from our high commissioner's office in Kuala Lumpur is now in Rangoon and will be looking into the matter. We have done everything we can and will continue to do everything we can.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Did the department receive from the parents of one of the young men in question the payment of a substantial sum to cover his passage home? If so, has this matter been acknowledged?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This matter is now being discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As a former minister of justice the hon. member should know that it must be discussed with those in loco parentis. This is the procedure which is laid down. The matter must be discussed with the parents and it is now being discussed. No one should understand that better than one who was a former minister of justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is this. Did the department receive from the parents a substantial sum, and has that sum been acknowledged?
DEBATES	4599
Inquiries of the Ministry NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, and with your permission may I emphasize the "acting". I should like to ask the minister whether the government has undertaken any negotiations with the province of Nova Scotia respecting the Sydney steel operation.


Hon. Allan J. MaEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer that question for the Acting Prime Minister. The government has been in close touch with the government of Nova Scotia since this crisis developed. Yesterday the premier of Nova Scotia sent a communication to the Prime Minister indicating certain terms of settlement and arrangements that had been made between the government of Nova Scotia and the Dosco corporation. In the same communication he suggested that he would like to be in discussion with the Prime Minister, after the returns from London, about these matters. I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, that this whole matter will be the subject of discussion between the premier of Nova Scotia and the Prime Minister in the light of the agreement that has been reached.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the federal government, at this time or at some time throughout these discussions, has given the government of Nova Scotia the assurance that the federal government will be prepared to accept a substantial part of the financial commitment that will be necessary to keep this plant open.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: An assurance was given to the government of Nova Scotia with respect to a particular period of operation. I would conclude that any further period would be a matter for discussion.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has now been established beyond a doubt that Nova Scotian members can put questions about Nova Scotia to the minister who comes from Nova Scotia, even though the subject matter of those questions may fall outside the purview of his department. I wish to ask the minister if he intends to impress on his colleagues that the federal government
4600	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry should play a part in this matter through the Cape Breton Development Corporation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether I should undertake to answer this question on behalf of the Acting Prime Minister. While I do not object to answering questions affecting the province of Nova Scotia, I wish to contest the point of order that is implicit in the hon. member's comments. I may do that at a later time. For the moment I wish to tell him that all the matters which have been the subject of discussion within the house with respect to the role of the Atlantic Development Board and the Cape Breton Development Corporation have been drawn to the attention of my colleagues, and they are under discussion.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to get to the bottom of the minister's answer. I asked whether the minister intends to continue to advocate the takeover by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. He has already advocated that in this house.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have made no such advocacy in this house or elsewhere.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege arising from the answer of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I referred to the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and the minister made some remarks about the possibility of assisting Nova Scotia in the steel crisis. Though I recall other remarks, Mr. Speaker, for the moment I have only briefly and quickly checked Hansard, and I draw to the attention of the minister his remarks on the matter on October 16, 1967, to be found on page 3158 of Hansard, the right hand column. The minister made a statement there about the Cape Breton Development Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can the hon. member state his question of privilege? Many hon. members, I note, wish to ask questions and we are quickly running out of time for the question period.


Malcolm MacInnis: My
question of privilege arises from a statement by the minister in which he definitely denied something I said. In connection with my question of privilege I should like to quote the minister's own words in proof of my statement.

DEBATES	November 23, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: This is surely just a matter of debate. Every day of the year, I suggest to hon. members, allegations are made and statements are denied. This is strictly a question of debate; to my mind it cannot be a question of privilege. I cannot see how the hon. member's privileges have been affected by the statement of the minister.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect to Your Honour, all members are aware of the fact that when a question of privilege arises it must be brought up immediately. I wish only to quote the minister's own words to back up the statement I have made.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection. It is the hon. members' time which is being taken up in this way.


Mr. Knowles:: Our time.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: The
minister's own words, as they are to be found on page 3158 of Hansard, are as follows:
The corporation has the authority by law and will be in the position very soon to determine what it is going to do in relation to the Cape Breton steel problem. This corporation has very wide powers, powers wide enough to achieve the objective recommended by members of the N.D.P., if the directors desire to do so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the question of privilege, I do not see any inconsistency between that statement and the response I gave today. What I was doing was outlining the legal powers which I thought the corporation possessed. It was a matter of law. What the hon. member is concerned about is a matter of policy.


Malcolm MacInnis: This is the only one I had the opportunity to find at the moment, but there have been others.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to say a word on the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I rule that there is no question of privilege. This is obviously a matter for debate, and I think it is not entirely fair to hon. members who appear to have a question of some moment to ask in the four or five minutes remaining in the question period that they should be deprived of the opportunity to ask those questions.


Robert Muir: This is a new question of privilege. I rise at this time to suggest to you, sir, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare
November 23, 1967

has either misled the house today or else he misled the house during the debate on the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I should like to explain why I think this to be the case.
Along with members of the New Democratic party I advocated the takeover of Sydney Steel by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. We pressed the matter in this chamber, and on that occasion the statement was made, not only by the Minister of National Health and Welfare but by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that the legislation was broad enough to cover almost any contingency, including the takeover of Cape Breton steel. I hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond say "That is right". He has a better memory, I think, than has the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In those circumstances the onus is upon the minister to clarify the situation. Either he misled the house today or he did so a few weeks ago when we discussed this important item. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said the legislation was broad enough to cover anything, even the objective desired by the hon. member for Cape Breton-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Muir: I think we should hear from the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not wish to pursue this question very far, because there is no question of privilege and there is no inconsistency between the position I am taking today and the one I took on the bill. When hon. members opposite, including members of the N.D.P., were arguing that the Cape Breton Development Corporation should own and operate this mill I said I agreed this was a capability and a possibility trader that law. That is true; no one disputes it. I have also said that I do not regard this as an appropriate function of the corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the exchange which has taken place between the hon. members and the minister has established the correctness of the ruling I made earlier, that there was no question of privilege. I will not take the time of members by reading citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, except perhaps for the first sentence. No; I will not even read the first sentence.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesi):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or any member of the government received representations from the Royal Canadian Legion or other veterans organizations strongly protesting the recommendations of the Carter commission that pensions and allowances under the Pension Act become taxable? If so, what was the response?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question is in order at this time.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Huberi Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I wish to ask whether the province of Ontario or any other province has indicated that it will bring representatives of municipalities to the federal-provincial conference on housing.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to inquire about what is to be done by the province of Ontario. With respect to the province where I live, I can say definitely that they will have the president of the union of British Columbia municipalities as a member of their delegation. I shall need to make inquiries about the intentions of other provinces.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether now or at an early date, preferably now, he can report to the house on the probable effects of the devaluation of the pound on our agricultural products other than wheat. I exempt wheat at this time because the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a preliminary report in that regard.
4502	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, a detailed answer to such a question can hardly be made during orders of the day. Generally speaking, though, we envisage that there will be a more difficult competitive position for Canadian producers with regard to the more highly processed and finished products of agriculture by reason of the greater competition from other countries, such as Denmark and New Zealand, which have also devalued their currency, as well as from the greater production which no doubt will take place in the United Kingdom.
With respect to most raw agricultural products we anticipate at the present time that there will be no great effect on Canadian exports. With respect to wheat, inasmuch as no other exporting country of hard wheat has devalued its currency I should not think our competitive position will be hurt. Nevertheless, there will be greater productivity of soft wheat in the United Kingdom and quite possibly there will be greater use of soft wheat than now is the case.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister contemplate taking any action with regard to agricultural products that he considers it probable will be adversely affected?


John James Greene: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, my department is studying the situation and attempting to keep abreast of it. If it appears that the Canadian producer will be badly affected in any area we shall embark on negotiations with the British to see if the position may be alleviated.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiil (Oxford):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister gave the Leader of the Opposition such a refreshing answer, and since producers of tobacco, cheese, apples and the like are greatly concerned about what is happening, could the minister make a statement next week on motions and deal with a number of specific products such as those I have already mentioned in order to allay the apprehension of many producers in the country?


John James Greene: I shall be glad to consider the hon. member's suggestion. With respect to fresh fruits and apples generally, the present value of exports is approximately $6 million and we do not contemplate any great change in this regard. With respect to dairy products, and cheese in particular, where exports are $14 million, it is in this area that we shall face the greatest difficulty. Though no product specifically competes with our old

DEBATES	November 23, 1967
Canadian Cheddar cheese, which is our main export-


An hon. Member:: It is the best in the world.


John James Greene: It is the best in the world; that is quite correct. Though New Zealand cheese is not of the same brand as old Canadian Cheddar cheese, if it is cheaper it will offer us stiffer competition in the U.K. market. Cheese is one area where difficulty is contemplated.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Since the minister was able to give the house invaluable information about some products, can he comment about tobacco? Tobacco is of great concern and interest to some.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: The same remarks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's original question was to ask the minister to make a statement on motions. I suggest to the hon. member and the minister that the statement should not be made now.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norfh):: wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Trade and Commerce expressing government policy when in a speech to the GATT in Geneva he is reported as proposing a positive program to reduce obstacles to trade in agricultural products, such as farm subsidies and support prices, which I take it means the reduction or elimination of subsidies and support prices for agricultural products?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Aciing Prime Minister: As the hon. gentleman knows, in order to understand sentences contained in a public statement it is always well to have the context; and since I have not seen the whole speech I would prefer to read the speech in question in its entirety and then confer with the hon. gentleman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then is it government policy to reduce or eliminate farm subsidies and support prices?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: What the government's policy is with regard to this particular matter will have to be analysed in the light of that statement as a whole; and I have not read that statement.
November 23, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	4603
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Translation]	that statement before he brings in his mini
INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY	budget?
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Is the federal government informed of General de Gaulle's visit planned for July 1968 within the framework of agreements between France and Quebec? And, if so, does the government intend to invite that great man to come to Ottawa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not been informed of the matter, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the many articles published in newspapers recently, expressing concern about the fact that there is no mention of the "ethnic origin" since October 1 last on the application form for immigrants, could the minister tell us the reason for such a change?


Mr. Speaker:: The question could be put on the order paper.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of pointing out to you that this is an urgent question since newspapers, especially in the province of Quebec, have referred to this problem again and again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows very well that if he feels this question is urgent, he can discuss it on the adjournment motion.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. A few days ago the minister indicated that he intended to make an interim statement with reference to the extractive industries, petroleum and mining, in connection with the Carter commission report. Will he be making


Mitchell William Sharp: I am considering making a statement in connection with my financial statement.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Does the minister count on tabling budget papers at the time of his financial statement, as is
customary?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend, if the hon. gentleman means this, to table a white paper in the conventional sense, as is usually done at the time of the regular budget.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reply to my question the minister said he intended to make a financial statement. Will he tell the house whether he is bringing in a budget or a financial message, as he describes it?


Robert Muir: A financial mess.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I asked a supplementary question but I think the Minister of Finance was engaged in talking to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the minister's intention to bring in a financial message or is it his intention to bring in a budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no difficulty about this. It is a matter of discussion among the house leaders, and I am sure they will reach a conclusion which will commend itself to hon. members present.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There seems to be some confusion on the treasury benches. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the government's intention to bring in a budget or a financial message.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: There is no confusion in the mind of the government. The confusion, as usual, is in the minds of those who sit immediately to your left, Mr. Speaker. The form in which the government expresses financial policy is a matter to be determined by the government of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the Acting Prime Minister understood my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
November 23, 1967
4604	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put my question in this way, in order to clarify the situation. Would the Acting Prime Minister advise us whether the Minister of Finance, whatever the form of his presentation, will be bringing in budget resolutions at that time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the word '^budget" is a conventional term. It is a financial message we will be bringing in. As is the case at the time of the regular budget, it will be accompanied by resolutions proposing amendments to the taxing statutes. If the hon. gentleman would like to call that a budget, I have no objection. I should like to call it a financial message, which is more in accord with my feelings, but he has his choice.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Does he expect to receive shortly a further report from the B and B commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I should think that this report would soon be available. I cannot say exactly when but I will make inquiries.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: If it is received shortly will it be the intention of the government to table it immediately or will this be done later?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think my hon. friend recognizes that the usual practice is for a royal commission report to be presented to the government, usually to the Prime Minister, and that the government in accordance with its responsibility decides when publication will take place. That is the course all governments have followed, including the government headed by my distinguished right hon. friend, the hon. member for Prince Albert, a few years ago.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I waited to speak until the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) had left, because I would rather speak before his empty seat than his empty head.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I call the hon. member for Lapointe to order.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member should be ignorant in addition to being ill-mannered and stupid.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member keeps on talking as loudly as he is doing, he will have trouble hearing what we have to say.


Prosper Boulanger: I am not interested.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only a few minutes about that bill, because I have not had the opportunity to do so yet. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that several problems worried me before I made up my mind about the bill under consideration, and I wanted to find out whether our penitentiary system was organized to receive those who are sentenced to life imprisonment.
That is why, on Friday last, Mr. Speaker, I thought it advisable to go and visit the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary-


An hon. Member:: I am surprised that they did not keep you there.


Gilles Grégoire: -as well as the facilities available to the prisoners, and I must tell you that although I was pleasantly surprised by all the changes which have been made at the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary, especially since Mr. Lecor was appointed warden of that penitentiary-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In fairness to the hon. member who is speaking, and others, I suggest that we should be able to hear him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the Acting Prime Minister to sit down?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is very difficult to follow the speech being made by the hon. member. I request the co-operation of those who are now engaged in conversations.
November 23, 1967


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, although I was pleasantly surprised to see what improvements had been made, after visiting the cells, the kitchens, the classrooms and the rooms where the prisoners can learn a trade, which rooms are very well kept, although I was also pleasantly surprised to see how well qualified the personnel in charge of the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary are, I still feel that our penitentiaries are not equipped, do not have the required facilities, at the present time, to accommodate those who are sentenced to life imprisonment.
I believe the government should, before introducing a bill like the one now before us, take the necessary steps to correct, to remedy the present situation in our penal institutions.
It is true that there have been some great improvements. It is true that the Saint-Vin-cent-de-Paul penitentiary-that one at least, because it is the only one I have visited-is much cleaner. I spoke with the staff of the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary and I was pleasantly surprised to find that they are fully qualified, that the penitentiary is clean and especially that the new warden, Mr. Lecor, is very competent.
However, I think that there is a lack of space and accommodation for those who are sentenced to life imprisonment.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a point which the Sollicitor General of Canada (Mr. Pennell) should take into consideration.
I also wish Mr. Speaker to speak of the bill itself. I think that the bill in its present wording contains discriminatory provisions.
There is too much difference between the lives of certain police officers or prison guards, and the lives of citizens in general. I think that the life of one is as important as that of the other. I think there should be no discrimination such as contained in the bill.
This bill is something of a compromise which does not solve the problem in any way.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I simply wish to mention the reasons that lead me to oppose the bill. I object to the bill in its present wording.
I cannot agree with the clauses it contains, because they are not seriously relevant to the principle involved. I should like to suggest to the government that before such a principle or such a bill is carried, a referendum should be held, as was suggested yesterday. The reason is very simple. It is because, since the
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence inception of this debate on capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, I have received about 350 letters from the voters in my constituency of Lapointe and hardly five or six support the abolition of capital punishment. The 340 others are openly against the abolition of the death penalty.
Therefore, I think that the government should act by way of a referendum in order to ask the Canadian people to express their opinion. Then the government would introduce a bill in accordance with the ideas or the statements gathered from the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, these are the three reasons why I am opposed to the principle of the bill and to its second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say
yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
[And the members having been called in] [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that the vote might be taken by inviting members supporting the motion to rise starting with the first row to my right and then proceeding to the rows to my left, as we do in committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner). Had I voted, I would have voted against the bill.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the bill.

Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Capital murder defined.
Addison
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Beaulieu
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Bower
Brand
Caron
Caston
Chatterton
Churchill
Code
Comtois
Cowan
Crossman
Danforth
Dionne
NAYS Messrs:
Fane
Flemming Forest Fulton Godin Gregoire Grills Guay Gundlock Haidasz Hales Hamilton Harkness Horner (Acadia) Homer (The Bat-tlefords)
Howe (Wellinfiton-Huron)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was debated on second reading I made the statement that I proposed to move an amendment at the committee stage which would have the effect of producing a bill that would provide for the total abolition of capital punishment. At that time I gave the reasons why it appeared to me and several others that the principle which we have just approved on second reading would apply with equal force to the exceptions set out in this bill. I have no intention of repeating at length the arguments made at that time.
The justification for capital punishment, I feel, is based almost entirely on the question of deterrence. There are some people who

November 23, 1967	COMMONS
have been of the view that the maintenance of capital punishment in cases of the murder of police officers and prison wardens would have the effect of deterring a certain type of criminal. It is argued that these are hazardous occupations and they need the special protection afforded by the provisions of the bill as it stands now.
An examination shows beyond doubt that capital punishment is not, in fact, a deterrent even in the minority of cases covered by the bill as it stands. Neither I nor any other person supporting the principle of total abolition is careless or thoughtless of the lives or security of police officers or wardens, but in those states in which capital punishment has been abolished it has been discovered there has been no increase whatever in the risk that applies to those in this special category. It is illogical, it is wrong, to select a special class of persons and give them a protection which is denied others.
There was very little in the speech made by the hon. member for York-Humber the other day with which I agree. However, I do agree with the point he made about the illogicality of one person who may murder seven people at a time not being subject to capital punishment and at the same time providing that if one of the victims happens to be in this special class then capital punishment will apply.
The Solicitor General, in introducing this bill, spoke very eloquently but the very arguments he used apply with equal force to those who murder police officers and prison guards. The Prime Minister spoke with eloquence and feeling on this subject. Every argument he used was in favour of total abolition of capital punishment. The bill itself constitutes a compromise. We were prepared to accept and vote for the compromise because we felt it was the maximum we were able to obtain at that time and we were not prepared to defeat the bill simply because we felt it did not go far enough.
We propose in our amendment, Mr. Chairman, to provide an opportunity for those whose consciences are opposed to capital punishment as useless, barbaric and unnecessary in all cases to register their conviction on that particular point. The amendment which I propose is that we delete or repeal the whole of section 202A of the Criminal Code, the section passed in 1961 which separated the crime of murder into capital murder and non-capital murder. We then propose to amend section 206, which is the section that
DEBATES	4607
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence deals with penalties for murder, and to substitute therefor a simple section reading as follows:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Everyone who commits murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
When I say life, Mr. Chairman, I mean life, subject to the rule of law passed by this parliament in respect of parole and clemency.
All of the arguments on this question have been fully rehashed and I do not think there is any point in prolonging the debate. This amendment is designed to give those who believe in the total abolition of capital punishment the right to register their opinions at this time. The arguments in favour are the arguments which have been repeated again and again in this house and I am not going to reiterate them now. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-168 be amended by deleting therefrom the present clause 1, and by substituting therefor the following new clause 1:
"1. (1) Section 202A of the Criminal Code is repealed.
(2) Section 206 of the Criminal Code is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'206. Everyone who commits murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.' "


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman who has just introduced this amendment quite accurately pointed out that in the debate on second reading which we have just concluded most of the arguments for or against the principle of abolition were placed on the record. Last year I voted for total abolition of the death penalty. However, I intend to vote against the amendment presented by the hon. member for Greenwood and, very briefly, these are my reasons.
One of the reoccurring themes in most of the contributions we have heard in the present debate, one that has a certain degree of justification, is that 18 months ago this house had an opportunity to express an opinion on the first measure presented on the question of total abolition. It was recognized at the time that many people voted against abolition because of the reservations they had concerning the so-called deterrent or psychological factor in so far as law officers are concerned. Many of the people who voted for retention a year or more ago voted for the bill on this occasion because of the retention of the death penalty in so far as law officers being killed.
In all fairness to these people, Mr. Chairman, what this amendment would do if

November 23, 1967
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence accepted would be to change completely the principle of the bill upon which we have just voted. The principle is not that we abolish the death penalty but that we retain the death penalty in cases of murder of law officers.
While I am fundamentally an abolitionist, Mr. Chairman, I think we owe it to those members who voted a year ago against abolition and who have gone along with the principle of the bill on second reading today, to reject this amendment. Its purpose is to change the principle of the bill and it gives conclusive proof for the eloquent arguments advanced that this bill would then be nothing more than a replica of the measure introduced 18 months ago.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. member who moved the amendment realizes that if it were accepted it would jeopardize the passage of the bill on third reading, because the acceptance of the amendment would change the whole principle of the bill.


The Chairman:: The Chair has some misgivings about the validity of this amendment. It feels that it does encroach upon some other parts of the Criminal Code, but the Chair also feels that this is the matter the committee should decide upon. I therefore accept the amendment. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived: Yeas, 37; nays, 106.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, since the house wishes to exact a penalty from those who murder policemen or others as listed in clause 1, the house might also wish to take into account the children of this country who from time to time are murdered by those who have little regard for human life.
The hon. member for Greenwood used an inelegant expression when he said that the arguments in this debate had been rehashed. I think that arguments on a matter as serious as this cannot be too frequently put before the house and the people of this country. I regret that in this debate the arguments of those who do not favour the bill were not answered by those who do. I was disappointed with the way the Prime Minister treated the matter. He said that the sole argument the retentionists were advancing was that of deterrence and then he advocated the adop-
[Mr. Mackasey.l
tion of a bill which includes in its provisions a deterrent.
The arguments I advanced a year and a half ago and this year were not based on the theory of a deterrent; nevertheless, I question those who suggest that our populace has no fear of death. I advanced my argument on the basis that those within our society who are unable to protect themselves ought to be protected. I mentioned, previously women and children particularly and suggested that when the state had made adequate protection for its defenceless people it would be high time to abolish capital punishment. I said that when the state can guarantee that a man of criminal tendencies will not be released on parole and given the opportunity of murdering the women and children of the country I will be prepared to consider the abolition of capital punishment, but I will not be prepared to consider it until that assurance is given. That argument was never dealt with by the Prime Minister or those who advocate the adoption of the present bill.
I think it would be wise if we took a few minutes to consider the protection of the women and children of this country. I shall put to the committee an amendment which will ask that Bill C-168 be amended by adding to new subsection 2 in clause 1 a new paragraph (c) reading as follows:
(c) a person 16 years of age and under.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Churchill) negatived: Yeas, 53; nays, 80.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, we are still considering clause 1 which seeks to abolish capital punishment for the crime of murder except when it relates to police officers, sheriffs, wardens and certain others in this category. It seems to me that if these people are to be placed in a special class we should add another group to that class, the womenfolk of this nation. I feel that this must be done in order to protect females against the kind of people who, whether sexual deviates or not, attack females and kill them in the course of such attacks.
I intend to be brief this afternoon because a great deal has already been said with regard to the bill now before us. I realize that hon. members opposite wish to interrupt but I think they should be fair enough to
November 23, 1967

give a fair hearing to others, no matter in what part of the house they may sit. At no time have I ever attempted to shout down anybody speaking for a principle in which he believes. As I say, I shall not be making a long speech. However, I shall move an amendment almost identical with the one moved by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre. I move that clause 1 be amended by adding the following to new subsection 2:
(c) any female person.
Amendment (Mr. Woolliams) negatived: Yeas, 49; nays, 87.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been introduced in the name of the Solicitor General of Canada. Will he answer questions in connection with these clauses as is usually done when other bills are before the house in committee?
I wish to ask the Solicitor General this question. According to this clause, murder is capital murder in respect of any person, where such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of-
-a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties-
Why is this list not extended to include civilians impressed by the police into assisting them in enforcing the law? The Ontario government compensation act which assists victims in such cases is for the benefit of the families of policemen killed in the performance of their duties and, in addition, for the benefit of families of civilians impressed by the police to assist in the performance of their duties. Suppose the police want to use a car belonging to a civilian. They say "Chase that man!" The civilian driving the car is shot dead. The man who has shot him would still get life imprisonment according to this bill, though if he had shot the policeman riding alongside him he would swing for it. Why is the civilian not included in this clause? People impressed into the service of the police are required by law to comply when a policeman makes such a request.


Mr. Pennell:: Let me say at once that I appreciate the sincerity and the deep feelings of the hon. member for York-Humber on this question. I realize that in connection with some of these amendments I am open to criticism both from retentionists and total abolitionists. I have to accept such criticism for the sake of the survival of the bill.
DEBATES	4609
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
I made a careful analysis of the vote on the last occasion and I was satisfied that the bill would not survive unless provision was made for the exceptions now contained in it. However, I feel that if we were to extend the categories mentioned in this clause we would be defeating the principle of the bill. I am sure the hon. member understands that it is open to him to put his proposal in the form of an amendment and submit it to the will of the committee. But I had hoped to reduce the categories to the very minimum consistent with getting the bill through.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the Solicitor General this question. Under the criminal law of Canada, if a policeman calls on a citizen to assist him in making an arrest is the citizen not by law bound to go to the policeman's aid?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I think it would depend on the circumstances which prevailed at the time the appeal for help came from the officer. I cannot give a categorical answer which would cover all circumstances.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect to the Solicitor General, it used to be that ministers had the benefit of advice from the experts when questions such as this were raised in committee. I think this matter is so important that the hon. gentleman should give us a more specific answer. If he is not completely familiar with this section of the code will he not take a few moments to ask the experts in his department or in the Department of Justice so that the committee may have this information? Is it not the case that if a policeman is seeking to arrest someone who is, shall we say, attempting to rob a bank, an indictable offence, any citizen upon whom he may call to assist him is bound to provide assistance in making that arrest? If the answer to that question is yes and the person who has been called upon to take this responsibility as a citizen and act as an agent for a policeman or guard is killed as a result, where does this bill stand in respect of such a person?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the question which has been brought up by the hon. member for Bow River, I believe it is well known in common law and in our Criminal Code that a person who has reason to suspect that a crime is being or is about to be committed has a right to help prevent the commission of that crime and/or help apprehend the offender. I think the Solicitor
4610	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence General might direct his attention in this regard to the meaning of the word "employed". Does the word "employed" as used in this subclause mean employment within the ordinary meaning of the word as we understand it, that is, that it constitutes a definite relationship, not necessarily that of master and servant but a relationship implying payment of salary? If the word "employed" means a person not employed as a servant then, of course, the hon. member for Bow River has made a valid point. However, if the meaning of the word "employed" as it is used in this legislation is that which is currently understood, then I think the Solicitor General has his answer there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In respect of the interpretation of the word "employed" may I say that when those of us who are lawyers appear before the courts we find that the interpretation of a section in an act is not based on what has been said here in parliament in respect of what is intended. It is the court which interprets what the words mean. When we look at the words in this subclause I think that the least we can say is that the meaning is pretty ambiguous. It says:
-a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation-
If a police officer in a bank calls upon a citizen who happens to be in that bank to help him make an arrest, I question whether it could be interpreted that this person was employed at that time.


Miss LaMarsh:: Of course not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the Secretary of State who is a very able lawyer and who has said, "Of course not."


Malcolm MacInnis: Do I
understand that if a person is called upon by a law officer to assist him and refuses to do so he would be subject to a penalty?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is exactly what I asked the Solicitor General. I think that the answer would be yes to that question.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the deputy solicitor general has suddenly been taken ill and has to return to his home. I had anticipated that he would be joining me this afternoon. In dealing with this question I should like to refer to section 110 of the Criminal Code. I agree with the original submission of the hon. gentleman that everyone who omits, without reasonable excuse, to

DEBATES	November 23, 1967
assist a public officer or police officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, is guilty of an offence. This brings us back again to the answer I gave to the hon. member for York-Humber. It depends upon the circumstances. If a criminal is shooting, then surely no citizen could be charged for not coming to the assistance of the officer if there is danger to his own life. On the other hand, if the officer asked for help to arrest a person and there was no danger to the private citizen, then I believe there would be an obligation on the part of the private citizen to assist the officer. I am not making the categorical answer that in every case he would be charged with an offence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is 25 years since I studied law but it is my understanding-and I believe the Solicitor General will find there are some cases in this regard-that if a policeman calls upon a citizen in a bank to assist him in making an arrest and the citizen refuses, the citizen could be charged with an offence. Whether it is dangerous or not dangerous is not the question. When he says, "Mr. Brown, will you assist me in arresting this robber who is holding a gun at the head of a citizen" and Mr. Brown refuses, then I think Mr. Brown may have committed an offence in having failed to do so.
The reason for this offence is very obvious. The British have gone a lot farther in this regard than have the United States authorities. Why do the same things not happen in Great Britain which we know happen in the United States? There was a recent case in the United States where a woman walking down a street in New York was stabbed and no one came to her assistance. In Canada and Great Britain it is written into the code that a citizen must accept a responsibility to help preserve law and order and the peace of the country. I am sure that is how the law would be interpreted by any court of competent jurisdiction.


Lawrence T. Pennell: It would depend on the circumstances which prevail at the time and whether there is a reasonable excuse. The hon. member mentioned New York state. May I point out to him that the bill before us is almost identical in principle with a bill introduced in the legislature of that state in respect of a change in the penal code.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not saying that this bill is not like the New York state bill but I
November 23, 1967	COMMONS
am saying that certainly there is a section in the code which states that a person may be called upon to assist the police. This is what in many cases makes the law in Canada and Great Britain different from the law in the United States. If the bill is merely drawn to get a certain kind of measure through the house we have a pretty weak situation, but if the bill is drawn with the idea of protecting police officers then as a member of this house I want to be assured that, if police officers are protected, anybody else who accepts the responsibility of a peace officer is also protected.
If Mr. A in a bank is called upon to help a policeman make an arrest, has a legal duty to do so and then is shot and killed, then does the accused who is convicted of murder become subject to capital punishment? My answer, of course, is that he does not. This private citizen is not employed. What we are doing by this bill is saying that when someone shoots and kills a policeman that person is subject to capital punishment but that if a private citizen who is called upon to take the same responsibility is killed then the person who killed that private citizen is subject only to life imprisonment. In addition, after he is imprisoned it may very well happen that often ten years, one month and one day or some other period he is out again.
Why should we not write into this bill protection for the private citizen in this type of situation? If this bill is a mere compromise vis-a-vis completely abolishing capital punishment, then I say that in its broader sense-and this is not a reflection on the minister personally or on his intelligence-it is a dishonest attempt. I use that word in the right rather than in the wrong sense. If that is all the minister is trying to do, abolish capital punishment, then putting in these little tidbits of protection is nothing less than a disservice and a departure from the minister's responsibility. That is my position.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, having regard to the argument that has been taking place I should like to suggest that hon. members look closely at this clause of the bill. The whole basis of the argument advanced by the member for Bow River is related to a situation in a bank where a bandit with a gun is holding everybody at bay and a policeman asks John Q. citizen to assist him in making an arrest. It is inherent in the hon. member's argument that the citizen is in terrible danger because the bandit
DEBATES	4611
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence knows that if he shoots the policeman he will swing but if he shoots the citizen he will only get 10 years, eight months and some days. I suggest that this argument is silly and borders on the ridiculous. We should not waste any more time on it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General suggested that he does not want to add more categories to the exceptions. I think this difficulty could be solved very easily if we took the time to include a better definition of what "or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace" means. It would be a very simple matter to define that category as including people who are pressed into temporary law enforcement duties.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, speaking as a former police officer I must say that on many occasions I was embarrassed because the law has not been made clear on this point. I think we should take the necessary time now to clarify the law. We can no longer rely on the common law of England since the famous peeping Tom case which went as far as the Supreme Court. At that time the court indicated that the common law of England was no longer valid except by reference in principle. I do not think reference in principle is good enough to satisfy the purposes of this bill.
It is very important that the point in question be clarified. I cannot help but agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River, that the interpretation of the law is in many cases more important than the law itself. I can see no reason for not standing this clause, or doing whatever protocol requires, until such time as this part is clarified once and for all so that the courts will know what we mean by "employed" as a peace officer.
It is my understanding that as soon as I get someone to help me carry out my duties as a police officer, that individual is in fact a peace officer whether or not he is paid. When an individual is called upon to help a police officer to make an arrest to preserve the peace he is in effect acting as a peace officer, and whether or not he is being paid is unimportant. Let me give an example. If I as a police sergeant were wounded in the course of carrying out my duties and I handed my revolver to a private citizen whom I had called upon to assist me, surely that private citizen would become at least a peace officer
4612	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence if not a police officer. I should like to see this bill clearly defined so that everyone will know exactly where such an individual will stand in these circumstances.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Athabasca spoke on a point in which I am very interested. The hon. member for Timmins missed that point entirely, and surely it is not within his prerogative to refer to those arguments of hon. members who are attempting to protect women, children and individuals who have been forcibly drafted into service as law officers as being silly. The hon. member for Bow River was not referring to private individuals who had a reasonable excuse for not assisting a police officer. He was speaking of those individuals called upon to assist in making an arrest. I suggest the hon. member for Timmins should remain in his seat and listen to these arguments rather than make such references to hon. members.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not say the hon. member for Bow River was silly; I said he was using a silly argument.


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes, and who else in the house can split hairs better than the hon. member. You may be an authority on splitting hairs-I do not mean to be personal-but you have to spread it around, Murdo.
As the hon. member for Athabasca indicated, any individual called upon by a law offer to assist is in essence, during the time he is giving that assistance, a law officer. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but if I am asked by a police officer to assist him in carrying out the law of the country, by giving that assistance I am helping to carry out that law and at least for that time I am a law officer. Under such circumstances I deserve the same protection referred to by the hon. member for Bow River.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the points raised by the hon. member for York-Humber and the hon. member for Bow River. After looking at paragraph (a) of new subsection 2 I have come to the conclusion that we should not pass this bill without amending this part. After the word "peace" in paragraph (a) we should make clear who these people are in addition to police officers who might be acting in the course of their duty. A person who has been asked by a police officer to give assistance in enforcing the law or to assist in

DEBATES	November 23, 1967
apprehending a criminal is not covered under paragraph (a), or at least not in my interpretation of it. It says:
-or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace-
For example, under the present wording a private citizen or civilian would not be classified as employed in the preservation of the public peace. Neither would such a person be acting in the course of his duties. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Bow River, the courts would interpret this in an entirely different way.
During second reading I pointed out the confusing nature of this bill. For this reason the bill did not deserve the support it received in the house this afternoon. In view of the rapid increase in the crime rate it is my opinion that the bill should not pass out of the committee stage until we include the same penalty for the murder of a person assisting a law officer. If the hon. member for Bow River or the hon. member for York-Humber has a suitable amendment I will support it. If they do not have such an amendment ready I have one I should like to put before the house.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I think we are on common ground in respect of the weakness of the new subsection 2. The common ground, is that, first of all, if a person is called upon to assist a policeman to carry out the law, is employed or engaged in the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, or is called upon to assist in making an arrest, that person is acting in the same capacity, with the same responsibility, and is taking the same chances as a police officer.
I must disagree with my hon. friend from Athabasca if he meant that when a person does this he is actually defined as a police officer under this clause. The Solicitor General and I are on common ground, because the answer is no. That person is merely a civilian and citizen and is not a police officer employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace. In that regard this clause is not ambiguous; it excludes the citizen and fails to protect him.
There is another point in this respect, Mr. Chairman. A question was raised by one of my good friends about a citizen's arrest. It is the responsibility of any citizen to assist a police officer in making an arrest. If the hon. member for Peace River and myself were in a public place and saw someone
November 23, 1967

committing an offence, the responsibility would be on us, as citizens of Canada, to make an arrest. If in making that arrest we were killed we would not be protected under this bill.


Mr. Fairweather:: If you were killed you would not need much protection.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My good friend probably takes a different view. Do you think this is a good bill?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, I do not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right. This is a very serious omission. I think the Solicitor General is really trying to protect police officers and guards in jails. I would ask the Solicitor General's experts to consider this suggestion. The clause refers to "a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person", and so on. Instead of using the word "employed" I would ask that the experts of the Solicitor General think about using the word "engaged" for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.
To my mind the word "employed" carries the interpretation of someone "employed" as a police officer and receiving renumeration as such. But a person so "engaged" might be any person; he might be a citizen or a police officer. If this suggestion were adopted, the provisions of this clause would apply to all those people exercising the jurisdiction and carrying out the function of a police officer or prison guard.
I should like to hear what the Solicitor General has to say about this suggestion. I should like to know whether he is prepared now to move an amendment to cover this situation. I know he is very sympathetic to suggestions, and I am pleased that he is. We all know that he carries out his duties with a great deal of responsibility. I hope he will consider this suggestion because it is important.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, as a mental barbarian who has been accused of harbouring criminal and savage ideas, I do not mind in the slightest being told that the arguments we are now advancing are silly. We are used to this kind of reply to our legitimate arguments. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Timmins when he presented the case of a possible bank hold-up where a policeman and a man with him were endeavouring to arrest a bank bandit for prosecution. The hon. member said that the
DEBATES	4613
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence argument is silly, that the bandit is not going to stop to figure out whether he will shoot the policeman or the civilian.
I ask the Solicitor General this question, and I am very happy to see that my friend the hon. member for Perth is in his seat because this involves an incident that happened in the town of Listowel in his riding. Some time ago a policeman, in the performance of his duties, called at a farmhouse in the area. This policeman had in his car a long-time friend, a civilian. No one knows to this day whether his friend was impressed to help him in serving a legal document on this person. The person against whom the legal document was to be executed shot them both dead. Under the provisions of this bill, if the crown proceeded against and obtained a conviction for the murder of the policeman the murderer could swing, but if the crown proceeded on exactly the same charge in respect of the death of the civilian the murderer could serve a sentence of life imprisonment which may be only, as has been said, 8 years, 10 months and 1 day. I ask, is this right? Is it fair? That Listowel case is still before the courts. This is not ancient history; it is right at the moment, 1967.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the submissions made by hon. members on this point. I believe I should point out that if we are to define a private citizen assisting a policeman as a police officer as far as capital murder is concerned, it might involve a number of other sections of the Criminal Code. I am prepared to give an undertaking to the committee that I will discuss this point with my colleague the Minister of Justice. We now have amendments to the Criminal Code in hand and will seriously consider this point, because if any change should be made regarding a person assisting a police officer, it should apply not only to cases involving capital punishment but to all sections. If any change is to be made, in my respectful submission it ought to be made in the definition section. I am prepared to give an undertaking that I will discuss this question with my colleague the Minister of Justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to delay consideration of this bill, Mr. Chairman, but if the Solicitor General is going to consider this suggestion I ask whether he would be prepared to let the clause stand. Otherwise, to have an undertaking such as this means
November 23, 1967
4614	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence nothing. This is no reflection on the undertaking of the Solicitor General. If the minister is not prepared to let the clause stand, I am prepared to move an amendment in this regard. It will take just a moment to prepare the amendment. This is in my view a serious and important omission in the clause and I hope the Solicitor General will give careful consideration to the suggestion made. We are in the process of enacting law which will be on the statute books for a long time. I hope we do not have this matter before us again soon.
Everybody has spoken very seriously in regard to this problem, whether he be for abolition, retention or a compromise. I hope this provision has not been thrown in as a tidbit in order to pilot the bill through, because this is a serious problem. I know the minister has given it that degree of seriousness that he should. I believe this question is so important that the experts should look at it. We are federal legislators. Those of us on this side of the house do not have the services of experts who may be able to see something we have overlooked in our haste in drawing up an amendment. If the undertaking of the minister means anything from a practical, functional point of view, I would ask him to stand the clause and let us deal with the remaining clauses.
If the minister's experts draw up an amendment it would perhaps be passed without any difficulty. Surely everybody would agree with that. But if we just agree to pass the bill on the undertaking that the Solicitor General will consider this suggestion and between now and third reading something will be done about it, that is straight hogwash.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Without being disrespectful to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that he should put his amendment. If the amendment is defeated, I still give my undertaking to discuss this question with the Minister of Justice. I appreciate the hon. member's point, that I am not giving a guarantee that the clause will be changed.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether a redefinition of "peace officer" or "police officer" would have anything whatever to do with the exceptions which are contained in the bill. I cannot understand how redefining who is a police officer would make a civilian, acting in the maintenance of the public peace, a police officer, no matter what you do with the other sections of the Criminal Code.

Since this is merely a definition of the persons who are presumably being protected, would it not be more logical to substitute the word "engaged" for "employed" before the words "for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace"? That would surely include any other person. But I cannot agree that changing the definition of a peace officer would have the effect of changing the bill.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Pugh:: First, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether there is any compensation for a peace officer killed in the execution of his duty. Obviously the Solicitor General knows where I am heading. Second, I am wondering whether the family of a private citizen who witnesses a bank hold-up and becomes a victim would be entitled to compensation in the event of his death. This is but one further step in providing protection.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I must apologize to the hon. member. I did not quite catch all he was saying because of conversations behind me. Would he mind repeating the last part of his question? I thought it related to compensation for a person assisting a peace officer.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes. Let me put it this way. Let us say a private citizen who witnesses a hold-up is pressed into service by a policeman. At that stage he comes to the aid of a policeman in a hold-up. A gun is produced and the private citizen is killed. I should like to ask the Solicitor General, first, whether there is compensation for the wife and family of the policeman or peace officer, and second, whether compensation would be provided to the wife and family of a private citizen in the event of his death if he is not in the category of people included in this amendment.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not aware of any federal law which would provide compensation. Compensation for peace officers depends on whether they are municipal or provincial officers. The R.C.M.P. have provisions for compensation to dependants of peace officers killed in the execution of their duty. However, I know of no federal law that provides compensation for a private citizen.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the amendment about to be moved by my hon. friend for Bow River is completely out of order in that it is a complete antithesis of the whole purpose of the bill. It is my recollection that when the current Criminal
[Mr. Woolliams.1
November 23, 1967	COMMONS
Code was amended under the aegis of the present hon. member for Kamloops-I was instrumental then in having the section with respect to police officers and wardens inserted as part of capital murder-there was no discussion or proposal to bring in either the category of private citizens who are pressed into service by a police officer or the other category of citizens who accept their responsibility and take action in emergency situations. Neither of these categories was included. Not having the Criminal Code here and not having dealt with the criminal law for a number of years it would seem to me, nevertheless, that if the kind of amendment being discussed were put into the bill we would be broadening the category beyond those who are in the category of capital murder.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have already accepted two such amendments.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The hon. member means the ones we have already discussed. I did not rise on a point of order to discuss them but I am rising on this particular amendment. It seeks to broaden the category of those included. I think it is against the principle which the house has already accepted.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. lady permit a question? She is raising an objection to this amendment and yet similar amendments were accepted by the committee previously. Why did she sit and wait until the third amendment was put forward before raising an objection?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot comment on the past two votes, particularly the last one, regarding their frivolity or otherwise. However, I am raising the point on this amendment before the committee votes on this matter. We have been sitting here for the last hour debating a point which I think is out of order and is a waste of our time, it being an addition to the law which was initiated by the hon. member for Kamloops who did not seek to extend protection to citizens in that category.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The point made by the hon. lady might be applicable if this were a bill preceded by a resolution. The well established principle is that one cannot introduce amendments in the house or in committee which carry the terms of such a bill beyond those authorized by the resolution. There is no such limitation on this kind of bill. We are in committee dealing with the category of
DEBATES	4615
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence persons whose murder would attract the penalty of capital punishment if they are killed. It is surely perfectly in order to suggest an additional category or even five additional categories. May I suggest with respect that under our rules there is no such limitation as suggested by the hon. lady.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Certainly the reason that I voted against the bill on second reading was that the principle of the bill limited abolition to be enforced for a limited period of time with one exception. I think that any extension beyond that is against the principle and therefore should not be received.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. lady could quote a rule of the house in support of her contention we could come to grips with the matter, but I submit that she is conjuring up a limitation which in fact does not exist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words on the point of order raised by the Secretary of State, and perhaps at the same time I might make some remarks on the substance of the proposal.
I think it will be obvious that I will be opposed to the amendment which the hon. member for Bow River may propose, but I defend his right to move it. It seems to me that what has been given to the committee of the whole is a bill which restricts the application of capital punishment to the two categories set out in the bill. I think the committee has the right either to restrict it further or to restrict it less. Therefore I think it was in order-and I hope it is not out of order for me to say this-for us to seek to restrict the application of capital punishment further by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and others who have moved amendments going the other way were perfectly in order. If necessary, I could produce citations, such as citations 406, 408 and one or two others of Beau-chesne's fourth edition. Clearly what is before us is not a bill of absolute abolition, nor one that is legislating de novo with respect to capital punishment. It is a bill that restricts the application of capital punishment to something less than is now the law of the land. The restriction is brought down to the two categories in the bill. We tried to restrict it still further, while other hon. members sought to restrict it to a lesser extent. It seems to me that amendments either way are in order, and the very fact that the house has already voted on three
November 23, 1967
4616	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence amendments, ours which would have restricted it further and the others which would have restricted it to a lesser extent, makes it in order for the hon. member for Bow River to move an amendment as he may be doing now.
Perhaps while I am on my feet I might say in the same vein that what the Solicitor General has given to us is a compromise bill which restricts capital punishment to two categories. He has stood against making these restrictions any narrower. He did this when he voted against our amendment. That is his right, and he has given us quite clearly his reasons for doing so. I think he and those associated with him should, by the same token, resist the efforts to widen the exceptions. Therefore I think the proposed amendment which the hon. member for Bow River seeks to move is in order, but I think the house which has refused to go one way away from the Solicitor General's proposal should refuse to go the other way and we should vote against the proposed amendment.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why anybody should object to the fact that we want clarification of what we are voting for. It is not irrelevant for any member of the house, before he stands up to vote, to ask for clarification of the matter upon which he is voting. After reading this clause I do not know whether as a policeman, a lawyer or a civilian I am protected by the provisions of this bill. I think we should clarify the clause here and now. We should not leave it to anybody to interpret the will of parliament because the point is very narrow. If the minister does not wish to broaden the effect of the part of the bill retaining capital punishment, we should know. As I read the bill, I am not sure whether the provision covers a policeman who is paid or whether it means any number of characters who could be covered by various interpretations of the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat disappointed that we cannot get this clause stood until the experts have come up with some ideas. I gathered from what the minister said that he was sympathetic to this argument. Perhaps some of his friends are not, but I thought he was sympathetic. This matter is very important. I am not trying to delay the bill, but I am prepared to move an amendment. I ask the Solicitor General to think about it and let us trade places for a few moments. Here we are, legislating upon a


very important matter, and I am asked, in a few seconds with people talking all around me, to change an important piece of legislation. If this change were accepted it would be the law for a long time to come with reference to the very important matter of whether or not capital punishment will be implemented or abolished for a certain class of people. As I say, this is a very important matter.
I recall that when I studied criminal law we studied a famous Irish case and if you put a comma in the sentence capital punishment would be implemented but if you took out the comma the person would get life imprisonment. This is how serious the matter is. It is not what we say in parliament that is important; it is the wording of the act that will be important. The courts look at that wording and say, this is what parliament must have intended.
It is against the law to get up in any court and quote Hansard when you are arguing a point of law. The Registrar General knows that, the Solicitor General knows that, and the Secretary of State knows that. They are all good trial lawyers. I know the Solicitor General is sympathetic to my argument. If he is then I ask him, in all decency allow this clause to stand. I am aware of the pressure. It is being said that somebody is trying to delay the bill, that the debate has been going on for a long time. I have made one speech. I do not mind saying that we have had discussions with various people here trying to bring on the vote. We on this side, and many others on that side have not tried to delay the bill. There may have been some delay, but that is not for me to criticize.
I ask the minister once again, before I move my amendment, if he will allow this clause to stand. Surely this is the time to get the best possible piece of legislation. On many occasions we do waste time in the House of Commons, but now we are dealing with an important subject so let us take the time to give it thought.


Lawrence T. Pennell: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with the hon. member for Bow River regarding the position of a person assisting a police officer. A private individual, even though called upon to assist a police officer in the execution of his duty, is not defined as a peace officer. Therefore if he were killed in the course of assisting a peace officer it would not be capital murder under the bill now before the house. I just wanted
November 23, 1967

to make sure that the hon. member for Bow River and I are ad idem on that point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now we have come to grips with each other on our understanding of the law. Does the Solicitor General not think that by failing to cover this situation in the bill he is increasing the difficulty of the police? I believe we are going to reduce the moral standards of this country to the level of those in the United States where they allow citizens to be killed on the streets of New York without anyone coming to their assistance. If I as a citizen realize that I must take the responsibility of a policeman and exercise his jurisdiction and yet I do not have the protection under this bill that a policeman has, then surely the citizen is being asked to do more than the policeman is expected to do.
What is going to happen? A citizen is going to say: Well, parliament legislated to protect the policeman but they are not going to protect me so the policemen are on their own. This is the reason behind it. Once again, before I move my amendment, I ask the Solicitor General to allow the clause to stand.
I have consulted some lawyers over here and I believe the amendment is good. I think I have been asked this afternoon to do something that is beyond the capabilities of anyone. The Solicitor General is now talking to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is the Acting Prime Minister. 1 appeal to you, sir, to allow this clause to stand, take a look at it and bring it back after supper. I will take a look at it and then I can move my amendment. You can get your experts to look at it and if you go along with my argument, then you move an amendment. Surely that is not unreasonable. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to discuss it. Surely it is his responsibility to ask that this clause be allowed to stand until after supper. I can only promise one thing, I can guarantee that hon. members over here will give you every bit of co-operation.
We have had the vote on second reading and those who were opposed to the bill voted against it. Surely on this important matter the minister will reconsider, allow the clause to stand and give us time to bring in a proper amendment. You will have time to discuss it with your colleagues. Is two hours too much to ask for?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The hon. member has put his case with considerable force and feeling. I am prepared to suggest that we stand his proposed amendment for a moment and I
DEBATES	4617
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence will entertain any other amendments that may come forward. Then we will come back to the amendment suggested by the hon. member.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: As the one who first brought up this question of a civilian being impressed to aid a policeman, I want to thank the hon. member for Bow River for having presented the case so eloquently. I support every word he uttered. I now wish to bring up a question for the Solicitor General along the same lines. 1 referred to this matter the other day. There was a bank holdup at Downsview by a man named Smith. There was a customer in the bank by the name of Blanc. When Smith left the bank to go to his car in an effort to escape, the customer Blanc took a rifle or pistol from the bank accountant and went outside. He shot two or three times at this chap Smith.
Smith then got out of the car with a rifle and blew off the top of Blanc's head while Blanc was down on one knee shooting at him. By the time the policemen got there Blanc was dead. Blanc was not assisting any policeman; no policeman had asked him to assist him. Blanc was trying to preserve peace and order. Smith was caught and convicted of murder but a merciful cabinet commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. He later committed suicide in prison and cheated the cabinet of its great desire to rehabilitate him into a gentleman.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
My contention is that the family of the victim is entitled to some protection. Why should the law make a distinction because the man is a civilian, not a policeman? Why should the penalty be life imprisonment whereas if the man had shot a policeman he would be executed?
The hon. member for Peace River put his finger on this when he pointed out there is a basic law that if a civilian sees a criminal act being performed he should move to prevent it. Blanc moved to prevent such an act, but under the provisions of this bill the man charged could only be sentenced to life imprisonment. If a policeman had come along and had been shot dead, Blanc would have been executed. Therefore I ask the committee to consider cases of civilians who endeavour to preserve and maintain the public peace without being impressed to do so by the police.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, although I still question the
4618	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence advisability of participating in exchanges between lawyers I should like to make one point. It may be all right for the Solicitor General to give assurances to this side of the house as minister in charge of the legislation, but members on this side of the house have had experience of accepting such undertakings. Members have left the house with the understanding that something would be done but when they returned they found that the minister no longer headed the department in question. With all the switching that takes place so frequently on that side, we cannot rely on the Solicitor General being minister of this department on Monday of next week.
Perhaps I am being a little facetious in saying that, but since it is difficult for lay members to understand the actions of lawyers and courts I would ask the minister this question. Since he is having trouble in accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Bow River to replace the word "employed" with the word "engaged" and since the minister refuses to stand the bill, is it his intention at a later date to amend the Criminal Code to remove the penalty that can be imposed on any individual who refuses to assist a police officer? Each and every citizen of this country could be penalized for not coming to the assistance of a police officer. If a civilian does assist a police officer, those who support the minister are refusing absolutely to give him the same protection they give that police officer. At the same time, if a civilian refuses to help a policeman those same members are imposing a penalty upon him under the law.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bow River, which is supported by some members on that side of the house, and give protection to those who assist police officers, then I ask him to remove the penalty that can be imposed on any person who refuses to assist a police officer.


Mr. Basford:: I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. It has been said that those who support this provision in the bill are not concerned about private citizens who are either impressed into acting as police officers or who voluntarily serve as police officers. It seems to me the hon. member for Kamloops could be of great assistance to the committee at this point, because the definition in Bill C-168, clause 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), is the same that the hon. member for Kamloops, when he was minister of justice for Canada, put into section 202A of the Criminal Code, in which

DEBATES	November 23, 1967
section he established the distinction between capital and non-capital murder. In section 202A of the existing code capital murder is defined in subsection (2) (c) as follows:
-such person by whose own act caused or assisted in causing the death of
(i) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff-
And so on. As I say, Mr. Chairman, they are the same words that are used in the bill before the committee.
The hon. member for Kamloops could be of great assistance to the committee by explaining why, when section 202A was incorporated in the Criminal Code, he did not include at the same time in subsection (2) (c) the words "citizens impressed as police officers or citizens voluntarily acting to keep the peace". I think such an explanation from the hon. member for Kamloops could be very helpful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think hon. members will realize that this section was drafted in 1961, some six years ago, and it is not easy to remember all the details in connection with the reason that certain provisions were included in the legislation and certain provisions were not. My recollection is that it was the hon. lady, the Secretary of State, who raised the matter formally for the consideration of the committee and we conferred on the question at the time.
Concern had been expressed by the association of police chiefs, and the government and the committee felt that as an assurance of their position and as an indication that parliament, on behalf of society, recognized the importance of giving this protection, it would be appropriate to put the provision in the bill.
It has a particular significance now in the context of this discussion when you realize that at the time we were passing the legislation in 1961 ordinary civilians received the protection of the earlier portion of section 202A-the protection of the maintenance of capital punishment for planned and deliberate killing on the one hand, or for the killing of somebody in the course of committing some other planned and deliberate crime on the other.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the provisions of the law which are now being repealed did in fact cover the case of a civilian acting in the circumstances my colleague from Bow River has in mind. Under the provisions of the law as it now stands, if a bandit or a bank robber had the intention
November 23, 1967

of robbing a bank and in the course of committing the robbery he shot a civilian, then he would be guilty of capital murder, he having killed in the course of committing a deliberate and planned crime. So the civilian received that protection under the law as it was enacted in 1961.
I do not think I should go any further than that. We felt we were not making a clear distinction between the position of the civilian and the policeman by the inclusion of the later portions of 202A, such as will be the result of the proposed repeal of the earlier portion of that section. I do not know whether I am making myself clear, but we did feel we were not making a distinction between the actual position of civilians and policemen by the inclusion of that provision. The civilian had the protection of the general law relating to capital punishment. Whereas if we now eliminate that protection and retain only the provisions relating to police officers and prison wardens, then they are the only category of people whose killing attracts the penalty of capital punishment. That is the distinction my hon. friend from Bow River is complaining about.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: May I make one brief comment? As the wording is now I think the meaning is quite definite. Using what is known amongst lawyers as the ejusdem generis rule, we should interpret a section such as this in the light of what has already been suggested. Unquestionably paragraph (a) of new subsection 2 in clause 1 encompasses "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." It includes all those who assist in preserving peace and order. To make my point clear, I point out that section 436 of the Criminal Code says:
Any one-
That means any one at all.
-may arrest without warrant a person who, on reasonable and probable grounds, he believes
(a) has committed a criminal offence-
Sometimes certain persons, even though they are not police officers, restrain others from breaking the law. Under the Criminal Code they have the right to arrest.
Directing my remarks for a moment to the amendment which the hon. member for Bow River wishes to move, I may say that I will help him draft it and I shall vote against it. I
DEBATES	4619
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence do not like what is contained in the subsection; I suffer under it and I will not do anything to expand its provisions. Even if the minister or the government were to draft the amendment and bring it forward, I would still vote against it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the minister would use his customary discretion and stand this clause? Those who are drafting the amendment ought to have a little time to consider it. The minister could discuss with his officials what should be done. We might save time. That has been done hundreds of times in this house. Between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. agreement might be reached between the minister and those who propose the amendment. On the other hand, if the minister is completely inflexible-and he will have from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. to consider the matter-from 5.45 p.m. until 6 p.m. myself and others will repeat the arguments which have been made. What other pressure can we bring to bear on an inflexible minister?
I listened to the debate this afternoon on this clause. Very wisely, the hon. member for York-Humber introduced a problem we ought to consider. He gave us an example of a citizen who, acting on behalf of society, participated in an attempt to check those who wanted to break the law. Arguments have been advanced with regard to those who are impressed to assist police officers. Those arguments make sense to me. I intend to vote for the amendment that the hon. member for Bow River is preparing. If the minister wishes me to discontinue speaking I shall be pleased to if he will say whether he will stand clause 1 and continue with other parts of the bill. I pause to allow the minister to answer. Am I to continue talking or will he stand clause 1?


An hon. Member:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister wants me to continue talking?


Mr. Flemming:: He did not say that. It was some other fellow.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to know whether any further amendments to clause 1 were to be proposed. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member. I propose to take the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Bow River under consideration and to stand the clause for the moment. I merely wanted to know whether other amendments to this clause were to be moved
November 23, 1967
4620	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence at this time. If there are no further amendments I shall stand this clause and continue with the next clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then I shall relinquish the floor. My understanding is that unless others wish to propose amendments to clause 1 at this time the minister will stand the clause.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General suggested a moment ago that he wished to consider any other amendments to this clause. With respect to paragraph (b) of the new subsection 2 I wish to ask why prisoners who are confined to penitentiaries with convicted murderers are not to be given some protection under the law. New subsection 2 Cb) reads:
Murder is capital murder-
Where one kills:
(b) a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties-
Why should fellow prisoners not be afforded protection under the law? I remind the Solicitor General, whom I have always thought a very intelligent officer of the crown, about the Santa Claus murderer, Marcotte, who turned state's evidence and was confined to jail in Winnipeg. The other inmates of the prison there raised hell-that is the only way to describe it-because they knew that he had been accused of complicity in the murder of two police officers.
There is honour among thieves and the prisoners in the Winnipeg jail let it be known that they did not want to associate with a criminal of the brand of Marcotte, whose sentence the cabinet had commuted to life imprisonment. That man has been moved from the Winnipeg prison because Of the opposition of other prisoners to his presence. Should not protection be given to fellow prisoners when they have a convicted murderer among them? Why should we be told that when a man kills a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard, or other officer or permanent employee of a prison he will swing for it but if that man kills another prisoner, the cabinet does not mind? After all, they will commute his sentence to life imprisonment. That seems to be the cabinet's job.
I say to you that fellow prisoners are entitled to as much protection as any warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer or guard. Do not say to me that attacks on other prisoners do not occur, because they do. This


very week there was a reported attack on a Canadian in a Mexican jail. He was attacked by fellow prisoners and may have been seriously injured. Who knows, he may have been killed.
These things do occur; prisoners attack fellow prisoners. If a man already is serving the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, which means eight years, ten months and one day, why should he not murder another prisoner? He will be given life imprisonment of eight years, ten months and one day and the sentence will be concurrent. I say that prisoners are entitled to as much protection as a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard or other officer or permanent employee or any person listed in that subsection.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, if we are to widen the provisions of this clause we must not forget what happened in the House of Commons not long ago when someone attempted to throw a bomb. Unquestionably the man who was killed intended to throw the bomb on to the floor of the chamber. Should we not consider the uniformed officers who are employed by the House or Commons for security purposes? What if one of them had apprehended the man and tried to detain him and then had been killed by the exploding bomb? Should the House of Commons guards not be included in the provisions of this bill?


An hon. Member:: They are included.


Malcolm MacInnis: My hon. friend who is an abolitionist says they are included. Should not the commissionaires across this country be included? I am thinking of the commissionaires who are hired by the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport and other government departments. They are employed all over the country. Should they not be afforded the protection that is afforded to police officers, guards and others like them?
I bring up these points because of the concern we all felt when we learned that a man had intended to throw a bomb on to the floor of the house. We have a security staff, and I am told that they are police officers.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: They are peace officers, not police officers.


Malcolm MacInnis: I did
not get that information from the Solicitor
November 23, 1967

General; I will accept it from the authoritative source from which it came. If they are considered to be police officers, then every commissionaire hired by the different departments is performing the same task as is carried out by the guards in the House of Commons.
There have certainly been objections registered to this clause. But then the bill as a whole has been objected to. If the Solicitor General sees fit to provide a couple of categories as he does in this clause, then there are thousands of people who can rightfully claim to be placed in those categories, among them commissionaires and others hired in the capacity of peace officers. But this is not recognized in the bill before us.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: I rise briefly to register my protest against something which is creeping increasingly into this debate, namely, the supposition that the death penalty is somehow or other a great protection for anybody. I absolutely refuse to accept that I myself, for example, am protected by the fact that a person who might kill me would be hanged rather than committed to life imprisonment. I cannot accept it and I object to this notion becoming, as it were, part and parcel of the debate, as if by retaining the death penalty in the case of the murder of policemen and prison guards we were providing them with a great measure of protection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I was very pleased to hear the Solicitor General say a few moments ago that further amendments to this clause would be welcomed by him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He did not say "welcomed".


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am also pleased to know that he is finally consulting with the Minister of Justice.


Lawrence T. Pennell: On a question of privilege, if I said I welcomed amendments, I apologize. I meant to say I welcomed the amendments being put so I could study them.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: My interpretation of the minister's statement has not changed. As I say, I am glad that even at this late stage the minister has admitted he is discussing these questions with the Minister of Justice. He may recall that on November 14, as reported on page 4284 of Hansard, I asked him whether he had discussed the merits of this

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion bill, with all its confusion, with the Minister of Justice. Apparently the hon. gentleman has just come round to appreciating the value of taking the Minister of Justice into his confidence.
Members of the house know that in most of our pententiaries the buildings are so arranged that the staff residences are close at hand. It is not uncommon for the families of the wardens and other officials to live on the premises and on occasions they have become involved in kidnappings and other crimes committed by escaping prisoners. Wives and children have been and could be held as hostages during a getaway.
I suggest to the Solicitor General that in these circumstances further amendment to this clause is required by the addition of a further paragraph (c). Exceptions are presently made in the case of:
(a)	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
(b)	a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties-
A further paragraph, (c), might well be added to read "or any member of the family of any of these persons."


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: It being six o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), Pollution-federal representation at provincial conference in Toronto; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Works-Ottawa-Height of proposed national defence headquarters building; the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), Public service-committee report on pensions of retired civil servants.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers),

November 23, 1967
Private Bills
private bills, public bills. As there are no notices of motions (papers) on today's order paper, the house will proceed to the consideration of private bills.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion among the interested parties in connection with the bill standing as item No. 5 and I believe there is unanimous agreement among those members-it does not necessarily extend to all members of the house-that item 5 might be called first for the purpose of sending the bill to the committee on transport and communications without delay. Then we could proceed with the list as it stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will recognize, of course, that this can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: On the basis outlined by the hon. member who has just spoken, that there will be no debate.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the second reading of Bill No. S-26, respecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cameron (High Park) for the second reading of Bill No. C-112, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Gilbert (p. 1746).
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the amendment which is before the house. I recognize, of course, that in the history of the proposal which is contained in this bill the terms of the amendment have been met on more than one occasion in the sequence of events which surrounded the introduction of this proposal at various times during various sessions. I believe that the events of the past, so far as the particular proposal contained in this bill is concerned, were desirable. Therefore in my view the amendment now before the house will further continue a desirable

situation in that the bill will not be read a second time.
I realize that at various times during various sessions there has been fairly extensive discussion about the questions involved in the proposal that this company be incorporated as a company under the laws of this country. These discussions have taken place in a scattered and desultory manner and therefore it is perhaps difficult to get the whole picture in one piece, as it were, unless one does a fairly extensive amount of research into the records of the debates in this house.
Perhaps I should recall to the attention of hon. members that this bill, if passed, would enable this foreign owned concern, if its announced intentions and desires were fulfilled, to expand an operation in the insurance field in this country which has been carried on to a point even though not by the company which is proposed in this bill. The proposal would authorize this firm to engage in a very wide range of casualty insurance. In fact, as has been pointed out previously, this is the bill which coincides with the alphabet inasmuch as the classes of insurance listed run from "a" to "zee", if I may use the Americanized version of the pronunciation of the last letter of the alphabet. So in order that the bill may be identified in the minds of members as the clauses come up for discussion, I suppose it could properly be called the alphabet soup bill.
I believe I should point out to the house, as I believe I did during earlier discussions, that this company would merely be duplicating the kinds of insurance coverage that are offered to the Canadian people by an almost innumerable body of insurance companies of various kinds which have been incorporated at both the federal and provincial levels. Apart from anything else, if we accepted the proposition of this company we would in my view be further duplicating the very costly and unwieldy methods under which at the present time the Canadian people are able to secure insurance coverage of the types enumerated. I find it difficult to imagine any procedure for meeting the desire of Canadians to protect themselves against loss more costly and inefficient than the system that already exists in this country because of the multiplicity of these companies with their heavy overhead, duplication of sales efforts and all the rest. These costs are inevitably tacked on to the premiums Canadians have to pay. From this point of view, so far as I am concerned it is a completely unnecessary
November 23, 1967

exercise to assist this company in any way to expand its operations within the Canadian economy.
In addition to adding to the costs to the Canadian people of having insurance facilities available to them, because of the particular nature of the company and the fact that it will be owned outside our borders it will create a drain upon Canadian incomes to the extent that the profits of this company would be added to the actual costs of engaging in the insurance business. Although this is an argument which has been advanced many times, but no oftener than the circumstances which have developed in parliament justify, it does seem to me that the constant barrage of proposals we have been getting for the incorporation of new insurance companies should be an indication to the house and to the Canadian people that as the representatives of the Canadian people we are allowing a state of affairs to continue whereby obviously some people think they must have the opportunity to engage in a very lucrative business.
It is for this reason that I and some of my colleagues have been trying to make it clear that we cannot approve of this state of affairs. I think it is time that the Canadian parliament had a real look at this situation. I believe it is time that the Canadian people should be made aware of how they are being rooked by these people who pose as their benefactors through offering, as they say, the opportunity to be insured against individual loss.
I find it difficult to understand how placidly the majority of the members of this house-and of course as I look around me I note that there great throngs of members who are not in their places-generally are able to accept the continuance of this situation at a time when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is telling us we are in a position of some economic difficulty and crisis in this country. We hear complaints from members in all parts of the house about the dangers and effects of the inflation which exists in the country today. Yet there appears to be very little or no apparent realization of the real sources or causes of inflation.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for High Park, when sponsoring this bill at the second reading stage, suggested that by the passage of the bill we would increase employment in Canada. The more I think about that remark the more I am driven to the feeling that even
Private Bills
though employment might be increased so far as this company is concerned it might decrease so far as another similar company is concerned. The house will recall the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), who said in reply that the number of employees in this country might be increased but there are sufficient facilities and people in the business of supplying insurance services. He suggested there would not be a realistic increase in the number of people employed.
It seems to me that this argument makes it clear that the more people we have in this country engaged in non-wealth producing activities the worse off we are going to be.


Murdo William Martin: More leeches.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I believe I have used that word on a number of occasions. These people are in effect leeches in our society, and this is the kind of activity which in my view is at the root of inflation. We have people perfectly capable of carrying on this type of activity now engaged in this business. By adding more people we are in effect precluding these people from taking part in a productive activity of some usefulness to the general economy of our society.
There is no better example of that than the entire field of casualty, accident and loss of property insurance. We have heard many debates in this country in respect of automobile insurance, one of the classes of insurance this company proposes to offer. There is an example of how this type of insurance can be made available cheaply and efficiently, and I refer to the publicly operated automobile insurance plan in the province of Saskatchewan. The only overhead involved is the cost of employing an individual in an office where license plates are issued, because the insurance is issued at the same time. There is, of course, the associated cost for the accounting which must be carried out.
The amendment before the house suggests that it is not in the public interest to give second reading to this bill. There have been many debates about a nation-wide insurance scheme to cover the cost of illness. This company is proposing to offer sickness insurance. It would be more efficient and less inflationary if provisions for sickness and loss of income as a result of illness were brought forward by the government as an addition to the medical health plan we hope is put into

November 23, 1967
Private Bills
effect next July 1. Instead, we have the spectacle of the Minister of Finance trying by indirection to defeat the will of parliament regarding that limited insurance program under public auspices. I am sure this scheme will operate efficiently and at less cost. It should not be sabotaged or delayed.
It would be much more interesting if instead of dealing with the proposals contained in this bill the Minister of Finance would stand in his place and say that as part of his battle to fight inflation he intends to extend the medical care insurance plan to cover sickness insurance as a public responsibility. It is my suggestion that if such a plan were developed for everyone in Canada, anyone who was unfortunate enough to be sick or ill would not suffer a complete loss of income. This is the type of thing in which parliament should be interested instead of a passive acceptance of a situation which allows private businesses owned by foreign enterprises to drain the hard-won wealth of Canadians from this country. Somehow I get the impression that hon. members think we are just being ornery when we stand here making speeches in opposition to the passage of this type of bill.


An hon. Member:: There is no doubt about that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We are trying to make it plain that in respect of bills of this kind we have nothing against the particular company involved but we feel there are sufficient companies engaged in this type of activity. The company named in this bill is no better or worse as far as we know than any other foreign company which attempts to gain control of the financial resources and savings of this country in order to use them somewhere else for the benefit of someone else. I cannot understand why parliament is prepared to carry on this procedure just because it was done 100 years ago. We should not accept this ancient ritual or mumbo jumbo in relation to private enterprise. We should not carry on placidly accepting this type of proposal which will allow the exploitation of the people.
The idea of pooled risk insurance is good but why should the present situation be perpetuated? The Canadian people are being forced to obtain protection through pooled risk insurance in a slap-dash, haphazard, inefficient and expensive way. This is the reasoning behind the amendment that this bill be not now read a second time but be read this day six months hence. Everyone is

aware of the intent of such a motion. While it suggests a period of six months, members of the house realize that it means the proposal should not be accepted by parliament during this or any other session. That is the proposal we have before us in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett).
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I would like to see members in other quarters of the house participate in debating this whole issue because in my submission this question is coming closer to home all the time. I think hon. members should realize that in this respect we cannot forever delay a decision on whether we are going to move toward the efficient operation of pooled risk as protection against individual loss under an efficiently operated public plan.


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


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say a few words on a couple of points that have been raised by my colleague the hon. member for-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Comox-Alberni.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, Comox-Alberni. I keep getting these double and triple name constituencies mixed up. It seems that almost every hon. member from that far province has three or four long and tongue-twisting names to his constituency.
I should like to dwell for a few moments on one of the points raised by the previous speaker. If this bill is passed by the house and the company is incorporated, all it will really do is add one more to the great conglomeration of such companies that we have at the present time. I should also like to dwell for a few moments on some of the implications involved in this proposal. If this company is to operate successfully once it is established it will have a tough row to hoe. It will have to start a great advertising campaign to make itself known. It will have to buck the other companies. It will have to take advantage of the various advertising media-newspapers, radio and television. It will probably have to compete with some of the companies that now bring us all this great, free entertainment about which we hear so much, those that bring us free shows and hour-long television broadcasts. Of
November 23, 1967

course, we are told that this is all for free but we must take that at its face value.
Unfortunately the unsuspecting public in this country far too often does not realize how dearly they have to pay for all this supposedly free entertainment that they receive. This is one thing which, unfortunately, is not brought home to the people. Far too often we tend to go along unsuspectingly and believe in the Santa Claus concept that we are getting all these things free.
If this company is to be successful it will have to get the ear and the eye of the Canadian public. It will have to spend a great deal of money to do this. This expenditure will, of course, be passed on to the customer and be paid by him as is the case with all advertising expenditures in our society. If the company does become successful it will stimulate all other such companies to try to recoup their losses and offset the inroads made by the new company. Other companies will have to increase their advertising budgets, sponsor bigger and better shows, and what have you. Who pays the tom for this? The same people, namely, the poor customers who have to turn to these companies to obtain for themselves and their families protection against loss from fire, death and so on. Thus, all we are doing by incorporating this company is adding to the rat race and compounding the situation.
I recall saying some years ago, when speaking on a similar subject, that it appeared the advertising and promotional organs of our society seemed to be working toward one end, to make the public buy what they do not need, with money they do not have, to impress people they do not like. After watching our society progress, if one can call it progression, over the years since making that remark I am reinforced in this belief.
As I say, the passage of the bill before us will result in adding one more to the great proliferation of companies that we have at the present time. Once more the general public, who will have to support this company when it becomes operative, will be inveigled into buying what they do not need and will possibly have to divert badly needed funds to pay the tariff for this protection, forgetting all the while that written right into the premium they will have to pay are all the costs that have been mentioned, the tremendous advertising costs which the company will have to incur in order to make its mark in the sun, so to speak, in the Canadian field.
27053-292}
Private Bills
The hon. member gave a rather good description of this company. He likened it to alphabet soup and said one of the letters of the alphabet was "c" and referred to "car" insurance. This company is apparently desirous of getting into the car insurance field. That seems rather strange in this day and age when all we hear from those companies already in the car insurance field are great screams of anguish because they are losing money. They would all like to get out of the field and are raising insurance rates at a terrific pace year by year. It seems rather strange that a company which has never been in the field would want to get into this type of money-losing proposition.
The time of this house would probably be put to much better use if we devoted our energy, effort, intelligence and brains to trying to devise ways of cutting down the rapidly increasing cost of car insurance rather than passing a bill of this nature which will create another creature that will add to the bloated cost that the long-suffering Canadian driving public has to bear. We would be far better employed looking into the whole concept of car insurance in this country and trying to reduce some of the great, unnecessary costs that we have to bear at the present time, not the least of which is the tremendous cost of litigation which is so rampant in this particular field. Many of my constituents have asked me why this continues. Is it because so many members of the legal profession are passing the laws in the House of Commons, and is this why they retain such a bonanza for the legal profession in this particular field? Frankly, I do not know. I do not like to accuse any of my colleagues who may belong to that profession of any such ideas, but it certainly does make the public wonder if in fact this is one of the reasons.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
When we realize how little the paying public receives in benefits out of the premium dollar that they pay for their protection, we are made aware of the tragic and vicious situation. I recall a silicotic pensioner coming to me to see whether I could assist him because his young son at the age of 18 had become involved in a car accident. After two years of running through the courts, a decision was handed down requiring the young man to pay something in the neighborhood of $37,000. The father and the son had to go to the courts twice, first to establish the liability

November 23, 1967
Private Bills
and then because the young lad was unemployed and his father had no money. Then they had to make application under what is known as the unsatisfied judgment fund. Here was this young fellow of 18 having to pay some $37,000, with interest accruing month by month. His father asked for my advice. Having had experience with one or two similar cases which I had investigated on behalf of my constituents, I gave him some frank advice, telling him that the only thing I could recommend was for his son to take the first boat to Australia, because he would never earn enough to get his head above water in such a situation.
It seems to me that surely, in view of the great number of insurance companies dealing with car insurance in this country at the present time, we will not improve the situation nor give better protection to the Canadian people by adding one more such company to the list. Our goal should be to work on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the Canadian people so as to improve their lot, and not to pass a bill like this one which throws another yoke around the neck of the Canadian taxpayer.
Another point was raised by the previous speaker when he spoke about some of the problems a bill such as this one raises. He pointed out that the company we are discussing is foreign-owned, and that the profits it makes-let us face the fact that these companies are in business to make profit; they are not benevolent organizations-will be a drain on our country and will continue to add to the problem the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has to cope with from time to time with regard to the balance of payments between Canada and the United States. If we pass this bill, what we will be doing in effect is to aggravate the situation.
Not long ago we had a bill before us-I am not sure of the date we discussed it, nor the number of the bill-for the incorporation of a company somewhat similar to the one we are now discussing, which undertook and guaranteed to become all-Canadian within ten years. I will be prepared at the appropriate time to propose an amendment requiring the same in this instance, because it appears to me that this is a very reasonable suggestion. After all, these companies come into Canada and ask the parliament of this country to pass a bill which would incorporate them, thus enabling them to ply their trade here. In view of the fact that, as I have said, they will add to the problems, trials and
[Mr. Martin (Timmins) .1
tribulations of the Minister of Finance and of the Canadian government I think it is only fair that we should have some guarantee that this will only be a temporary situation, and that we can look forward to a day in the not too distant future when this problem will be resolved.
This is about all that I have to say on the bill at the present time. I suggest that hon. members should consider with greater care bills such as this one, and should not automatically let them slide through -because this is what we have been doing for many years. I think certain aspects of this bill should receive close scrutiny from all hon. members, if we are to carry out our responsibility to our constituents and to the people of this country.


Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I think the concept of insurance is universally accepted by the majority of the Canadian population. We realize insurance is particularly necessary for the people who do not have the financial means to protect themselves from inadvertent loss, injury or damage. Therefore I believe that the concept of insurance is accepted by all of us. We hope this will continue, so as to enable people in the category I have mentioned to protect themselves. At the same time I think that those people who are less secure financially than the average person are entitled to protection at the minimum possible cost. Basically this is the reason why members in this corner of the house have for many years proposed that certain types of insurance, such as health insurance, automobile insurance and various other types of protection, should be supplied by the government at a basic cost.
In Canada there is a sufficiently large number of insurance companies to supply the protection which we require at the present time. If we add to their numbers we will be increasing the cost of insurance to the people requiring coverage. I believe that in Ontario there are 125 companies selling medical insurance. Each one of these companies, of course, has to have a president, 10 or 12 vice presidents and a couple of hundred salesmen scattered through the province, thus wasting time and money. I do not consider these people to be on the productive side of our economy. I feel they are more on the consumer side or the parasitic side, because in my view all things are paid for by those who produce the wealth. I do not believe selling insurance policies creates any new wealth; it is just using up the wealth that has been
November 23, 1967

created by others who see fit to make that sort of contribution to our country.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
At the moment there is a shortage of funds in Canada with which to carry out those measures we believe are important to the social aspects of this country. The incorporation of another insurance company would drain from our capital market funds with which the company would probably put up a 50 storey office building in the city of Toronto. The money expended on this air conditioned skyscraper could be used to build 10,000 houses for those people who see fit to produce the wealth, but who cannot get their hands on the material or money to enable them to obtain decent housing.
The building of more insurance company offices would not only be unwise, but it would detract from those projects we feel the country most sorely needs.
There is another threat in Canada today. The popular theme is that we cannot improve our standard of living until we increase our productivity. For the past eight or nine years, our productivity has risen from 3 per cent to 7 per cent. These people urge that if we are to increase our standard of living we must increase our output of goods. If we use this as a yardstick, then we must say that the more of us who contribute our time to production the more our productivity level will rise. Perhaps this is one of the reasons our productivity level has not risen as we think it should have, or as the economic council has recommended.
We see that there are some sectors of our society who are certainly doing their best to increase productivity. The steel workers, for example, are working hard to hold up these productivity figures. In fact they are working to such a degree that the productivity increase effected by steel workers in Canada is higher than for steel workers in the United States. This brings us back to a consideration of the question of wage parity. Why should not those who make steel in Canada get higher wages than those who make it in the United States, since the Canadian workers are producing more? As I say, therefore, the question of wage parity comes into this problem. When a man produces, certainly he should receive his just reward for that production.
By pulling all these insurance salesmen out of the production side of our society and putting them on the parasitic side, we are going to reduce our productivity. This would
Private Bills
be bad for the entire population. Not only does it throw a heavier burden on those who have to try to hold up the productivity level, but I think everyone has to accept a certain degree of responsibility for the production of wealth in this country of ours.
During the last 31 years I have been on the production side of our society, and then six months ago I joined the parasitic side. I sit here tonight and feast on those who go down in the mines, in the mills or smelters, or wherever they are. Certainly, I did not want to come here to join this non-productive group of people. I think the main reason for my coming here was to help the ones who are carrying the load-and I am referring to the individuals who would have to go out and buy insurance at inflated prices. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we have to look further than merely creating another insurance company; we have to think how this will affect Canada.
This company seeks to conduct business in many fields, one of which is fire insurance, one of the most important aspects of the insurance industry. Regardless of how poor a man is, he has to have a dwelling wherein he may find shelter. Certainly if this building, regardless of its value, is devastated by fire, he is out in the cold. He has to protect himself; so he has to go out and buy this type of insurance, regardless of price. I believe he has to pay a price which bears no relationship to the protection he receives.
The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) cited some of the excessive costs, including television programs, which insurance companies have incurred. We all know the cost of these things, and we all know who ultimately bears the cost. It is the person who has to go to the marketplace and buy insurance. When these people are watching television at night, they do not realize they have paid for the program ten times over, and could probably go down to the corner theatre and see the same show for less. This is an expensive advertising medium. The insurance companies show no restraint, in the knowledge that, regardless of what they spend on programs-$30,000 or $40,000 their salesmen will be out on the street tomorrow recouping that loss from the poor, innocent, unwashed victims who are on the productive side of society.
There is one other aspect of insurance with which this company proposes to deal, and that is insurance on motor vehicles. In Ontario alone there are approximately 400

November 23, 1967
Private Bills
companies selling automobile insurance. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, in fact I believe everybody in Ontario is aware of the high cost of protecting an automobile from accident or protecting yourself from a damage suit. The other day I saw a figure indicating how much the people of Ontario spend for this type of insurance, and if I remember correctly it was about $600 million that was being spent for dubious insurance protection.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
One inherent weakness of all automobile insurance policies in Ontario is that the policyholder must prove negligence before he can recover damages. Let me explain this further. I have paid my insurance premium of $200. Car drivers in Ontario who are not insured must pay into what is called the unsatisfied judgment fund. This is the best name for it, because everyone who goes to the fund comes away unsatisfied. So it was not a misnomer when it was called the unsatisfied judgment fund. Either people pay their contributions to the fund, or they are forced into an insurance office.
Let me suppose, to illustrate my point, that while I am walking down the shoulder of a road tonight a hit and run driver runs me over and breaks both my legs. I am left lying in the road in the dark. There is no way I can secure compensation for the damage done to my body, let alone the loss of income, the inconvenience and the pain and suffering. Even though this hit and run driver may have paid an insurance premium and I have paid mine, and even though I have suffered physical damage in that my legs are broken -damage which might be worth $5,000 or $6,000-the insurance companies are not obligated to accept any responsibility because I cannot identify the driver who ran over me.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I cannot chase after the car if both my legs are broken, and obtain some sort of compensation. Therefore I suggest I am paying for a protection that I am not receiving. Each and every one of us walks along the streets of Ontario today at his own risk, even though collectively we have spent $600 million or so on insurance coverage.
I suggest we should be considering situations of this kind instead of proliferating insurance companies that do not seek to insure us. The last thing in their minds is to provide anybody with protection from loss; they are motivated only to make money. They even write into their contracts, in fine print all sorts of exemptions. A bill was

introduced the other day which sought to remove fine print clauses from such contracts. It was suggested that certain clauses be written in red, blue, green or purple ink, but I suggest that this would not solve the problem. We should strike at the root of the matter.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, insurance companies are not in business to protect me. They would not care two hoots in hell if I remained on the road with broken legs all night, as long as this did not cost them any money. They make their money by failing to give protection that collectively we have contracted with them to provide. Some people might say that $200 a year is not an enormous sum, but collectively we contribute a tremendous amount of money by way of insurance premiums.
Automobile insurance companies in Ontario also use gimmicks to raise their rates. Each and every year they invent a different story. One gimmick that was used downgraded their income, so they could go to the public and ask for what they considered to be a legitimate increase in insurance premiums. These premiums, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are paid in advance. I pay my premium for a 12-month period, even though I do not receive the benefit of the insurance until the 365th day. I prepay my $200, or whatever it is, 365 days before the policy falls due. Some people who understand finance prefer to make quarterly premiums or half yearly premiums. I think the only way to deal with these people is to pay each day's premium the night before. In addition, you do not receive any discount or interest on prepaid premiums, so under the present system it is therefore impossible to get value for your money. These insurance companies use your money free of interest, and hundreds of millions of dollars are involved. I remember I borrowed some of this money that I gave them free of interest to finance some construction on my house, but I had to pay 8^ per cent interest.
This aspect of the matter is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, but according to the figures supplied by insurance companies, prepaid premiums produce revenue for these companies. However, this earning does not show in the balance sheets of insurance companies. I suggest that the returns made by these companies should be straightened out and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to
November 23, 1967

him has expired. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Seven o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being seven
o'clock, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members business has expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Pennell-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Capital murder defined.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-168, to amend the Criminal Code. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The house in committee on Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code. Shall clause 1 carry?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before I proceed, and possibly to shorten the time that need be spent in discussion, may I ask the Solicitor General whether he has discussed with his advisers and experts the matter that was raised before the supper break? Has he discussed it with other members of the government, and is he prepared to accept the amendment of which he was informed in the house, and about which I talked with him privately?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I have given the hon. member's proposed amendment serious consideration. Speaking for myself, and only for myself, I must advise the hon. member that I cannot support the amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall not delay. I may point out that I shall move an amendment at the end of my remarks.
The bill we are now discussing in committee of the whole abolishes capital punishment except in the instance where a police officer,
DEBATES	4629
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence or a warden or guard in a penitentiary is murdered. As I say, in all other instances the death penalty has been abolished. This afternoon I asked the Solicitor General to consider that certain sections of the Criminal Code put ordinary citizens into positions occupied, at certain times, by police officers. In my hand I have the 1967 edition of Martin's Annual Criminal Code. It is up to date; I know that the Code has been changed. According to Martin's Annual Criminal Code, section 110 of the Code, in part, reads as follows:
HO. Every one who-
(b) omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so,...
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
I raised the question this afternoon about the citizen who is in the bank while a bank robbery is committed. Let us say that a policeman comes in, turns to the citizen and says, "Help me to arrest this bank robber." The citizen must help the policeman, because that is his legal duty under the Criminal Code. He then accepts the full responsibility that is the police officer's, and takes the chances that the policeman then takes. Under the Criminal Code the citizen is the equal of the policeman, but he is not the equal of the policeman under this bill. Under the bill, if that person, whose legal obligation is to help the policeman, is killed, then his murderer may not be sentenced to any more than life imprisonment. If the accused, the murderer, were to kill the police officer, on conviction he would be liable to the penalty of capital punishment.
Let us take the matter further and look at section 434 of the Criminal Code which says:
Any one may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence.
Supposing that we leave our home one evening and go to a local store; supposing that on our way we find someone trying to break into another store. This other store is locked, and the man trying to break in is committing an indictable offence. Our legal obligation under the code is to arrest that person who is committing the indictable offence. If we assume that obligation, which it is our responsibility under the Code to assume, and if we are killed while exercising that responsibility, the murderer, in this case the accused, will be sent to jail for life. Had a
November 23, 1967
4630	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence policeman come along and been killed, the accused, on conviction, would have been sentenced to death. What kind of nonsense is this?
Taking my ai'gument further, section 436 of the Criminal Code reads:
Any one may arrest without warrant a person who, on reasonable and probable grounds, he believes
(a)	has committed a criminal offence, and
(b)	is
(i)	escaping from, and
(ii)	freshly pursued by, persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
The provisions of sections 434 and 436 are almost identical. In other words, to come to grips with the subject quickly, if a person who accepts his responsibilities under the Criminal Code arrests someone who is committing an indictable offence and is killed, the murderer, under this bill, will be sentenced to life imprisonment. On the other hand, if the accused kills a policeman, he will swing.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The Solicitor General said the only way in which he could get this bill through the house was by moving it in its present form. I say to the abolitionists that for those who really want to abolish capital punishment, this bill is a hoax. The minister is telling us, in effect, that he has had to play ducks and drakes with the House of Commons by getting the bill drafted in such a way that if a person kills a police officer, and is found guilty of capital murder, he receives the penalty of capital punishment, whereas if he kills a civilian who is doing the same job as a policeman, the penalty is life imprisonment. Hon. members opposite have created second class citizens; that is what they have done.
The Solicitor General knows I have a great deal of affection for him, and I respect his sincerity and his honesty. But he is telling us, in effect: I know this is a bad bill, but I cannot get it through unless I put these titbits in to win over retentionist votes. I say he and his friends are making a complete mockery of justice. This is the strongest argument I can make. If there is any moral, legal or logical idea in this bill in favour of singling out any particular class, then it is right to follow the same course with respect to everyone taking on the same responsibilities. Let us have no second class citizens in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Question. You are wasting your energy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I may be wasting my energy, but it is time someone stood up and said these things. I voted against abolition, but I would prefer to vote for complete abolition rather than vote for the bill before us, because it is a bad bill and it makes a complete mockery of justice. The only reason the Solicitor General and his friends will vote against this amendment is that they want to pilot this bill through, no matter how bad it is and no matter what it does to the administration of justice.
Surely, when we are dealing with a matter as important as the administration of justice we ought to be men of principle, men of sincerity. If hon. members opposite believe in abolition, let them be sincere in expressing that principle. This is a democracy. If a bill in favour of abolition goes through the house I am prepared to accept it 100 per cent. But I would prefer to see complete abolition, than support a bill the effect of which is to throw out a few crumbs with the object of getting it through. Does not this prove what I said at the opening of this debate? What the government is really doing is this: It attempting to legalize what it has done illegally. It is designed to help the consciences of hon. gentlemen opposite. Justice cannot be administered on this basis; I say this in all seriousness.
We criticize what is going on here and there among young people today. If there is anything wrong it is we who are responsible. As long as we implement such laws as this in parliament, how can young people have any respect for parliament or for the Prime Minister or for the Solicitor General? We have made a mockery out of justice and we are responsible if we fail to invest law and justice with the dignity they deserve. We are in danger of eroding the morality upon which a great democracy is built. This is so important that I have decided to say a few words about it tonight.


An hon. Member:: About democracy?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member is a friend of mine. I did not think he would want to heckle me while I am speaking on this important subject. I realize he is an abolitionist and I respect his views. He is in favour of complete abolition and I know he would want good laws.
What the Solicitor General is arguing is still worse. It is likely to bring society down to a level which we would all abhor-a women murdered in broad daylight on the
November 23, 1967

streets of one of our cities, and no one coming to her protection. This is what may happen in Canada. When the policeman calls "Assist me because I am unable to tackle this gang", do you know what a citizen is going to say? He will answer that he refuses to assist because of a law which was passed in parliament. How can we have any respect for this law? Better to make it entirely in favour of abolition, because this is a bad law and hon. gentlemen opposite are making a mockery of justice.
If a citizen fails to come forward and assist the police when requested, he can be charged and sent to gaol for two years. Will the minister tell us that he intends to see that this law is carried out, or that the attorneys general of the various provinces will implement this particular provision? I question it. As far as I am concerned, there is no foundation for such a bad law. If it is intended to make an exemption, let us make a logical and reasonable exemption. Otherwise this is just a device used to get a measure through this house, no matter how bad it is, no matter that it lacks all principle. It is simply a matter of expediency.
I heard one hon. member say "oh". I do not believe the Acting Prime Minister will take that attitude. I believe he realizes that my stand is a correct one. When we pass laws, let us make sure they are reasonable laws. I have voted in favour of retention but I am prepared to vote for complete abolition rather than vote for such a version as this.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will answer that question.
I thought the Solicitor General would accept the amendment-that he would appreciate the weakness in the bill as drafted. I do not think this weakness was realized until I raised the point, and the hon. gentleman's colleagues are now saying to him: "Do not change it; we will railroad the bill through, bad or not." They say it is to be a free vote. I leave that to the consciences of everyone here. I have read out the relevant sections of the code, and I say the government is legislating to establish two classes of people tonight. Remember, we are not dealing with unimportant situations; we are dealing with a matter which affects the morality of the country, the criminal law and the administration of justice.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
If the citizens of the country do not respect law, then the first seeds of that which brings 27053-293
DEBATES	4631
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence about riots and other conditions in society have been sown. This is what has happened in the United States. Therefore, I intend to move my amendment now. I move:
That after the words "employed for" in the eleventh line of section 1 subsection (2) (a) will be added the words "or engaged in" and the word "duties" in the same subsection line 13 be deleted and the word "duty" be substituted therefor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance that I again enter into this debate. It was with reluctance I discovered that the subject of capital punishment was to come before us again this year, after having been decided by the house a year and a half ago. Two weeks ago when I on short notice participated in the debate on second reading I was reluctant to do so because of the subject matter. Well, despite that feeling on my part, I am obliged tonight to enter into the discussion because of the nature of the debate generally and the way in which the Solicitor General is resisting a reasonable approach on this occasion.
Before the adjournment for the supper hour I expressed some regret at the nature of the contribution that was made by the Prime Minister when he spoke on this bill, and when he emphasized that retaliation was one of the main points, apparently, of those who favoured retention, and that deterrence was the other. He gave the greater emphasis to deterrence. I pointed out how he had failed to deal with the other arguments which had been produced in this house, and certainly the argument which I made concerning the protection of society.
I am not at all concerned about retaliation; I reject that. On the subject matter of deterrence I have said in the past that I thought the statistics quoted on each side of the problem were not convincing. I rejected the statement of those who said that fear of punishment or fear of death was not a factor with regard to those who committed crimes. I still remain unconvinced with regard to that argument.
I notice, sir, that over in Great Britain where the abolition of capital punishment has been in effect for two years there has been an increase in crimes of capital murder. I think the Solicitor General, when he was giving us figures the other day, should have drawn that to our attention. I happened to be in England a month ago. In the newspapers I read a public letter by Duncan Sandys, member of parliament, which pointed out that the five year experimental abolition of capital punishment in England was to come to an
November 23, 1967
4632	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence end in 1970, at which time parliament would have an opportunity to take further action. He has called upon people to sign a petition urging the re-introduction of capital punishment at the end of the five year experimental period. In that letter he drew attention to the increase in the crimes of capital murder. Those who have argued for and against the deterrent value of capital punishment should have brought this to our attention. I think the Solicitor General, who is quite a fair person, might have done so.
I should like to quote now from the Stornoway Gazette and West Coast Advertiser of October 28, 1967. Mr. Duncan Sandys pointed out that there have been 71 capital murders in the two years, since the deterrent of capital punishment was removed, and that this compares with 41 such murders during the two previous years. He said that in other words the rate has risen by no less than 73 per cent. Then he goes on to point out the offences in which firearms were used, any of which might well have resulted in murder. The number has risen from 731 in 1964 to 1,511 in 1966, an increase of over 100 per cent. It is not only in respect of England that we are aware of the increase in serious crimes.
When I spoke on this subject previously this fall I suggested a compromise which passed unnoticed by those who argued for complete abolition and those who now are arguing for partial abolition. I said, why not leave the statute as it is, in case we have to make use of it in the future because of the development of organized crime and the rising crime rate in our country, in the United States and in England? I was very charitable toward the present government. I know they have been commuting all the cases that have come before them. I did not criticize them severely for that, because of my experience while on the government side. I said that with the prerogative of mercy resting in the hands of the governor in council I was not prepared to offer criticism in respect of any particular case which has come before the cabinet. I know they have more information in their possession than I have in my possession, because I can go only by what I read in the newspapers concerning these crimes.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
On the basis of the superficial evidence I have I think the cabinet has been wrong. Again let me say this is not an accusation I am making, but I do suggest that we should let the law stand as it is now on the statute


books, in the event we may need it. Let us not be put in the position of having a serious outbreak of crime and being forced to reverse the process by reinstating capital punishment. That is precisely what is going on in Great Britain. Having abolished capital punishment they now wish to reinstate it on the statute books. The petition of Mr. Duncan Sandys has the support of a number of members of parliament in all parties. This situation cuts right across party distinctions.
The other day I asked the Solicitor General a question regarding a public opinion survey that was carried out at Expo.


Mr. Byrne:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Without quoting the appropriate citation in Beauchesne's, I should like to direct your attention to the fact that the hon. member is now reflecting on a decision-


Jay Waldo Monteith: Will you please sit down?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This is a question involving-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I mean it. Will you sit down and let the hon. gentleman speak?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, since when has it become improper for an hon. member to raise a point of order?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Any point of order that you might raise would be redundant.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I certainly
intend to ask you to make a ruling as to whether the house has made a decision in respect of the principle of this bill, and whether the argument now posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is a reflection on the decision this house took earlier today.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We are on clause one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I understand we are dealing with clause one of the bill, and it has been the practice in this house to hold a general discussion at this stage. When could a general discussion be held, except when we are discussing clause one?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: You had an opportunity during second reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I am out of order I expect the Chairman will so instruct me, but he has given no indication of that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-
November 23, 1367


An hon. Member:: Why don't you go back
to sleep again?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to ask the Chair to rule as to whether or not the hon. member is making a reflection upon a decision of this house, and I refer to the acceptance in principle of this bill.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Chair is familiar with the substance of clause one. It is my opinion that it is close to the substance of the principle of the bill which was discussed at the second reading stage. However, it is a little difficult to decide that what is being said now is not in accordance with the substance of clause one. In any event, I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to continue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: I think he is out of
order.


Jay Waldo Monteith: He is nothing of the sort; he is not out of order.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, I think the member has just reflected on the ruling of the Chair, and that he should be ruled out of order.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps the best thing for the committee to do is allow the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to continue with the bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I was drawing attention to the fact that I posed a question the other day based on a statement I read in the newspaper to the effect that an opinion poll had been held at the Canadian pavilion at Expo regarding the abolition of capital punishment. Hansard has recorded my question based on the report, which indicated that 19,000 voted in favour of abolition and 5,500,000 voted against. I now ask the Solicitor General whether this poll was conducted at the Canadian pavilion and, if so, by which department, and are these figures accurate? The Solicitor General did not answer that question, although he said he knew nothing about it. Since I asked the question two days have elapsed and I have not yet received and answer. This whole matter has been referred to in letters carried by various newspapers, and it has been brought to my attention by a citizen who wrote me. If this report is accurate I suggest that parliament is now attempting to accomplish something which is not in accord with
DEBATES	4633
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence the general feeling of the citizens of this country.
I am prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River. His argument was very ably presented, and I should like to reiterate his surprise that the Solicitor General would not accept the principle of the amendment. Its purpose is simply to place a citizen who is acting to protect society, in accordance with the law, in the same position as a police officer and others mentioned in the bill. Surely there is nothing wrong with that suggestion. As mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River, it will soon become known that a citizen acting conjointly with an officer of the law, or on his own, in upholding the law, might be in serious danger because he is not protected. I presume that these citizens will wonder why they should co-operate with our police forces or attempt to assist in upholding the law. Surely it would be wrong to create this feeling among our citizenry. I suggest we should do the opposite. We should encourage our citizens to help uphold the law by supporting our police forces. Unless this amendment is accepted the reverse will occur.
A criminal who kills a citizen who is assisting a police officer should be subject to the same penalty as a criminal who kills a member of a police force. That is all we are attempting to accomplish by this amendment, and it is inconceivable that the Solicitor General and the government would not accept that proposition. If the government is not going to accept the amendment we should be told why. We have not put this amendment forward as a delaying tactic, as some people might argue. It has been put forward in all seriousness, because there is an omission in the bill. We are not unfamiliar with omissions in bills placed before this house during the last four years. If someone listed the bills of major importance this government has introduced which have not been subject to amendment, it would be very small. Every bill of major importance brought before this house in the last four years has been amended because of loose drafting, omission of something of that nature.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
All we are suggesting is that this point has been overlooked. We are finding no fault with anyone. We are finding no fault with the drafters, no fault with the Solicitor General. We are simply saying that when many minds are applied to a bill in this house, someone very frequently discovers there has
November 23, 1967
4634	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence been some error or omission in the bill. That is what has happened in this case. We say to the Solicitor General, correct this error and then we will proceed.
It is on that basis that the amendment has been presented tonight. I can certainly go along with what the hon. member for Bow River has said with regard to the bill in general, which is partially for abolition and partially for retention of the death penalty. I do not like it. There are many people in the house who do not like it. Part of my reluctance earlier was just because of the nature of the bill.
I expressed my regrets that some very close friends of mine who are and have been eloquent advocates of the abolition of capital punishment have been placed in the position in which this government placed them today, namely that the bill compels people to vote for abolition with respect to certain categories of murder and retention with regard to others. I honestly cannot understand how a bill of this nature can be supported.
I agree with the hon. member for Bow River that it would be far better to vote either for or against abolition, so that one's decision is clearcut and definite. But the Solicitor General has indicated to us that the bill would have failed unless he had introduced these extra clauses which exempt most categories of criminals, but place a severe penalty on those who are so foolish as to kill an officer of the law.
The Solicitor General says that only by introducing this type of bill could he gain sufficient voting support to get his bill through the house. I have respect for the Solicitor General, but wonder whether his conscience is very easy over this method of approach. I do not think it can be. Certainly as far as I am concerned, I believe we should continue to press him now to make the modification that we are suggesting. If this bill is eventually to become the law of the land, let us fix it up in those areas in which it is deficient in its wording. Here there has been an omission which the Solicitor General should correct. That is my submission, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bow River, which I shall have great pleasure in supporting.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I quite accept the view of the hon. member who spoke last, that this is not an amendment to delay or water down this bill in an attempt to make it


meaningless, although the spate of amendments that has been presented to the house today might indicate that there was some such tactic or plan.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is unfair, Mr. Chairman. May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he suggesting that when I introduced the amendment with regard to children, that was done as a delaying tactic, or was it done with a sincere desire to protect the children of this country?


John James Greene: I say, Mr. Chairman, that the spate of amendments that has been presented here today might have been an indication that some hon. members wished to delay the passage of this bill or water it down to a point that would not bring it as close to abolition as the bill attempts to do. However, the hon. member has said that this is not his intent, and I have stated that I accept his view in that regard.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is nice of you.


John James Greene: I wish to draw one or two points to the attention of the committee with respect to the amendment of the hon. member for Bow River. I feel sure that as an experienced counsel he would not wish to mislead or leave anything on the record that was not very clear according to the law as it exists, and not the law as he would like it to be for the purpose of his argument.
I believe the hon. member for Bow River attempted in his argument to propound the proposition to the committee that irrespective of the circumstances, under section 110 of the Criminal Code there is a duty on a citizen to obey the order of a peace officer with respect to aiding him when a crime is being perpetrated. I think the hon. member tried to leave the inference that if a crime were being perpetrated under such circumstances that might indicate that murder or killing would occur, an order of a peace officer should be obeyed willy-nilly.
In the first place, of course, whether any peace officer would give such an order to a citizen to aid him in circumstances where the citizen might lose his life is highly questionable. But in any event, I think the law should be made very clear so that hon. members may clearly understand the argument before the committee.
Section 110 of the Criminal Code says very clearly that a citizen must obey such an order only where the circumstances are such that he does not have a reasonable excuse for
November 23, 1967	COMMONS
not obeying the order. Certainly to my mind that indicates very clearly that it the circumstances are such that the citizen asked to help a peace officer might lose his life, the citizen would have a reasonable excuse for not obeying such an order.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: What good would that be, if he lost his life?


John James Greene: So the law is not, as the hon. member for Bow River appeared to me to indicate in his argument, that the citizen has to obey such an order whether he likes it or not. The law is quite clear, that if the citizen has reasonable excuse for not obeying such an order, it is not incumbent upon him to obey the order.
This of course is what the Solicitor General in his opening remarks to the committee tried to make very clear, namely that in each set of circumstances the duty of the citizen differs, depending upon those circumstances.
I think this should be made very clear in the argument put forward on this point.
I think the hon. member for Bow River, I am sure inadvertently or out of enthusiasm in making his argument, did not very clearly bring to the attention of the committee that the words of sections 434 and 436 of the Criminal Code are that a citizen "may" arrest without warrant a person under the circumstances envisaged in these sections of the Code.
There is no duty upon a citizen, as the hon. member for Bow River tried to indicate, to make an arrest without a warrant. This is quite clearly within the purview of police officers or peace officers and is not within the purview of an ordinary citizen. The ordinary citizen has the right to do so if he wishes. He can do so, as the sections say, but there is no duty upon him, and it is not incumbent upon him to do so. I think this should be very clear in the record of the house and should not be left in the context of the argument of the hon. member for Bow River, who suggested that there was a duty upon the citizen to make an arrest under those circumstances.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I should like to say in conclusion, because I wish to be very brief in this argument, that the hon. member for Bow River remarked that the Solicitor General was playing ducks and drakes with the house, that he was using this approach as a matter of expediency, that irrespective of the nature of the bill as he is presenting it he is just using the device of
DEBATES	4635
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence adding "a few gimmicks", as the hon. member put it, in order to get the bill through the house. I think this is a very unfair criticism and an improper argument. To those who believe that any movement away from the original concept that an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life, is progress; to those who believe that the state no more than anyone else has the right to take a life; to those who believe that movement in that direction is progress; to those who believe that humanity in any society is improved when it comes to the point where it no longer takes a life-surely any step in this direction is a step toward progress.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Bow Rover, who has great respect and reverence for the house and who urges the government continually to heed the dictates of the house, that the last time a vote was taken on this issue it appeared from the record that the majority of the members of the house would have supported a bill worded in the terms of the present one. This appears to be the consensus of the house at that time when we analyze the statistics of the voting. Therefore this bill is couched in terms which represent the last views of the house, according to the analysis of the voting at that time. I do not think this is playing ducks and drakes with the house in any way, shape or form. It is an attempt to bring before the house a bill which is worded in the very terms that the house would have approved at that time.
To those who believe any movement toward abolition is progress in human terms and is the building of a better society, there is a duty to bring before the house a bill worded along the lines which the house would have supported when it last dealt with the matter, and which would indicate the maximum degree of abolition the house would appear to have supported on the last occasion when it had the opportunity to vote on this subject.


David Vaughan Pugh: The Minister of Agriculture has supplied us with a good deal of information. I have always considered him to be one who tries most often to plow a straight furrow; but at the same time I believe he is a little off beat on this whole matter. The amendment now before us deals with the citizens who come to the aid of a police officer and who do their duty as citizens of Canada. What happens to their families and their dependants if they are killed?
November 23. 1967
4636	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
Reference was made to bank hold-ups and the use of guns. The minister has said that if a citizen saw a gun being used he could excuse himself by saying "I do not want to get mixed up in this affair, because I might get killed". But what about a parallel case in which a police officer comes running out to a citizen whom he knows well and says to him "Joe"-he might be speaking to the Minister of Agriculture-"the bank robber has gone that way; you have your car here with its motor running, take me along and let us pursue him". Let us suppose that in the course of that pursuit the citizen is killed. What happens then? I think this shatters the minister's argument because, as the Solicitor General said in his opening speech, different sets of circumstances face the citizen who might be called upon to aid a police officer. Let us not consider only one individual circumstance, if there is any possibility of the citizen coming to some harm as the result of having aided a police officer.
As has been said by the hon. member for Bow River and as has been mentioned on several occasions this afternoon, we are considering legislation which we hope will stand fast for many years. However, whether or not it stands fast, until a change is made it will be the legislation governing all citizens of Canada. Let us therefore not take a stopgap measure but let us prepare for the future. I believe this is a common sense attitude.
Many reasons have been advanced for voting in favour of the bill, and for the preponderance of members to vote in favour of this legislation. Let us admit the fact that this is a compromise bill. The Prime Minister has said that it is better to have three quarters of a load than nothing. If it is a compromise bill, then we should examine it carefully at this stage to see whether or not additions should be made to it. There is a perfectly reasonable amendment before the house at the present time which is based on the fact that a different law will be applied to the murderer of a police officer or of a private citizen assisting a police officer.
There is another point which I should like to make. I believe that we are faced with the paradox of having a free vote on a bill introduced by the government. In view of this, I suggest the government should bend over backwards to consider any amendment or addition that might be made to the bill. The fact that the government accept amendments does not mean that their ideas are being defeated. Since this is to be a free vote on a
[Mr. Pugh.l

government bill, amendments to it should not be turned down with no consideration being given to them. I believe that the hon. member for Bow River has proposed a very good amendment, which does not change the principle of the bill. This afternoon the Secretary of State tried to rule out previous amendments by saying she had voted for the bill in principle and therefore it should not be changed. However, I would point out that the Secretary of State voted in favour of the first amendment, which included children.
[DOT] '(9:00 p.m.)
So, let us not just curtail this provision without giving it a good deal of consideration. What you are adding to this bill, if the Solicitor General would agree, is not all that extensive. It would only impress upon us the fact that a private citizen who has been commanded to come to the aid of a peace officer, puts himself in a slightly different position. Mention has been made this afternoon by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that there will be a deterioration of the willingness of a private citizen to assume the duty of coming to the aid of a peace officer. I think this is probably the most important point. You can utter all the words in the world in the House of Commons, make all the explanations you like, but the private citizen will only get one message, namely that he is not considered the equivalent of a peace officer. He will therefore try to avoid coming to the aid of a peace officer, for any excuse at all.
While we are making excuses, let us face the fact that a policeman does not write a letter to a man requesting help because he is going to make an arrest. This is something that happens on the spur of the moment, so there must be an instantaneous decision made. If the citizen has imbedded in his mind the fact that if he helps the peace officer he is in a different position from the peace officer, then perhaps his instant reaction will be to do nothing whatever to aid this peace officer in time of need.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the law is at the moment with respect to a citizen assisting a police officer. I believe a citizen is obligated to assist a police officer in his duty of enforcing the law. If a citizen does not carry out this function, he may be charged. Perhaps I could ask the Solicitor General if he can clear up these points. In my opinion the provisions of this bill, which are described as a deterrent, are at the
November 23, 1967	COMMONS
opposite ends of the poles when considered in conjunction with the directive given to the people of Canada to aid a peace officer. Surely, it is evident to anyone that this same experiment was conducted in Great Britain. It was an all-party decision, and it has been tried for a few years; but today there is a desire for the return of capital punishment. I ask the Solicitor General to consider these points.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the duty of the public to assist a policeman, I may say I do not believe there is any doubt about it whatever. Section 110 of the Criminal Code, subsection (b) reads:
Everyone who omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
The Minister of Agriculture says that a reasonable excuse would be that he did not want to risk his person. In my opinion this is absolute nonsense. On many occasions during my work as a policeman, I not only asked the public to assist but I demanded this assistance, not only with their person but with their property. On more than one occasion I have commandeered automobiles to try to apprehend persons who had recently broken the law. Any member of the public who had an automobile in running order would be expected to use that automobile, or I would have arrested him then and there for having committed an indictable offence by refusing to co-operate. I would have put him under arrest and commandeered the automobile.
I am an abolitionist, and I am therefore anxious that this bill pass, either amended or not amended. However, I am going to support this amendment to this bill because I think it will clarify the law. This provision gives very narrowly limited protection to policemen. I believe any judge could very well say that if I had been commanded to aid a policeman, then to all intents and purposes I am a policeman. I want to vote for this amendment particularly because I, for one, hate to live in a country where the law is ambiguous. I want to know what my duty is both as a citizen and a policeman. My attitude as an abolitionist, I hasten to say, does not stem from a soft attitude toward criminals. I believe that the laws of Canada, fully respected and fully carried out by an efficient policeman, with an alert public that is willing to co-operate with that force, is the only
DEBATES	4637
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence real protection we have against crime, organized or otherwise.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I just want to say one word.
I have been voting against the amendments, but I think this is a logical amendment within a logical situation. I propose to vote for the amendment, and if I may say so without offence, I hope we can come to a vote.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I have tried not to overstep the mark in this debate and I have kept my interventions to a strict minimum, but on the amendment moved by the member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) and after all the remarks I have heard this afternoon and this evening, I can no longer refrain from setting certain things straight.
First, I support unreservedly the amendment of the member for Bow River, because I find it much more consistent or at least it completes the logic of this bill for which so many members of the house showed concern.
I do not have the text of the amendment, but if I understood correctly, it provides for taking into account, among the victims of murderers, those who go out of their way to help constables, police officers, to prevent the commission of crimes, whether on request or on their own initiative to maintain order. An argument was added saying that if they fail to do so when they are faced with a situation where they can prevent a crime, they might be liable to legal proceedings.
I have listened with particular attention to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and I say they are symptomatic of all other interventions by members of the cabinet on this ill-conceived, ill-defended and ill-presented bill.
When I am told that it was a free vote, it might be true for the opposition parties, I believe it because the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) had a different opinion from his colleagues at the time of the vote, but on the government side, I think the free vote should no longer be mentioned, because even if it is claimed that no pressure was exerted I should say-without naming names, because I want to be discreet, as is customary between gentlemen-that pressures have been exerted, otherwise the result would have been different from what it has been tonight.
When the Minister of Agriculture spoke of opposition-I think he was referring to all those who oppose the bill moved by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) and that is
November 23, 1967
4938	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence why I felt I was being attacked-I think he struck below the belt when he said that the opponents of the bill were using time-wasting tactics, that we simply wanted to delay the passage of the bill. I think that, if dilatory tactics have been used, members of the cabinet must accept full responsibility for them, because 18 months ago, we voted on this bill and the results of the vote were perfectly clear: more than 40 votes for the retention of capital punishment. Now, of his own admission, the Solicitor General proposes a bill which is based on camouflage and false representations. Besides, he said himself that if he had not agreed to such compromise-I call that electoral compromise, since he admitted that he wanted a majority vote in the house-he would not have put such a bill before us.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The principle involved is this: Are we for or against the death penalty? It is not a matter of pricing the value of human life just as meat in a butcher shop at so much a pound, but rather of knowing if we are for or against capital punishment.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I am an abolitionist as a matter of principle. However, I shall be an abolitionist when somebody will have given me proof that the penitentiary system is what it should be in the circumstances, that it serves to protect society, that it provides true rehabilitation for criminals. But until then, I say that these are false representations and I tell those who charge us with obstruction that they are not sincere, because obstruction was forced upon the house by this bill. It is brought back 18 months later, after the house had decided rather categorically and after we had seen the cabinet commute the penalty of all those who had been sentenced to death.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I was paired with the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Pearson). I considered it an honour and a gesture of courtesy a gentleman could not refuse. But if the government side continues to use arguments such as the ones we heard this afternoon and this evening, I shall have to go back on my word and endeavour to use all possible means to amend the bill because I feel that false representations are being made on the government side. I think that pressure was also exercised not only upon the members of the party in office but also upon members of the opposition by accusing them of things such as those we have heard.


Mr. Chairman, they have tried to split hairs. Mind you, I am not a jurist or a lawyer and I have listened with great respect and consideration to the arguments put forward by all the learned lawyers who took part in the debate this afternoon and this evening.
However, I think the time has come for ordinary people like us, who have but our small judgment and conscience to bring to bear on such a matter, to speak our minds.
I think there are too many lawyers here who pass the time splitting hairs, though they do not appear very confident of being right. Now, I believe most of the blame should be laid at the doorstep of the government's legal minds, who are pleading a bad case. It shows plainly on their faces. It seems to us their case is wrong when they ask us, for instance: Why do you want to protect a citizen who has agreed or refused to help a police officer, since the law, after all, does not force him to help; he can refuse, providing he has any reasonable motive?
But will an ordinary citizen, an illiterate who has no education and has not studied law, ask himself such questions when faced by an emergency? Usually, wrong-doers do not warn us in advance, they strike suddenly. The man will simply listen to his conscience and he will spring up immediately or run away, according to whether or not he is brave.
Must we then split hairs to decide if we will pass a legislation to protect him? On the contrary, we must take into account all the weaknesses and deficiencies of human nature. I think this is our duty as legislators, and that is why I will support wholeheartedly the amendment of the hon. member for Bow River.
When people say that, according to section 434 or 464 of the Criminal Code, a citizen can or cannot make an arrest, they are splitting hairs. The question is simple: are they for or against capital punishment? That is all. All the subterfuges, all the camouflage and stratagems used to get us to pass a bill as bad as this one are, in my opinion, a misrepresentation whose consequences will be suffered by those members of the government who try so hard to defend it and do such a pitiful job.
I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) mention the old saying "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". As citizens, we all know that this saying is true. But that does not apply today in the advanced civilization in which we live.
November 23, 1987	COMMONS
I know that the Minister of Agriculture is intelligent enough to think, before I say it to him, that an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, between two citizens, applies, of course, but that the state has been entrusted by citizens with the responsibility of the nation's business. It has a responsibility which, according to the Catholic doctrine in which I was brought up, comes from God, and it has the right to demand retribution and sanctions for citizens who do not comply with the general law, and especially those who disregard this most sacred right, the right to life. The saying "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" does not apply in the case of the state, far from it.
And the proof is that the state is not concerned, for instance in crimes of treason when those who have betrayed the nation are put against a wall and shot. Therefore, it is a false argument, a trick easily seen through.
The Minister of Agriculture said earlier that the last vote, the one taken here eighteen months ago, had not been a very clear vote, because it became clear in the following months that some hon. members would have agreed to a compromise if the bill had been drafted differently. I feel that is a gratuitous assumption, totally unfounded, because that vote taken eighteen months ago, and which to me seemed so clear, asked: Are you for or against maintaining the death penalty in the case of capital murder?
The question was very simple. The house could not be convinced at that time because precisely it was sure that a very great majority of Canadians wanted to maintain the death penalty.
Until parliament guarantees to all Canadians that we have a penitentiary system which can protect the citizens of Canada and help to find the means and the people to rehabilitate the murderers, and which can set up institutions adapted to the conditions of the times so that they do not have to wallow in cages for wild animals where they will eventually think of taking their own lives by hanging themselves, as happens too often every year, until we have a proper system of rehabilitation, in short, until we have all these things, Mr. Chairman, I think the majority of the members, had they not been morally molested and influenced would not have voted this afternoon to pass the motion for second reading.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
This is why I say that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River is
DEBATES	4839
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence at least an improvement on this bill which is badly presented and badly defended, and that we should support it, because it is the result of an implacable logic.
I heard this afternoon an hon. member who said that capital punishment should not. be considered as a protection against future crimes. I think that he is entitled to his. opinion, but it is completely unfounded. Mine is as good as his, because they are not supported by figures and I think that there is a natural law which states that if I think that my life will be endangered because I commit a crime, I will be less inclined to commit one than if I am told: "My friend, you may commit a crime and you will be paid a pension during your lifetime, you will be well housed, fed and made comfortable; you will be paid a rehabilitation course, so that after eight years, ten months and one day, you may go and earn honourably your living anywhere in the world."
Mr. Chairman, I think that if the govern-, ment does not agree to add certain amendments as logical as the one moved by the hon. member for Bow River to such legisla

tion which was so badly drafted, presented and defended, it will throw regrettable discredit on this government. Mr. Chairman, I do not usually use such stern language when I speak about the government. As a rule, I would rather support the government than fight it, because I have not been sent here as. a member of the opposition who must try to take the place of those in power. I have been sent here to try to co-operate with them, whatever the party to which they belong, but under the circumstances I say and I repeat that if the government wishes to re-establish its good name with this legislation which is badly drafted and defended, it will have to accept a few proposed amendments in order to show its goodwill. It should, as is commonly said, meet us half-way when there is such evident contestation about the bill now under consideration.


Maurice Rinfret: Is the committee ready for the question?
And the yeas and nays on the amendment having been taken:


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, at least six members on the government side of the house came in after the vote had
November 23, 1967

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence begun. There were at least six, and I wish to bring that to the attention of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Rinfret: I thank the hon. member for his clairvoyance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Rinfret: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Amendment (Mr. Woolliams) negatived: yeas, 39; nays, 78.


Maurice Rinfret: I declare the
amendment lost.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Approval by governor in council of release after commutation of sentence.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not intend to delay the committee but I wish to ask the Solicitor General something. Clause 2 provides for the prior approval of the governor in council with respect to release or parole in all cases where the sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed as a minimum punishment. The law previously, as I understand, said that the cabinet or governor in council were to be asked to deal with only those cases where capital murder was involved. I think, from my reading of this clause, that the governor in council will be required to review the release or parole of all convicted murderers. That I think is a substantial extension of the responsibilities of the cabinet or governor in council.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I say to the Minister of Justice that, not having been a member of the cabinet, I am not fully aware of all cabinet responsibilities. Nevertheless I ask the Solicitor General whether, in his view, the cabinet is able to undertake, in addition to its multifarious other duties, the added burden that is implicit in this clause. We have been assured that

the cabinet does not deal with these matters without giving them serious attention, and I am wondering whether the cabinet which, after all, is not a judicial body but the main executive of this country dealing with a large variety of subjects, is really in a position to undertake the review which is mentioned in this clause. Is this not another sop in an attempt to satisfy people that the cabinet will be doing something which, in my view, ought to be done by a judicial or at least by an administrative body?


Mr. Rynard:: I am concerned about the same point as is the hon. member for Greenwood. What precautions are taken by the governor in council in these cases? I am further concerned about what happens after prisoners have served ten years and they come up for parole. How many psychiatric examinations will these people have received? I believe that in Kingston penitentiary there is one psychiatrist to serve around 900 prisoners-the Solicitor General can correct me if I am wrong. This is far too heavy a workload for one psychiatrist.
How will it be possible to base conclusions upon facts when there are not enough psychiatrists to go round? What provision is to be made for this situation in this bill? I could very well vote for this provision if I were sure that by the time a prisoner came up for parole sufficient psychiatric examination had been carried out to show, as far as humanly possible, that the man concerned would not go out again and commit murder.
Many in this chamber will remember the case of Red Ryan who was released after by I believe, one psychriatric examination. He went out and committed murder-it was felt that he committed at least three or four crimes-and was finally shot down in the city of Sarnia. It was only after this that the psychiatrist disclosed that the man had paranoid tendencies. This was clearly a case in which insufficient psychiatric examination was carried out. I suggest that prisoners coming up for parole should be removed to a mental institution for a period of three months where they would be subject to staff supervision and staff consultation, so that when the question of parole arose both they themselves and the public in general would be protected.
I had some conversations with the Solicitor General and I know he shares my views on many of these points. But I wonder how the bill will make provision in this direction. At present I must say that our penal institutions
November 23, 19G7	COMMONS
do not have adequate staff and equipment to assess the condition of prisoners and make a useful report to the governor in council.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have not taken part in this debate so far, but I have a crucial question to ask and I hope the minister can answer it at this stage. It is this: How many murders have been committed by persons out on parole after serving a sentence for murder? In other words, how many second murders have been committed, say, in the last 50 years?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Perhaps I may deal with the last question first. To the best of my knowledge, since records have been available there have been two. One was committed while a convicted murderer was inside a penitentiary. It involved another inmate. There was another in which a convicted murderer committed a second murder while on parole. I would point out that under the present law a person could commit two non-capital murders and still not attract a death sentence. The verdict likely to follow a murder committed during a fight between two inmates is one of non-capital murder. Those are the facts to the best of my knowledge.


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister means that two have been caught.


Lawrence T. Pennell: The answer I gave reflected the position to the best of my knowledge.
The hon. member for Simcoe East was kind enough to remind me that we have privately discussed the suggestion that people sentenced to life imprisonment for murder ought to be committed to an institution other than a penitentiary for a complete psychiatric check. I am agreeable to that suggestion and I hope the Parole Act will be before us very shortly. The amendments to the Criminal Code which the Minister of Justice will be introducing will be in the form of an omnibus bill, and they do open up the Parole Act for discussion. I hope the point will be dealt with at that time.
As to the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood, I agree that the work load on the cabinet would be increased. However, before 1961 it is my understanding that all murder cases had to be dealt with by the cabinet. This was before the division of offences into capital and non-capital murder. They were all brought before cabinet when commutation of sentences was being considered. Since we are now reducing the number of crimes attracting the death penalty, the number of cases will be considerably reduced
DEBATES	4641
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence and it is felt that as we envisage a trial period of only five years the governor in council should continue to be involved in cases where parole is being granted to convicted murderers. I cast no reflection of course on the members of the parole board. Three cases have been brought to my attention since I have been Solicitor General. One was approved and the others deferred for further consideration. Consideration by cabinet is a further indication of the care which is taken before parole is granted to a convicted murderer.


David Vaughan Pugh: I have had a number of talks with the Solicitor General on this matter of life imprisonment. What does life imprisonment mean? I think this has been a bother to all hon. members. We are concerned to know exactly what the government has in mind when the bill talks about life imprisonment. The result of our vote means that in capital cases the sentence now is to be life imprisonment. We tried to bring in an amendment to provide for the retention of hanging in the case of sex offences against women and young children in the course of which murder is committed. Have any studies been made by competent medical authorities which would throw light on such crimes? What conclusions have been reached with regard to them by any authoritative body, either here or elsewhere in the world? What are the conclusions?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Perhaps I should now ask the Solicitor General whether these are the conclusions: In cases of sex offenders, regardless of the psychiatric treatment they have had during their incarceration, there is the possibility of the same thing happening again, even murder. Also there is the fact that any body of psychiatrists meeting together can come to only one conclusion; that is, that they cannot guarantee to society what the actions will be of such men if they are released again into society.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, every care is taken, of course, by the parole board when preparing a case for presentation regarding parole. We do not claim infallibility either on the part of the parole board or the governor in council. I think, however, that the excellent record which has been maintained by the board in respect of screening these people and recommending their parole reflects, I think beyond any word of mine, that the greatest care is taken.
November 23, 1967
4642	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
I understand that ii there is any indication to the penitentiary psychiatrist that there may be a disorder of the mind, the subject is referred to three independent psychiatrists who make an assessment of the individual. We look at the recent record, the circumstances surrounding the offence, the age at the time of the offence, the relationship of the individual with the inmates and the staff, and his general progress over a period. Then, using all our resources, we come to a conclusion. As I said a moment ago we are not infallible. We screen them very carefully and no decision is taken with a greater sense of responsibility and care.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he has at hand a record of any study made here or elsewhere in the world in respect of this. I am restricting my remarks not only to the parole board but also to the matter of sex offenders. Like the minister, I believe the parole board, and any other agency which has a connection with the matter of parole, have carried on in a model fashion. They are not swayed by emotion but rather by the facts and the presentations placed before them.
I am interested in learning what life imprisonment means in respect of sex offenders. I should like to know what records are available to the government in respect of the studies made by psychiatrists on this subject.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the parole board of course has consulted with other jurisdictions in an effort to find out how they deal with people who are under the sentence of life imprisonment. However, they must base their own decisions on their own experience, and upon the advice of the experts who are available to them. I should like to point out to the hon. member that those who are the gravest danger to society are often those prisoners who serve a definite sentence for a period of years. These people cannot be kept in the institutions, even though we may feel they present a real danger. They have served their sentence and then go out. We give them the best possible treatment we have available, but after they have served their sentence there is no way the parole board or the penitentiary service can keep them in prison. These are the people who may constitute the greatest danger to society. We hope that the amendment to the Parole Act may bring about some relief on this point. Of course, the house will have to wait until the omnibus bill is brought in.


The man serving a sentence of life imprisonment is there for life, subject to being released on parole, but even if released on parole he is still under sentence and the parole can be revoked and he can be brought back.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister which is also on the subject of life sentence. I wonder whether he has any statistics which show how many convicted murderers have died in prison, except through the normal process of hanging, which has been mandatory for capital murder.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am advised by the officials that since 1921 there have been 117 convicted murderers paroled. Eleven of these have had their parole revoked. Twelve have died whilst on parole. Six were deported and there are 88 still on parole. There is one further question which I believe I have not answered. I am unable to help the hon. member concerning the number who died while serving their sentence of life imprisonment in prison.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have a supplementary question. Would the minister not agree that the term "life imprisonment" should be changed to what it actually means, because it is a fallacy to call it life imprisonment.


Lawrence T. Pennell: There is no member of this house for whom I have greater respect than the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I am sure he knows that; but I cannot agree with him on this point. My own personal feeling on this is that I believe we can rehabilitate some of these men who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. I think the record has proven this. It is not only the belief of this administration. This belief is shared by others. It has been proven that there are life prisoners who have been rehabilitated after serving time and who have come back to be useful citizens.


Mr. Pascoe:: I believe the minister said that 11 persons who were on parole had had their parole cancelled. Could he give the reason for the parole being cancelled?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the information passed to me now shows that there was one whose parole was revoked because of excessive use of alcohol and because he was breaching the conditions of his parole. Another case involved repeated use of
November 23, 1967	COMMONS
alcohol and leaving the area without permission. In this case parole was revoked. Another one was judged to be very unstable; he was suspected of having mental illness. He breached his parole conditions, and therefore in order to protect his wife and society his parole was revoked. One was convicted of robbery and sentenced to two and a half years. Naturally his parole was revoked. Another case was a breach of parole. In this instance he had threatened his common law wife and was considered to be unstable. Another was a case of breach of parole conditions and assault of a police officer. There was an automatic forfeiture. Another became hostile toward his wife and children and his parole was revoked. Another one involved a breach of parole. The individual left without permission and was involved in five charges of drunk and disorderly conduct. That is the information I have available at this moment.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to ask the minister whether he can advise the house as to the number of murderers whose sentences have been commuted broke out of prison and committed further murders or offences, as outlined by the hon. member for Simcoe East?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am advised by my officials that they are not aware of any convicted murderers who escaped from an institution and committed a further murder.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, section 2 of the bill reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other law or authority, a person in respect of whom a sentence of death has been commuted to imprisonment for life or a term of imprisonment or a person upon whom a sentence of imprisonment for life has been imposed as a minimum punishment, shall not be released during his life or such term, as the case may be, without the prior approval of the Governor in Council.
I wonder, therefore, why the governor in council, that is, the cabinet, the government, regardless of the party in power-at present we have a Liberal government-insists upon retaining the right to approve the release or the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment. I wonder why this whole matter should not be put in the hands of the National Parole Board, because in some cases -I am speaking in all objectivity, and I would not want the minister to be offended by my remarks, because they would apply to his government or to any subsequent ones-a
DEBATES	4643
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence very rich man sentenced to life imprisonment could hire very competent, popular and influential lawyers to plead his case? I also see cases which might constitute what is generally called political crimes when governments might be concerned over electoral consequences, over the penalties they might mete out to those responsible for political crimes. There might be some even now and the rumor is rampant. Mr. Chairman, I am not inventing anything. It is currently being repeated at least in my province-I do not know whether it is being said in the rest of the country-that if the government is so insistent in having this bill carry, it is because they do not dare allow the death sentences against the two separatists who have been guilty of murder, lest a scandal result along the lines of the Louis Riel affair in the political history of the province of Quebec. So I wonder if the cabinet-which is very busy today and getting more so every year with all kinds of complex problems while ministers are required to work 12 to 15 hours a day and sometimes more-has really the time to consider questions in depth and if it is not likely on occasion to be influenced by situations such as I have mentioned and to slant an objective decision.
Mr. Chairman, I put the question most objectively to the minister.

Does the minister not think it more appropriate to leave this decision to the parole board? I expect that in some cases the governor in council might have the last word, but in respect of these cases it is my opinion that the decision should be left in the hands of the parole board. I have not the time to outline these cases, but I do not think there should be any possibility of cabinet influence, or influence from outside having regard to money, politics or other angles. I should like to know the reaction of the minister in this regard.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I believe I can set the hon. member's mind at ease regarding the possibility of political influence. The national parole board still must recommend the parole of an inmate before the case comes to the governor in council. If the national parole board does not make a favourable recommendation, the case is not dealt with by the governor in council. The safeguard suggested by the hon. member now exists under the legislation.
4644	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Why is this not set out in the law?


Lawrence T. Pennell: This is set out in the Parole Act.
Having regard to the two separatists mentioned by the hon. member, it is my understanding that the Quebec court of appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. At the present moment they are not under sentence of death. The attorney general's department of that province has appealed the cases to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: During the discussion of clause 2 I should like to ask the Solicitor General several questions. I hope he will answer my first question before I pose the remainder. When I proved by the record the Solicitor General produced to this house that the cabinet was granting parole under the present administration after individuals had served a life sentence of eight years, ten months and one day, a member of this house jumped to his feet in an attempt to get Steven Truscott, a convicted murderer of a defenceless girl, out on parole. He was advised by the Solicitor General that it is now necessary that convicted murderers serve at least ten years. I should like to know what section of what law makes it mandatory that ten years be served. Is this a law or a regulation, and when was it adopted?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for York-Humber I would suggest that I made it clear in answering the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this was a new regulation under the Parole Act. It is my understanding that this regulation was brought into force in 1964, and it applies to all persons convicted of capital murder whose sentences have been commuted.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: If I understand the Solicitor General correctly, this is required by a regulation under the Parole Act, which I presume was drafted by officials of the parole board.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am informed that the regulation was drafted by officials of the Department of Justice.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Does that mean that officials of the Department of Justice thought the cabinet was being altogether too lenient in paroling these individuals after they had served eight years, ten months and one day, and felt the ten year sentence should be mandatory?

DEBATES	November 23, 1967


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
clause two carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have other questions to ask. May I call it ten o'clock.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am
advised-


Maurice Rinfret: It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report progress?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
clause 2 carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have other questions to ask, sir.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I was attempting to answer the hon. member for York-Humber. I was not a member of the ministry at the time this particular regulation was put into effect, but I am advised by one of my colleagues that it was adopted at the request of the governor in council in 1964.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall
clause 2 carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I call it ten o'clock?


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether this is the proper time for me to ask the government house leader if he can tell us the business of the house for tomorrow, and Monday and Tuesday of next week, if possible.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And Wednesday and Thursday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. friends not to test their luck too far. Tomorrow we will begin with item No. 33 on today's order paper, the resolution to amend the Post Office Act, followed by third reading of the Industrial Development Bank Act, committee study of the C.N.R. bill, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and the department of corporate and consumer affairs legislation. This will be the program
November 23, 1967

for tomorrow and probably Monday. We will announce further business next week.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the government house leader that instead of taking the first item that he listed, having to do with the post office, it would be more expeditious to consider the second and third items first, and then move into the post office resolution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is agreeable to us. I gather that hon. members feel they can deal with these items relatively quickly. We will agree to that, and will then continue with the post office resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the house leader say when we will return to committee of the whole stage on the capital punishment bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not certain when we will return to the committee stage of the capital punishment bill,-perhaps Monday or Tuesday.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 16 I asked this question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen):
Have federal officials been invited to attend the provincial conference on pollution which will be convened by the government of Ontario between December 3 and December 5 in Toronto?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, there is to be a meeting held in Toronto as a sequel to an earlier meeting in Montreal of the conference of resource ministers.
He concluded:
Federal officials have not been invited to attend.
On the following day, November 17, I therefore asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare this question:
Yesterday, in answer to a question of mine, he informed the house that federal officials had not been invited by the Ontario provincial government to attend the conference on pollution which is to be held between December 3 and December 5 in Toronto. In view of the urgent need to continue active co-operation between these two levels
DEBATES	4645
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of government, would he advise the province of Ontario of the availability of his officials to work with the provincial officials on this matter?
According to a report which appeared in the Windsor Star on November 9, the province of Ontario is convening a conference on the date I have mentioned covering air, water and soil pollution. It is being organized by its provincial advisory committee on pollution control which is made up of deputy ministers of various Ontario provincial departments which deal with individual aspects of pollution.
The jurisdiction over pollution problems is divided between the federal and provincial levels. As I have said, to tackle these pollution problems successfully there must be cooperative action between these two levels of government.
When I asked these questions it seemed to me, and it seems to me now, that the Ontario government should have recognized immediately that for the conference to be truly effective the participation of experts from the federal government would be necessary. After all, there are matters linked with these problems of pollution which cannot possibly be discussed much less dealt with effectively without the participation and the co-operation of officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and of our Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. For example there are problems of trans-boundary air pollution which is of great concern to my own community in Windsor. There are matters involving the development of national standards for testing the degree of pollution in the air and in the water. In fact at present, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out in the house only a few days ago, for the first time we are developing and carrying out a national program of air sampling.
There are questions as to whether further tax incentives under federal, and under provincial statutes as well, would encourage industry to accelerate its work to eliminate air and water pollution caused by its activities. There are also questions as to whether the time has now come for the federal criminal law to be amended to provide new sanctions against pollution of air and water by industry and by individuals as well. The Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out in the house recently that there is in his department an environmental health centre devoted to working on solutions to air pollution problems-in fact to identifying
4646	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion problems not just with regard to air pollution but to water and soil pollution as well, and to working out methods for their control. This *centre is considered to be the best in the entire country if not one of the best in the world.
The federal government, in spite of the divided jurisdiction which exists with respect to problems of pollution, has a responsibility to show leadership in working out and implementing solutions to these problems. I think it was a serious oversight, to say the least, for the province of Ontario to fail to invite federal experts immediately on putting together the agenda and program for this *conference on pollution. I say that the federal government should be in a position to make known to the provincial governments the availability of its experts, to work together with officials at similar levels in the province of Ontario and throughout Canada to reach, as quickly as possible, solutions to problems of the pollution of air, water and soil, solutions which are necessary if the quality of life in Canada as it moves into this second century is to be worthy of the future of this nation and its people.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked this question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, there had not been an invitation extended to any federal officials to attend the conference. However, I am pleased to tell the hon. member that since that time an invitation has been received by federal government representatives to attend the conference on pollution being held in Toronto, beginning on December 3.
The following federal representatives have been invited:	from the Department of
Agriculture, Mr. S. B. Williams, deputy minister; Dr. Robert Glen, assistant deputy minister, research and Dr. C. R. Harris, London, Ontario; from the Department of National Health and Welfare, Dr. Ross Chapman, director general, food and drugs; Dr. J. Sul-liven, occupational health; from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. A. T. Davidson, assistant deputy minister, water. Dr. Robert Glen, assistant deputy minister, research, of the Department of Agriculture and Dr. C. R. Harris, London, will be active participants at this conference.

DEBATES	November 23, 1967



PUBLIC WORKS-OTTAWA-HEIGHT OF PROPOSED NATIONAL DEFENCE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 2, as recorded in Hansard at page 3783, I asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Now that the commencement of construction of the national defence tower in Lebreton flats has been postponed, will the government reconsider the question of the height of this proposed building in the hope that it will not be as high as the peace tower?
At that time Mr. Speaker thought this was a question for the order paper, and that is why I posted it for this adjournment debate. It is not necessary for me to use my full seven minutes on this question, and I am also interested in the one that is to follow.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: As I am in the one
that is going on now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just remind the minister that in June, 1966, we were given indications with respect to the proposed national defence tower, according to the plans at that time, that the very top of the proposed tower in Lebreton flats would be about 67 feet higher than the top of the peace tower on this building. I need not repeat the comments that I made in June, 1966, and on one or two other occasions as well. I do not like the symbolism of a national defence tower being higher than the peace tower. I do not like what it does to Ottawa to have so many buildings in this area taller than this building, which ought to be the most important building in this country. It seems to me, in fact, that mistakes have been made already in permitting some buildings in this area to rise as high as they are. I am referring not just to government buildings, in fact not so much to government buildings as I am to private ones, such as hotels and office buildings in this area. I think this is a mistake. I think it is unfair to future generations to mar the beauty of this city, which belongs to all of Canada.
Now, if I am in a less argumentative mood than I sometimes am, it is because I hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) agrees with me and that he will now assure me that reconsideration will be given to the question of the height of the proposed national defence tower in Lebreton flats.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all members who think much of the development of the national
November 23, 19G7	COMMONS
capital agree on the importance of the subject of height control of buildings in the central part of the city. The city of Ottawa has a by-law governing height control and the federal authority tries to work within it.
The whole subject of height control is of such concern that I expect it will be dealt with by the committee that will be examining into the operations of the national capital commission. Rather than try to develop in an extended way-it is impossible to do so in three minutes-what the situation is, I hope that the subject will be dealt with by the committee, which will have plenty of time to do so before the building is proceeded with. The subject can best be examined by this body representing the House of Commons.
I should add that the question of height of buildings is also related to distance from the Peace Tower. The concept of height cannot be in absolute terms across the whole city. Heights of buildings in close proximity to the Peace Tower are lower than would be tolerated for buildings farther away from the Peace Tower. The particular building under discussion will be some 4,450 feet from the Peace Tower, which is close to a mile, and it will be erected on low ground. It is true that the plans call for the building to be higher than the Peace Tower by some 38 feet, but as I say, I am quite agreeable to having the whole subject examined by the committee when it is set up, which I hope will be very soon. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, nothing will happen to affect the position in any way.



PUBLIC SERVICE-COMMITTEE REPORT ON PENSIONS OF RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS

Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, never have I been more sorely tempted to breach the rules of the house and discuss the subject which has just been concluded, but I must refrain from so doing and deal with the question of increased pensions for retired public servants, including the R.C.M.P. and the armed forces. This was the subject of my question on Monday last to the Prime Minister and is the subject upon which my complaint is focused tonight.
Tonight the Prime Minister is in London becoming a freeman of that great city. I am sure all of us extend to him our congratulations, coupled with the wish that he will understand the position of some of those who are, as he is, a retired civil servant but are less fortunate in respect of the honours and emoluments that are his.
In his absence, Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances the President of the Treasury
DEBATES	4647
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Board would reply. I want to thank that genial gentleman for having indicated to me at 9 p.m. this evening that he was about to leave for Vancouver and could not be in the chamber to reply to my representations.
As you are aware, sir, on May 8 of this year, which was the last day of the first session of this parliament, a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons reported unanimously in favour of an increase in the pensions of retired civil servants. In their report the committee said:
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
In the committee's view, the government should do what it reasonably can to protect and preserve, or failing that, to restore in some measure the original purchasing power of the contributory pensions which, under the Public Service Superannuation Act, and similar enactments, it has provided for its retired employees.
With this consideration in mind, your committee recommends immediate action by the government, to up-date and extend the provisions of the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act (1959).
Then it went on:
The committee recommends that any plan to improve the position of these retired employees should conform to the following requirements:
(a)	it should be capable of quick and early implementation in the form of legislation in the next session of this parliament;
(b)	any adjustment in pensions should not be limited to a particular date of retirement and should be in addition to any other increase already granted under the Pension Adjustment Act of 1959;
(c)	it should maintain the principle contained in the present legislation that benefits should be related to length of service;
(d)	it should conform to the principle that any adjustment formula should take account also of the time which has elapsed since retirement;
(e)	it should take into account the increase in living costs during that period of time; and
(f)	it should increase the ceiling in the 1959 Pension Adjustment Act.
Sir, as you well know, the expectation of members of the special joint committee was that early action would be taken in accordance with the unanimous recommendation. A decision one way or the other ought to have been anticipated. What has been the subsequent history of this unanimous recommendation. Sir, to all the questions that have been asked about this matter the answers have always been in the same context -"under consideration", "decision in due course", "still under advisement". That, sir, is a contempt of parliament and a denial of the role of committees and the rights of the private members in this parliament. The time has come when the government ought to stop this contempt of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.
4848	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Thomas Miller Bell: Speaking for myself, I have tried every technique known either to an advocate or to a parliamentarian. I have tried coaxing, cajoling, persuading, becoming indignant and angry-as I did the last time this matter was discussed-but all moods have been without avail. I put it to the parliamentary secretary, could he not convey the message to cabinet that the time has come for a decision? There is no more time for stalling or contempt. While the decision is pending some people are suffering.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dying.


Thomas Miller Bell: As the hon. gentleman says, some persons are dying. Many, many retired public servants who would have been entitled to benefit from the recommendation have died since May 8, without receiving the benefits that the unanimous committee recommendation said they ought to receive. I know that the hon. gentleman for York Centre (Mr. Walker) concurred in the unanimous recommendation of the committee. Retired public servants have died, and others have suffered. I ask the hon. gentleman, and tonight I am being as reasonable as I possibly can be, can he not, from his vantage point on the government side, bring some influence to bear on the ministers? Can he not influence the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and ask him to go to the cabinet tomorrow morning and say, "We will do something; we will decide this matter one way or the other"? That is all I ask, and it is a simple request. I hope that the request will not be denied by the hon. gentleman who represents Ottawa West and who has more influence, Mr. Speaker, than you or I have on any particular topic within the jurisdiction of cabinet. 1 am sure that if my hon. friend from York Centre goes to his colleague for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and puts the request in the mild terms I am trying to put it in this evening, we shall have some decision soon.
Sir, this is a desperately serious matter for many persons in this country. Let the government stop stalling and decide something.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed by the hon. member's presentation. Frankly I find it easier to answer him when he is in his normal wild
DEBATES	November 23, 1967
and rambunctious mood than when he is in the suppliant mood he has displayed tonight.
I do not criticize the hon. member for Carleton or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not criticize them for their deep concern and for their eagerness to have the government decide on this most important matter. I do ask them to give government members who served on that committee, my minister and the government some credit for concern. I ask them to give my minister, I ask them to give the government, some credit for concern and eagerness to do something to make a decision and to make that decision as quickly as possible on this whole question of the superannuation fund. I should like to point this out, in case the public feel that parliament and the government are not aware of this problem.
On Monday, November 20, just two days ago, this question was raised in the house by the hon. member for Carleton. The Prime Minister at that time said the matter was still under consideration. I draw attention to this because I do not want the inference to be drawn from the continuous representations which are being made in the house that the government has decided to do nothing, to shelve the project and delay rather than say yes or no.
On November 9 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked this same question, as reported at page 4118 of Hansard, and the minister gave an honest, truthful reply at that time, pointing out that this question was on the cabinet agenda and that the minister himself was looking forward to having it dealt with as quickly as possible. I go back to September 26, when again the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre brought this matter to the attention of parliament as reported at page 2534. I have been trying to look up two other references-occasions upon which this question has been raised and when I personally have replied on behalf of the minister.
I can say nothing further than has already been said by the Prime Minister and by the minister on this question, but I will undertake to clip out from tomorrow's Hansard the most eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and bring them to the personal attention of my minister.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, November 24, 1967