1967-11-10

RULING BY MR. SPEAKER ON QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE BY MEMBER FOR LAPOINTE

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Yesterday at the end of the question period the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), rose on a question of privilege regarding a statement made in the course of a question posed by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). At that time I asked the indulgence of hon. members to give me an opportunity to study the record. Having done so I am now in a position to make a judgment. Are hon. members now prepared to hear the ruling I now have before me?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles:: Proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday in addressing a question to the right hon. Prime Minister the hon. member for Red Deer referred to the conduct of the hon. member for Lapointe. Whereupon the hon. member for Lapointe requested the Chair to consider whether there was a breach of the privileges of this house when the hon. member for Red Deer made certain allegations with respect to the hon. member for Lapointe.
It would appear to the Chair that the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is in essence a point of order rather than a question of privilege. It seems to the Chair that the words used by the hon. member for Red Deer were unparliamentary and should not have been used under the guise of a question addressed to the ministry to formulate a charge, however indirect it may be, against another member of this house.
Our precedents are clear and of long standing. In this regard I can do no better than cite a portion of a well known ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener which is recorded at pages 583 and 584 of the Journals of Friday, June 19, 1959, which in part reads as follows:
It has been strongly urged by some members that the house should not set in motion its power to try and to judge the conduct of a member unless such member is charged with a specific offence.
It is urged further that not only must he be charged, but that he must be charged by a member of the House of Commons standing in his place.
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
The proper procedure therefore is that such matters be raised by way of question of privilege followed by a motion. If the hon. member wishes to make a specific charge he will have to give consideration to the formulating of his charge on a question of privilege followed by an appropriate motion. For the time being the hon. member for Red Deer did not make a specific charge set forth in a motion. Since in my view the words used by him yesterday were unparliamentary, I would ask him to assist the Chair in maintaining the proprieties of this house and withdraw the expressions used by him yesterday.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great respect to the ruling you have just given. As I read the question I placed yesterday I must agree that I did not raise a question of privilege or make a motion; I did not intend to do so. I merely asked the Prime Minister whether anything was being done concerning the situation regarding the hon. member for Lapointe who, as I said-
-not only has violated his oath but has placed the honour of every member of the house in question-
If such a question directed to the right hon. Prime Minister is in your opinion something that should not have been said, I will be happy to withdraw the statement on that basis. I have to agree with Your Honour, in that you have said I had made no charge. I said merely that the hon. member had violated the oath he took when he assumed his seat in this house. All of us have taken this oath, and I should like to repeat it to Your Honour. It begins:
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty-
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has said that he wants to refer to the oath. I think all hon. members know what
Announcement

of New Tax Increases
November 10, 1967
this oath states. The point is that the hon. member for Red Deer stated that another hon. member had violated his oath, whatever that oath may be. I suggest to the hon. member for Red Deer and all hon. members that this cannot be done without following the proper procedures. It is as simple as this. The hon. member for Red Deer knows what procedure he has to follow if he wants to pursue the matter.


Robert Norman Thompson: I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I did not intend to raise this matter as a question of privilege or make a motion because I do not believe that is the responsibility of a member of the house. But I do believe that the honour of every member who has taken the oath of allegiance and assumed his seat in the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gave the hon. member for Red Deer an opportunity to make comments to the house before I gave my ruling. I suggest to him that it is not proper and that it is not in accordance with the practice of the house for an hon. member to rise after a ruling has been given and comment on the ruling. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the procedure is very simple. I have ruled that the words used should not have been used in that form, and I am sure the hon. member will agree that the expression should be withdrawn.


Robert Norman Thompson: I think I did withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker, if in your opinion the question I asked yesterday constituted a charge. On the basis of Your Honour's ruling I have no alternative but to withdraw it, but I must protest and say that I was only asking a question on a matter that I believed concerned every hon. member.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present the fifth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, returning to the house Bill No. S-ll, respecting Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada-



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
announcement of new fiscal measures

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement concerning the fiscal position of the government which I will be discussing with the finance ministers of the provinces next week. The government has decided to introduce new fiscal measures, including temporary tax increases, later this month. The government proposes that the arrangements for introducing and debating these be the subject of consultation through the usual channels.
These tax measures will be part of an integrated program to check the inflation of prices and costs now occurring in Canada and reduce excessive pressures on our capital markets. Higher taxes in the coming year will be a better and fairer means of covering our expenditures than attempting to increase our borrowing to levels that could only be reached by inflationary methods that would increase prices further.
Prices and costs are rising at rates which clearly require some restraint through fiscal policy as well as by other means. When our proposed tax increases are combined with restrictions on government spending programs and substantial reductions in our lending programs, the government will be able to hold its over-all net cash requirements and its consequent demands on the capital market to less than $750 million in the next fiscal year apart from unforeseen changes in our exchange reserves.
This is less than half our cash requirements this year. The government has also decided that budgetary expenditures next year, apart from medicare and apart from the writing off in our accounts of Expo deficits, will be held to $10,300 million. This means that we will limit the increase in expenditures to about 4.5 per cent between this year and next, a rate of increase less than half those in recent years.
To the extent that medicare proceeds next year we will, as already indicated, introduce further taxes to meet the cost or make offsetting reductions in existing expenditure programs. We will not increase our borrowings to finance it.

-As usual, the motion is written in French and in English.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's carefully worded statement gives emphasis to the serious position in which the country finds itself at this
November 10, 1967	COMMONS
time, and gives emphasis to the remarks that have been addressed to the government from financial experts and from hon. members in the house which, I can recall, were treated with contempt not so long ago by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), who said everything was rosy and that he was not worried at all about the situation. This was the reaction of the former minister ol finance.
We do not know the exact nature of the tax increases, and I find the statement by the Minister of Finance to be an odd way of proceeding. The minister should have announced that he would make a budget speech on a certain night. I think this would assure the country that these matters were being attended to finally. It would have been far better had the minister stated that one week from next Monday or next Thursday he would make a budget speech, at which time he would disclose the tax increases.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I just ask the hon. member a question. Does he not think it would be desirable, as I said in my statement, for this to be a matter of consultation among the parties in the house?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Again it is difficult for me to say, not having seen the minister's statement in advance.


Mr. Starr:: The government is again
absconding from its responsibilities.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But I must say that we are in a very singular position, and on behalf of my colleagues and myself I must reserve our position until we have studied the minister's statement. May I say, for instance, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be absolutely astounded at the fact that additional taxes will be imposed to cover the cost of the medicare program after it has been said that this will not be done. The minister tells us that to the extent that medicare is implemented additional taxes will have to be imposed. All he is doing is agreeing with what was said at the time the medicare proposal was introduced by the government. I must say that we find ourselves this morning in an extraordinary position.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: For weeks the members of this party have been urging the Minister of Finance to make a statement on what measures the government proposes to introduce to deal with the very serious inflationary situation which obtains in this country, and the minister has
DEBATES	4125
Announcement of New Tax Increases constantly delayed doing so. Now he has made a statement in this very strange and unusual manner. He has told the house that we are going to have some temporary tax increases brought down, but he did not say when. This creates a great deal of uncertainty in the country and particularly in the business community.
The minister says he is prepared to have consultation with respect to the time when this will be done. I submit that the time for consultation was before the minister made his announcement this morning, so that today he could have announced that on a specific date he would bring down a supplementary budget. We have now become accustomed to supplementary budgets. The minister brought down a budget in 1966 and then had to correct it by a mini-budget in the fall of 1966. He brought down a budget in 1967 and now apparently is going to bring down another budget to offset the damage done by the first one, and this is being done even before the first budget has passed through the house. Surely what we are witnessing is the need for action on the part of the government at the present time as they flounder around in a morass of ineptitude.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
The minister has announced really two things. The first is that he is going to have to introduce some temporary tax increases. It will be remembered that the minister had one temporary tax increase before, when he introduced the 10 per cent refundable tax on corporation profits. This was later cancelled. However, a very considerable sum of money was collected and I think we have a right to know, and to know very soon, whether that money is going to be refunded in view of the inflationary effect such action would have. I think we want to know also, if there are going to be any temporary tax increases, what particular segments of the Canadian economy are going to bear the burden of these tax increases.
The other thing the minister has announced is that he wants to have some restraint on the demands on the capital market, and he is seeking to work out some arrangements with the provincial governments in this regard. I presume such arrangements will extend down to municipal governments as well. I feel there are two points which have to be kept in mind here. The first is, are all the restraints on access to the capital market to apply only to the public sector of the economy? All across this country high rise,
COMMONS DEBATES	November 10, 1967
Announcement of New Tax Increases
air conditioned office buildings are being constructed, supermarkets are being built, motels and hotels are being constructed, some of which could be postponed. There is little value in asking the various governments, federal, provincial and municipal to restrain their demands on the capital market if the private sector of the economy is to continue to invade the capital market and continue this inflationary trend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I have to remind the hon. member that according to the standing order the comments to be made should be brief. Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam could bear that in mind.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the unusual statement which has been made by the minister, and his failure to proceed in the proper way, it seems to me that some statement is necessary. The concluding remark I wanted to make was that I hope when the minister brings down his statement he will keep in mind the fact that cutting down capital expenditures, without some restraint on the private sector, will have an effect on the employment situation in this country. Unemployment in October is up 60,000 over last year. Employment in the construction industry has fallen by 33,000 in the past month, particularly in the field of house construction. It should be kept in mind that the government should not take steps now which might have been applicable six months ago but which taken now will create further unemployment in midwinter.
I hope the government is now going to grapple with the problems with which they should have been grappling several months ago. I hope we will have this statement fairly soon. So far as we are concerned, we feel that the government's immobility and impotence has been demonstrated in the past few months and we fear the steps they are going to take now are going to be too little and too late.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) a very carefully worded announcement that is most significant for the Canadian people. On the eve of Remembrance Day Canadians will have to mark another day of mourning. On the whole, the minister announces another austerity program.
Not so long ago, on June 24, 1962, when the Conservative prime minister of the time

announced a mock austerity program, I recall hearing the Liberal members raise a hue and cry against the administration. Today, we are at the same point as we were then, which means, Mr. Speaker, that the more things change, the more they are the same. The minister announced that to remedy the situation and prevent the constant increase in the cost of living, he will levy temporary taxes. Now we know that there is nothing more permanent than what is temporary.
The minister wants to fight the rise in the cost of living by increasing the taxes, even though everyone knows that every rise in the cost of living brings about a decrease in the consumers' purchasing power. That is why, I wonder how the government hopes to ease the economic depression we are facing with such methods.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have little hope that the situation will improve, because the government has no true solution to the present problem.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult indeed to comment on so important a topic as the one raised by the Minister of Finance this morning. This is particularly so when one has had no advance notice of the announcement, and when the minister started off so discreetly and gently and in such a quiet voice that one realized only part way through his statement the seriousness of the problem being raised.
The government has produced a financial crisis. One wonders how much more serious it is than the indication we have been given in this most unusual notice this morning. There have been clear warnings in the past. One also wonders whether the policies this government has implemented that have brought us to a crisis in national unity are producing the massive outflow of capital from this country that has been suggested in the last few days.
I suggest that this question of a budget should be clearly and quickly discussed with the house leaders of the other parties. Perhaps the crisis has reached the point where we will need some form of national government. Maybe the government is prepared to go to the people shortly with the financial crisis as the basis for a very sudden election. There is a great deal more involved here, Mr. Speaker, than a gentle warning that taxes will rise and expenditures cut. Consultation is absolutely necessary, and I trust that this
November 10, 1967

consultation will be of a kind enabling us to ascertain more of the nature of the crisis than was indicated in the announcement of the minister this morning.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Raymond Rock (Jacques-Carlier-Lasalle) moved: for leave to introduce a bill to amend the British North America Act, 1867 and Publication of Statutes Act (proceedings to be printed in French and English on the same page).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a readily available translation of the debates, bills, records, etc. Precedence in this regard goes way back, as shown in the British Statutes at Large, volume 1, wherein the printing was in both English and French on the same pages from about 1275 during the reign of King Edward I (Statutes of Westminster) up to 1460 in the reign of King Henry VI, and previously to this in English and Latin.
The province of Quebec has been printing its statutes, bills, municipal code, etc. in both French and English on the same pages. The passage of this bill would enhance the bilingual character of parliament and of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise an objection, but I feel we should be careful about this matter. Enlarging the scope of the statute in the way the hon. member suggests will seriously hamper the work of those who must deal with statutes. I understand that a proposal is under consideration to print the Revised Statutes of Canada in both languages in the same volumes. Well, sir, this will add an enormous burden to the work of those who deal with statutes. Quite seriously, on that ground I suggest that this bill ought not to be given first reading at the present time.


Raymond Rock: With respect, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years the province of Quebec has printed its statutes in the way I suggest the federal publications ought to be printed, and I submit that this bill ought to be given first

Statement by Finance Minister reading. There is information to show that it will not cost the government more money to print this matter in French and English in one volume than to print it in both languages under separate covers. I submit that there will be no added expenditure if the matter is placed under one cover.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has raised an interesting point. Obviously a measure cannot be moved by a private member if it includes a money provision. I think it might be well to leave the matter in abeyance. I might look more closely at the bill before it is submitted to the house for consideration.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-YUKON-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES BOUNDARY ACT ADOPTION OF BOUNDARIES AS SURVEYED AND MARKED

Hon. Jean Marchand (for Mr. Pepin) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-19 (Senate) entitled: "An Act respecting the boundary between the Province of British Columbia and the Yukon and Northwest Territories".
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 26 I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely the indication of the serious national financial crisis contained in the statement made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Finance and the impropriety of his announcing tax increases in this manner. We have just heard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may wish to address the Chair and house on the question of urgency of debate. I expect the hon. member realizes that he may have a difficult hurdle to overcome because in the minister's announcement provision
4128	COMMONS DEBATES	November 10, 1967
Statement by Finance Minister
was made for the matter to be considered time. All Canadians have the right to know next week.	what is in the minister's mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might address the Chair on that point.


Michael Starr: In my opinion the urgency of the matter is this. The Minister of Finance has taken the extraordinary step of standing up, after motions had been called, and announcing in the House of Commons that additional taxes are to be imposed on the Canadian people without going into details about when they are to be imposed and what they are. That announcement was made during a day when the markets are open for business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: The minister thereby has created chaos in the economy of this country. That chaos will persist until the minister gives complete details of his intentions, in what areas he proposes to raise taxes and by how much he is to raise taxes. Yet again he is to burden the taxpayer of this country with additional taxes, and the urgency of the matter is so great that we ought to hear complete details of his intentions.
The minister has left the matter hanging; it will remain hanging over the week end and our people will be left wondering what the minister has in mind. His statement was a serious blow to all Canadians in this country. That is the urgent aspect, and that is why the matter ought to be debated at this time. The people of Canada have the right to know what is in store for them. Has the minister's announcement been brought about because of bankruptcy facing this country? Canadians are entitled to know whether their country is bankrupt. They are entitled to know what is behind the government's action which will add to their burdens. The taxpayers of this country already are overburdened.


Mr. Nielsen:: The minister should resign.


Michael Starr: He has a responsibility to
explain what is happening.


Erik Nielsen: He should resign.


Michael Starr: The minister has a responsibility to explain, particularly since the week end lies ahead and since the markets are open now. Unless there is an explanation, chaos will reign. For all our sakes as well as for the minister's, Your Honour ought to give us an opportunity to discuss this matter at this


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I support this motion, and I submit that the matter is urgent. In my opinion the Minister of Finance has said either too much or too little. For the minister to rise on motions and tell the house and country that taxes are to be increased without saying what that increase will be, and without giving us any idea of what supplementary measures will accompany such an increase in taxation, is bound to cause widespread confusion.
Since the minister made his statement at a time of day when the markets are open, when general consternation will be caused among those trading in stocks and bonds, we may take it that something is seriously wrong. The minister has not told us enough, or he has told us too much. Had the minister wanted to introduce a measure to raise taxes surely he would have consulted with the opposition parties and arranged for time to be set aside for its introduction. A statement might have been made then.
The minister has not done that. For reasons best known to himself he rose on motions and told the house and country that taxes are to be increased. The public, I think, has a right to a much fuller explanation from the minister. Only if Your Honour allows the matter to be debated can the minister make a full statement to the house and clarify what has happened. Only in that way can the question he has raised in the minds of hon. members and of the Canadian people generally be answered.


Howard Earl Johnston: I rise briefly, Mr. Speaker, to support the motion for adjournment of debate. The afternoon is short and the business before the house cannot compare in importance with financial crisis that the Minister of Finance suggested exists this morning. I feel it is important for us to hear more from him on this matter. Were the other business adjourned he would have an opportunity to inform us.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question, I am sure, but that we are dealing with an urgent situation. On the question of urgency of debate, may I direct Your Honour's attention to the wording of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. You will note, sir, that the motion does not seek to discuss the statement
November 10, 1967

of the Minister of Finance. It has been said that we shall have an opportunity to discuss it, although the time is not specified. But that is not the point of the motion. The motion seeks to discuss the indications of the serious national financial crisis contained in the minister's statement, which was made on motions, as well as the impropriety of making at this time and in this manner a statement which forecasts an increase of taxes. Those two matters are urgent and they ought to be discussed now.
It is urgent to discuss them so the confusion and consternation the minister's statement will have already created in the financial markets of this country may be arrested. The minister cannot fob us off by saying "You will have an opportunity next week, perhaps, to discuss my tax proposals." A discussion then will not prevent the consternation presently felt in the financial markets and will not deal with the urgency of that matter. A debate now will not give the minister a chance to retrieve himself-he cannot do that-but it will enable us to minimize the chaos that his statement, made at this time and in this manner, undoubtedly has created.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
The only way that can be done, in my submission, is by the government through the minister telling the house what measures are proposed, and giving us the precise background in order that the country and the financial markets will know what the situation is, and in order that the reaction of the markets and the country may be intelligently geared to the actual situation and not to the speculation which is bound to exist if there is not an explanation. In this way the house can hold the minister and the government accountable for this unprecedented conduct in announcing tax increases at this time and in this manner, seeking to leave things in confusion and uncertainty until, in the government's good time, it is prepared to let parliament discuss the proposed measures.
For these reasons it is urgent to debate this now, and this urgency cannot be met by allowing the minister to calmly come along and say we can discuss this next Thursday night. The implications for the country are too serious to allow that course to be followed. The situation can only be met by a debate at this time, today and now.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the statement I have made here today will make it evident why the
Statement by Finance Minister Prime Minister asked some of his colleagues to stay around on this occasion.


Michael Starr: Is that the only reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, the only reason. It has been urged by speakers on the other side that somehow in making this statement today I have produced chaos, as they say, in the financial markets, and that by announcing I am going to be bringing further financial measures before this house I have somehow broken all the precedents and somehow started a new wave of uncertainty in the market.
Hon. gentlemen opposite know this is not true. Every time I make an announcement that I intend to bring down a budget on a particular day exactly the same sort of situation is created. Moreover, in respect of the suggestion that it is unprecedented, for me to announce an intention to ask for further revenues, let me point out to hon. members opposite and yourself, sir, that I have done this on at least one occasion during the time I have been the Minister of Finance, and that was when I said I intended to bring in measures to finance the supplement to the old age pension. These are specious arguments.
May I also add that I regret very much that hon. members opposite on such an occasion should go out of their way to create a feeling of uncertainty and a lack of confidence that my statement was intended to offset-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hon. members opposite have been asking me day after day for weeks to make a more definite statement. Now that I have done so they object and say I am creating increased uncertainty. Finally, Mr. Speaker, without straying from the point of urgency-


An hon. Member:: You have already
strayed.


Mitchell William Sharp: The reason I said the government proposes that the arrangements for consideration of these measures should be a matter of consultation is that, as the house knows, we are already in the committee of ways and means. Therefore the procedure can be associated with an ordinary budget or otherwise. There is no uncertainty on the part of the government as to timing; there will be plenty of opportunity for these measures to be discussed.
November 10, 1967

Statement by Finance Minister


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question as to the urgency of debate; he has tried to justify his action. I dispute his statement that he has not created confusion. It is absolutely urgent that we discuss this matter at this time, whether or not there will be an opportunity to discuss it in the future as a result of negotiations. That is very indefinite; we do not know when or under what circumstances there will be an opportunity to debate the question which has now arisen.
I urge upon Your Honour that this whole matter, having arisen as a result of the minister's statement on motions at a time when the markets are open, should be discussed now. The fact that these questions will be discussed with representatives of the provinces will in itself occasion further leaks. The place where announcements of this kind should be discussed is in this house itself. These matters must be debated here. The propriety of this matter and the manner in which this has been done is doubtful. The markets are now open and this sort of action will allow all sorts of things to take place. This action is quite wrong. In light of other matters now before the house, which we must debate at this time, I urge upon Your Honour to allow this motion.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the conduct of the government today would make a speechless member rise in his place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I have never seen the like of this. I doubt whether there is another example of this anywhere. The government has gone from blunder to blunder. It now says, as a result of blunders to date, parliament is not now to have the right to discuss what this government has in mind. The minister says we will have an opportunity, possibly next week, after consultation with members of the opposition, to debate this matter. What specious nonsense is that?
The minister states that from time to time in the past when he announced his intention to bring down a budget, there was naturally a feeling of uncertainty in the country, but that cannot be compared with the present situation. Is what has taken place today the result of something that occurred in the last few hours to bring this government to its senses? The government refuses to tell the people of Canada what has taken place.


The action of the government today will bring about results that one can only measure in imagination unless there is a discussion to clarify the situation. If the government knows where it is going it should let parliament know. Silence now can only lead to uncertainty, the financial consequences of which are bound to be something we have not seen in this country, before. Why does the government not come clean and give us the facts? Why does the minister say that things which have taken place recently make necessary an increase in taxation to meet a situation which has been developing and expanding at a galloping rate for the last year? Why do we have this silence?
I suggest to the government and to you, sir, that this is an occasion when there must be a debate or the results will be damaging to our country to a degree unprecedented in proportion.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Then the minister has the colossal nerve to say the opposition is to blame. We are to blame for daring to ask this government for information. The minister has opened the door; he has drawn back the curtain. Everybody has known that the government has been in difficulties for the last six months, yet the minister has gone his way. Today he announces that next week or some time in the future he is going to let parliament and the people in on the information they have the right to have today.
If ever there was urgency of debate, sir, it is now. There should be no delay until next week in giving this house the information the minister must have. Did the crisis develop while some ministers were almost en route and in flight? They were called home. They are now here. There can be no delay until next week.
What has happened? Why cannot the minister give us today the story of what has taken place in the last few hours which apparently impels him pell-mell to cast parliamentary government overboard? He must know now. We have the right to this information, Mr. Speaker. If ever there was a case made out not only of urgency but urgency of debate, it is this. Wait four or five more days and this country will be in a turmoil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the former prime minister of this country I shall be very brief. There are two thoughts in connection with
November 10, 19G7

urgency of debate that I wish to put before the house. The first is that last week-this is what makes the matter even more urgent- the Minister of Finance was in the city of Calgary and told the Young Liberal Association that he would have to increase taxes. So he actually announced his mini-budget in Calgary. Second, this announcement was made on motions, and Your Honour has ruled on many occasions that we cannot debate matters on motions. The only way we can debate this matter, as the former prime minister said, is by doing it today, because it is an urgent matter and it is imperative that we debate it now.
I said the same thing yesterday when the government reopened the discussion we had in the house 18 months ago. These are the reasons why this matter is urgent; the highest interest rates in 40 years, no housing, the highest cost of living, loss of markets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member is not straying quite a distance from the point. I have the impression that after all the speeches have been made there will be nothing for the Chair to consider because we will then have had a debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate what Your Honour has said, but I mention these problems to show how urgent the matter really is. The fact that the Minister of Finance rose and debated it shows that he himself believes a debate should take place today.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the attention of the house back to the rules of the house. Citation 100 of Beauchesne states very clearly that urgency does not apply to the matter itself but means urgency of debate, when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be debated. Clearly the statement of the Minister of Finance tells us that an opportunity will be provided for debate. The minister's statement said in part "The government. has decided to introduce new fiscal measures, including temporary tax increases, later this month."
I am reinforced in that argument by paragraph 8 of citation 100 which says it is not contemplated "that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion on a motion for the adjournment of the house" under standing order 26.
Statement by Finance Minister
Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that legislative action will be taken. I wish to state plainly, shortly and simply that the motion moved by the hon. member for Ontario does not come within the ambit of citation 100.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, following the last intervention, I would like also to give my opinion on the urgency of debate.
I think that it would be more urgent to discuss the statement made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) than to pursue the debate on the abolition of the death penalty. Some people are anxious to spare some criminals, but I am convinced that the situation of the consumers, of the Canadian public, is more worthy of immediate attention than that of the criminals.
As for the urgency of the matter, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be more urgent for the Prime Minister himself to give his own resignation and that of his cabinet, and to call a general election as soon as possible, so that the matter can be discussed before the whole Canadian people. I think that would be more urgent than anything else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are just two points I should like to make in support of our contention that there is urgency of debate on this issue. One of the points I wish to make has been brought to the attention of the house by the statement the Minister of Finance made when he spoke in this debate. I took it, when he said in his statement on motions that there would be discussion among the house leaders as to the time to debate these matters, that this meant that as house leaders we would consider just that, namely the time when there would be a budget debate as provided by the rules of the house.
But the minister said in his second statement that what he had in mind was that the house leaders might discuss whether a debate is necessary at all in view of the fact that we are already in committee of ways and means on the resolutions presented last June. Mr. Speaker, do you see what is being proposed? It is being proposed that the House of Commons, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, may not have a chance at all to debate this set of
4132	COMMONS
Statement by Finance Minister proposals. The minister's hope is that the house leaders will agree that since we are in committee of ways and means, we will just stay there and deal with the measures that he places before us.
The Solicitor General just now said he thought this motion was out of order because the Minister of Finance had already announced that there would be an opportunity to debate the measure. I suggest the Minister of Finance has made it very clear that he does not want the House of Commons, with Mr. Speaker in the chair, to have a chance to discuss this matter at all. That being the case, it seems to me we are entitled to have this discussion today.
I agree with those who have stressed the urgency of the matter because of the unsettling effect of this announcement, and all that; but I add one other point. Indeed, I said there were just two points that I wanted to make. I gather that the Minister of Finance, when he meets with the finance ministers of the provinces, is not going to sit there like a bump on a log; he is going to tell them something. I suggest that the first responsibility of a minister is to parliament, and he should be telling us before he tells the provinces.
For these two reasons, because we have not been guaranteed a debate at all on this measure with the Speaker in the chair and because we have the right as parliament to have information on this matter from the Minister of Finance before he meets with the provinces, we ought to have this debate today.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if it is the wish of hon. members that we have further contributions to the debate. It is not my intention to cut off hon. members, but I see four or five members have indicated their intention of taking part in this procedural debate and I doubt whether new arguments can be advanced. But again, I do not wish to place myself in the position where it can be suggested that I have cut off debate unduly.


George Harris Hees: I will take just about one minute, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Lapointe.

DEBATES	November 10. 1967
[DOT] (12 noon)


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to put forward two arguments in support of the urgency of the debate.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) himself saw fit to mention that the right, hon. Prime Minister has asked his ministers to remain in Ottawa for the week-end on account of the announcement which the minister has just made. If the right hon. Prime Minister thinks it urgent and necessary to ask all the ministers to remain here all weekend, Mr. Speaker, the situation must be serious indeed. The whole matter must be extremely urgent, and the financial situation in the country must be exceedingly precarious if 22 ministers are ordered to remain in Ottawa on account of that statement.
Thus, the urgency of dealing with the economic and financial situation in Canada is made evident by the fact that, as in wartime or during very extreme and momentous circumstances, the whole cabinet is ordered to remain in Ottawa. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister themselves have indicated the urgency of the matter; if the situation is that critical, it is just as urgent that parliament should know what is in store.
I, for one, should like to know before the week-end what disasters await us, since all the ministers have to remain in Ottawa during the week-end. What is going to happen?
You can imagine the rumours that will spread around the country, when it is known that the cabinet will stay here to consider a very serious situation, of which parliament has no inkling. This adds to the urgency of the debate today. If not, all the ministers would not be ordered to stay here, like a war-time cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, you realize that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister themselves have stressed the urgency and the seriousness of the problem. What can be expected during the week-end? The cabinet will sit all through the week-end. Why? Because the situation is serious and disastrous; what cataclysm is in store for us? As you can see, Mr. Speaker, a debate is urgent, because the cabinet itself recognizes it, since all the ministers have to stay here.
The second point I wanted to make is that never before in our history has a Minister of Finance taken pleasure in allowing the anxiety caused by tax increases to persist.
November 10, 19B7

Now, the present minister is doing just that. He announces it, then he proceeds to do it, in two stages. A tax increase being a painful operation, it should be sufficient to announce it once, when it becomes effective. It seems that the minister is indulging in masochism and tries to harm himself by first announcing an increase in taxes and then increasing them.
If the minister deemed it advisable to announce the tax increase in two stages, instead of one, it is that he recognizes the situation as serious. Mr. Speaker, as all businessman in Canada will see it immediately he wants to reassure the creditors of the present government that funds will increase, thanks to new taxes. The Minister of Finance is besieged by creditors, but he cannot pay. So, he says: We will raise taxes, and to indicate his intentions, he announced those tax increases today in order to reassure the government's creditors.
This matter has become urgent, to the point that it should, undoubtedly, be debated no later than today.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to remind the hon. members that this discussion has now lasted nearly an hour. I now recognize the hon. member for Northumberland.
{English}


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons why this matter must be debated today, and both have to do with the financial stability of this country. The fact that the Minister of Finance has announced on the spur of the moment that he must raise taxes has greatly alarmed those people who are active in the financial affairs of the country. In my view the fact that he is not going to explain in the near future why he intends to bring in these measures will cause irreparable damage. He must seize the opportunity to do so today, take the country into his confidence, and explain to us why he must introduce these measures and what are the circumstances forcing him to do so.
The second reason for debating this matter today is, as the minister stated, that he first intends to discuss these matters with the provinces. He will discuss with them what taxes he intends to impose. We all know that when a federal-provincial conference is held in Ottawa there are immediate and simultaneous leaks. It has been the case previously that as soon as those discussing these
Statement by Finance Minister matters have left the meeting room, information has been leaked to the press and these leaks have received widespread publicity.
This method of dealing with a matter of this urgency is not good enough. For these two reasons, and for the many others that were mentioned today, a debate on this subject must take place right now in the interests of this country.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I will only speak for a moment. I would like to call the attention of the house to citation 100 (2). This is in answer to the plea made by the Solicitor General. The citation reads as follows:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the House may be moved under Standing Order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
Paragraph 3 of the same citation reads:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
The only decision you have to make, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not the public is going to suffer.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their helpful contributions. I believe I must express the thought, which I stated a moment ago, that the discussion we have had centred on whether we should have a debate, and hon. members were to advise the Chair. I have the feeling that many of the contributions, perhaps rightly so in view of the importance of the matter, dealt not only with the strict procedural point before the house but also with the substance of the matter. I feel that a number of hon. members who took part in the debate did have an opportunity to express their views about the substance of the situation before us.
Hon. members know that under standing order 26 adjournment motions should not be accepted except in very extreme circumstances. Some hon. members might consider that this is the type of circumstance which would require such a motion to be granted, but I have my doubts about it. Our parliamentary system is based on the premise that the business of the house is dictated from day to day by the government. It is the government's responsibility to bring down
4134	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the business which they feel should be considered and debated by the house. As I have said, in my humble opinion there would be a great deal of disorder and disorganization if all the motions for adjournment that are made every week were granted.
The hon. member for Prince Albert said that there will be serious results from the minister's announcement on motions. On the other hand some hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Bow River, indicated that the subject matter of the minister's announcement has been discussed before. To my mind this throws some doubt on the question of urgency of debate today.
In looking over the specific motion submitted to the Chair by the Leader of the Opposition, it seems to me that there is one real point in it which has to be considered by the Chair, namely, whether the house should be adjourned for the purpose of discussing the propriety of the minister making his statement on motions at this time. I think this is a very relevant point and of course it becomes a matter of opinion. Essentially it is a motion of censure against the minister. As hon. members know, according to the rules this type of motion can only be proposed by way of a substantive motion.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
My original statement that there will be an early opportunity to discuss this subject matter did not appear to be received with great enthusiasm by some hon. members. However, I am afraid I have to repeat it and go to citation No. 100, paragraph 3 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which states that this kind of motion should be granted only when there will not be an early opportunity for debate. It is extremely difficult for me to know when this will be-Monday, perhaps Tuesday or later on. I find it difficult to judge. On the other hand, I have to interpret the statement as indicating that there will be an early opportunity to decide the matter raised in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. As to the second part which deals with the propriety of the minister making a statement on motions at this time I have to rule that this is essentially a censure motion which can only be made in the usual way by substantive motion.



[Stage Direction]
request for details of proposed
FISCAL MEASURES On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a 
DEBATES	November 10, 1967
question in the light of reports which have already come in as to the serious consequences, in the financial markets of Canada, of the statement just made by the minister in the manner he did. Will the minister, to minimize these consequences, take the house and therefore the country into his confidence by letting us know the details of the tax measures proposed and the timing of them and also the details of the reduction in the government's spending program to which he referred?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be discussing that with my colleagues and I hope there will also be an opportunity of discussing with the leaders of the other parties in the house both the time and the manner in which I shall make my statement about tax changes. Perhaps it will be in the form of another budgetary message; perhaps it could be in another form in view of the fact that we are now in committee of ways and means. That is the only point I had in mind in saying I thought this would be the subject of consultation.
We shall be bringing forward our proposals as we would if we were bringing down another budget in the sense that we shall make both the nature of the changes and the general financial position of the government known at that time. I did feel it would be very desirable in view of the questions which had been raised both here in the house and elsewhere that I should make it known now that we are bringing down supplementary tax measures, which I did, and second, that we should declare very clearly, so that financial markets and the country at large would understand, what our general objectives are, namely, a limitation upon our expenditure and a limitation upon our borrowing. It is very desirable that this should be known to the house before I have discussions with the provinces. It is absolutely essential in these circumstances that the government should give strong leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: It has been urged upon the government by members opposite that we should give leadership. When we do we are accused-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will agree that some leniency should be shown both to the hon. member who asked the
November 10, 1967

question and to the minister in his reply in view of the importance of this matter and in view of the fact that I took it upon myself to refuse the motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of my question was precisely to see whether we could get some leadership from the government at this time. The minister must have misunderstood. What I am asking him now is to take the only action possible to restore order to the financial markets of Canada which are already showing signs of disorder consequent upon his statement this morning. Will he show some leadership now and let the house know what are the measures he proposes and what are the savings in current spending he has in mind?


Mitchell William Sharp: The statements I made today are intended and are likely to have a stabilizing influence upon our financial markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: They can have no other effect except in so far as they are misinterpreted by the opposition which, I regret to say, is acting in a most irresponsible way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the undoubted speculation and possible confusion which may arise out of the minister's announcement that there are to be tax increases, can the minister tell us when he intends to introduce these measures for tax increases? Can he give us a specific date so that members of the house and the public may know when this announcement is likely to be made in precise terms?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in my statement I think it will be later this month. I will announce the exact date in due course.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the importance of having a full debate on whatever the government's fiscal measures may be, will the minister undertake that these measures will be introduced as a proper budget with the Speaker in the chair?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the house that if that is the wish of hon. gentlemen opposite it will be the action of the government.


Michael Starr: Where is your leadership now?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that his
Inquiries of the Ministry colleagues would come to a decision as to the form of presentation, and that there would then be consultation. When does the cabinet intend to consult the other party leaders? Will it be this afternoon, Monday, or the week after?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government has in mind a time for the presentation of these measures-


Gordon Minto Churchill: When is it?


Mitchell William Sharp: -but in view of the other urgent business before the house-


Michael Starr: What is more urgent?


Mitchell William Sharp: -the government was reluctant to take a decision, without consultation with members opposite, that there should be a budgetary debate of the ordinary length. However, if hon. members wish to use time for that purpose, certainly the government will be willing to go along.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a more or less philosophical question in the light of his announcement this morning. Will the veterans and their dependants be justified in continuing to look to future events with optimism?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister stated one of his objectives was to reduce the demand on the money markets, is the hon. gentleman now in a position to inform us how successful the Canada savings bond campaign has been in comparison with former years and, particularly, how much new money he estimates will come in from this source?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not yet in a position to say. I am getting current reports and when I am in a position to make a statement I shall do so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister be in a position to make an early, comprehensive statement along these lines when he introduces his budget next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: I expect that when I introduce these supplementary measures I shall give a complete account of the financial position of the government.
November 10, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reply the minister gave a moment ago and in view of his well known fondness for priorities, can the hon. gentleman tell the house where he puts the balance as between a capital crisis and capital punishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) wish to ask a supplementary question?


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will be proposing measures to restrain the demands of the private sector of the economy on the money market along with the restraints on the public sector which he has indicated.


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I can answer that question by saying that one of the main objectives both of the statement I made yesterday and of the message I shall be bringing down is to relieve the pressure on interest rates so that home owners can get their money more cheaply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. Could he tell us if Canada's stupid financial difficulties might be due to the Quebec premier's visit to New York financial circles?


George Harris Hees: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Does he consider that the continuation of a debate on a subject decided upon 18 months ago is more important than continuing today to discuss the most important financial questions that have faced the country for some time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the same, in different terms, as another question which was asked a moment ago.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact it is becoming more and more evident that the demand for parity between United States wages and

Canadian wages is going to extend to far more industries than the automotive industry and that such parity will require a great deal more productivity in this country than is the case at the present time, could the minister disclose next week what steps the government intends to take to increase productivity in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member about the trend in the productivity of this country. The government has a great many measures directed to this end. The hon. gentleman is always emphasizing tax incentives. I do not consider they would be the best way. I have the problem under constant review, as have other ministers of the government.


George Harris Hees: I am quite happy to have the minister outline any additional suggestions the government may have to achieve the end we all have in mind, increasing productivity, and that is why I have asked the minister to make a statement next week.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the statement made by the Minister of Finance today represent the considered and unanimous opinion of the cabinet as a whole?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the situation described today by him will he seek the agreement of the provinces at the forthcoming meeting of provincial finance ministers to establish planning priorities in the economic and social fields?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this question because it enables me to answer another question. We will not be discussing tax changes with the provinces. That is the prerogative of this house and I never, under any circumstances, inform anybody of the tax proposals I am going to lay before the house. We will certainly be discussing, however, the question of spending priorities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the last statement by the Minister of Finance I would ask him to take the house into his confidence now and tell us whether he did not, last week in the city of Calgary, announce that taxes would be increased, and does he really feel that was proper for a man in his position?
November 10, 1967	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. When I was in Calgary the only statement made about taxes was a statement that I and many members of this government have made recently, that to the extent that medicare is implemented taxes will be raised. We have always said that and that continues to be government policy.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the announcement made by the Minister of Finance today, has the government reached the decision to extend the implementation of medicare beyond the target date, July 1 next year?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The legislation is still in effect and contains that date.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to amend the medicare bill before its implementation next July?


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


Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his acknowledgement this morning that a financial crisis exists in the country, I wonder whether he can announce to the house now any reduction of government expenditures in the current fiscal year on behalf of the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I deny the
implication of a financial crisis. The purpose of these measures is to see that our finances remain sound and that the Canadian dollar continues to have the reputation it has enjoyed for so many years.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the events this morning, I wonder whether he does not regret his decision to keep all his cabinet ministers in Ottawa over the week end?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gasion Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Since he made his
DEBATES	4137
Inquiries of the Ministry announcement to the house, has the minister received any information, as suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), about an unfavourable reaction from the investment and bond markets?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the information I have received is that the bond market has improved somewhat.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it a fact that one of the prime considerations compelling the minister's statement today has been the pressure on the value of the Canadian dollar?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is what might be termed a leading question.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether the intention with respect to changes in the government's fiscal policy is to bring about an attempt to reduce in a proportionate way demands on the capital market with respect to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a question that is much too general. I fail to see how the hon. member can ask such a question during the question period.
T Translation]



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Could the minister tell us why Indian parents of children attending St. Theresa Catholic school in Fort George are deprived of social and family allowances?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the member should place this question on the order paper.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent question because, according to a communication I received this morning, there is blackmailing in that area, and I would like to know from the minister whether or not the rumour is true.
4138	COMMONS DEBATES	November 10, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The member has made political parties, even to those of the party of
representations to the minister, and I take it the hon. member for Red Deer? for granted that they will be taken into consideration immediately.	Mr. Speaker: Order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the fact that several weeks ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that the government was examining the announcement made by the French minister of information with regard to the establishment of an intergovernmental department between the province of Quebec and the government of France. In view of the fact that one Maurice Jacquinot has been appointed by the Quebec minister of youth and sports to establish an office of his department in Paris and that this same Maurice Jacquinot has also assumed the post of secretary general of the political action committee for the independence of Quebec in France as announced in Paris-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would ask a question. It seems to me he is making a speech at the present time.


Robert Norman Thompson: My question is simply this. Has the government made a decision regarding the constitutional validity of such an office in a foreign country, particularly when the man appointed to that office is also acting on behalf of a separatist organization, as the hon. member for Lapointe announced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to say about the man himself who is alleged to have been appointed. I do not know anything about him. However, it is not unusual for provincial governments to have representatives of departments of those governments in foreign countries.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if the money coming from France for a political movement is more closely watched than that coming from large American and British industries which contribute to the election funds of the two main



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. According to news reports the workers in the farm implement industry will be seeking wage adjustments similar to those achieved by the united auto workers. Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that an unwarranted increase in the prices of farm machinery will not take place as a result of this demand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say on that point at this moment is to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the question of parity of wages in the automotive industry was linked with productivity.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Would the Prime Minister refer the implications of this demand to the commission that is currently studying the price of farm machinery?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to do that,
Mr. Speaker. I would think that would be one of the matters they certainly would be discussing, but I would be glad to bring my hon. friend's remarks to their attention.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General, in his capacity as acting government house leader, to indicate, for the purpose of good order and preparation, what the government's intentions are for Monday and Tuesday in so far as the work of the house is concerned?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to call item No. 35 on the order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-164, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act. This will be followed by item No. 4, third reading of Bill No. C-150, to establish the Canada manpower and immigration
November 10, 1967

council, and then item No. 38, second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
As for the business on Tuesday, I prefer to wait the return of the government house leader who will no doubt be in touch with the leaders of the several parties on Monday.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Portneuf asked me a question in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. I am prepared to inform him that no representation has been made by the province of Quebec in respect of his question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway hotel, the Royal Alexandra, an old landmark in Winnipeg, is to be closed, will the minister make the good offices of his department available to the 100 or more employees who will be put out of work by this closure?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard that this hotel is going to be closed. Of course the services of the department will be offered to these employees.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO MEET UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration:
In view of the recent statement by Mr. Lucien Saulnier, chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, expressing concern over the constant increase in unemployment in that area, is it the minister's intention to meet him immediately to elaborate plans whereby the city of Montreal and
Inquiries of the Ministry the federal government might relieve the situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Saulnier feels that he should meet the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or his officials, I am entirely at his disposal.



DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING LAY-OFFS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. What action is the government taking to meet the serious situation created by substantial lay-offs of railway workers? Are the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour discussing this matter with the presidents of the two railway companies?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, every possible action is being taken, but I will be glad to talk to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Transport on the specific question immediately.


Robert Carman Coates: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Would the Minister of Labour indicate what he is doing about this serious situation?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, meetings took place yesterday under the chairmanship of the Minister of Transport at which there were representatives of the railways, of my department and of the department of manpower, who have a very special interest in this problem. This matter was discussed and I can say, as the hon. member was assured by the Prime Minister, that every action is being taken that the circumstances warrant.


Robert Carman Coates: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether he or any of his colleagues met with the two presidents of the major railways to discuss this problem?


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of the answer of the minister to the question asked by the hon. member for Cumberland. The hon. member asked whether the minister had met with the railway presidents and the Minister of Labour answered in such a way that the only interpretation that could be put upon it was that
November 10, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry he and his colleague had met with the railway presidents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Is this the case, or have they yet met with the presidents of the railways?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is simply repeating the question asked by the hon. member for Cumberland.


Erik Nielsen: Where is the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not the responsibility of the Chair to see that an answer is given. If after a question is asked there is no answer then we go on to another question.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of a minister in answering, if he so chooses, any question put in this house is to answer it accurately. The Minister of Labour was far from accurate.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of a matter raised by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam. Have the Riverdale Collegiate training centre and the Castle Frank training centre for immigrants or other training centres for immigrants been closed down? If so, is this due, as Mr. Fenwick has said, to the government's austerity program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that the second part of the question can be asked. The hon. member is asking for an opinion. I have the impression that the first question has already been asked.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the first question, then? Perhaps the minister will tell the house whether these centres have in fact been closed.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and answer it on Monday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister about other statements that

have been made by Mr. Fenwick with respect to the curtailment of the manpower training program, which has been reduced from some 2,000 referrals in April to 500 in September? May I also ask the minister about the statement made by Mr. Raymond Poirier, manager of the manpower training centre in Montreal, that out of 63,000 unemployed in Montreal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask a question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask whether it is true that out of 63,000 unemployed in Montreal only 1,000 are receiving training? May I ask the minister to tell the house whether or not the program is being curtailed at the very time that unemployment is rising?


Jean Marchand: I also take this question as notice and I will reply on Monday.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has it been brought to his attention that the basic grading features of literacy and skill in the manpower training program have been drastically cut back and reduced in different parts of the country? If the minister is aware of this reduction in manpower training program offerings, can the minister tell us why this is the case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see how this type of question can be asked as an oral question at this time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport but in his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport whether he would be present at a mass meeting to be held this coming Sunday in Sydney regarding the drastic lay-offs of C.N.R. employees in the Atlantic region, and at that time the minister said he would not be present. I presume he planned on being in western Canada. As a supplementary question I asked whether the government would
November 10, 1987	COMMONS
be represented and the minister advised that he would take the question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask a question. I do not think much is to be gained by repeating in full what was said yesterday.


Robert Muir: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that I had to elaborate the question for the right hon. gentleman. May I ask the Prime Minister whether a government representative is going to be present at the mass meeting to be held in Sydney on Sunday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the matter with the Minister of Transport, who my ihon. friend will be glad to know is in the Atlantic provinces.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has apparently been successful in ordering the Minister of Transport not to go west to further his own personal ambitions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Springfield.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not realize that the hon. member wanted to ask a supplementary question. If he does I will recognize him.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I do have a supplementary. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would order the minister to stay in the east and attend this meeting at Sydney on Sunday?


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Springfield has been trying to get the floor and perhaps we had better pass on to another matter.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have been trying to ask a question for some time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think when the Chair recognizes an hon. member others should give him the opportunity to be heard.
DEBATES	4141
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the serious unemployment in the Atlantic provinces and the lay-offs of Canadian National employees, is the minister going to attend the coming meeting at Sydney which is to deal with this most serious subject?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to attend that meeting.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that, under the Colombo plan, many countries in the world receive millions of dollars in aid from the Canadian government, would the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether Canada has been asked to make special grants to some of the countries represented at Expo '67?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is too general. I suggest to the hon. member that he could more properly put it on the order paper.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and it relates to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code which was passed last December. Can the minister now say when this legislation will be proclaimed and when the regulations under it will be put into effect?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the year, replying to a question in the house, I said that our objective was to have the legislation proclaimed and publish the regulations before the end of the year. There has been no change in that timetable so far as I know.
November 10, 1967
4142	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence FINANCE



CONSIDERATION BY PARLIAMENT OF WHITE PAPER ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders oi the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council may I ask the Minister of Finance to indicate whether, when the white paper on foreign investment is submitted to the government, it will be submitted to parliament at the same time.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will direct that inquiry, Mr. Speaker, to the President of the Privy Council.


Michael Starr: Do you know where he is?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I was attempting to deal with what I believe to be the mistaken arguments of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) who said in so many words that the retentionists must keep society safe. I pointed out that the abolitionists have an equal concern and interest in the welfare and safety of society.
The retentionists feel that we must continue to resort to what amounts to the last remaining vestige of the law of retaliation-a life for a life. The abolitionists feel that the same end can be accomplished by a sentence of life imprisonment. The onus is clearly on the retentionists to prove that the death sentence is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment. If they fail to do this it is the duty of this house to pass Bill C-168. A democracy must never impose a greater sentence on one of its people than the minimum necessary to act as the most effective deterrent.
Last night the hon. member for Northumberland left the impression with the house that prisoners serving commuted death sentences are released after nine years. Not one person convicted of capital murder under the 1961 amendment to the Criminal Code has ever been released, for the simple reason that


not one is eligible for parole. In addition, he completely ignored that scores of convicted murderers never have been released. He did not say that in 1964 and 1965 only five prisoners whose death sentences had been commuted were released. The hon. member for Northumberland overlooked another point. The regulations under the Parole Act now provide that in a case where the death penalty has been commuted to life imprisonment the inmate cannot be paroled without a recommendation of the parole board and approval of the cabinet and that the parole board cannot make any recommendation until after the inmate has served ten years of his sentence.
I share the sympathy of the hon. member for Northumberland for the family of the merchant who was murdered last Wednesday in Toronto. The hon. member did not mention that in 1959, when he was in the government, the death sentence, which was in force at that time, did not prevent a 73 year old storekeeper from being murdered. In the years 1958 and 1959 there were 33 murderers sentenced to death. The hon. member for Northumberland did not tell the house why this happened at a time

I am speaking of the period which ended on June 30, 1957-when 61.6 per cent of those convicted were hanged.
The hon. member gave a definition of capital murder that was not quite complete. He said that capital murder is murder that is committed in cold blood, murder that is carefully thought out and decided well ahead of time. Capital murder also includes murder committed in the course of an offence such as burglary, whether or not the person means to cause death and whether or not he knows that death is likely to be caused, where the criminal means to cause bodily harm for the purpose of carrying out the offence. The point I am making is that the hon. member directed the attention of the house to the cold, planned, deliberate murder and overlooked the other aspect of capital murder.
The members who spoke yesterday in favour of retention say that the subject matter of this bill has already been decided on by the vote on April 5, 1966. They are obviously disregarding the fact that the bill is being debated in accordance with the rules of the house and that there are obvious differences between the private member's resolution of that time and Bill C-168.
As I pointed out to the house last night, the generalizations of the hon. members who spoke yesterday are only personal opinions
November 10, 1967

which do not prove the case for retention. I, for one, do not feel that the personal opinions and intuitions of hon. members, unsupported by any real statistical evidence, are as persuasive as the thoroughly documented conclusions of the royal commission on capital punishment and the analytical findings of the many specialists who have concluded that capital punishment cannot be shown to be a unique deterrent to murder.
During the last debate in the house on the abolition of capital punishment, in late March and early April of 1966, 41 members spoke in favour of abolition and 57 spoke in favour of retention. At that time the reten-tionists relied on the traditional theories prevalent in English jurisprudence a century ago. The traditional theories expressed by those members who spoke in favour of retention were that capital punishment is a necessary deterrent, that society is protected by the removal of the offender and that the onus of reform is on those who favour abolition.
Perhaps I can best illustrate this conclusion by direct reference to some of the statements previously made by those who spoke in this house in favour of retention. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) in his speech asked:
Who could give the assurance to society that the convicted murderer would not repeat his crime?
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) in his speech said:
I do not know whether capital punishment is a deterrent. I do not think anybody in this house can prove it is or not.
In the same speech he also said:
My heart is with the advocates of complete abolition...
The hon. member went on to say:
This is no time to mollycoddle those vicious, corrupt, evil men whose sole purpose is to destroy Canada and society.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Homer) concluded his speech by asserting:
I certainly feel that if we in this house vote in favour of this resolution, we will be doing a disservice to society, and in fact weakening the moral fibre on which we depend so much to protect ourselves and the citizens of this country.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said:
Capital punishment is necessary for the good of society.
DEBATES	4143
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) had this to say:
To say that the death penalty is no deterrent is to say that men do not fear death. This, to me, is incredible.
In this instance the hon. member missed the point. Men who plan murder do not expect to face death, as they do not expect to be caught.


Mr, Churchill:: Will the hon. member
accept a question? He quoted me a moment ago and then he said that men who commit murder do not fear the death penalty. How does he know?


Harold Edwin Stafford: If the hon. member can assure me that when my time has expired the house will give me unanimous consent to continue, I would be glad to answer questions for as long as he likes. As things are, I shall hardly have time in which to finish my own speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You evaded the point very well.


Harold Edwin Stafford: I was about to quote the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) who
said:
Capital punishment still represents necessary protection for our social order ... If I have to choose between the protection of society and the convicted murderer, I am on the side of society.
Here the hon. member missed the point. We are all on the side of society. It is like saying that we are all for motherhood. There is an alternative to the death sentence-life imprisonment.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Len-nox (Mr. Alkenbrack) stated:
My constituents did not send me to Ottawa to sit in this parliament in order to weaken or to tear down the Statutes of Canada by doing away with any of these laws.
This hon. member too missed the point. He was sent here to amend and strengthen the laws. He said further:
This is Canada, 1966; if we grant too much leniency and liberty within the social system our political system will suffer, and possibly perish.
I say this is Canada, 1967. I say that we must cast aside the antiquated arguments, theories and ideas of the retentionists and apply to this present-day problem a reasoning based upon modern concepts of criminology and sociology. Today we have a wealth of research and information at our immediate disposal on which to base reform, and we need not and should not retain our
4144	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence old laws for the sake of retention. I do not know of any leading North American criminologist who is in favour of capital punishment. Thorsten Sellin, professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania and perhaps the leading criminologist in the United States, speaking in Toronto on February 7, 1965, on the subject of capital punishment said:
It is an archaic system of primitive origin that has disappeared in most civilized countries, and is withering away in the rest.
In the debate much was said of the law as it existed in England 100 years ago when 200 offences were punishable by death. As civilization advanced, juries refused to convict simply because the death penalty imposed was out of line with any concept of the minimum necessary to act as a deterrent. So there was an incredible situation in England during the last half of the nineteenth century when one might say unquestionably that juries fraudulently acquitted persons appearing before them. For example, a man charged with stealing 20 shillings, a crime punishable by death, was convicted of stealing 19 shillings and sixpence. Nevertheless, each bill which was introduced in the British House of Commons in those days to abolish the death penalty was opposed by retentionists using the same arguments as we hear today.
A similar situation exists in Canada today with regard to capital punishment inasmuch as juries sometimes compromise and convict an accused of the lesser offence of non-capital murder. Surely critics of this bill would prefer that juries should properly convict, bearing in mind the added safeguard it would provide in that the accused would be imprisoned for life; he could not be released without cabinet approval. As long as capital punishment is retained, juries will decline to convict in many circumstances where they ought to convict. Persons thus found guilty of non-capital murder may be prematurely released under National Parole Board regulations.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox when he stated in his speech:
There is no record and there is no proof that an innocent man has ever been executed for murder.
In the 98 speeches made in this house during the last debate on the abolition of capital punishment, numerous instances were given of innocent men who had been executed. Many volumes have been written on the

DEBATES	November 10, 1967
execution of innocent people. The pardon granted to Timothy Evans a dozen years after he was hanged may have been a very admirable gesture by the British House of Commons, but it was of little practical value to Mr. Evans. Two eminent British jurists, Lord Birkenhead and Lord Shaw, both agree that innocent men have been convicted of murder and executed.
Many persons convicted of capital murder cannot afford the cost of an extensive investigation, and in most cases such an investigation comes to an abrupt halt on the execution of the offender. I would think the possibility of wrongful conviction for capital murder would provide a strong incentive for hon. members to support this bill, especially since we heard so much about the sanctity of human life from the advocates of retention during the last debate.
I certainly do not agree with the member for Saint John-Albert when he said:
-the onus of proof is still on the abolitionists.
I maintain that the onus is on those who advocate retention to prove that capital punishment is an effective or unique deterrent to murder. Criminologists are against capital punishment because it has not been demonstrated that it is more of a deterrent than the lesser punishment of life imprisonment.
The Wolfenden committee on homosexual and prostitution offences in 1957 was the first real effort to determine the fundamental basis of the criminal law. The whole thrust of criminology since then has been founded on the proposition that the criminal law is a sociological device to prevent acts which are harmful to the community. The second thrust is that, given the harmful act, parliament must decide the most civilized minimum penalty which is a sufficient deterrent against the commission of this offence. A penalty which goes any farther than this is barbaric and is punishment merely to punish.
During this century we have seen the development of many new laws which were non-existent before, for example, those affecting highway traffic, drug additiction, aviation and liquor control. The principle evolved for devising penalties for infractions of these laws is to decide the most just, sensible and economical penalty which will serve as a deterrent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to have to advise the hon. member that it is one o'clock
November 10, 1967

-unless it is the intention of the house to allow the hon. member to finish his speech.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. When the house suspended its sitting at one o'clock the hon. member for Elgin had the floor. However, I believe the hon. member for York-Humber has risen in his place.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


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


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege in regard to a matter which does not please me because I hold the Solicitor General in such high regard, always have and always will. But because of a proverb which we all know that error flies around the world while truth is putting on her sandals, I wish to refer to some comments made yesterday during the introduction of this bill. The hon. member for Bow River, as reported on page 4085 of Hansard, made this statement:
From April 16, 1963 to September 30, 1967-this was about the time when the offence of murder was divided into capital and non-capital murder- there were 27 convictions in cases of murder but none received the death penalty because the sentences were all commuted.
As reported on page 4086 of Hansard the same hon. member also said:
Does the minister mean to tell us that of the 27 accused who have been sentenced, not one has killed a prison guard or police officer?
Following that, as found on the same page the Solicitor General said:
I know of no convicted murderer who has been convicted for murdering a prison guard or policeman.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is held in such high regard throughout the country and his words carry such weight that they should bear fact. I know he must have made a slip when he gave that answer to the hon. member for Bow River. I have in my hand here a statement indicating that on June 1, 1949-
DEBATES	4145
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
ask the hon. member for York-Humber to state his question of privilege?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that the Solicitor General in that respect has failed to remind the hon. member for Bow River that Marcotte, the Santa Claus murderer, killed two policemen, which the Solicitor General must know, that Colpitts killed a prison guard at Dorchester, which the Solicitor General must also know, and that at Winnipeg, Manitoba, a policeman killed two women between 1929 and 1944, the second when he was on parole from a life sentence.
I just wish to point out that there are cases in Canada of murderers killing policemen and murderers killing prison guards who have had their life sentences commuted despite this statement by the Solicitor General which appears on page 4086.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, in rising on the question of privilege I wish to thank my long-time and warm friend, the hon. member for York-Humber, for bringing this matter to my attention. He spoke to me just before the house rose for the luncheon adjournment.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
After looking at Hansard it is clear I should have said that no person previously convicted of murder in Canada and released had murdered a prison guard or policeman. The hon. member read Hansard literally and the words are perhaps subject to the interpretation he places on them. I acknowledge that fact. In reading the remarks in context with what I said it is clear that I meant no person previously convicted of murder and subsequently released had murdered a prison guard or a policeman. If I have misled the hon. member or any member of the house I apologize.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Mr. Speaker, my speech on capital punishment, like Gaul, has been divided into three parts. It might well be compared with the most elementary lesson in composition; the introduction, the body and the conclusion.
When the house rose at one o'clock for the noon adjournment I was discussing the principles used in determining the proper penalties for the contravention of new laws as they arise, such as highway traffic and aviation laws which did not exist a century ago. In such cases penalties are fixed which will be the minimum necessary to act as a deterrent. If it is later demonstrated that the
November 10, 1967
4146	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence penalty under the statute is not a sufficient deterrent, the onus is on those who seek a higher penalty to prove that this is necessary. For the state to act otherwise is a violation of the very principles of our democracy and a mockery of justice.
The trouble with the existing legislation concerning capital murder is that it starts the other way around. We start with the maximum penalty, capital punishment. The retentionists claim that the onus is on the abolitionist to show that capital punishment should be reduced to life imprisonment. This violates the basic principles of our criminal law.
Those who favour retention face another grave responsibility when they consider the defence of insanity set out in the Criminal Code. The defence of insanity is based on the M'Naghten rule which was enunciated in the last century. The M'Naghten rule is based on the Victorian concept of mens rea. The accused is legally sane under our Criminal Code if, at the instant the wrongful act was committed, he knew what he was doing. If capital punishment is retained, we must face the fact that we are willing to hang those who are medically insane and do not come under the defence in section 16 of the Criminal Code.
Hanging is a fixed penalty. It is a penalty which is imposed solely on the finding of guilt of the accused. In other crimes, after the finding of guilt there is a further inquiry in order to determine the most appropriate sentence with regard to all the circumstances of the case.
We all realize that the facts adduced at the trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused are by no means all the facts which are necessary for the judge to determine the proper sentence for the disposition of the offender. Yet if the accused is found guilty of capital murder he is immediately sentenced and the judge is required by law to sentence him to be hanged by the neck until he is dead.
A capital murder trial is always a difficult experience for the accused. What is to follow in the months ahead is even worse. After he is sentenced the convicted offender is led from the courtroom to his small cell, a light is placed outside the cell door in such a position that a guard can keep the neck and wrists of the accused in full view at all times, even when the condemned prisoner goes to the bathroom. If the conviction is appealed to the court of appeal of the province in which the accused was convicted and


then to the Supreme Court of Canada, the months wear on. If the appeals are lost the accused is either reprieved or hanged.
I have never seen a hanging, but I have seen a condemned man facing the prospect of the gallows a few hours before the actual hanging. The torture of the condemned man waiting for such a brutal event is shared by his family, friends and everyone in the jail, including the other prisoners, the turnkeys and the guards. It reaches its peak as the hangman walks into the condemned man's cell where he has been held since his sentence. The final moments arrive, the hangman ties the prisoner's hands behind his back and leads him to the gallows. The hood, the rope-the rest is beyond description. The dead man is cut down; for him the terrible torture of months of waiting is all over. To the retentionist, justice has been done. To the abolitionist, injustice remains.
Retentionists continue to minimize the possibility of a man being wrongfully convicted for capital murder. No system of justice is perfect. The possibility of error in the disposition of any accused is ever present and murder is no exception. It is always difficult to rectify a wrongful conviction in any case, but the difficulty of such rectification is rather obvious when a man has been hanged for capital murder.
I remember hearing a report on the radio when I was a boy about a young American who was to be executed for murder in the United States. Just before his execution he prayed in his cell, not for himself but that his mother would live long enough to learn he was not guilty. Years later an uncle of the murdered girl confessed on his deathbed to the killing. His mother learned the truth, but this was small consolation to her son who had been put to death years before. A look at page five of this morning's Globe and Mail will provide hon. members with a recent example of a wrongful conviction in another country.
I would ask hon. members to study these cases and ask themselves, can we afford to hang those convicted of capital murder when the possibility of error is always present? Lord Sankey once said words to the effect that it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted.
Show me that the death penalty is a unique deterrent to capital murder and I shall vote for retention. None of the 57 members who spoke in favour of retention in the last debate gave any convincing statistics that capital punishment is a more effective
November 10, 1967

deterrent to murder than life imprisonment. The case for retention cannot be proved by personal opinions or the vague generalizations of those who have expressed their desire to retain capital punishment.
Parliament has a responsibility as the supreme legislative body. We must not be sidetracked by any false assumption. To do so is to abdicate our basic responsibility. We must never assume that capital punishment is right just because it exists.
The fact is that the statistics available indicate that life imprisonment is as effective a deterrent to murder as capital punishment. If this is so, it is our duty to abolish capital punishment. We must make certain that punishment for any crime is never excessive. The appropriate sentence is the minimum civilized penalty which is sufficient to achieve the objectives of the criminal law. We must go no further. This is the very essence of a democracy. It is for this reason I emphasize that the onus is on those favouring retention to prove that capital punishment is a more effective deterrent to murder than life imprisonment.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It has often been said that Canadians resist change. I hesitate to think that we will be the last free nation to abolish capital punishment. To date 45 jurisdictions have abolished the death penalty, in whole or in part, for the offence of murder. A United Nations report states that there is a major trend toward the abolition of capital punishment and urges member nations to question the death penalty as a means of discouraging crime.
The British royal commission of 1949 to 1953 studied the whole problem and concluded that there is no definite evidence that the abolition of capital punishment has led to any increase in the murder rate, nor its reintroduction to a fall in that rate. Furthermore, I do not know of a noted criminologist who has set out any convincing proof that capital punishment is a unique deterrent to murder.
I respect the personal opinions and feelings of the retentionists. In a matter which is as basic to our democracy as this, we must not sidestep the expert opinions of the criminologists and sociologists of our age and the wealth of experience of other nations in this field in favour of our own personal opinions without the facts to substantiate those opinions.
DEBATES	4147
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
Fear was expressed by many hon. members who spoke in favour of retention of the danger of paroling a murderer. In general they are the least likely to recidivate. To my knowledge there have been in Canada only two cases of convicted murderers who have murdered the second time. Professor Sellin, in the speech I mentioned a few minutes ago, put it this way:
The belief that a prisoner serving a sentence for capital murder presents a special danger is another myth. Experience shows the contrary. Homicides do occur in prisons, but they are almost never committed by those serving life sentences but by people committed for robbery, forgery or what have you.
Professor Sellin went on to say:
Paroled murderers everywhere have the best record of all parolees. Very few of them are again convicted and then usually of relatively minor offences.
I like to think that our civilization is progressing. We can never show the world that we have a respect for human life if we pay only lip service to it.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks by congratulating the minister on the very non-partisan manner in which he presented his bill and his very eloquent address in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. The minister has been criticized by some who have said he is unworthy of being a minister seized with the responsibility of carrying out the law of Canada to its final conclusion. The same criticism can no doubt be levelled at anybody who is a dyed-in-the-wool retentionist. I hope the debate will continue in this vein and that hon. members will refrain from making partisan remarks because we are endeavouring to consider both sides of the question fairly.
I am not impressed by the argument that because we decided this question 18 months ago we should leave the problem alone. Canadian jurisprudence is not bound by the laws of the Medes and Persians; rather, we are in an evolutionary process and I believe that the evolution in Canadian jurisprudence has been moving toward charity. If the evolutionary process has to move in one direction, I think that is the positive direction in which it should move.
Statistics can be used to prove any point. However, in all the correspondence, opinions and statistics I have read concerning murder I have not seen anything clearly proven except that the statistics do not make out a
November 10, 1967
4148	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence clear case. I believe, with the small experience I have had in dealing with criminals, that the reason statistics lie is that we have probably been attacking this problem from the wrong direction. We work backward from the murder and try to figure out whether or not the fear of the rope might have prevented the crime and whether some change in the punishment would continue to deter if, in fact, it has any deterrent value at all.
I do not believe that capital punishment has any deterrent value whatsoever. I believe that the criminal mind is so designed, as are the minds of most people in the human race, that there is in it a feeling of self-preservation, a feeling of indestructibility. Nature has implanted this instinct so deeply in us that it is very difficult for a sane man to imagine himself as a corpse, whether it be on the end of a rope or anywhere else. The hope that springs eternal in the human breast is to preserve one's life, and this gives human beings a completely blind spot in that they disregard the fact that one may have to pay the supreme penalty for one's crime.
If a person has talked to a condemned man I am sure he has discovered that even up to the time the condemned man hears the rasping of the bolt underneath his feet and takes the final plunge into eternity he never loses hope that by some miracle, physical or spiritual, he will be saved from this terrible end.
I believe this feeling is universal in the normal man and is much deeper in the twisted minds of those who have committed a coldblooded and deliberate crime.
The greed which makes people steal, the stealing which is the crime and the narcissus complex which lies behind the crime makes such a person entirely blind to the natural consequences of his act. However, let us not despair, because I believe there is one way of getting to the criminal mind. I have seen this dramatically proven in my short career in the police. The greatest deterrent to crime of all kinds, from a mere breaking of the traffic laws to robbery and murder, is the degree to which you can convince the criminal that he will be apprehended.
The reputation of the mounted police in this country is probably our greatest single deterrent to crime. It is not the penalty that criminals will pay if they are caught which deters them from crime. It is not the whip, the jail sentence, the taking away of their freedom, nor even the rope itself, that deters them. It is the fact that at some moment


sooner or later after the crime has been committed they have the conviction that the strong arm of the law will grab them. This is the most terrible moment of a criminal's existence and the time when he feels that crime does not pay. When he has been in jail for any length of time nature takes over and he rationalizes his crime. He may stay in jail anywhere from a few days to 20 years, but I doubt that his attitude toward society is affected one way or the other. I doubt that the sentence in any way helps to cure him. In my opinion, the fear that he will be caught is the surest deterrent to any crime small or great.
e (3:00 p.m.)
I suggest that because we have heard most of the arguments about abolition and retention in their pure form, we have lost sight of the fact that the most important thing which the law enforcement officers in this country can do, from the Solicitor General down to the last recruit in our great police forces, is to develop the skill, integrity, courage and devotion which will bring every lawbreaker in this country to summary justice.
I have heard those in favour of the retention of capital punishment argue that it is cheaper because we do not have to maintain the criminal. I believe we could take an entirely different view on that subject and say we are not spending nearly enough money in this country on the prevention of crime in the first place and, second, in improving the educational methods in respect of our young people. I should like to remind hon. members of the time about 20 years ago when we had a youth and police program which entitled every member of the police force to use the equipment of the force. Police cars were used to transport Boy Scouts to their meetings and thus our young people were encouraged to take the positive steps which help them to build character and resist the temptation to break seriously the law of the country. A very small amount of money was used for the program and yet it has largely been dropped. I do not know what the reason was, but the positive results of that work were dramatic.
I have done a great deal of research on this subject and I could mention which local communities were affected the most by this program. I will mention one area in particular, the city of Hamilton where about 20 years ago a certain police inspector started a program of backyard baseball. By a strange coincidence, after this program had been
November 10, 1967

going on for one year the city auditors were able to report that the city of Hamilton had saved $7,000 in one year for broken glass alone and that the saving was directly attributable to the work which this inspector had done among the so-called delinquent children of Hamilton. They were normal boys, the same as most of us were, who would rather throw a baseball than throw stones at factory windows. By another strange coincidence, $7,000 happened to be the total annual pay of this police inspector. As a result of his attempt to take a positive approach to crime in general he was able to recoup for the city of Hamilton his complete yearly salary. I do not suppose I have to tell you that when Christmas or St. Valentine's day arrived, he received up to 400 Christmas or Valentine cards from these children who became a credit both to him and to his city.
It is impossible to exaggerate the value of crime prevention. Prevention in the criminal field is not possible without an outlay of money for this purpose, and the money put into a program of this sort would be such a wonderful investment in the end that the few thousand dollars required to improve our police forces and to set up police colleges in every major city to take advantage of the training ability of our great Northwest Mounted Police, now the R.C.M.P., would well repay us.
I know from experience what happens when you have an efficient policeman and he is on the job catching criminals. He may even be the only policeman in a large area in western Canada. In some cases a detachment was removed because there was not enough serious crime in the area to keep them busy. This demonstrated the trust which the people had that criminals would be apprehended.
I would now like to say a word about reform. I am quite sure that everyone within the sound of my voice has long since given up the idea that the Department of Justice is in any way interested in revenge. Let us by all means have protection. If I thought that the death penalty would protect the public and was a real deterrent to crime I would vote for it, because I put the protection of the Canadian public far above any sentimental ideas.
I am not easily moved by the poor criminal looking at the noose from behind the prison bars. This is closing the door after the horse gets out. However, having apprehended the criminal and having put him in jail-and I speak now not only about the ones found guilty of capital murder but about all those
DEBATES	4149
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence who are serving time in jail-we should allocate a sufficient amount of money to provide the kind of environment which will bring about his reform. Surely if a boy who has not lived in decent surroundings and has never been to a beach or had a holiday is put into jail with hardened criminals and sex deviates, put in a concrete tank and left there for any length of time from 24 hours to 24 years, he will not be improved.
I do not suggest for a minute that the Solicitor General should open the doors, let out all the prisoners and send them to Boy Scout camps. Far from it. But now we can build maximum and minimum security institutions and farm schools where these boys can learn to live like human beings and earn an honest living. These places will cost us money and we must be prepared to pay the price. When we build these institutions, let us make sure that there is at least calcimine on the walls. After the one trip I made to St. Vincent de Paul I would need a lot of courage to go there again unless I thought I could do something about it. Having gone through some of our prison institutions, I know that they are not fit for human habitation.
As we build these new institutions in the future, let us give the inmates the same kind of treatment that we would if these were our own boys, because they are our own. We cannot escape our responsibilities toward them just because they have broken the law. We cannot wash our hands of them and pretend they are not here. These boys need good, clean surroundings, fresh air, exercise and sunshine, and they need good, hard, honest work. Today in Alberta they are carrying out what I think is a wonderful experiment. They are giving these young fellows good, hard work to occupy them and they are paying them a token wage for that work so that they do not feel they are slaves. They are given good food and a good, clean place to sleep, as well as some supervision to prevent those aberrations about which I have been talking. This kind of treatment will restore them to full productivity as Canadian citizens. Anything else is sadistic and is at least 2,000 years behind the times.
It has taken us a long time to admit that we are our brother's keeper and it has also taken us a long time to make sure there is no revenge in our disposition of these men and that we are not condemning them eternally but are merely segregating them for the welfare of society. Having done that, we must ensure that every day they are kept in confinement will bring a positive contribution
4150	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence to the young man's or old man's life so that when he goes outside the prison walls he will be as close to a normal, happy, healthy Canadian as we can possibly make him. There is no longer any room for punishment for its own sake. The only excuse for punishment is to try to reform the man. In many cases society as a whole has been delinquent in this regard. Poverty is still with us and it is the chief cause of the downfall of these people.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Another point I would like to make, although it may sound as if I were straying from the subject, has to do with the sanctity of human life. Many hon. members will probably make reference to this. The sanctity of human life will be used in arguments both for and against capital punishment. One argument is to kill the killer and the other one is to let off the killer. In a week or two we will be debating the subject of the sanctity of human life in respect of abortion and we had better be careful that we are consistent. If killing is so terrible, this should be true both before and after birth. In my opinion, human life is important from beginning to end. I beg hon. members again to try to keep personalities out of this debate. I do not believe it helps the argument one bit if I disagree personally with any member in the government, in the opposition generally or in my own party. This question, I suppose, is a mixed question of law as we try to administer it and of our own consciences as we try to shape the law to bring about a happier, healthier human race.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) when he emphasizes the necessity in a matter of this seriousness of debating the point at issue rather than yielding to the temptation to take advantage of the debate for petty, partisan political purposes. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who participated in the discussion of this subject 18 months ago are aware that this is one of the more important debates that present members of parliament will be called upon to deal with. Since I am not a lawyer and my contact with people who have run afoul of the law has been rather remote and certainly infrequent, I have tried to listen to the arguments to see what, if anything, is new compared with the debate that took place a year ago. I found [Mr. Bigg.l
DEBATES	November 10, 1967
that the debate is indeed following very predictable lines. I think this is not something to make us discouraged because students of many previous debates that have taken place not only in this house but in England and all the countries of the world throughout the decades have found that essentially the arguments for and against the abolition of the death penalty have been constantly repeated.
We all begin in as objective a manner as possible but eventually the debate assumes an emotional character. For instance, Mr. Speaker, there are always those who, in participating in such a debate, quote from the Bible. They ignore the fact that in a country such as Israel, which has closer ties with the Old and New Testaments than any other country, the death penalty has been long since abolished. They ignore the arguments or causes for the death penalty that appear in the Old and New Testaments, causes which were so eloquently put into the record by previous speakers.
There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker, that there are lies, liars and statisticians. During the debate last year, as well as in other debates I have read in the books available in the library, I have noticed a tendency to ignore statistics. Statistics are boring. They are of interest purely to the people who are involved in a way of life that makes statistics more important to them than to us. However, statistics play a very important role in Canadian society. The statistics which the Dominion Bureau of Statistics makes available periodically cover just about every aspect of our economic life, pattern our legislation, influence the public and denote friends.
I believe it is safe to say that one change today compared with 100 years ago is that statistical records are more meaningful today because statistics are carefully analysed in a much more scientific manner. This results primarily from the fact that we have much more sophisticated instruments at our disposal. I do not intend to take the time of the house by reminding hon. members of the modern means of communication at the disposal of our political scientists, criminologists and others who are particularly interested in this topic.
There were three speeches particularly, Mr. Speaker, that interested me. I have just mentioned the one by the previous speaker. Then there was the one made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) and a third by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees). I mention these two gentlemen in particular not because I have any
November 10, 19S7

issue with them personally but because they are senior members of their party and indeed senior members of the house. I felt that these gentlemen would have some very valid points to make. The hon. member for Bow River is one of the more respected representatives of the legal profession in the house, and the hon. member for Northumberland is a former cabinet member as well as occupying a prominent role in his party.
Running through the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland were two main themes. The first was the danger to society of convicted murderers when the time came for them to regain their freedom through the medium of the parole board. I am sure the hon. member was quite sincere last night when he emphasized the grave dangers to which society was exposed by the parole of convicted murderers. He pointed out how inefficient we are in Canada-I have to agree with this latter point-in our methods of rehabilitating criminals. The hon. member referred to the small number of psychiatrists and psychologists available for rehabilitation work. Time and time again he emphasized that until we come up with better methods of rehabilitation we should not change our laws in such a way that murderers would eventually regain a place in society.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
What puzzled me, Mr. Speaker, was that in effect he was saying, let us kill these people so we will protect society from the potential danger which they represent if they regain their freedom. This reasoning, of course, is very impressive. It impressed me deeply to the point where I obtained from the minister's department certain statistics. I know people say, oh, statistics, but I must emphasize that these statistics are simple, comprehensive and easy to follow. These are the only statistics I intend to quote today. They concern the number of people who have been paroled in Canada, never mind other countries, since 1920. I do not believe anybody can disagree that these figures are easily obtainable from the records of federal, provincial and municipal governments. It may be of interest to know that 122 convicted murderers have been paroled in Canada since 1920. Of the 122, only seven have had their parole revoked; six forfeited their parole; 13 have died; six voluntarily left the country or were deported; 90 are still on parole.
The significant thing, Mr. Speaker, is that this potential threat to society, of which the
DEBATES	4151
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) spoke very eloquently and sincerely last night, has resulted in but two murders out of the 122 criminals who were released on parole over a period of 45 years. This very telling fact cannot simply be dismissed because it is a statistic. It is not something that we can say is juggled or interpreted in a particular way by an advocate of retention or an advocate of abolition. It is simply a cold, stark fact that 122 convicted murderers were released, only two of whom have recommitted the crime of murder.
The other point the hon. member for Northumberland made, with which of course I most heartily agree, dealt with the need for better rehabilitation facilities. Perhaps if time permits I will be able to support his argument later on in my speech. The hon. member read into the record last night a report that appeared in the Toronto Star about an innocent merchant who was shot down in cold blood. He made no attempt of course to relate that slaying with any of the 122 people who have been paroled; nor did he attempt to say that the killer in this case was necessarily one of the 90 people on parole.
I can imagine the shock of people in Toronto, Mr. Speaker, particularly the shock of this unfortunate man's neighbours, because less than three years ago a personal friend of mine, one with whom I had gone fishing on many occasions, a man who was a member of a club to which I belong-there are less than 25 of us-likewise an innocent merchant who ran a grocery store in the city of Verdun, was crossing the street on a Saturday evening to deposit the week's receipts in the outside depository which some banks make available to their customers and, as he reached down and put the key in the lock mechanism, the door of a car that had been standing at the corner opened. A young hoodlum ran out and shot the man, and he died on the spot. Then the young hoodlum picked up the bag of money and left the scene to be caught incidentally a few months later.
This incident gave me great cause for reflection, Mr. Speaker, because essentially I was then and still am in favour of abolition. This was an emotional experience for me because he was not just a mere acquaintance but a very close friend. I received many letters from my constituents after the last debate asking me how I could justify my voting for abolition, in view of this horrible event that had taken place in my riding.
November 10, 1967

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence When the police apprehended the murderer, Mr. Speaker, they found that unfortunately this young man had spent some considerable time in a mental institution, that he was quite obviously ill, and the possibility of hanging simply had never occurred to him.
If we in this house should come to the conclusion that killers who calculate committing murder ahead of time should hang, not because they commit a premeditated murder but because these people deserve to be punished, then if you can accept that philosophy I would accept the argument as valid. I could not shed a tear for the hired killers of the Mafia or crime syndicates who get off a plane at Dorval airport with a briefcase, having arrived from somewhere in Europe, snuff someone's life out a day or two later in Montreal and then return home on another plane. I am sure that the cycle occurs in reverse as well, and that people from Montreal travel to Europe and do the same sort of thing.
I do not particularly care whether we kill these people for punishment's sake, Mr. Speaker; but no one has proven logically that capital punishment must be retained as a deterrent. The fact is that people who engage in this type of exercise do not anticipate getting caught. The cold brutal fact of the matter is that in the United States, where some states retain the death penalty and others do not, people of this sort do not even care if they operate in a state that has the death penalty; they are that callous that they never think of getting caught. If they thought they might get caught they would not hire themselves out, for the simple reason they do not relish being locked up in the penitentiary for eight years, ten years, 20 years or a lifetime. So I contend that nobody has proven that the death penalty is a deterrent.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, hon. members may ask why we are bringing forward this bill and making a change in the law. There is one factor we must take into consideration. Whether or not we are able to prove that capital punishment must be retained, the policemen of this country believe that the death penalty does give a protection. If they are going to carry out their role properly then we should not take away from them this psychological advantage. For this particular reason though I would prefer complete abolition I am prepared to accept the exception outlined in the bill in regard to our law officers and prison
[Mr. Mackasey.l
guards because, as I say, they need this psychological protection. I am sure that eventually their fear, their sincere belief, that their job would be more hazardous if the death penalty were removed completely, will also disappear.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), in those few moments when he was not attacking the government-I will refer to that matter on another day-spoke very eloquently, drawing on his great knowledge that he has as a top criminal lawyer in this country. I read his speech over very carefully because I take his remarks very seriously on most occasions. He made reference to the report of a commission set up last year by the President of the United States that dealt with the subject of crime. I was unable to get a copy of the report, and I apologize for that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will let my hon. friend have one.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure the hon. member quoted accurately so I will read from Hansard. Both copies in the library were out on loan. Since the hon. member did not tell us in his remarks whether he was an abolitionist or a retentionist, and I cannot presume from his remarks which side of the fence he is on, I think it is fair to quote what he said.
The hon. member referred to an excerpt from the report, and I think it is a very valid one. As reported at page 4085 of yesterday's Hansard, the hon. member quoted the report as follows:
"It is impossible to say with certainty whether capital punishment significantly reduces the incidence of heinous crimes. The most complete study on the subject, based on a comparison of homicide rates in capital and non-capital jurisdictions, concluded that there is no discernible correlation between the availability of the death penalty and the homicide rate."
In other words, the report indicates that, whether or not any one state retains the death penalty, the commission was able to determine that this has absolutely no effect on the incidence or rate of murder. The report went on:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This study also revealed that there was no significant difference between the two kinds of states in the safety of policemen. Another study of 27 states indicated that the availability of the death sentence had no effect on the rate of assaults and murders of prison guards.
That again proves that the death penalty is not necessarily a deterrent; certainly, it is not
November 10, 1967

a deterrent with respect to which one can make a significant evaluation.
On page 4086 of Hansard the hon. gentleman brought to the attention of the house the following quotation from the same report:
The question whether capital punishment is an appropriate sanction is a policy decision to be made by each state. Where it is retained, the types of offences for which it is available should be strictly limited,-
That is what this bill seeks to do:
-and the law should be enforced in an evenhanded and nondiscriminatory manner, with procedures for review of death sentences that are fair and expeditious.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Let me finish, please.
Continuing:
When a state finds that it cannot administer the penalty in such a manner,-
I wish to pause there, because I do not like the word "cannot". A bill is before the house that seeks to correct the situation presently existing. All sentences of death recently have been commuted and thus a mockery has been made of the present law. That cannot be justified. I continue:
-the penalty should be abandoned.
and these words are significant-
-is being imposed but not carried into effect,-
and that precisely is what has been happening in this country-
-the penalty should be abandoned.
In Canada sentences of death are passed but those sentences are not carried out. Under such circumstances the President's committee suggests that the penalty ought to be abandoned.
I see that the hon. gentleman wishes to comment. Would he do that after I have finished.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I merely wanted to ask a question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am speaking from notes and I do not wish to lose the trend of my thoughts. I shall listen to the hon. member when I have finished.
Yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) read into the record an account in the Toronto Star which dealt with the brutal, nonsensical killing of a man in Toronto. I wish to read into the record an extract from today's Globe and Mail. I am
DEBATES	4153
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence not referring to a Globe and Mail of last year, or of ten or 20 years ago; I am referring to today's edition. The subject matter of the article was alluded to by a previous speaker on the Liberal side. The events of the article took place in Germany and the headline of the article is, 'At last'. "Man jailed 7 years for 1947 slaying". The body of the article says:
Manfred Jung, 40, broke into tears yesterday as a juvenile court sentenced him to seven years in jail for a double slaying 20 years ago.
That he was jailed for seven years is not of great significance. Of great significance, however, is the following paragraph:
And in the courtroom an 85-year-old pensioner who had spent 18 years behind bars on a false conviction in the case murmured: "At last."
White-haired Johann Lettenbauer had walked out of a prison only two years ago after a new probe of the case cleared him in the 1947 murder of his daughter, Maria, 25, and her 2-year-old son, Arthur.
Police, tipped by an ex-convict, tracked down Jung in 1965 as the real killer and obtained from him a statement admitting he axed to death the young woman and her infant when she found him searching her house for food.
The article concludes by saying that the pensioner received $15,000 compensation for wrongfully spending 18 years of his life in prison. Had the death penalty been in force in Germany during the original conviction we should have had another Evans case. We should have had another case where justice had miscarried.
Some say: What about Canada? Let me answer this way. About a year ago, when this matter was being debated in the house, I happened to turn on a radio to listen to one of those open line shows carried on station CKGM in my area; Mr. Pat Burns was on the air. During that show something of significance happened. The wife of the clergyman who had been attached to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary called in-unfortunately, the name of the clergyman escapes me but I shall try to find it during the week end. This lady was an avowed abolitionist and she spoke of case after case where people had been convicted of murder. Because of her father's background and because of the work he did, she was able to learn much about the murderers and of the incidents which led up to their lives of crime. During her remarks she said something that was extremely significant. Her husband had been one of the last to speak to Wilbert Coffin, who was found guilty of murder, shortly before he
November 10, 1967
4154	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence was hanged. The clergyman is dead; nevertheless, he confided to this woman that after speaking with Coffin a few minutes before the hanging he, the clergyman, would be convinced to his dying day that Coffin was innocent.
If there is no evidence that the death sentence is a deterrent and if we are not interested in maintaining it, should we not abolish it if only to protect the odd person from being found guilty of a crime of which he is innocent?
Many hon. members in this house are lawyers and I respect them sincerely. Surely they must have anxious moments in criminal cases when their clients are found guilty; surely they must ask themselves whether they have overlooked anything, whether they have been negligent, or whether the conviction has resulted from their inability to defend the accused. Bearing in mind the case which I read into the record, it is only reasonable to suppose that judges and juries in cases where the accused has been convicted of capital murder have anxious moments when they consider whether they have acted properly.
Only last year in New York there was a case that might have become another miscarriage of justice. Only the interest of a policeman, who tracked down the real criminal, saved an innocent man. I shall not repeat statistics; to do so would be to repeat what others have said.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The hon. members for Northumberland and Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) said that we must do more to rehabilitate our criminals. The hon. member for Bow River, who has been interested enough in the matter to introduce a private bill touching on the matter, feels that crimes may be prevented in certain ways. It has been suggested that the time to reform criminals is when they begin to engage in crime, between the ages of 10 and 12. I, as a member of parliament, have had some experience in this regard, as have no doubt other hon. members. We have heard of the youngster who for various reasons did not attend school classes; he may have found them too difficult or he may not have been able to keep up with his classmates. He and others like him stay away from school, and graduate to stealing hub caps. Before long they are breaking into local drug stores. When they are 16 or 17 they become bolder and, finally becoming more reckless and having run into the authorities and acquired a


record, in the commission of a crime or in a great fluster they shoot someone with a defective pistol.
It seems to me we should be directing more attention to guiding these youngsters between 10 and 14 years old-youngsters who have all the potential of our own children, but who have been deprived of opportunity to display it. I think we could make a tremendous case in this house, if we were really socially minded, for the reduction of our slums, for the cleansing of the rotten cores of our great cities. I think there is a direct relationship between the slums of this nation and the production of criminals. It is unbelievable we should be able to spend millions of dollars on rockets and the exploration of space while being unable to eradicate the slums of this nation, the breeding grounds of crime. With every dollar we spend on clearing the slums and putting up better housing we take a step nearer the day when crime is reduced to a minimum.
I doubt whether I have added anything to the debate. I doubt whether I have persuaded anyone, but I do not think we can justify the continuation of the death penalty as a deterrent. The one statistic I have read into the record shows that only two parolees have ever been convicted of murder a second time. The fact that no one has advanced the argument that the death penalty should be retained as a form of punishment indicates to me that the house should pass the measure before it for the sake of removing, once and for all, the possibility of innocent people being hanged.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for Verdun said he would answer a question. He has been most courteous in his argument, looking at both sides of the question. But let me read him an extract from the debate reported in Hansard at page 4108 last night. I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) in this:
I hesitate to interrupt the interesting remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Flemming) but it is a deterrent. My point is that it is not a special, unique deterrent. I acknowledge that it is a deterrent.
Does the hon, member agree?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Solicitor General is here, and will correct me if necessary, but my hon. friend probably means that though the death penalty is a deterrent in some cases it is probably no more effective than a life sentence would be, or a sentence of 20 years. I suspect the Solicitor General means they are deterrents of equal value, and if this is the case, we should choose the one which
November 10, 1967	COMMONS
puts an end to the possibility of an irremedi-al miscarriage of justice. This brings us back to my point that cold blooded killers do not expect to be caught. They contemplate their crime from all angles and if they think there is a prospect of being caught, they do not go on with it. I would suspect that the prospect of life imprisonment would deter these people just as much as the possibility of capital punishment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member accept a serious question from me on a very serious subject? He mentioned that in the last 45 years only two convicted murderers on parole have committed a second murder. Does this not bear out my argument of last year that the state cannot yet guarantee the safety of its law abiding citizens? In the two instances the hon. member mentions the state let out two murderers, who had already killed two law abiding citizens, at the price of the lives of two more law abiding citizens.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman has a valid point. But what he is saying is that because two out of 122 returned to this crime we should keep the other 120 in prison, forgetting that 90 of them, when on parole, led useful lives, rehabilitated as far as the law is concerned, and contributing to society. The hon. member could carry his argument further and say that anybody convicted of anything should be kept in goal for the rest of his life, because this would protect society, taking account of the undisputed fact that criminals do not normally stop committing crimes after a first offence. The hon. member said this was a serious question, and it is. His questions usually are serious. I do not recall his arguments of last year, but he has made a valid point and I am sure the minister will wish to answer it.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonion-Slralh-cona):: I should like to comment first on the question asked by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). It seems to me he has a valid point when he says the state has failed in this case in its duty to protect citizens from murderers, even if only two paroled murderers have taken the lives of people who would not otherwise have been slain.
All I can say is: I wonder how many innocent people have been hanged on the basis of evidence presented in courts, because of the possibility of injustice which is always bound to exist. I suggest that having regard to the number of hangings and the possibility of error, society has murdered more than two
DEBATES	4155
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence innocent people in its anxiety to protect people, and if we wish to keep a score we had better stop hanging now.
I was most impressed by the presentation of the case for this bill on the part of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell). The argument I have always found most impressive is that a society which so respects human life that it will not take it, even after due process of law, is a society which will encourage respect for human life to such an extent that murder will diminish. This is an element in the protection of society against which no one can argue; the best way to protect life is to foster a society which believes in the sanctity of life.
I was not much impressed, however, by the way in which the Solicitor General and the government have been handling this question of capital punishment in the last couple of years. I spoke in favour of abolition last year. We had a debate about 18 months ago-a very good debate, I think, in which most of the arguments for and against abolition were put forward. There has been no startling change in the incidence of crime since then, as far as I can recall, which would create a necessity for this house to debate the subject again

other than the handling by the government of cases involving the royal prerogative. Yet here we find the same people, the same House of Commons, the same parliament, debating the question again. As we were reminded last night by the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton (Mr. Flemming), the house has already made a decision, one which this government has refused to accept; it has refused to carry out the wishes of the people of Canada as expressed by a majority in this house.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Surely the Solicitor General can appreciate the cogency of the argument that respect for human life as shown by the state is likely to have a good effect on the conduct of its citizens, so that it is a powerful force in itself in deterring the taking of human life. This government should be able to comprehend that respect for the wishes of the people-because the supporters of this government form a majority in the House of Commons -is also a very powerful influence on the thinking and behaviour of the citizens of this country. I can think of nothing which is more harmful to a society than when the respect of the populous for the government wanes; nothing is more harmful in a country than bad justice, unless perhaps it is the bad
November 10, 1967
4156	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence administration of justice. There is nothing that is more prone to lead people to break the law than when the law itself is held in contempt by those who enforce the law generally.
When we have a government which refuses to obey the law as confirmed by parliament, than I submit the effect on the people of this country is most harmful. How can we in one breath talk about the sanctity of life and the necessity of the state showing a good example-and I feel this is a good, valid and logical argument-when at the same time we have this government doing all it can to hold the administration of justice up to contempt. I think the general manner in which it is presented does more harm to this cause than the Solicitor General's efforts in this regard; that is, the suggestion that policemen and prison guards should be made a special case. I am sure it is the duty of government to encourage the people to have respect for law enforcement officers. Certainly we know that the only way we can have an orderly society where life, limb and property may be held safe is when people have enough respect for the law enforcement agencies that they will give them their full and willing co-operation.
It is absolutely essential that we have respect for our policemen. How can we have respect for policemen if this government tells us that a policeman must have the psychological crutch of knowing that his life, if taken, will result in somebody being hanged, whereas someone can shoot the wife and children of that policeman and then only go to jail for life. Where is the sense and logic in that sort of thing? If it is true, as I have always argued and as the Solicitor General has argued, that hanging is no greater deterrent than life imprisonment, then obviously it is no greater deterrent to the shooting of a policeman. By putting this exception in the bill we do violence to our own arguments. We show weakness in the face of our own arguments, and I submit we hold our law enforcement people up to ridicule as people asking a special favour of parliament, to make them a special class. The suggestion is made that a special bit of protection is needed and that it is the police agencies which must have that special protection.
It is ridiculous to suggest that those people who are paid for the purpose of running the extra risk involved in dealing with the lawless elements and protecting the citizens are themselves the ones who need special protection. Surely all the statistics which have been


quoted have convinced us that hanging is no greater deterrent than life imprisonment. We have looked at the situation in the states and in the countries where they have abolished capital punishment. No one, I am sure, will argue, when we take two states of about the same size and find that the policemen have received about the same treatment in one state where there is no capital punishment as they have in the other, or will suggest that there is a greater incidence of brutality or murder of prison guards in one than there is in the other.
For the life of me I cannot justify in my mind the bringing of this exception into the bill, when to me it seems to be pure hypocrisy or a psychological sop in order to get some police chiefs off the neck of the government. I am aware of the amount of propaganda put out by the police chiefs. But surely the simple fact that they are familiar with crime does not suggest that they understand the psychology of the criminal mind any better than most of us in this house.
I have listened to the arguments in the house and I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton (Mr. Flemming) last night. It was a beautiful example of logic and illogic. He made a very logical speech about the duty of the government to obey parliament and about the unfairness-unreasonableness, I think he called it-and the illegality of the government asking parliament to deal with this matter when we have disposed of it once. That part of his speech I thought was very logical, clear and brief and contained thinking which I do not believe could be improved. Yet at the same time when he considered the question of abolition, his statement was that his duty is to protect the people of this country, and of course he could not consider abolishing the death penalty because it would mean leaving the people defenceless. To me that logic is incomprehensible.
Surely the statistics in respect of two similar states, side by side, which have been studied over a period of years, prove the fallacy of that or of the suggestion that the death penalty is a deterrent. When after years of trial and error we can come only to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that the taking away of the death penalty is likely to lead to an increase in capital murder, how can a man whose mind thinks logically say, "Well, we must keep it or we leave them defenceless." I have listened to the arguments in the house on this question
November 10, 1967	COMMONS
before. I have made the same arguments before. I do not think we will convince many of the retentionists by simply repeating what they already have before them. We started, some 100 or 200 years ago in England, with 100 or 150 offences for which people could be hanged. Each time the matter came up in parliament and someone suggested that one of these offences be taken off the list in respect of hanging, there was a great cry that the people would be left defenceless and that there would be more and more of that type of crime. So, each time for a hundred different offences we had similar arguments, and each time for a hundred different times the argument was proven to be absolutely false.
We have had that same old argument presented in this house, and no matter how many states have tried it and proven that the taking away of the death penalty does not leave the people defenceless and cause an increase in crime, the retentionists still do not accept the evidence. So, I ask, what do these people need as proof? I suggest that what they need is the five years which are provided for in this bill. Then I suppose they will cower in their beds and be very apprehensive during that five year period. After the end of the five years it may be that crime will have gone down so much that we will say we have found something special, or it may be that action on the part of this government will drive the people mad and the incidence of murder will go up and they will say, "See, we are proven right."
I will have to vote in favour of this bill, although it burns me, to do so. I hope that at the committee stage we can get rid of this exception for policemen. To me it is ridiculous to have in the bill something that makes a mockery of the argument on which I can support the whole bill. I hope, whatever the judgment of the house, that the government will obey parliament. I cannot think of anything more injurious to the respect for this institution than a government which so consistently shows its contempt for parliament as this one does. How can we expect the people of this country to have any faith in the administration of justice and have any belief that there is justice when they are shown such an example by those whose duty it is to guard their institutions and safeguard the administration of justice.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr, Nugent:: Gladly.
DEBATES	4157
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member was
somewhat more severe with the retentionists than is usual for a man of his gentle nature. Is he quite fair in generalizing that the retentionists have used all the old arguments over and over again-because I submit to my hon. friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that in the speech I made a year and a half ago I did not use all the old arguments. I advanced what I thought were different arguments in respect of this particular problem, and I am wondering whether the hon. member really wants to generalize to the extent he has under these circumstances.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that when I referred to old arguments I had in mind the argument that we would weaken the deterrent to murder by removing the death penalty. I think this is clear as a result of our experience in respect of those categories of crimes which have been removed from the list of crimes punishable by the death penalty, particularly in the last hundred years. If I said that the retentionists in this house only advanced old arguments, I should like to withdraw that statement. I simply repeat that the strongest argument and the one relied upon by most retentionists is the same argument that has been used a hundred times and disproved a hundred times.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). I also listened with interest to the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Stafford). If I hear many more sincere words from abolitionists, such as I have heard, I might be again swayed toward the attitude of a retentionist.
I did not take part in the debate on capital punishment 16 months ago, and I hesitate to take part today because I am firmly convinced that it is impossible to obtain a consensus of conscience in respect to such a delicate subject. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that no one can decide this question on the basis of absolute logic. Certainly one cannot be convinced by statistics.
Sixteen months ago when the proposal to abolish capital punishment was first debated in this house I had no hesitation in voting against the resolution. Since then a genesis and mitosis has occurred, as a result of which we now have this government sponsored bill.
November 10, 1967
4158	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence I have no hesitation now in supporting this bill in relation to this sensitive problem.
The hon. member for Strathcona and others have eloquently presented arguments in respect of this whole question. Before digressing I want to pay tribute to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) for his eloquent introduction. During the two years I have been in this house I have rarely heard a minister of the crown speak with such obvious feeling. His speech impressed me in such a way that I was carried along by his argument. Few speeches made in this house by hon. members opposite have had this effect. Had I not already decided to vote for this bill, or had I had any lingering doubts about the value of this measure, I certainly should have been persuaded by the Solicitor General. Any doubts I might have had were removed.
I take exception to what the hon. member for Elgin attempted to do today. He has pinpointed several expressions of other hon. members in this house. He has attacked the arguments posed in speeches by obvious reten-tionists, although I must add that he has only made reference to speeches of hon. members on this side of the house. Unfortunately I did not hear the beginning of his speech last night so do not know whether he referred to any remarks of retentionists on his side of the house, including his lady minister. Also he has made little or no reference to the speeches of abolitionists on this side. I was disappointed by this vein of his remarks.
There is very real concern on the part of members on this side that this will not in fact be a free vote. Perhaps this is because the minister introduced the bill and members on the government side may feel compelled to support it. Many members here feel that hon. members across the way will feel restrained or restricted from voting against the bill. The hon. member for Elgin has done little to dispel this concern.
No one can made a final infallible decision in respect of capital punishment. One must vote according to one's own convictions. Neither logic nor statistics can resolve this problem. I hope members on all sides of the house will avoid becoming involved in partisan crossfire. We should all refrain from pinpointing what other hon. members have said in expressing their convictions, however they have been arrived at. For how can one miss the point, when neither logic nor statistics can prove or disprove it?
[Mr. Nowlan.l

I did not express my viewpoint 16 months ago during the earlier discussion of this matter and I voted for retention, but I have changed my mind, mainly because of the exceptions contained in the bill now before us.
Several members this afternoon have referred to the fundamental problem with which we are now faced. We must do something to change our judicial system, whether or not we retain the death sentence. I am not as well versed in criminal law as other hon. members who have spoken today, but I have had some experience in this field. I have no doubt that the government must stimulate the legal profession into providing assistance to a greater extent than has been the case in the past for those who are charged with criminal offences.
Very few millionaires have been hanged, but many others who are less affluent have been put to death for murder. Individuals with financial resources are able to retain the best possible counsel and can afford an appeal to the provincial supreme court or the Supreme Court of Canada. Very often these people have their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Surely we must do something to change this situation, which provides a law for the rich and a law for the poor.
Many members in this house are ready and willing to talk about medicare and other social measures. These things can perhaps be resolved by members of the medical profession, but in law we have a long way to go. I doubt, however, that the question of capital punishment can be exclusively resolved by members of the legal profession or members of the judiciary. Government may have to assist.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Today I intend to advance an argument in respect of the difference between the views held by retentionists and abolitionist. In my opinion after all the various arguments are sorted and sifted this question comes down to a decision in respect of one of two possibilities. There is on the side of those who favour the retention of the death penalty the possibility of deterrence and the protection of society. On the other side there is the possibility of judicial error. I have considered both possibilities and have resolved the conflict in my mind. I have decided that the weight is quite obviously on the side where there exists the possibility of judicial error. I have so decided because obviously one is here dealing with the life of an individual,
November 10, 1967	COMMONS
who cannot be recalled, if error is in fact found.
This brings me to the exclusion section of the bill. I said in the last debate on this subject that I was not for abolition because I believed the death penalty had some deterrent effect. But I am prepared to accept this bill because I believe the exclusion section is very important, for where police officers or prison guards are concerned the possibility of error is resticted.
Police officers and prison guards fall into a special category. I agree that bank managers and storekeepers, for example, are also in a special category; but police officers and prison guards are delegated by society to work with the people about whom we are talking, whereas bank managers, storekeepers and others are only vicariously involved in this question.
If you have the possibility of deterrence on one hand and judicial error on the other, the possibility of judicial error to a large degree makes me support this bill. You could not so openly have judicial error in anything that might happen to police officers and prison guards who are delegated by society to protect society. Also, Mr. Speaker, because there will be a trial period of five years in this respect, the whole question will again come before parliament after we have had an opportunity to study what happened in that period.
After the trial period we may find that logic and statistics do support either side of this question conclusively. For these reasons I shall put my vote on the side of judicial error. It is very interesting to note that the majority of lawyers who took part in the last debate were more on the side of the abolition of the death penalty than retention. In view of the possibility of judicial error I shall vote for this bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was going to defer to my very close friend the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). Is the hon. member better prepared than I am?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why don't you both speak at once? Be bilingual.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is perfectly obvious, Mr. Speaker, that I was not expecting to speak this afternoon. However, it is also known to the house that we are not prepared to have a vote today. If I make a short contribution
DEBATES	4159
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence this afternoon, it is in the interests of parliament itself. It is also due to the fact that I have been doing some thinking with regard to the measure before us and was reaching the point where I felt I would be obliged to say something in this chamber.
When this subject was before us a year and a half ago a great many members of the House of Commons were seriously disturbed and put a great deal of thought and attention into the subject of capital punishment. I frankly admit that I did this myself. I made no hasty decision with regard to how I would vote last year. I make no hasty decision this year. I spent hours and hours last year examining the records that were placed before us, studying the white paper, looking back at earlier discussions on capital punishment and examining my conscience, and I determined that I would put my position on the record prior to casting my vote, in order that it would be perfectly clear, to anyone interested in what I was doing, how I had arrived at my conclusion.
I took the precaution last year of writing out in advance and revising everything I said on that occasion. That is how seriously I dealt with the situation in 1966. Had the opportunity presented itself on this occasion, I would have done the same. I am of the opinion that all hon. members who are participating in this debate are treating it with the greatest seriousness, and other hon. members who are not participating are doing the same because the debate is not confined to this chamber; we carry on conversations in our rooms, in the restaurants and in the corridors, and it is clear to anyone in this building that this subject is not treated at all lightly.
There is at the same time respect for other people's opinions. I do not wish to involve any hon. member in anything I have to say today, except to express my regret that this subject is before us at this time. I was under the impression that 16 months ago this house, after the most careful deliberation and preparation-because the announcement that we were going to consider capital punishment had been made in January, 1966-would settle the issue, as we did, by a free vote and there would then be a lapse of time before the matter would again be brought to our attention. I think it is rather premature to again raise the question in this session. We do not like to repeat all the arguments that were advanced 16 months ago, yet we are obliged to do that or simply
November 10, 1967
4160	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence act as machines and cast a vote without thought.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I express this regret because when parliament makes a decision on a matter of major importance, and this is such a matter, I doubt very much that it should be asked to reconsider the matter until there has been a sufficient lapse of time to bring about changed circumstances; and I do not see that there have been any changed circumstances. I express a further regret at the nature of the bill, which is for partial abolition only. I feel truly disturbed and sorry for some very good friends of mine who are deeply concerned about the subject and who spoke in favour of abolition. I feel sorry for those who for years have attempted to have the law changed and last year voted in favour of abolition. I know from conversation with them that they are very disturbed over this bill which proposes partial abolition. As I have said to some of them in all seriousness: How can you vote for the principle of the bill, the principle being partial abolition, when for years you have favoured and are still in favour of total abolition? I believe the government should not have placed members in that embarrassing situation. I think it is unfair. Although one party in this house has already, through its spokesman, said that they will vote for the bill as it stands and then endeavour to change it in committee, again I do not think that party should have been placed in that position. It is a more difficult decision than had to be made 16 months ago. So I criticize the government on that ground.
I said I do not want to repeat the arguments that I used a year and a half ago. I have read them over twice and I cannot for the life of me find that I can, in all conscience, make a change. I am even satisfied with the wording that I used on that occasion. However, I am prepared to have my mind changed with regard to the subject of capital punishment. This is the way I have approached the problem.
When members of the press or the news media have asked me in the last two or three days how I am going to vote on this bill, I have said to them that I cannot give them an answer for the simple reason that I want to study the bill and listen to the debate. Anyone who asks me to say in advance how I am going to vote on the subject, ignores my conception of the function of parliament. I think that the decision should follow debate and not precede it. So it is only for that

reason that I have declined to state categorically how I am going to vote. If we have further debate on this subject, the opinion that I may express this afternoon may be changed. I am open to persuasion. If the arguments convince me, or if I find, on consideration, that I have been mistaken or that I am wrong, I may have to change my mind, as did the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who has said quite frankly that his opinion has changed after having given deep thought to the subject. The debate therefore has served the purpose for which it was designed, namely to alter the opinion of hon. members.
Unfortunately, up to this point I have not heard arguments which would bring me to change the way I voted a year and a half ago. Later today, or on Monday or Tuesday I may hear from others who will persuade me to alter that vote, but up to this point no new argument has been advanced which would be sufficiently powerful to make me change my mind. I have expressed my regret at the method that has been followed on this occasion and I have expressed my regret with regard to the nature of the bill. However, my opposition to this bill is not the result of my irritation at the course that has been followed. I would not found it on such a reason. I object often to the way things are done here, but on this occasion I have not been induced to oppose the bill merely on these technical grounds. However, if I were a convinced abolitionist, I would certainly be very vigorous in my condemnation of the present bill.
I remain unconvinced with regard to the statistical record. I dealt with that matter last year and I do not want to repeat what I said at that time. I do not think that the statistics prove the case one way or the other. When I dealt with that subject on April 5, 1966 I quoted from the white paper which had been put in front of us. I remain unconvinced that fear of death is not a deterrent.
People can only go by their own experience of life, and my experience is that the average person does not want to die. So fear of death operates in our society. I go in fear of death every day when I walk to and from the House of Commons. I do not step off the pavement when the hot-rodders go by here at eleven o'clock at night, or in the way of trucks, buses or uncertain drivers, for the simple reason that I do not want to be killed in that manner. I like to obey the law, but it is not because the law says that I must
November 10, 1967

follow a certain course and not be a jaywalker or things of that nature. I watch what I am doing on the streets of Ottawa because I do not want to be killed in a traffic accident by some person who is drunk, or by a bad driver. I have had too many narrow escapes not to be a little fearful. I do not differ that much from other people. There may be others who do not care whether they are killed today or tomorrow, but I think they are a very small percentage of the population.
As I mentioned last year, fear of death operates even among those people who are trained to kill, and like thousands of other Canadians I was trained to kill. I do not want to destroy anyone, but in wartime you have no choice. I do not recall any person of my acquaintance during wartime who, without being a coward, was not somewhat careful with regard to his own life. But again my experience is that men do not sacrifice their lives without some reason for it. They do not blindly sacrifice themselves. So I say that fear of death must operate generally in our society. However, there are those who tell me that the murderer takes a different view of life and that he is careless as to whether or not he is killed. He is so sure he will not be found out that he does not care about the penalty. Of course this is something that cannot be backed up by statistical evidence. The only impression I can form is from my own experience and I have reached the conclusion that some people at any rate are deterred by fear of death, and that consequently people like that would not commit a crime because they fear the consequences. Now, if I can be shown to be wrong, then I will have to change my opinion with regard to capital punishment.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the hon. member
accept a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, sir.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member has said he cannot find that the statistics show anything. I suppose he has looked at them, and finds that the statistics for those states that have capital punishment, and those states where they do not, seem to be about the same. If the hon. member feels that the fear of death should be such a deterrent, would he not expect to find a marked difference in the statistics, if his argument is correct?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I dealt with that argument last year. I quoted the figures from the white
DEBATES	4161
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence paper and I reached the conclusion that nothing was proven either way. If the hon. member can go beyond that, if he will look at what I said on April 5 at page 3866 of Hansard, then perhaps he will find his answer. He did not take the precaution of reading my speech of last year. If he will read that and then later on, either here in the House of Commons or when we meet somewhere else, indicate to me that I reached the wrong conclusion, I will be very happy. I know that he will express his point of view with vigour. I was not convinced then and I still am not convinced. I did not say the statistics did not show anything, which is what the hon. member said. I said they did not prove the case.
I dealt with the sanctity of life. This, sir, is a powerful argument indeed. We like to think that human life should be held sacred. We have been living in an age of violence, when we have become callous and indifferent to the loss of human life. Our highway accidents alone, sir, show the indifference of our populace to this. We have not sufficiently stringent laws to curtail the slaughter that occurs on our highways. The state has proven itself indifferent to the sanctity of life because it has failed to take the necessary measures with regard to that problem of our society. I think we could give many other examples to indicate we are not sufficiently concerned with the sanctity of life.
When I read the mortality tables for some areas of Canada, I find they are shocking. Where is our concern for the sanctity of human life? Why are we not doing more about it? I think we are living in an age of violence, in an age when we are indifferent to the sanctity of human life. When this aspect of the question is raised during a discussion of capital punishment, it does not seem to me that it carries as much weight as may perhaps be intended by those who deal with that particular subject.
I suppose one's attitude is coloured by his experience in life. I have lived during a period when the sanctity of human life has been ignored by the world as a whole, when positively millions of people have been killed in one way or another. This, I suppose, has had an effect on society generally, and has made us less sensitive to the problem that we would be if we had been living in a more peaceful period. However, I am not going to prolong what I have to say now. I think that I cannot do any better than read a few of the
November 10, 1967

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence comments I made a year ago. I quote first from page 3866 of Hansard for April 5, 1966:
In recent years capital punishment has been sparingly used. The section is there in the act but the cabinet may use its discretion in its application. Commutation of the death penalty, life imprisonment instead of hanging, may be determined by the cabinet judging with great care each case on its merits.
May I just interpolate, sir, to say that for a number of years I was with those who had to make this very serious and awful-using that word in the proper sense-decision as to whether a man would live or die. We had to make a determination of the cases brought in front of us.
Then I went on to say this:
The abolitionist should have no cause for complaint if the section remains in the act and the death penalty is rarely used.
That is the situation that prevails at the present time and has prevailed for several years, including our administration.
Then, I went on to say:
The retentionist should have little cause for complaint if the section is retained as the state's reserve power in case of necessity.
You may say that this is not very satisfactory. There are those who argue that the government is not fulfilling its function, is not obeying the law, when it commutes every case that comes before it, as the government has been doing for the last four years. This is a debatable point. Since I am not now in government circles, I can rely only on what I read in the newspapers regarding capital cases.
I can reach my conclusion with regard to the seriousness of them and form an opinion as to whether the guilty person should be subjected to the extreme penalty. However, the members of the cabinet, I know from my own experience, are likely to have information which is not available to me as a member of the general public. Of course the responsibility rests with them, and the prerogative of mercy rests with the governor in council. Whether or not the government has been doing the proper thing over the last four years, I make no decision at this stage, or pass no judgment. I am not in a position to do so without more information; I cannot say whether they are right or whether they are wrong. On the basis of the information I have, I think they have been wrong, but then perhaps they have information which is not available to me.
I thought, on April 5, I had put before the house a compromise. We heard it said yesterday that this bill is a compromise. I thought

that in these two sentences I had a compromise that might carry us along until there was an alteration in public opinion. As a retentionist, as I was then and will remain, unless arguments are advanced to change my opinion, I have no cause for complaint if this section is retained as the state's reserve power in case of necessity.
I want it retained if at all possible as a reserve power in case of necessity. When I was speaking in the earlier debate I was dealing with organized crime and its increase. Among the subjects that bother me, sir, in public life and in private life, the one at the top of the list is organized crime. I have the strongest feelings with regard to this subject. I feel we are failing in our duty as a parliament and as a state in not crippling organized crime, a state within a state which is directing our lives and influencing them. I should like therefore, unless otherwise convinced, to retain this reserve power in our statutes, so that if organized crime gets any worse we will be able to remove from society those people who are enemies of society.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As a friend of mine said to me today at noon, it is something like warfare. We understand war; we have had enough experience of that. But the criminal element in our society, organized crime that exacts life, is acting in the same way as a foreign enemy and should be treated in the same way. Organized criminals who have no respect for life are as serious a menace as a foreign state that wishes to attack our country and to kill our citizens.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have very strong feelings about organized crime, and as a retentionist this is one of the reasons I should like to retain the law as it is, in case of necessity. We may need capital punishment in order to deal effectively with those people who are attempting to destroy our society from within.
I wish somebody would deal with my second to last paragraph on April 5, which I should like to read again:
Society must decide which life is the more valuable-the child, the woman, the police officer, the prison guard or the criminal. The state cannot guarantee life for all of these at our present stage of development. The state cannot yet guarantee that prisoners will never escape. Psychiatry cannot yet guarantee an absolutely accurate answer to psychiatric problems. The parole system cannot yet guarantee that reformation and rehabilitation have been completely successful. Until those guarantees can be given the state owes a higher duty to its law-abiding citizens, to its women and children, than it does to the criminal.
November 10, 1967

That is the end of the quotation, and that, sir, is my case.


Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very respectfully to the previous speaker and I must congratulate him on his ability to eleborate on a subject without preparation. I found in his remarks the best argument that could be put forward to show that the government is entirely justified in bringing back before the house, this year, a bill designed to abolish the death penalty.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) expressed his opinion, but he used the following expression: "unless otherwise convinced". He admitted that his opinion was liable to change and that he was prepared to listen to other speakers, to follow closely the arguments that will be presented which might cause him to alter his present views on such a crucial matter as capital punishment.
That is precisely why this year the government-I will not say is taking the risk-shows enough mettle to try and have this problem definitely solved in a perfectly clear manner.
If opinions are so pliable and subject to change within a very short time, it is clear that today, with the assurance that this bill will be adopted, the government is perfectly justified in throwing off a load that was becoming more and more intolerable concerning the fate of those persons who are under a death sentence and who are waiting anxiously until parliament has reached a decision.
Mr. Speaker, last year I had the opportunity to take part in the debate and to oppose the abolition of the death penalty, because I was sincerely convinced that the existence of such a drastic measure was an efficient and imperative means of protecting society from the villainy of those parias who do not and will not respect anything but the threat of a radical punishment, and of the scum that works for organized crime, content with living according to the risks of their vile trade, and to whom life imprisonment is but another way of shirking the responsibilities of life and the obligations which fall on honest people.
This year, my philosophy has not changed much, but the context is different: The government is in a quandary. This is a non-partisan debate; we must say things as they are, see facts as they present themselves. And 27053-263
DEBATES	4163
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence when I say the government is in a quandary, I mean the whole government machinery: Members of the opposition as well as government members are stuck, due to the fact that persons sentenced to death are waiting to know their fate. I think that the bill as drafted constitutes an ingenious enough compromise to have good chances of being agreed to. It is meant to get the administration out of trouble, as it now is, since to all intents and purposes, the death penalty was abolished in 1962. Legislation may as well sanction the existence of a fact, because otherwise it is hypocritical. A legislation which is never applied cannot give confidence to citizens.
I repeat that this difficulty which the whole administration is facing-and that includes the opposition as well as the government-results from the fact that the death penalty does not exist, to all practical purposes, despite the provisions of an act to the effect that it still exists. As the legislation is constantly disregarded, it may be just as well to amend it accordingly. That is the reason why I will support the measure as introduced.
In the framework of my remarks, I would like to point out that, in addition to maintaining the death penalty when police officers or prison guards are killed, there is another case when the death penalty remains and sections 46 and 47 of the Criminal Code provide for it. Section 46 reads in part as follows:
(1) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,
(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her bodily harm tending to death or destrcution, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;
Section 47 says:
(1) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable
(a) to be sentenced to death-
If it is the offence under section 46(a), namely to kill or attempt to kill Her Majesty or do her bodily harm, then the death penalty will not exist only in the case when police officers or prison guards are killed by a criminal.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I would like to add that, under that section could be included, also under treason, any successful or unsuccessful attempt made on the life of the Governor General and the Prime Minister of Canada, for the very good reason that this section obviously wants to show special respect for those who stand in authority, and since, in Canada, the Governor General and also the Prime Minister are
November 10, 1967

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence the symbols of authority, since we live in a democracy, under a responsible government, which is also a great symbol of authority, I think that we could amend section 46 and make it an offence punishable by death to talk of killing or effectively to kill Her Majesty, the Governor General and the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, returning to the heart of the matter, I suggest that it would be important to consider the possibility of creating a commutation court.
When parliament decided to maintain capital punishment, in 1966 and most members of the cabinet, those responsible for commuting sentences, voted in favour of abolition, it became clear that, in spite of the vote in the house, it was only normal for the cabinet not to move against a deeply entrenched philosophy.
I should take this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), as we know he introduced this bill with deep sincerity, enthusiasm and energy. We know that abolition of capital punishment is a matter extremely dear to him, and his speeches on this subject are suffused with feelings he can hardly contain and with laudable sincerity. We should congratulate him for his wonderful speech yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I still believe that a commutation court would be the best solution since, even after Bill No. C-168 is enacted, the cabinet will still maintain its prerogative of commuting the death sentence of murderers convicted of slaying a police officer or a jail guard.
I find it difficult to believe that the ministers have the time to make a thorough examination of all cases brought to them. Anyway, commutation should be a judicial responsibility and it is due to an obsolete philosophy, the royal prerogative, that it is felt it should not be dispensed with.
I remember that last year, the former leader of the opposition, now the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), had most vigorously resorted to this argument of the royal prerogative when I introduced a bill to eliminate the power of commutation.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I still maintain that commutation should be essentially and basically a judicial function and that it should be the responsibility of the
judiciary. It is a philosophy that is possibly different from the one now in existence, but I believe that it is the most practical for the good reason that the record of a criminal is always voluminous, requiring opinions advanced by psychiatrists, sociologists, criminologists, in short by people who have gone through the record and who have studied it in depth. They are the only ones in a position to know exactly what attitude to take.
The cabinet, generally speaking, has so much administrative responsibility, so many obligations in this respect, that these things should not normally be part of the responsibilities of those who govern this country.
I respectfully submit that if Bill No. C-168 is not passed-which I doubt very much-the authorities would necessarily have to take steps to set up such a commutation court, or else give the Supreme Court of Canada the power to commute death sentences to life imprisonment.
Mr. Speaker, without prolonging the debate further, I should like to say that, contrary to the opinions voiced by other hon. members, the government does not ignore the decisions of parliament; on the contrary, the government has decided to submit the question to the house again because it wants the decisions made by parliament to be respected.
Others have said that the vote is not free. It is easy, I think, to see that several hon. members on this side of the house will vote against the bill, which will refute the spiteful allegations of undue pressure having been exerted. I have never seen a Solicitor General show more respect for the freedom of expression of his cabinet colleagues than the hon. gentleman who presently occupies this position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, since I have two or three brief and interesting comments to make, I shall continue at our next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Since it is five o'clock, pursuant to a special order of the house this house is now adjourned until two thirty o'clock, Monday afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 13, 1967