1967-11-09

Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented to the house on Monday, November 6, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
November 7-The Minister of Finance-That the regulations made pursuant to section 92 of the Bank Act and section 80 of the Quebec Savings Banks Act, tabled on October 12th, 1967, be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



FISHERIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the closure by the Department of Fisheries of the herring fishery on the Pacific coast, the unemployment arising therefrom and the need to find alternate employment for those affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Skeena would advise the Chair as to the urgency of this matter for debate.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In light of what Your Honour said the other day regarding another motion under standing order No. 26 perhaps I should preface my remarks by stating that this is of such urgency it cannot wait for debate until the next supply motion is presented to the house, whenever that may be.
Everyone knows that the estimates have passed this house. Earlier I asked the Minister of Fisheries whether he was prepared to move an appropriate motion to have this matter referred to the committee on fisheries so it could be dealt with there. The minister declined to accept that suggestion and stated there had been closures of this type before, and that this was not a new situation. Never before to my knowledge has there been a complete closure of the herring fishery on the coast of British Columbia. Certain areas have been closed, but never before has the entire area been closed.
There is urgency in respect of this matter because of the economic impact it will have on approximately 1,000 people, fishermen and shore workers, who will be denied the opportunity to fish herring as of January 7. Even then it is anticipated there will be only a partial opening of the area which is closed. There is urgency also because a great number of fishermen are not even able to fall back upon the benefits accruing from unemployment insurance because they do not have the required number of stamps, namely 15, in order to qualify.
I understand that Your Honour permitted such a motion when the announcement was made by Dosco that it intended to close its operations at Sydney. I submit that just as the proposal by Dosco was important in so far as Nova Scotia was concerned, and there was urgency of debate at that time, so is this question equally important so far as British Columbia is concerned.
The same arguments that prevailed with respect to the economic impact and unemployment in the Dosco situation apply here; in fact they apply even more forcefully because in this case the decision was made by a department of government. I refer to the decision to close the entire British Columbia coast to the herring fishery until at
November 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry least January 7. I think an opportunity must be provided tor the government to outline its proposals to provide alternate employment to the people affected. I believe also that an immediate opportunity must be offered to hon. members to make suggestions as to solutions to this problem.
I know Your Honour made certain remarks in ruling on an adjournment motion the other day. Without referring specifically to any one of those remarks, because I do not want to get into an argument with Your Honour, anticipating that some of them may be considered applicable to the current situation may I simply say in broad, general terms, that none of the reasons given then are applicable in this situation.
My first reason for saying this is that it does not require legislation to correct this situation; it requires just a policy decision and declaration by the government. Second, the matter is of such urgency that it cannot wait, because the employment of 1,000 or more people is involved and many of them are unable to qualify for unemployment insurance. Therefore something must be done immediately and the matter cannot wait for the 17 days, I believe it is, before the next supply motion is called.
With respect to the reference made by Your Honour to a similar motion by the then hon. member for Laurier, this dealt with a matter of a different and broader nature, and I submit it is not applicable to this situation.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in my remarks because my colleague has covered the points involved in this question. I should simply like to underscore the fact that this is an immediate problem which has immediate effects upon a large group of people who, as the hon. member pointed out, do not have unemployment insurance available to them. Also there is no early opportunity to discuss this matter in the house other than under the rule which the hon. member for Skeena is asking to be invoked today.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the importance and urgency of the matter which has been brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond. But as the house knows very well the question before us is not whether the matter is urgent, which I am sure is recognized by all, but whether there should be a motion to adjourn this house for the purpose of permitting a debate or consideration in the house this afternoon of the

matter raised by the hon. member for Skeena.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I suggest that leave to propose this type of motion should be granted only in very extreme circumstances. The hon. member for Skeena has referred to the fact that leave to move a motion, perhaps to discuss a matter of a similar nature, was requested earlier this week by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. On that occasion leave was refused by the Chair. The hon. member for Skeena suggests that none of the reasons advanced by the Chair on that day apply today. I cannot agree with him, and I suggest that the two situations are basically the same. Certainly the fact that we were dealing with C.N.R. employees in the previous case would not apply here, but the other considerations were relevant to the present situation and the decision which applied then should also apply today.
I should suggest to the hon. member that what he has now advanced is more in the nature of a grievance and should not be the subject of a motion for adjournment under standing order 26. I would refer the hon. gentleman to citation 100 (8) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, the last words of which, read as follows:
... because, if that was so, we might have repeated motions made by the opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the government for action which had been taken or not taken, for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject.
I bring to the attention of the hon. member particularly the reference made therein to the suggestion that this is in the nature of grievance.
For this reason I would think it is not possible for the Chair to grant leave to propose a motion to adjourn as requested by the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I thought I saw the Minister of Labour in his seat some time
November 9, 1967

ago, but in the absence of both these ministers I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of what is described as an unusually large increase in unemployment between the months of September and October, bringing the seasonally adjusted rate to the highest point in the last three years, is the government in the next few days planning to introduce measures to stimulate employment and overcome this serious trend?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, all economic and financial measures of the government are designed and will continue to be designed to stimulate employment and maintain it at a high level, and to keep unemployment from reaching the high level which was customary at the time the government of which my hon. friend was such a distinguished member was in office.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister knows, and as we all know, unemployment usually rises at this time of the year, but this is described by the bureau of statistics as an unusually large jump. Does the Prime Minister not consider it serious that we have now reached the highest seasonally adjusted rate in the past three years, and does the government not intend to do anything about the situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I consider any increase to be serious.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him whether he intends to put into effect the declaration just now made by the Prime Minister by travelling through British Columbia by himself or with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to meet representatives of the fishing industry to find alternative employment for those who have been put out of work by the closure of the herring fishery.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: It is true that I did receive a request to go to British Columbia and meet the united fishermen and allied workers union to discuss this matter and particularly the matter of amending the unemployment insurance regulations. The latter subject has been discussed with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and I regret to advise the hon. member that this request was not accepted by the commission.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Furthermore, I may add that this is not the first time that herring fishermen on the west coast have been unemployed for part of a fishing season. Last spring halibut fishermen were also prevented from operating for a number of weeks. I am fully aware that in the past years there has been a series of stoppages of operation by the herring fishermen and others due to no fault of the Department of Fisheries. The closing of the herring fishing areas for a matter of a few weeks is for conservation purposes only.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I could ask, by way of a supplementary question, whether the minister would mind answering my first question and not beat around the bush with a lot of extraneous matters.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question related to the question asked by the hon. member for Northumberland. In view of the serious lay-offs which have taken place very recently in the cement industry, the railways and the garment industry in Manitoba, will the Prime Minister say what the government intends to do to alleviate this very serious situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows the opinion which I took the liberty of expressing yesterday. I think this type of general question is an invitation to the government to make a statement which normally should be made on motions.


Robert Simpson: May I rephrase my question. I wonder if the Prime Minister could say what the government intends to do with regard to the lay-offs that have taken place in Manitoba recently.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1 am sure the provincial government of Manitoba views these lay-offs very seriously, just as we do.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I put a more specific question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact that the number of unemployed has increased by some 60,000 in the month of October as compared with October of last year, is the government planning to expand its retraining program in the light of these higher unemployment figures?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent $135 million already this year for the retraining program, which is more than ever was spent before. We intend to use this program to the maximum possible extent.
4068	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wonder if the attention of the Prime Minister has been drawn to the statement of Mr. Michael Fenwick, who is a member of the Toronto advisory committee on manpower training, to the effect that the number of cases referred by the manpower department has dropped from 2,000 in the month of April to 500 in the month of September and that two of the training centres, Riverdale and Castle Frank have been closed.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question of the Prime Minister is, in view of the closing of these training centres and the decline in the referrals, would the Prime Minister consider that these training centres ought to be opened and the program expanded since it seems to be contracting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Apparently my hon. friend's information about the alleged decline has been gathered from newspaper reports, but I would be glad to look into the matter.


Robert William Prittie: On
the subject of unemployment, I should like to direct a question to the Praime Minister or the Minister of Labour. When can we expect some action to raise the present level of unemployment insurance?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still receiving consideration. I expressed the hope that the house would be able to deal with the matter before the adjournment at Christmas. I can give no definite assurance. It depends upon the progress that is made with other legislation.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house if the government has taken action to provide alternative employment to the people who are out of work because of the shutdown, some time ago, of the Louiseville Shirt Company, due to massive imports of clothing from Asiatic countries?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would consider the possibility of discussing this matter during the adjournment debate?

DEBATES	November 9, 1967


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour mentioned, a few moments ago, that only specific facts should be stated. Now, it seems to me that this is a very specific fact and that the matter should be considered by the Prime Minister. Or perhaps I could put a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he is ready to assure the house that action will be taken so that other Canadian manufacturers will not be compelled to close down for the same reasons?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we will look at this matter within the framework of our over-all economic policies.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the leading role played by Canada in commonwealth relations with Rhodesia, is Canada being kept informed of the talks between Mr. Ian Smith and the British commonwealth secretary, Mr. George Thomson?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I regret that I did not hear my hon. friend's question, though I did my best. If he would speak into the microphone rather than away from it, that might help.


Howard Earl Johnston: I will repeat my question, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the leading role played by Canada in commonwealth relations with Rhodesia, is Canada being kept informed of the progress of talks between Mr. Ian Smith and British commonwealth secretary, Mr. George Thomson?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
my question was for the hon. Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
November 9, 1967	COMMONS
Has the federal government been invited by the government of Quebec to participate in an assistance program for farmers of several counties of this province, where crops have been reduced by 50 per cent following bad weather blamed on rain making operations?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I am not aware of this having been brought to the attention of the minister. I will discuss it and try to get an answer for the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the government is now taking action to initiate the calling of a further international conference on the law of the sea under the auspices of the United Nations, in order to resolve many outstanding differences in this field of international law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it would not be accurate to say that we were having consultations about calling a conference on the law of the sea under the auspices of the United Nations, but the government is considering along with certain other countries the possibility of a conference that would cover such matters as conservation.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question related to the previous question I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to ask parliament during this session to ratify the four conventions on the law of the sea, to which Canada subscribed and which I believe are now in force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government now to ask for ratification. My hon. friend is, of course, referring to the continental shelf convention?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
and to the living resources of the sea.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, Mr. Speaker, the continental shelf 27053-2571
DEBATES	4069
Inquiries of the Ministry convention is one of four conventions signed by Canada at the conclusion of the law of the sea conference in 1958. It has not yet been ratified by Canada. It was felt best to ratify the four conventions together. However, I can point out to my hon. friend that it is not necessary to ratify the continental shelf convention in order to exercise the rights which are recognized in the convention. These rights are, in general, part of international law and Canada has continuously exercised them.
As far as ratification of the four conventions is concerned, there are technical aspects which have been under examination and we hope to have a clarification of these very soon.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the forthcoming negotiations concerning NORAD?
Has the government decided to control or restrict shipments to foreign countries by the United States of arms made in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the NORAD defence organization is not-


Mr. Crouse:: Speak into the microphone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that is a very good suggestion. All observations made by ministers and members on this side of the house should be clearly understood by hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. Member:: Impossible.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: NORAD, which is a defence organization, has nothing to do with the sale and export of armaments.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question
November 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister met with representatives of the C.B. of R.T., and has he anything to report as a result of that meeting?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with them just before coming into the house and we had a very frank exchange of views.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the house of any developments that may have arisen as a result of discussions with the railways with respect to l.c.l. and express rates in the Atlantic provinces?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Information has come to us outside the house that the Minister of Transport is prepared to make a statement. If he has a statement to make he should make it on motions and not play politics while the parliamentary secretary makes statements in Moncton.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a difficult situation. I am sure if the minister wants to make a statement of a general nature that is akin to a statement of policy, then it should be made on motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: On the other hand the minister does not have to reply to the question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, all I wish to do is to reply to a question that has been asked two or three times this week by members on the other side of the house. The statement is brief, and if Your Honour would permit me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members agree to this I would allow other members of the opposition to ask the same question as the one asked by the parliamentary secretary. The minister could then answer the question. I think it might be easier to allow the minister to reply to a question which, as he himself pointed out, was previously asked by members on both sides of the house.


Donald MacInnis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and as indicated before, it was quite clear that the minister was prepared to make a statement and was prepared to answer the question when he came into the house. Rather than do this the minister has played politics with people laid off by the C.N.R.


Mr. Speaker:: For the moment we might pass on to another question.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister now give the answer he promised the hon. member for .Halifax on October 30 about the proposal re rate increases?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I think that is on the same subject. I am pleased to advise that I have been informed that the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission has received a letter today from the Canadian National Railways concerning this matter. This letter states the intention of both the C.N.R. and C.P.R. to make formal application to the commission to withdraw present class rates on less than carload shipments moving within the select territory covered by the Maritime Freight Rates Act and out of the Atlantic provinces west. The railways propose to substitute the present western rate for l.c.l. freight moving within the select territory and the "to maritimes" scale for shipments out of the Atlantic provinces, suitably amended to reflect reductions under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
I want to assure the house that if the Canadian Transport Commission should approve this application the government will make the necessary funds available under the Maritime Freight Rates Act for the increased subsidy required. This, Mr. Speaker, is in accordance with the general undertaking the hon. member for Westmorland gave to her constituents when she met with them last week end.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainf John-Albert):: Referring to the first part of the minister's announcement which concerned the maritimes, will the minister, having learned his lesson, get cracking and bring about through
November 9, 1967

legislation that which was promised to the maritimes during the debate on the transport bill last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister whether he is giving consideration to including under the Maritime Freight Rates Act forms of transportation other than railway transportation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This matter is being considered in the over-all study of maritime transportation problems, and will be considered by the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission in the context of the over-all study.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I sought to rise earlier to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport, but now I wish to ask a related question. Would the minister inform the house whether the announcement about freight rate change in the maritime provinces was accompanied by an undertaking that those laid off by the C.N.R. will immediately or within a reasonable period be recalled to their jobs?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was not part of the undertaking, Mr. Speaker. I indicated to the union that certainly anything like that would need to be discussed by the cabinet as a whole. I also said that there were certain financial implications which would make this extremely difficult at the present time when the government is examining all projects to see where economies can be effected. I referred to the necessity for the examination of priorities of other projects, including many in the maritimes.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if it is his intention to attend a mass meeting to be held in the steel workers' hall at Sydney this coming Sunday relative to the large scale lay-offs of C.N.R. employees and the increasing burden of the inequitable freight rate structure which is also causing unemployment, regardless of what the minister has said this afternoon?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I regret that it will not be possible for me to attend that meeting.


Robert Muir: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the hon. gentleman if a
Inquiries of the Ministry representative of the government or of his own office will be at that meeting?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I take that question as notice? I do not know whether that will be possible. Will my hon. friend be there?


Robert Muir: Most certainly.



CREAM-ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESTORATION OF OLD EXPRESS RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: While I have the floor perhaps I could answer a question raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie. I am advised by the Canadian Transport Commission that the old express rates on cream and returned empties were restored on November 2. This means, as far as the prairies are concerned, that the announced increase never went into effect.
In eastern Canada the old rates were reinstated effective November 2. The new rates have been in effect since September of this year. The action of the railways in co-operation with the Canadian Transport Commission will permit time for the railways and the cream industry to examine the situation. It is expected that a new agreed rate structure will come into effect within 30 days.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? The Minister of Transport has just announced good news about transportation in the maritimes, but can he also tell us what action his department has decided to take in order to maintain navigation on the St. Lawrence next winter?


Robert Muir: Tell him to take it up with de Gaulle.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We intend to make sure that icebreaking is carried on in such a way that it will prevent flooding in the St. Lawrence to the maximum extent possible.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
further supplementary question?
4072	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Will the icebreakers on the St. Lawrence only be used to prevent flooding or will they be used as navigation aids as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion, the hon. member's question is much too general.


Gilles Grégoire: The minister replied that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has answered the first question. It seems to me the supplementary question is a little too general, but if the minister is prepared to answer I have no objection.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thought, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would raise enough money in France to build another icebreaker we might be able to do an even more effective job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Transport aware that the Russian government offered an icebreaker last year, so as to enable us to keep the St. Lawrence open all through the winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. What naval guns is Canada purchasing from Italy, and what is the use to which these guns are to be put?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that question may be asked at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask on what basis that question is not in order? Surely it raises a question which is of urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for detailed information, but the question is out of order on many other counts. It is not that urgent that it cannot be placed on the order paper. Should the hon. member think that it is of an urgency which escapes the Chair, he may give notice that he wishes to debate it at the time of adjournment.

DEBATES	November 9, 1967



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the extreme urgency of the air pollution problem, and in view of the increasing incidence of air pollution, will the Prime Minister consider setting up immediately a conference with the provinces in which the government could ask them to share in the study of this serious problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have had one conference, Mr. Speaker, as I seem to recollect, but I shall be glad to look into the possibility of another conference because of the urgency of the matter. Perhaps this is something which could be discussed at one of the forthcoming federal-provincial meetings.


Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister also indicate in connection with the question raised by the hon. member for Simcoe East that urban municipalities find it increasingly difficult to finance necessary works which are to be effective in the area of air pollution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a statement. With respect, to my mind he is not asking a question.


Harold Raymond Ballard: May I put my question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether matters having to do with air pollution, and I refer particularly to public transportation and public housing, are to be on the agenda at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is purely hypothetical.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe my question ought to be directed to the Minister of Justice. In his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General. In view of the reported decision of an Ontario juvenile court judge to transfer the case of a 15 year old boy to an adult court where
November 9, 19G7

he is to be tried on a charge of capital murder, may I ask whether the government is in a position to take any action? If not, is consideration being given to amending the Juvenile Delinquents Act so that juveniles will not be tried in adult courts?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring the question to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Justice, in whose jurisdiction the matter falls. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to learn that the Department of the Solicitor General has mailed to all attorneys general the draft discussion bill which is to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The point the hon. member has raised is one of the points that was raised in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Will the jury in the trial of the
15 year old boy be picked in the usual way, or will Isabel LeBourdais be allowed to pick one which she will not be able to criticize?



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Could the minister tell us whether she has been informed of a question protesting against a T.V. program shown on station CKRN-TV on October 30 last, and which has been qualified as a torrent of filth by many. In such a case, can she assure us that the matter will taken in serious consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be put on the order paper.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When the committee on Indian affairs meets shortly, as indicated by the
Inquiries of the Ministry minister, will the long delayed itinerary of the visits to reserves across the country have top priority?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would think the committee is its own boss in that respect.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may direct a supplementary question to the chairman of the committee on Indian affairs. Could he indicate to the house whether members of the committee will have an opportunity to visit reserves before amendments to the Indian Act are brought before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious reservations whether a question as to detailed arrangements of the committee is acceptable. Questions as to whether a committee will be called are acceptable, and I suggest to the hon. member that his question might be asked when the committee meets.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then could I direct a supplementary to the minister. Before amendments to the legislation are presented will members of the house have an opportunity to make contact with reserves across the country, as had been earlier indicated?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, that might well be the case, but we would certainly propose first of all to consult with the Indians themselves with respect to the amendments.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO PROMOTION OF FURTHER SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the ever increasing unemployment caused by the lack of grain shipments, could the minister inform the house what action his department is taking to promote further wheat sales?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is against the rules to preface a question by an allegation.



INQUIRY AS TO SIGNING OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can
November 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the minister inform the house whether all or most of the countries mentioned in article 6, page 23, of the international grain agreement, 1967, have signed the convention?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I do not think
I can say that most have done so. A number have, and I am quite sure all will sign within the time provided.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister inform the house what success he has had to date in collecting the $12 million due the government of British Columbia for the early completion of the Duncan dam, and the interest on that sum to which the provincial government claims it is entitled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question should be asked as a matter of urgency today.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government house leader. In view of the tentative agreement that for a very good reason this house adjourn tomorrow at five o'clock, would the house leader consider proposing an order of the house to that effect?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it is agreeable to have the adjournment tomorrow at five o'clock. We hope to continue with the second reading of the bill on capital punishment tomorrow, and adjourn at five o'clock. If that is agreeable it might be put in the form of the house order now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is ordered that this house adjourn tomorrow, Friday, at five o'clock in the afternoon.
[Mr. McLelland.l



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of what appears to be the first step in the movement toward wage parity between this country and the United States, which will require far greater productivity to enable our industries to compete with the larger industries of that country, would the government give consideration to introducing, as early as possible, tax incentives to induce the necessary increase in productivity?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt whether tax incentives are the best way of bringing about increases in productivity. I believe the government's policies for the improvement of training, mobility, technical progress and scientific research are by far superior.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, does the minister believe that his policies are having the desired effect at the present time? Because, if he does, nobody else in the country agrees with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is argumentative.



ESTABLISHMENT OF SPENDING PRIORITIES IN CO-OPERATION WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government going to offer federal leadership by making proposals to establish spending priorities in co-operation with the provinces, at the forthcoming meeting with provincial ministers of finance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I expect we will be dealing with the provinces next week. We will certainly be giving them leadership, which I hope they will follow, in reducing the demands upon our financial markets.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the
November 9, 1967

many economic problems presently faced by our east coast fishing industry, is it the minister's intention to call a fisheries ministerial meeting for a review of fisheries development programs? If so, when will a conference of this type be called?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: In fact, Mr. Speaker, such a conference has been called for Wednesday of next week in Moncton. I will meet with the provincial ministers of fisheries for the Atlantic provinces and Quebec in order to discuss the national development program which has been implemented since the federal-provincial fisheries conference was held here in 1964.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has anything up to date to relate to the house about the involvement of the British Columbia government in the fishing vessels assistance regulations?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at a federal-provincial fisheries committee meeting held here in Ottawa a few weeks ago. Unfortunately no final decision has been reached yet.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
Is not the fact that Cartier discovered Canada in 1534 by setting foot for the first time at Gaspe justification enough, historically speaking, to incite the minister to order immediately the transfer to Gaspe of the replica of the Grande Hermine instead of keeping it at La Ronde where it is shivering at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is an argumentative question.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask whether he authorized the press release in the name of the hon. member for Quebec East saying the Grande Hermine was on its way to Quebec?
4075
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question falls into the same category as the one asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is he yet prepared to take the house into his confidence and announce the names of the members appointed to the Northwest Territories legislative council?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to announce that the following persons have been named to the council of the Northwest Territories: Mr. John Havelock Parker, who is deputy commissioner of the Northwest Territories at the present time; Mr. James Gordon Gibson, businessman, a resident of Vancouver B.C.; Air Marshal Hugh Campbell, retired, a prominent businessman in Ottawa; Professor Lloyd Barber, dean of commerce, University of Saskatchewan, and John (Tetlichi) Charlie, who is chief of the Fort McPherson Indian band, hunter and trapper.
Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention that the appointment of a resident of the Northwest Territories should be a binding precedent, but I think the very large and important Indian population of the territory might well be initially represented by assistance from Ottawa.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, can the minister say whether it is the government's intention to eliminate the undemocratic form of appointing members to this government body and make the council fully representative this session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question does not seem to be of immediate urgency. It may be a matter of import later on, and as such I suggest to the hon. member that the question should not be answered now.


Erik Nielsen: Then I direct a question on government policy to the minister, and ask him whether it is government policy that the council be made fully representative this session.
November 9, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member has implied that the extremely valuable services rendered by people appointed to the council from southern Canada do not meet with his approval. I consider they have been of great value to the north. I would expect that over a period of time-and I do not know how soon it might be-the practice would be eliminated. This may well be-although again I do not want to be precise-the last occasion on which appointments would be made from southern Canada.



ALLEGED VIOLATION OF OATH BY MEMBER FOR LAPOINTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Your Honour and all other members of this house have solemnly sworn on oath to bear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and country and in view of the fact that as a result of his seditious actions the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) not only has violated his oath but has placed the honour of every member of the house in question, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether any action has been initiated against the hon. member for Lapointe and, if not, do integrity and loyalty still have relevance to our position as public servants?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is a form of reflection upon another member and certainly is one which cannot be accepted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point or order.
I note that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has made general charges without giving any details; I believe that in the circumstances it would be quite normal to ask him either to give details or retract his charges that I might have broken some oath.
Mr. Speaker, if I am accused in the house of having broken my oath then you must ask him either to retract or to give details and prove his charges.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
[Mr. Nielsen.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Owing to the fact that we have just about reached the end of the question period I wonder whether the matter might be left in abeyance.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as you gave the member for Lapointe an opportunity to speak, it seems to me I have the same right of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member for Red Deer-and to the hon. member for Lapointe that, for the time being, it would be simpler to leave the question in abeyance because-

-we have reached the end of the question period. I think at this time we should get on with the important business which is to be considered by the house this afternoon.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of whether the question period is coming to an end or not, one thing remains: I have been accused, in this house, of having broken some oath or other and this surely constitutes grounds for a question of privilege. The question period to my mind, is not a matter of hours or minutes. I was accused of having broken some oath or other. That is my question of privilege and I ask that the member take back what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon.
member-and I am not saying there is no question of privilege-I merely suggest that the dispute should be left in abeyance. The hon. member must recognize that the Speaker has the right to postpone a ruling, if he so wishes, and that is what I wish to do at this time.
I will have the opportunity to consider both the arguments of the hon. member for Red Deer and the question of privilege raised by the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Section 17 of standing orders states that:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
Now, Your Honour has just stated that the question of privilege I raised was well justified.
November 9, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of privilege is taken into consideration immediately, but the ruling of the Chair is not made immediately.


Gilles Grégoire: Your Honour has just made one.



CRIMINAL CODE


Lawrence T. Pennell: the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in an issue of this nature we cannot entirely free our minds of certain emotional forces but my appeal is that the conclusion of the house will be animated by reason, knowledge and experience gathered from those jurisdictions where capital punishment has been abolished. I do not think it is necessary that I should trespass upon the patience of the house to recapitulate the provisions of the bill. However, before addressing myself to the merits of the bill I might perhaps be allowed to offer several general observations.
In the first place, I am authorized to say that the government does not look upon this matter through party glasses. The issue involved raises a matter of deep personal conscience and is a consideration that no party formula can satisfy. Therefore each member of the house, including the members of the ministry, will be free to exercise his or her own individual views on the merits of the bill. The view I have expressed is the considered view of the government and is the position sanctioned by precedent in the British parliamentary system.
A free vote tends to personalize the issue and, if I may enter a personal note, I wish to make it precisely plain that I do not approach this matter as a soft sentimentalist. I move the second reading of this bill out of a deep conviction that capital punishment is wrong in principle-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: -and not out of a misguided sense of sympathy for the enemies of society. The view I take has nothing to do with sympathy for murderers. I recognize the sincerity and the conviction of hon. members who oppose this bill and I hope, in turn, that they will acquit me of any lack of feeling for the victims of these revolting crimes.
4077
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
I shall pass now to my second general observation. Bill C-168, while not dissimilar to the private members' bill of last session, introduces a significant difference. The bill now before the house has rolled up the two exceptions to a sentence of life imprisonment for murder with the five year trial period into a single package subject to a single vote. Members of the house will recall that the private members' bill of last session provided for total abolition. It is true that certain amendments were put, but they were put separately and voted upon separately. To illustrate, hon. members were placed in a position where they had to vote for total abolition for a trial period without either of the two exceptions in this bill or to vote for abolition alternately qualified by the two exceptions but without the five year trial period. Clearly, then, there is a substantial difference in principle between the two bills.
I would also respectfully remind hon. members that no man can be charged with inconsistency if his opinion, in the light of the changes introduced in this bill and in the light of further study and experience, has undergone modification. It is worth noting that during the past few years Mr. Chuter Ede, Home Secretary in a labour ministry, and Mr. Henry Brooke, Home Secretary in a Conservative government, have changed their position from being confirmed retentionists to total abolitionists.
The last preliminary observation I wish to make is that this bill, of course, is a compromise. I am deeply conscious of the difficulties under which I bring it before the house. I must clearly and candidly admit that the arguments I propose to offer in support of the principle of this bill could be applied with equal force and validity in support of total abolition. I recognize the fact that this bill may not be an ideal arrangement, but it seems to me that in its present form it is the most promising measure which can be introduced at this moment.
I believe that support for this bill is conditional on the inclusion of the trial period and the two exceptions to a sentence of life imprisonment. I believe also that it affords us the best opportunity to move forward and, if passed, certainly will be a gain on the position we now occupy under the law. This bill, like the 1961 amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with capital punishment, is a compromise and, like so many compromises, it cannot be defended on every count in terms of clear cold logic. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes best dealt with this point more
November 9, 1967
4078	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence than 50 years ago in these terms, "The life of the law is experience, not logic." The bill now before the house is a compromise which I believe brings us closer to a legitimate objective.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Parliamentary history will show that the controversy today is the same controversy that has always arisen whenever capital punishment has been put into issue. For the most part it is between those who believe that capital punishment is a special and unique deterrent and those who do not hold to that belief. It is necessary, therefore, that I traverse familiar ground in the course of my remarks.
At the outset I wish to say something about the burden of proof. No one, I believe, will contend that the state has the right to take human life unless it can be shown clearly and convincingly that it is necessary for the protection of society. The fact that over the years we have steadily reduced the number of offences attracting the death penalty and the fact that we have now restricted the death penalty to capital murder illustrate our fundamental respect for human life. In my mind it is beyond the reach of controversy that the burden of proof falls clearly upon those in favour of judicial execution. It is for them to prove that the death penalty is such a special and unique deterrent that there is no other way by which society can be protected from murderers. It is upon their shoulders that the burden of proof clearly rests, and in my view they cannot escape that duty.
I believe we ought to take note of the fact that some 45 jurisdictions have abolished the death penalty in whole or in part. Those jurisdictions include the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, West Germany, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Israel, Venezuela, New Zealand and New South Wales in Australia, and a great many states in the United States. In 1965 New York state, with a population almost equal to that of Canada, amended the penal code in terms not dissimilar to the bill I now offer the house.
The changing spirit of our time is well illustrated by the sharp decline in total executions in the United States. Total executions have declined steadily from 56 in 1960 to 47 in 1962, 15 in 1964 and 1 in 1966.
Two years ago in a letter to congress, the now attorney general Ramsey Clark wrote:
We favour the abolition of the death penalty. Modern penology with its correctional and re-


habilitative skills affords greater protection to society than the death penalty which is inconsistent with its goals.
I believe it is a useful exercise to look back to the royal commission on capital punishment in Great Britain. The report is unquestionably the most able document which has been produced on this difficult subject. It followed four years of patient and exhaustive study of the statistical evidence and experience in the abolitionist jurisdictions.
I anticipate that I will be met by the argument, and quite properly, that statistics should be ignored on the ground that there is no way to determine the number of persons who have been prevented from committing murders because they were afraid of being hanged. I concede that I cannot number the occasions when the death penalty might have been a deterrent. Indeed, I do not claim that statistics are proof conclusive but in my view it is indisputable that the report of the royal commission has seriously undermined the proposition that the death penalty has a special and unique quality of deterrence.
The royal commission found that in two adjoining states of a similar nature in the United States, one of which had removed the death penalty and the other had not, the rate of murder in the state retaining the death sentence was almost identical with that in the state that had abolished the death penalty. I may refer in this connection to paragraph 64 of the royal commission report:
The only conclusion which can be drawn from the figures is that there is no clear evidence of any influence of the death penalty on the homicide rates of these states, and that whether the death penalty is used or not and whether the executions are frequent or not, both death penalty states and abolition states show rates are conditioned by other factors than the death penalty.
I now wish to deal with the argument that these statistics should be dismissed because they relate to other countries and are not relevant to the conditions in Canada. This is precisely the point I wish to make. It is not a case of the abolitionist countries being alike to each other and being different from Canada. The statistics were gathered from different countries, different from each other different in their general customs and economic conditions, different in their general laws; yet there is a striking similarity in the experience and the evidence revealed by the statistics from all these countries.
To sum up, these statistics show with remarkable consistency that the abolition of the death penalty did not lead to an increase in the rate of murder. I do not suppose
November 9, 1967	COMMONS
anyone would suggest that the legislators in the more than 45 jurisdictions which have abolished capital punishment are less concerned about the protection and the safety of their fellow citizens than those who are privileged to sit in this chamber.
In New Zealand the law on capital punishment has had an untidy history. In 1941 capital punishment was abolished. In 1951 the death penalty was reinstated, and in 1956 the death penalty was again abolished although it was not formally removed from the statutes until 1961. In New Zealand there is no strong evidence that the abolition or retention of capital punishment has had any significant increase on the rate of murder. The minister of justice for New Zealand made this statement during the course of parliamentary debates as recorded in volume 328, page 2699:
-when we realize that the penalty for murder has changed three times in the period I have been reviewing-in 1935, in 1950 and 1957-with no effect on the figures, then surely it is plain to us that executing murderers does not achieve anything.
I could multiply the illustrations from the commission's report.
In the Scandinavian countries there is no real evidence that the murder rate has been affected by the demotion of the death penalty. Let me pursue the statistical evidence for just a moment longer. We are agreed that there can be no precise mathematical proof in an issue of this character. But surely the retentionist ought not to reach such a somber conclusion on such inconclusive evidence that their claim of a special and unique deterrent is in fact accurate. The retention-ists are faced with the Scottish verdict of "not proven".
I am bound to point out that the statistics point strongly in one way, that the murder rate is conditioned by factors other than the death penalty. The royal commission report says in paragraph 61:
Moreover, we received no evidence that the abolition of capital punishment in other countries led to the consequences apprehended by our witnesses in this country.
Not only do the findings of the royal commission point strongly in one direction, they also underline the dearth of statistical evidence available to support the retentionists. There is no argument that the royal commission did not look for evidence, because it spent four years in close and careful analysis of all the evidence.
Finally on this point may I bring to the attention of the house the statement of Sir
DEBATES	4079
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence Ernest Gowers, the chairman of the royal commission who by his own admission began the inquiry as a confirmed retentionist and moved to the position of an abolitionist. On page 137 of his book, "A Life For A Life", he tells us:
There remains the argument that without the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment, more murders would be committed. As we have seen, such evidence as there is goes to show that the abolition of capital punishment does not in fact have this result.
That is the view of perhaps the best informed student of this perplexing problem. Before leaving the question of deterrents, I wish to say to hon. members who oppose this measure, I hope without offence, that I am more than surprised at the ease and assurance with which they speak of how the criminal mind reacts. Hon. members who do not need the death penalty to deter them from committing murder seem to be able to unravel the workings of the criminal mind.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I do not claim to be an authority on this matter, nor do I claim that my opinion is more important than those of other hon. members. But perhaps the house will forgive me if I point out that in recent years I, more than any other member, both in my professional and ministerial capacities, have been deeply concerned with this issue.
It has fallen to my lot to defend some 10 or 11 persons charged with capital murder, and I need not, of course, mention my ministerial responsibilities. Permit me, then, to speak for a moment out of my own experience. One case in particular remains vividly in my mind. This is a case that is now cited as a legal authority. I was assigned to the defence of the accused at his preliminary hearing and travelled with him through the whole judicial process to the Supreme Court of Canada and back to the condemned cell. I lingered with him almost to the moment he stepped on to the trapdoor and dropped into the unknown.
I shall never forget his complete indifference to the consequences of the law from the moment I first met him. The question I deliberately put to the house is this: Whom does the death penalty deter? How do the retentionists rationalize between those who commit murder despite the death penalty and those who claim they are deterred by it?
There is a grim sequel to the case I have cited. It was a case that attracted extraordinary attention in the community. Two years later I was in the same community, in the
November 9, 1967
4080	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence same courtroom, defending another person charged with capital murder. Clearly the execution of the first man has failed as a deterrent in respect of the second. I am not prepared, in my own mind, to say that the moral guilt of the one sentenced to death was greater than the other, although the second man escaped the gallows.
I accept the fact, and I suppose all lawyers must, that there are certain anomalies in the law. But I have never ceased to be disturbed by the fine line drawn between murder and capital murder and previously between murder and manslaughter. I believe that where that line has been drawn in the past has sometimes been determined by the experience and competence of counsel. I believe the fineness of the line is reflected by the reluctance of juries to convict of capital murder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I come back to the question I posed a moment ago, Mr. Speaker: Whom does the death penalty deter? There are, in my view, three classes of murderers. There are those who are clearly insane. There are those who act in a state of passion, with hate, jealousy, love, all the primary emotions, in a moment when they have no conscious concern for what they are doing. Then there is the third category, those who commit their offence after careful, deliberate calculation, with an indifference to the penalty because they are sure they are going to escape detection. The number of unsolved crimes proves that sometimes they are right. But, Mr. Speaker, clearly to the murderer who plans and calculates his action the death penalty is not a unique deterrent. In my view the most effective deterrent is the certainty of detection and conviction. I believe there would be a great decrease in crime generally if the offender knew that he would be readily apprehended and convicted.
I now turn to the second major argument which is used to tell against the abolitionists. It is put most forcibly in the words of Lord Denning:
The punishment is an emphatic denunciation by the community of the crime: and from this point of view there are murders which, in the present state of public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely the death penalty.
With the greatest respect, I submit that on close examination it will be seen that this statement is really the principle of retribution carried to its ultimate degree. It is the enunciation of the principle that I understood an enlightened opinion had long ago rejected.


It offends the three basic principles of our penal system. We seek to punish the offender, we try to reform him, and we aim at deterring others from repeating his offence.
Under our laws we do not disfigure or maim a man who has disfigured his victim; we do not burn down the house of a man who has committed arson. I accept the proposition that punishment necessarily implies a measure of retribution, but I believe we can manifest our denunciation as clearly and completely by the substitution of life imprisonment for judicial execution.
No hon. member believes that a murderer can pay for another person's life with his own. Nothing we can do can possibly atone the taking of human life. I believe that so long as the state claims the right under the law to deliberately take human life-there will be a tendency to regard life more cheaply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I believe there is a responsibility upon the state to set the example. We can denounce the terrible conduct of murderers far more impressively by declaring our profound belief in the sanctity of human life and substituting a sentence of life imprisonment. I think it is worth while to offer to the house these words of John Bright:
A deep reverence for human life is worth more than a thousand executions in the prevention of murder. And it is in fact the great security of human life. The law of capital punishment while pretending to support this reverence does in fact tend to destroy it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I believe, sir, that with the abolition of the death penalty we can set an example, as a government, of our respect for the sanctity of human life to a world that is sorely in need of a higher regard for human life and a higher standard of humane conduct.
It is impossible to leave this subject without reminding the house that in any system of administration of justice, however mature and refined, miscarriages of justice are bound to occur. It is for the house to decide whether we have the moral right to ask the court to impose a sentence which by its very nature is irreversible once it is applied. Whatever care may be taken, the possibility of a mistake is bound to arise. It has arisen in the past and it will arise again in the future.
I propose to single out one well known case for a very brief examination. Timothy
November 9, 1967

Evans was hanged in England in 1950 upon conviction of the murder of his daughter. It is now generally accepted that the principal witness for the prosecution was himself the murderer, as subsequent events proved. It is within the knowledge of the house that Timothy Evans was granted a pardon 15 years after he was hanged. It was of this case that Lord Justice Birkett said:
The case against Evans at his trial on the facts as they were then known was quite overwhelming. There was no failure in the administrative machinery of the criminal law. No human skill could have prevented the conviction and no human judicial system, whatever its checks and safeguards, can ever provide complete security against the exceedingly rare and exceptional case such as that of Evans.
I ask the house to ponder over these words: "There was no failure in the administrative machinery of the criminal law. No human skill could have prevented the conviction." I ask the house whether there could be a more convincing argument, even if it stood alone, for the abolition of capital punishment.
I do not pretend that I have examined and exhausted all the grounds surrounding this controversy. I have confined myself to what I believe are the issues that go to the very heart of the problem.
I desire now to allay the anxieties of hon. members relating to the release of prisoners serving life sentences. I wish to make it meticulously plain that there is no automatic release of any kind for these prisoners. A discretion has always been vested in the governor in council to release convicted murderers on ticket of leave and parole. For example, 45 persons serving commuted death sentences were paroled in the period 1957 to 1965. I understand that 43 of them are now living peaceful and useful lives attempting to compensate for their crimes.
The protection of the public will always be a paramount consideration in deciding whether a particular person should be released on parole. Speaking for myself, I would be prepared, in the interests of public safety, to keep a murderer in prison for the rest of his life unless I was completely satisfied that he did not present a danger to the public. Each decision on the matter of a parole would now be brought before the governor in council only after a favourable recommendation by the parole board. If the parole board refuses to recommend parole, there the matter would end. There is no need for me to add that no decision would be taken with more care and with a deeper sense of responsibility.
DEBATES	4081
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The effect of the proposal in this bill is to add a further safeguard to the law in regard to the release of convicted murderers. There may be some hon. members in this chamber who will disagree with me when I state that we should never lose faith or abandon hope of reforming even one of these terrible murderers. Under the law the criminal must be both sane and of age before we hang him. I ask the house again, given these two qualities and believing as we do in the essential dignity of man, have we a right to abandon the hope of reforming even one of these men? To say that we should never release a convicted murderer is an admission of defeat and despair, and we despair not only of the prisoner but we despair of ourselves.
I recognize that if this bill should go through we must continue strenuous efforts to rehabilitate these men. I believe it was seven years ago that for the first time under a previous administration the national conscience was awakened to our responsibility in this regard, and I am happy to say that the succeeding administration has continued to translate that awareness into action. In my view we need three basic requirements: physical plants, trained and professional staff, and more research. It is my earnest hope that the new department of crime and correction, or the Department of the Solicitor General as we designate it generally, will achieve that objective. I do not promise that the answers will come easily or quickly, but we must persevere in our efforts. I wish to make it plain that I am prepared to reconsider my own conclusions should subsequent history reduce the validity of the arguments I now put before the house.
In conclusion I wish to deal with one school of possible opposition, namely, that of the total abolitionists. I acknowledge that their sense of logic must suffer over the inclusion of the two exceptions for prison guards and police officers, but at least I must make this concession to the bill I sponsor, that whether or not the death penalty provides a unique and special quality of deterrence at least it provides a peace of mind and moral support to that very small group in our society who, at great risk to themselves, permit us to live our lives in the security to which we are entitled. I ask and I appeal to the total abolitionists to support this measure on second reading and to support it in the vote on principle, and I will listen with great interest and deep respect to any amendments
November 9, 1967
4082	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence that may be moved in the committee stage. I believe that this bill will only be defeated in principle if there is an unhappy coalition between those who feel that the bill has not gone far enough and those who feel that it has gone too far. Such a result will of course be a defeat for all those who sincerely believe that an amendment related to capital punishment is needed in the law.
I would be in error were I to detain the house further. I believe this bill represents one more step in the continuing march toward a higher regard for human life. Behind this bill is a long history of over 150 years of dire and dark predictions, of hope and fear and of despair and faith in the essential decency of man. I ask the house to continue the unfinished work of what I believe has been a feudal and futile system that for too long has marred the majesty of the law.


Mr. Haidasz:: May I ask the Solicitor General a question? First, could he tell me after how many years of imprisonment he would consider releasing a murderer on parole and, second, what measures does the government propose to take to aid the victims of an act of murder?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Each case must stand on its own merits. The parole board examines the age of the prisoner, the time the offence was committed, the circumstances surrounding it, the prisoner's behaviour in the institution, and his relationship with other prisoners and with the staff, and then we make as objective a decision as we possibly can. Experience has shown that paroled murderers are the finest parolees.
With regard to the question relating to the compensation of victims, I appreciate the importance of the question raised by the hon. member. This is a matter which is being dealt with in the provincial field. I would point out that legislation regarding this matter has been introduced in the province of Saskatchewan and I understand other provinces are also considering this question.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I say, as the leading speaker for the Conservative party, that I speak for everyone in our party when I say that we have listened today to a very thoughtful, skilful and brilliant address. After listening to my good friend's speech, and he is a personal friend of mine, and hearing of his personal experiences with regard to people charged with murder I must say, and I am


sure he agrees with me, that the most lonely period of a lawyer's life is when he has to make the decision whether to place the accused on the stand to give evidence on his own behalf or to take the evidence presented by the crown to the jury and argue that the crown has not made out a case. All of us who have had that experience know that the onus is always on the crown to prove the guilt of the accused and that if there is a reasonable doubt it must always be resolved in favour of the accused. It is not an easy decision to make. I know the minister has had to make that decision, and so have I, so have the great trial lawyers in Great Britain and the United States and indeed some of the great trial lawyers here in Canada, one of whom sits in front of me, namely, John George Diefenbaker. I believe that in his career he has appeared in 22 murder cases and out of these he won some 17 or 18 acquittals.
So we all understand the feelings and the emotion of the minister when he delivered his very able address this afternoon, and we all congratulate him on it.
Before proceeding further with my address I should like to say in passing that any trial lawyer who has done work in criminal law could have made out as good a case this afternoon for the people who rot in jail. The occasion which I remember most vividly is the evening when I visited the penitentiary in Montreal and saw the prisoners' cells which measure about seven feet by four. When the door is locked at night all the lights are turned off and there are no windows so that the men are confined in this space for eight hours. It is an archaic institution which is as old as this country. The same sympathy could be aroused for these prisoners as has been aroused by the minister this afternoon with reference to the death penalty for capital murder.
I have given some thought to this subject and I feel the first thing I should do in this debate is to ask a question and then answer it. However, before doing so may I put on the record the real purpose of the bill. This purpose is found in the explanatory note and I will read it so that those who may be reading this debate some years from now will appreciate what we are debating today.
The purpose of this bill is to confine the Imposition of the death penalty in relation to murder to the murder of police officers and others employed for the maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of their duties, and to the murder of prison guards and other officers or permanent employees of prisohs, acting in the course of their duties, for an experimental period of five years.
November 9, 1967

This change will be made for an experimental period. Of course, the bill really does not abolish capital punishment because it is maintained for the murder of police officers, penitentiary guards or agents of the same.
I can only speak for this side of the house, but I may say there will be a division of opinion on this matter because it is a highly emotional and controversial one. My first question is, what is the position of the Conservative party with regard to this question? We have decided, without any qualification whatever, that all our members will have absolute freedom of thought and action in reference to this serious, highly controversial and emotional matter. There has been and will be no direction given to our members by our leader or by any other influential person or persons within our party. There will be no direction from anyone advocating what position we should take in this debate or how we should vote. The members of our party will speak freely and will be free from any suggestions or opinions expressed by any other member. This will be an absolutely free vote. I believe it is right that I should state our position. May I say that as a result of having discussed the matter with some hon. members I am pleased to find many who have not yet made up their minds on this issue. I believe it is our duty at this moment to debate and to wrestle with our consciences until we are called upon to make a decision for our country.
Surely, however, whether one is an advocate of the retention of capital punishment or an advocate of its abolition, there is one question which must be asked. I realize, after listening to such a stirring address from the minister, that this question may seem to have a hollow ring. I ask, however, why is the government introducing this measure now so soon after the matter was the subject of debate and decision by this parliament? In April, 1966, this question was before the house at the Prime Minister's (Mr. Pearson) suggestion. It is true the suggested change was contained in a private bill, but it was the Prime Minister's suggestion that a full discussion and a full debate take place. I am taking nothing from my introductory remarks when I say that all the facts connected with this subject were discussed fully in this house about 18 months ago. The public and parliament became fully informed. It is our function, as members of parliament, to trv to inform the public on the pros and cons of abolition.
DEBATES	4083
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
At that time the house voted to retain capital punishment for capital murder, and capital murder alone. I believe it was in 1960 that murder was redefined as capital and non-capital murder. At the moment we are only dealing with capital murder. Capital murder means, to put it succinctly, the planned and deliberate murder of a person. I wish to point out that the debating of such a highly emotional and highly controversial subject calls for a great degree of restraint. Although parliament made a decision, the government has ignored the decision made by parliament for the imposition of the death sentence passed by a competent court. One is compelled to say, in view of the government's action or lack of action in this regard and in view of the minister's position, that no true, no realistic free vote can take place on this subject on the government side. I say that, and I say it because it is obvious. Today the minister led off and made it very clear where he stood on the matter. Since he is the minister he will have a tremendous influence on the members of his party. There is also the fact that the matter is being brought forward so soon again. I think this will have a tremendous influence on how the members supporting the government will vote.
This action by the government has placed a heavy burden, indeed exercised an undue influence on government supporters at this time. How can a government supporter feel free to make a decision on this bill? We have had in fact but not in law or, to put it another way, not de jure but de facto, the complete abolition of capital punishment since parliament made its decision only 18 months ago. Capital punishment, de facto if not de jure, has been abolished in this country. It has been abolished completely since the Liberals took office in this country in 1963. I will give the house some facts in that regard. If this government can justify this action since April, 1966, and indeed since they took office in 1963, then may I ask this question: Why not continue the same policy for some time in the future? I want to make myself clear by saying that I am not suggesting for one moment the course the government has taken in the past or will take in the future is proper. In fact, I take the opposite view. However, one must be realistic.
I suggest that parliament should be and could have been engaged with some priority legislation at this time. The minister's answer, any minister's answer, of course, would be that they wish now to legalize the
November 9, 1967
4084	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence abolition of capital punishment because that has been the law of the land de facto if not de jure. I would have liked to use stronger language against the government this afternoon. Any opposition would be justified in using stronger language with regard to the government ignoring a parliamentary decision if the subject matter were any other than the highly emotional and controversial one we are faced with now. One can talk about capital punishment and arouse all kinds of emotions because we all know that the greatest civil right one can protect is the right of a human being to live.
This government is asking the same members of the same parliament, under the same circumstances, to legalize its actions, Mr. Speaker. This is what they are asking. This government asked the same members, the same parliament, 18 months ago to make the same decision. The members of parliament debated and then decided. The government is placing a club over the heads of every member of parliament, whether that member is a supporter of the government or a member of the opposition. It is government duress and cabinet government all powerful, and quite often it is cabinet judiciary. This government has been the judge and jury.
I want to pause there. I come back to the bill. There is no person, particularly defence counsel, who does not appreciate what goes on in the cabinet. Under the Criminal Code they have the legal right and duty to review the whole of the evidence, the decision of the court and the decision of the jury in order to decide whether the sentence should be commuted from one of death to life imprisonment. This is a difficult situation. I can understand the minister's deep emotion the last time the vote was taken because juries, lawyers and judges experience the same emotion.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This question is now back for debate, and it comes so soon that parliament demands an explanation. Yesterday I read in the Globe and Mail an article which impressed me. I thought it was well written, well prepared, well documented and well thought out. It indicated that decay has set in in the government, and that the decay goes deep. It has moved from the pulp of the tooth to the root. In such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the dentist removes the tooth.


Mr. Mackasey:: He outs your head off.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Where is the government's priority list? Somebody said "he cuts your head off". I do not know where the hon. member stands on the issue, Mr. Speaker, but I am not talking lightly about it. This is a very serious matter. I ask the government where their priority list is. We are now debating this matter again having spent several weeks debating it during the last 18 months.
Where is the program that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) speaks of with great pride while government ministers go on spending to combat the obvious and admitted financial debacle that is facing the nation? Where is their program for dealing with high interest rates? Where is their program to arrest the high cost of living? Where is their program to eliminate high government spending, high unemployment, and lay-offs? Where is their program with reference to the large losses sustained in the wheat market and in the coal market? Where is their assistance to industry fighting for survival in the absence of any clear-cut terms of reference for the Kennedy round talks?
These questions are relevant in light of today's situation. There is anarchy in freight rates. We talk of boom, Mr. Speaker. We talk of sympathy. I ask the minister to go into the homes in any city in Canada today where 25 per cent of the people are living below an acceptable standard. While apparent deterioration of the Canadian economy is taking place, this government asks parliament to make de jure what they have already made de facto.
If the minister can justify what was done in 1966 and can put just as much sympathy and feeling into his speech as he did then, then it is right for the government to carry on as they have. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), a distinguished member of parliament, said yesterday that the government believes that with a little bit of luck everything will be all right. Like Micawber, they think something will turn up.
I should like to refer for a moment to the words of a man for whom I have great respect in this House of Commons, the present Prime Minister. What did he say on April 17, 1962, Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 3079 of Hansard? He said:
In closing I think I can do no better as this parliament comes to its untidy end than to quote Oliver Cromwell...
November 9, 1967

I want my good friend opposite to listen to this.
This is what Cromwell said about a parliament, and it could be applied to the Conservative members of this parliament as it comes to its unlamented end:
"You have sat there too long for the little good that you do. It is time to make way for better men. In the name of God-go".
That is what the Prime Minister told us, Mr. Speaker. We are now back once more arguing the same matter and they are asking parliament to decide again on a matter that was decided less than 18 months ago. Therefore I should like to ask the government why this subject is a priority item, and I ask them to give me an answer to that question.
In effect we have abolition of capital punishment now so we do not have to get worked up about the situation. We are experiencing an economic debacle in this country and this government does nothing about it. Adopting the Prime Minister's words, Mr. Speaker, when he quoted Cromwell-"In the name of God-go".
I now direct my attention in the few moments left to me to the subject before us.


Mr. Brewin:: About time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This matter has already been debated. If hon. members want to know what I said on the previous occasion then let me refer them to my speech of 18 months ago, to the minister's speech and to all the other speeches that are reported in Hansard. We have already had a debate on the matter and we are now duplicating that debate.
I agree with the minister that this is a very difficult subject, that we are facing a challenge from crime in a free society. I should like to refer to the latest report of the President's commission that was set up in the United States to study law enforcement. As the minister says, we can always draw on various circumstances in other countries, and I should like to quote what that commission had to say about capital punishment. Crime is on the march, and the question we have to decide is: Should we abolish capital punishment for offences of treason; should we abolish capital punishment for repeaters-this problem has arisen in this country-should we abolish capital punishment for syndicated gangsters who murder for profit and make money out of the demise of our citizens?
These are tough questions, Mr. Speaker. Crime in the United States, as in Canada, is on the move, and I will refer to some statistics later. The President's commission, as
DEBATES	4085
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence found on page 143 of their report, had this to
say:
As the abolition or the retention of the death penalty is being widely debated in the states, it is appropriate to point out several aspects of its administration that bear on the issue.
The most salient characteristic of capital punishment is that it is infrequently applied.
So the same situation prevails there as it has in Canada for some time.
I should like to refer to some statistics. From January 1, 1951 to June 30, 1957 there were 90 cases of convicted murderers who were given the death penalty. Fifty five executions were carried out and the remaining 35 had their sentence commuted. From July 1, 1957 to April 15, 1963 there were 66 cases, 14 executions and 52 commutations. 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. This proves that we already have a de facto abolition of capital punishment. The report goes on to say:
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.
That pretty well agrees with what the minister said.
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.
In this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are making an exception of cases involving children or elderly people. In this regard I can remember some dreadful cases. I remember a case where an elderly couple were put on a stove which was then turned on in order to try to make this couple yield their pension cheques. They fried. I believe that the accused in that case enjoyed a commutation of the death sentence. And there are even tougher cases. In this regard I agree that the question of insanity should be looked into. The report goes on:
Whatever views one may have on the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, it clearly has an undesirable impact on the administration of criminal justice. Capital cases take longer to litigate at the trial level-
November 9, 1967
4086	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am sure the minister has found this is the case. In cases where the accused is charged with capital murder the jury takes great care, the judge takes great care, and the court of appeal examines the evidence with greater care than it would examine the evidence, perhaps, in other criminal cases. Under the present circumstances the accused in a capital murder case is tried more carefully than if the sentence were mere imprisonment. What conclusion did the commission arrive at? On page 143, near the bottom at the right hand side, are found these words:
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, and the law should be enforced in an evenhanded and nondiscriminatory manner, with procedures for review of death sentences that are fair and expeditious. When a state finds that it cannot administer the penalty in such a manner, or that the death penalty is being imposed but not carried into effect, the penalty should be abandoned.
Now we are faced with the issue of abolition. As I have said before, capital punishment has been abolished de facto. One must be fair and recognize the minister's convictions. Members on this side of the house, friends of mine, also support wholeheartedly the complete abolition of the death penalty. Under this bill, nevertheless, a distinction is drawn between the ordinary murderer and the one whose victim is a police or prison official. The commission says that the victim is of no account, that there should be no difference in the treatment of the murderer when his victim is a prison guard or police officer.
In 1960 the murder rate in Canada was 1.3 per hundred thousand of population. In 1966 the murder rate was approximately the same. In England in 1957, before the law was changed, the murder rate was 3.4 per million of population. Their murder rate is lower than Canada's. That rate increased to 4.2 per million of population in the period 1957 to 1966, and we are aware of the movement presently on foot in Great Britain.
I will not take much more of the time of the house except to say that in the past we have seen, basically, an absolute cabinet dictatorship in this field. The cabinet has exercised dictatorial powers with regard to commuting sentences and for that has been criticized by the leading newspapers of the country. In defence of the minister we must not forget that any cabinet has the right to
[Mr. Woolliams.l
commute any sentence. Perhaps I might ask the minister a question. In western Canada a man has been convicted for shooting a moun-tie. Is his sentence to be commuted?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Well-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me finish. Is the government to commute sentences of those who have murdered police officers? 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?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Will the hon. member permit me to reply to his first question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, certainly.


Lawrence T. Pennell: In the case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Policeman, the accused was found guilty of non-capital murder and it will not be necessary for the cabinet to deal with the case. So far as other cases are presently concerned, I know of no convicted murderer who has been convicted for murdering a prison guard or policeman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That brings up another point. Do I take it that the minister will not recommend the commutation of sentences in capital murder cases where the victim of the murderer is a policeman or prison guard?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I respect the hon. member's views and I am sure that he in turn does not expect me to make a categorical statement. If the judge and jury recommend mercy we shall need to weigh all circumstances, and I am sure that my hon. friend from Bow River would be as insistent as other members in making sure that we do so. I cannot give a categorical reply to a hypothetical instance.


Mr. Gilbert:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Orlikow:: I listened to the hon. member's speech carefully and I have the impression, though he did not say so, that he intends to vote against the bill. Will he take the house into his confidence in that regard?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I answer that question in this way? If every hon. member in this chamber has already made up his mind, that only strengthens my argument that we are wasting time in debating this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wish to ask a question of the Solicitor General following the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River-
November 9, 1967


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please. It may be a good idea to reserve questions until we have heard all speakers or until the bill is in committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, the Chair
allowed the hon. member for Parkdale to ask
a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order,
please. That was entirely owing to the incompetence of the incumbent of the Chair at that time. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) has presented Bill C-168 with sincerity and eloquence. I shall try not to repeat what he said, but I agree wholeheartedly with almost everything he did say. We are all conscious of the extensive debate on this subject that took place in March and April of last year on the resolution dealing with the subject now before us. During that debate the arguments for capital punishment and for abolition were fully canvassed and I do not think it is necessary for members of the house to repeat in detail all matters that were then discussed.
The first thing to be noted about the bill is that though it does not abolish capital punishment in form, because it limits the definition of capital murder to cases where the victims are police officers or prison officials, capital punishment will be all but abolished in Canada. The legislation is to be in force for an experimental period of five years.
I think all members of my party agree that this is not a party matter but a matter for the individual conscience of each hon. member. However, it is well known, I think, that all members of our party in parliament are against capital punishment and favour its abolition. Naturally we are not too happy with the present bill, which proceeds indirectly rather than directly to the abolition of capital punishment and leaves exceptions which, for reasons I shall discuss later, I do not think are justified. Nevertheless I think the Solicitor General will have reason to be pleased with our views on the bill. It is our considered opinion that the bill represents a tremendous step forward and that those who believe in the abolition of capital punishment should support it. We propose to do so on second reading. However, Mr. Speaker, because of our convictions we propose to put forward amendments at the committee stage which would have the effect of
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence directly and completely abolishing capital punishment in Canada. I think many of the arguments put forward by the Solicitor General would justify support of our proposed amendments.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
As I said, there is no need to repeat at length the case for abolition of capital punishment but, nevertheless, I would like to summarize a few of the points. Both those who support capital punishment and those who favour its abolition accept the view that the basic consideration is the sanctity of human life and respect for human life. This is essentially a religious and spiritual principle. It has been recognized and enunciated by religious leaders throughout human history, and by humanists of all nations.
Those who support capital punishment presumably do so because they believe there is no crime more shocking, more deserving of punishment, more necessary to be deterred than the wilful taking of human life. These people believe that the death sentence is uniquely appropriate for this kind of crime, and they also believe it is a uniquely effective deterrent of murder. Others, such as myself, Mr. Speaker, believe that the great weight of evidence and study of this matter establishes, or if it does not establish it certainly indicates, that the death penalty is not the only and, indeed, is not the most effective deterrent. We believe that the state itself should not impose or sanction the deliberate killing of human beings.
I could not put this point more clearly than it was put by the great Archbishop Temple, formerly Archbishop of Canterbury, who said, and I commend these words to hon. members:
I believe that the example of the state taking life, even when it does so in return for a life already taken, does more to lower the value of human life in the mind of its citizens than the deterrent influence of this penalty can do to protect the lives of its citizens. In this way, I believe that the main influence of the retention of the death penalty is rather to increase than diminish the number of murders.
There has been much discussion of the deterrent effect of capital punishment but it is a fact, well established, that in those jurisdictions in many civilized quarters of the world in which capital punishment has been abolished this step did not lead to any increase in the rate of murder. Many volumes have been written about this matter of the deterrent effect of capital punishment The Solicitor General referred to some of
4088	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence them. I content myself with the finding of the royal commission on capital punishment in 1953, which said:
We agree with Professor Sellin that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the figures is that there is no clear evidence of any influence of the death penalty on the homicide rates of those states, and that whether the death penalty is used or not, and whether executions are frequent or not, both death penalty states and abolition states show rates which suggest that these rates are conditioned by other facts than the death penalty-
And again:
The general conclusion that we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its re-introduction has led to a fall.
I appreciate that the subject of capital punishment arouses very strong emotions, but it seems to me that if the deliberate taking of life by the state cannot be shown to have the effect of deterring potential murderers, then it cannot be justified. That it has no such effect I think is shown beyond any reasonable doubt. The plain fact of the matter is that when one examines the records of murder cases one sees that the vast majority of murderers act without deliberation. Frequently they are mentally unbalanced, although not legally insane. On the other hand, those who murder with calculation are usually convinced of their ability to evade detection and often, I think, do succeed in evading detection, and they are no more influenced by the fear of capital punishment than by the fear of life imprisonment.
There is another point which requires the attention of the house, and that is that even in those communities which retain the death penalty it is practically never applied. In an article which he wrote on February 7, 1965, Professor Sellin pointed out that it was conservatively assumed that at that time there were about 2,500 capital murders annually in the United States and only 20 executions. Therefore, even where the principle is accepted in fact it has been allowed to lapse in practice.
From this it is hard to argue that capital punishment under these conditions can be a uniquely effective means of protecting the community. Nor should it be overlooked that in the nature of things capital punishment does not fall equally and inevitably upon all classes of those who commit murder. It is far more likely to fall on those who because of their poverty are unable to secure an effective means of defence, or on those whose

DEBATES	November 9, 19S7
crimes are attended by a maximum of horror and publicity.
There is a further cogent argument against capital punishment. The Solicitor General has already mentioned it and I will not dwell on it. It is that mistakes are bound to occur in the administration of justice. A penalty so final as death should not be imposed where there is no chance of the mistake being later rectified.
Some people are of the opinion that to suggest that the courts of justice in a country such as Canada can make errors is a reflection on the administration of justice. This is not so. Courts, as the Solicitor General said, like all other human institutions make mistakes, and there are many well-authenticated instances of this. The Solicitor General referred to the Timothy Evans case. I will refer to one other case that occurred in New York recently. A man named Whitmore was awaiting execution on the charge of murdering a girl when the actual murderer was apprehended and confessed to the killing. This is what someone on the district attorney's staff said about the matter:
I was one of those who was absolutely sure that Whitmore had killed the girl; there was no doubt in my mind-reasonable or beyond a shadow or any other kind. Now I am satisfied Whitmore is innocent. If this had not been a celebrated case, if this case had not received the tremendous publicity, if this were just a run-of-the-mill murder, Whitmore might well have slipped into the electric chair for something he didn't do.
I think the consciences of all members of the house should be affected by the fact that there are well-authenticated cases of error, even in capital murder cases. All members of the house who have practised at the bar will know of cases where decisions of courts were backed up by appelate courts and, on the discovery of later evidence, were shown to be erroneous. It is not necessary to show that this is a frequent occurrence. It does happen, and therefore the finality of the penalty of capital punishment should be avoided.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I now turn to the bill before us. As I have said, what the bill proposes in effect is to abolish capital punishment in the vast majority of cases. It does so by narrowing the definition of capital murder. The form of the bill is an amendment of section 202A of the Criminal Code which defined capital murder for the first time in 1960, that is to say, capital murder as distinct from non-capital murder. Section 202A is merely a defining section. The operative section is section 206
November 9, 1967


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes to express my opinions on the bill under study, since we dealt with this matter barely a year ago. That is why I shall limit myself to a few remarks, to a few arguments only.
I listened closely to the speech made by the hon. Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Pennell) who, very brilliantly and eloquently, I must say, introduced his bill. But in spite of his eloquence, it was but a rehash of the debate held in March and April 1966. The Solicitor General dug up old arguments to urge us to adopt his bill which, as far as I
November 9, 1967

am concerned, puzzles me, since the amendments proposed to the act as it now stands are such that they will mix things up much more than they will improve them.
Some months ago I was having dinner at the Chateau Laurier with another member of the cabinet and the conversation took a turn to the abolition of the death penalty. I then asked the hon. minister why the government wished to have this subject debated again in the house, since parliament had reached a decision on the matter just about a year ago. He told me quite candidly that it was because the bill had not been introduced in the house in a proper manner at that time. When I asked him whether the government would introduce the same bill or reopen the debate on capital punishment, if parliament had taken the opposite view, of course, he said no.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that by raising again such a controversial matter as capital punishment, the house is caused, so to speak, to lose valuable time which could be used to consider much more essential pieces of legislation than the one now before us. In fact, this leads me to believe that if the bill of the Solicitor General is rejected, the house will be called upon again to express its opinion on this matter next year.
So, Mr. Speaker, for all these considerations, taking into account what has happened in the country, within the province of Quebec as well as in the country as a whole,
I reached the conclusion that I have no reasons to change my views on capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, an argument which is rather frequently put forward is that we should be sufficiently civilized in Canada to abolish the death penalty. But, let us look around at what is happening now, when we hear the news on radio or television or when we read the newspapers. For instance, the pages of the newspapers are filled with reports of all kinds of crimes from murder to rape to robberies of bank, drug stores and all kinds of business establishments. Old people's homes are broken into, and the oldsters are bound, mistreated and robbed and if they are strong enough to resist, they are even murdered sometimes. So, in view of all these things, of the facility with which people obtain narcotics, in view of increasing alcoholism and contempt for authority which is noticeable almost everywhere, I am beginning to wonder whether we are civilized enough to abolish capital punishment at this time.
DEBATES	4091
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Since this matter was placed on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, we have heard several well-informed persons having authority to express opinions. I have before me an editorial written by Roger Bruneau, in the October 23, 1967 issue of the newspaper L'Action of Quebec, where he was asking himself certain questions in connection with this bill introduced by the Solicitor General. This journalist observed, and rightly so, that:
If it is true that by maintaining the death penalty against murderers of police officers or prison guards-
It must be understood here that the bill sponsored by the Solicitor General is an amendment to the present act providing for the death penalty in cases of capital murder only.
So the amendment stipulates that only murders of police officers, police constables, constables, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs as well as wardens, deputy wardens, instructors, keepers, gaolers or guards are considered capital murders.
If it is true that by maintaining the death penalty against the murderers of police officers or prison guards those people are being protected and the number of victims is being limited as much as possible, why could not the same line of thought be applied in the case of murder in general?
Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is true that considering guilty of capital murder anyone who kills or murders a police officer or a prison guard can incite potential criminals to reconsider their action and refrain from murdering those people, it seems to me that the same situation could exist, for instance, for the father or mother of a family. Why then should we not ask the same question about the druggist who is robbed day or night in cities like Montreal or Toronto, or elsewhere, or about a bank manager? Their lives are just as much in danger, I would say, as those of policemen or jail guards. Why should not this principle apply as well to any business owner? We could ask ourselves the same question.
If, by making the murder of such people capital murder such crimes could be prevented, the same reasoning would apply with respect to any other citizen in Canada and, accordingly, the same result would ensue.
There is another aspect I would like to deal with here. It concerns the death penalty for capital murder, which, in principle, no longer exists in Canada since 1963; this penalty still exists, but it is not applied. Accordingly, this government does not comply with the law of the land, duly enacted by parliament.
4092	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
Since this government no longer abides by this law, we have seen the number of murders of all kinds increase at a terrific rate in Canada.
I have here a list of 18 prisoners who are waiting for the verdict of the members of the House of Commons, 18 prisoners who are waiting for the decision of parliament concerning this bill.
I have here the case of:
Frangois Shirm and Edmond Guonette, separatists, sentenced to death in Montreal on May 21, 1966, for the murder of an armourer during an arms theft.
The execution was scheduled to take place on November 3, but it was not carried out. Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to steal weapons, these two hoodlums killed a man who was trying to protect his property. As we know what these weapons were being stolen for, we might wonder what the Solicitor General has in mind when he restricts capital murder to the killing of a police officer or a prison guard. What would he do about treason? Although some countries around the world, some states in the United States have abolished the death penalty, treason remains a capital crime and in the amendment before us there is no mention of treason. I wonder if we should not be asking questions about this; anyhow, I think that before we pass Bill No. C-168, we should at least move an amendment providing for treason as a capital crime.
Mr. Speaker, I shall continue to read the editorial:
Douglas Brown, sentenced to death in Montreal on December 1, 1966, to be hung on November 3.
Robert Collin, sentenced to death in Montreal on October 8, 1965, to be executed on November 10.
David Albert DeLeon, sentenced to death in Montreal on April 7, 1967, to be executed on November 17.
Roger Chevalier, sentenced to death in Montreal on November 20, 1965, to be executed on November 24.
Roger Demers, sentenced to death in Quebec on November 16, 1966, to be executed on November 24.
Douglas Joseph Booth, who obtained a new trial and was sentenced a second time in Ottawa on last January 19, and who is to be executed on November 28.
Jean-Jacques Boivin, sentenced to death in Hull, Que., on last January 28, to be hung on November 28.
This already makes quite a list for the month of November.
Roland and Jacques Poirier, two brothers sentenced in Montreal first on June 11, 1955-
I think this should be 1965 instead.
[Mr. Laprise.l
DEBATES	November 9, 1967
-then October 13, 1966, in a second trial, for having beaten to death Margot Turner, a cabaret dancer. They are to be executed on December 15.
Henri Boivin, sentenced to death in Montreal on April 21, sentence commuted to December 22.
Harold Arthur Ortt, sentenced to death in Chatham, Ontario, on October 12, to be executed on January 9, 1968.
Rend Emile Castellani, who was granted a second trial for poisoning his wife and who was again found guilty on October 6 in Vancouver. To be executed on January 23, 1968.
Herbert Matthew Myers, sentenced to death in Prince George, B.C. on June 2, whose sentence is to be executed on January 23, 1968.
Jean-Jacques Gladu, sentenced to death in Montreal on October 13, 1966, to be executed on January 26, 1968.
Marcel Bernier, of Shawinigan, Que, grave-digger, sentenced to death on February 24, 1966, for rape and murder of a teen-ager. To be executed on February 23, 1968.
Claude Martin, Montreal longshoreman, sentenced to death on April 1, 1966, for the murder of a barman and whose execution has been set for March 22, 1968.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the life of those people who have been murdered by these criminals is just as important as that of any police officer or prison guard. At this stage, I am thinking particularly about the parents of the teen-ager who was raped and murdered in Shawinigan by the gravedigger, Marcel Bernier and about the anxiety they must have felt throughout the search for their young daughter and the trial of the murderer.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, if we are to abolish the death penalty, spare the lives of criminals who have killed honest citizens, let us also think about the families of their victims. The first thing bandits should do for us to abolish the death penalty is to quit killing as they now do.
Another bill will probably be introduced to legalize the homicide of children in the womb of their mother. First the lives of criminals will be protected, then infanticide will be legalized. Right now, a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons is considering a bill on therapeutic abortion. On the other hand, a movement is afoot to give free rein to criminals, to let them roam the country and act as they please. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where we can find any logic in all this.
So, if confusion is rife throughout the land and the citizenry, I think that some of it is beginning to rub off on our elected representatives, on this government, which makes us suspect that our laws will be amended in
November 9, 1967	COMMONS
order to lower, I would say, the quality of protection of our Canadian citizens.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this bill is passed, it means that, as soon as it is proclaimed, criminals will be free to murder even the Solicitor General, since he is not a member, I would think, of the police force or a jail guard. They could murder a minister, a senator, a member of parliament or a judge; they could kill right and left, except police officers and prison guards.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks here. I believe I have said clearly enough that I am still in favour of the retention of the death penalty for capital murders.
This act is in existence since 1961 only, I think. Sentences were then mitigated, and I do not think they should be amended. It is clearly stipulated in the act that if there is a doubt, evidence of insanity or if the person is a minor, then the offence is not considered as capital murder and the person is not sentenced to death.
I submit that the death penalty should be retained in the case of capital murder. The act should be kept as it has stood since 1961 and it should not only be kept but applied, because it has not been applied since 1963 and the government is disregarding the laws of the land.
Therefore, in order to allow people to live, to have a better idea of their laws as a whole, I think that steps should be taken to rehabilitate criminals, look after those who can be rehabilitated and pass legislation to facilitate their rehabilitation. As for those who have stooped to murdering those who stood in their way, so to speak-that is what I call capital murder-they should be eliminated completely because they are, in my opinion, undesirables in society.
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude with a remark which I made on April 5, during a similar debate, and which can be found on page 3879 of Hansard, and I quote:
It is time to assume our responsibilities and to stop feeling that this should concern others, but not us. We should react as equal and responsible men and women. We should face the problem and realize that our children and our children's children should not be made to suffer for our follies. We should give up the idea that science can replace morals and progress replace hard work and that, for instance, the well-known tranquilizers can replace peace of mind and the well-known dope, mental toil. We should give up the idea that pills can master the soul. We should give up our faith in so-called progress that sends satellites into space but cannot, because of politics, prevent two men out of three from going hungry. Finally, we should understand and spread *he understanding around
DEBATES	4093
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence us and make the mighty that lead us understand that science without conscience will ruin the soul and that a world without a soul is doomed.
Mr. Speaker, we are asked to abolish capital punishment, to make it easier to use drugs, to legalize abortion, to legalize contraceptives, and there is even talk, in today's papers, of the possibility of a bill being introduced that would legalize homosexuality.
I wonder where we are going with all that, Mr. Speaker, if this really tends to upgrade the quality of our citizens, or rather to lower their morality?
Mr. Speaker, after due consideration I think that not only must capital punishment be maintained in the form it has had since 1961, but that it must be carried out. That is the way I intend to vote.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to express my personal respect for the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) in the position which he has enunciated today. His sincerity and the evidence of his conviction are such that although I differ with his conclusion I do not for one moment question the motives that moved him to introduce this bill and to speak as eloquently as he has today.
There is a paradox, however, in the introduction of Bill C-168, a bill which is a compromise with last year's bill in that it recommends capital punishment for those who kill policemen and prison guards. The obvious reason for retaining capital punishment in these specified instances must be that the minister believes it has some deterrent effect. If the minister believes this, then it logically follows that capital punishment must also have a deterrent value in other instances. To those who are thinking of changing their position from the one they took in the vote last year I suggest with all sincerity that if they had any doubts whether or not there was any deterrent value in capital punishment, then this bill is evidence of it because if it has a deterrent value in one respect then I cannot see how anyone can be so illogical as to assume that it might not have a deterrent value in other respects.
Surely the minister must agree that if it is necessary to protect the lives of policemen, wardens and prison guards through the retention of capital punishment, then it automatically follows that it is necessary also to protect girls killed in sex murders. What is the difference between a policeman who is murdered in a bank robbery and a girl who
4094	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence is raped and murdered by a sex maniac? I cannot see the differentiation which this bill automatically makes. Also I find it strange that the minister should leave himself open to the charge of a lack of logic. Surely any member of this house who questions the validity of capital punishment must be convinced that there is a deterrent simply by the negative logic of this bill, if for no other reason.
There is further lack of logic contained in the bill. It is interesting to note that while the bill retains capital punishment in certain specified areas and eliminates it in others, it has no effect on sections 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 of the National Defence Act. It is a fact that section 66 of the National Defence Act makes the death penalty mandatory for certain offences against the state. That being the case, this bill is completely inadequate and to my way of thinking should not really be considered by the house as a serious attempt to solve the problem of capital punishment.
There is another point in the bill which seems to be strangely illogical. Certainly we have departed from tradition so far as the parliamentary system is concerned in that we have before us in this session a bill similar to, even though it is a compromise with, the bill that we voted on last year. As I interpret parliamentary tradition, when a bill is turned down by parliament it is not usually introduced again during the life of the same parliament. Therefore I do not understand the reasoning behind the introduction of this bill when we have been told that there are very important and urgent pieces of legislation which must be dealt with before the end of the session. In fact I can see no justification whatever for calling another parliamentary vote now on the abolition of capital punishment. After all, we had such a vote a year ago and parliament decisively rejected the private member's bill to abolish the death penalty. I believe it would be more logical and responsible for the government to enforce the law as it was upheld last year in the vote instead of announcing its intention to introduce its own legislation for the abolition of the death penalty. In fact I believe there have been several commutations since the government was given a very clear indication by parliament of what was the will of parliament at that time.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I refer to an editorial in the Calgary Herald of April 22 which provides further substantive reasons for this argument:
This is shocking and inexcusable government conduct. It constitutes an abuse of the cabinet

DEBATES	November 9, 1967
prerogative of commuting death sentences. Occasions, of course, do arise when extraordinary circumstances dictate that a death penalty should be changed to life imprisonment. Ottawa, however, chooses to extend its powers of commutation in every case.
In so doing, it renders meaningless those sections of the Criminal Code which differentiate between capital (premeditated) murder and non-capital (unpremeditated) murder. For the former, the death penalty is directed. For the latter, life imprisonment is ordained.
The result has been a mockery of our courts and of the Criminal Code. The government, which has been deliberately breaking the law of the land in this matter, now wants legislation which, in effect, will provide retroactive endorsation of its policy regarding the death penalty over the past three and one half years.
I think that this argument is very sound, Mr. Speaker. At least, it seems to me that the government is placing priority in the wrong place when it takes part of the time remaining in this session for discussion of a bill which is really not sound or in order, as it deals with a topic that was turned down by this parliament last session.
There is another aspect of this bill which disturbs me. There is supposed to be a free vote on this measure. The minister was very careful to explain that in his introductory remarks this afternoon. However, this is a government bill sponsored by a cabinet minister. It seems to me that members of the government are placed under definite duress in respect of their vote. I should like to hear the minister state very clearly that if this bill is defeated it will not be regarded in any way as a vote of non-confidence in the government or in himself and that those who vote contrary to the minister's opinion will not be under any pressure to follow the lead the minister has established in introducing the bill. Whether or not we can fully agree with the minister's definition of a free vote, it seems to me that if he really wanted to retain the confidence of the house in connection with this measure he would have had the bill introduced in the same way as the resolution was introduced last year. Certainly I find myself disturbed about this because it seems to me there is more behind the scenes than we see from the front.
There is another point to which I have already referred briefly, the fact that we have de facto abolition of capital punishment at the present time. If my figures are correct, there have been 27 commutations since this government took office. In fact, the sentences imposed for the murder of prison guards have been commuted as have the sentences
November 9, 1967	COMMONS
of those convicted of the murder of policemen. As we are asked to support this bill, then we are also being told that the actions of the government in the last several years in commuting the sentences of those convicted of murder of prison guards or policemen were wrong. There is something unsound about this; it is not logical as I understand it.
There is another factor which is very interesting at the present time. I refer to the situation in Great Britain. A great deal has been made of the fact that the British parliament two years ago passed a bill providing for a five-year provisional abolition of capital punishment. Many members during the debate last year, and I imagine they will again this year, said that this was an example by a progressive nation which we should follow. However, a strange report has come out of Britain written by Canadian newspaperman Don McGillivray of the Southam news service. It was published in the November 7 issue of all Southam papers, including the Ottawa Citizen. The article reads in part:
Britain's five-year experiment with the complete abolition of capital punishment is two years old on Wednesday and already a petition to bring back hanging is gathering 5,000 signatures a week-
-the campaigners for renewal of the death penalty claim the murder rate and incidence of violent crime have both risen since abolition.
Home Secretary Roy Jenkins-Britain's Minister of Justice and Police-disputes the statistical connection. But estimates made by Jenkins' own ministry shows 35 capital murders last year and 32 the year before, compared with an average of 20.5 a year in the previous eight years, when a limited death penalty was in effect.
Without taking the time of the house to read the whole article, I point out that Mr. McGillivray closes by saying:
In the latest Gallup poll on the subject, 56 per cent of those questioned thought the murder rate had risen since abolition, compared with 8 per cent who thought it had gone down.
This is the evidence of what has happened in Great Britain. Mention has been made once or twice during the debate today that evidence is some states of the United States seems to indicate that the murder rate had gone down following abolition. On the other hand, one can find more states in which there has been abolition where the statistics will prove that the murder rate has gone up than those where the statistics will prove that it has gone down. My point is not to rehash what was said in last year's debate so far as statistics are concerned. Nevertheless, I think we should be very careful when we consider certain statistics which are used by those arguing in favour of abolition.
DEBATES	4095
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
There is one other point I wish to mention. We have a responsibility, as those who make the laws of the land, to consider each problem in all its aspects. One of the aspects of murder and the abolition of capital punishment for those who are guilty of premeditated murder about which little is said concerns those who are the victims of murderers. Our crime rate has been rising very rapidly, and we are extremely concerned about this. We should be concerned likewise about those who are the victims of criminals, particularly of murderers.
Police Chief Ralph Booth of Vancouver made a very significant statement in this regard, and I should like to quote part of it as it appeared in the Vancouver newspapers:
-the war on crime can be successfully fought only if crime victims are compensated for their injuries. He favours legislation authorizing establishment of a board, similar to the workmen's compensation board, having the power to compensate victims of criminal activity.
''We are spending millions of dollars on rehabilitating criminals but nothing is being done for their victims," Chief Booth said.
"The police know only too well that their success in fighting crime depends upon the co-operation of the public".
He said many persons are reluctant to aid policemen in difficulty because of personal danger and the lack of compensation.
"So often when citizens do help police officers in trouble and are injured as a result of helping the police, they have no way of recovering damages for injuries.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Then he goes on to deal with the problem of caring for those who are the victims of criminals, the rehabilitation of their families and compensation for the damage that has been done.
I do not intend to go further, Mr. Speaker. I believe the points I have enunciated are very strong refutations of the validity of Bill No. C-168. In fact, I think the whole basis for its presentation to the house, in view of the points I have already outlined, is illogical and we should not be dealing with it.
In closing, I should like to say a few words on the principle involved. What I have to say in this regard is not much different from what I said in the debate last year. Certainly we must be concerned about crime prevention. Is it hardly reasonable to campaign strongly for the possibility of the redemption of murderers, most of whom have a long record of violent crime, while millions of pliable minds watch men and women being stabbed, shot, strangled, drowned, poisoned and maltreated in almost every possible way
November 9, 19G7
4096	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence as often as 20 times a day on television? If those who lead the movement for abolition are really concerned about the sacredness of life they should do something about the disrespect shown for life on television programs and in movies which do so much to influence youthful minds in this country.
It appears that with a decrease in the severity of punishment for criminals there comes a corresponding increase in crime and the suffering of the innocent. In recent years, for example, the number of policemen murdered by felons has been larger than the number of felons executed by the state. It is argued that the administration of capital punishment is attended by many abuses. This may be so. The same can be said of the administration of Christian churches. Do we, therefore, eliminate the Christian churches? No, we try to eliminate the abuse. The same approach applies to the abuses of capital punishment.
Abolitionists make much of the loss of innocent lives through the death penalty. They overlook the fact, however, that more innocent lives have been lost through non-executed criminals who remained alive to commit more crimes than through executed non-criminals.
It has been said that the science of penology as well as the improvements in standards of social work and law enforcement have advanced to the point where society is protected to a greater extent than by the imposition of capital punishment. It is true that we have more effective police forces and more thorough rehabilitation of criminals. However, of the 14 states in the United States which abolished capital punishment prior to 1962, eight have reinstituted it. Penology does give more protection now than formerly against criminals committing crimes in the future, but it cannot protect against persons committing crime in the first instance.
Every one of us, Mr. Speaker, still reflects the image of God. To murder a man is still an outrage, an outrage against God the Creator, against man, against the victim, against the victim's loved ones, against society and against the institution of government. Because life is sacred, life must be protected against maltreatment and murder. Policemen charged with enforcing the laws of the state must have the right to kill in self-defence or in the interest of law enforcement. The state must punish severely, at times with death, those who wilfully disregard the sacredness of the lives of others. I believe this is necessary for the general good of society.


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if I were to speak from the heart on this subject I would say that the appeal of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) with respect to reverence for life is the paramount consideration in this whole question. It seems to me that while there may be a certain nobility about clashes between men which result even in death, such as in boxing, sports and in battle, the ritual whereby the state collectively, behind shutters, hidden from the public, snuffs out the life of even the meanest of its citizens is hardly-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, might I point out that the press is always present at executions. That is required by law.


John Ross Matheson: I will be pleased to answer any questions-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Don't make false statements.


John Ross Matheson: I am prepared to support the proposition that the institution of hanging has tended to become over a period of years an almost secret ceremony, one of which society itself is ashamed.
Now in assessing this question of capital punishment, allow me to speak from the head and not from the heart, I think we are compelled to look back a few centuries to see just what has been involved in this ancient cult. A partial inventory of methods of capital punishment includes burning at the stake, boiling in oil, boiling in water, the iron coffin, burying alive, breaking on the wheel, drawing and quartering, decapitation, impaling, hanging, crushing, flaying, shooting, exposure to insects, poisoning, throwing to animals, stoning, drowning, torturing, electrocution, asphyxiation. All these methods were ingeniously varied, and all at certain times in society were vigorously defended, even indeed by men of the church. Maiming, such as the amputation of one or both legs, was often the preferred means of punishment.
The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. La-prise) in his thoughtful and sincere address asked rhetorically whether we are now civilized enough to accept abolition of the death penalty. It appears to me that if we examine the institution of capital punishment over the years we find a steady trend, a movement that is quite unmistakable. This theory has been developed by Dr. Frank E. Hartung, a Ph.D. from Michigan and a sociologist who has written a number of important books on the subject. He says that trends in the use of
November 9, 1967

the death penalty cannot be separated from trends in the use of punishment as a whole. The trend in punishment for about the past 275 years is from the corporal, bloody, and severe sanctions developed through the mediaeval period to the predominantly nonphysical forms of today. The progressive movement has been to abandon the gallows and the stake, the butcher knife, the branding iron and the whip, and to adopt some form and degree of fines and imprisonment. The trend in recent years, particularly since the genocidal agonies sustained in Europe during and prior to world war II, clearly and unmistakably has been away from capital punishment. The tendency is to abolish it completely.
If I were asked by a student where he would find a great historic speech delivered by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I would tell him to study the address the right hon. gentleman made on April 4, 1966. This, in my view, is a Diefenbaker classic. He has, of course, spoken on this subject many times. I like his summary in which he said, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) said a moment ago, that we have virtual abolition through the suspension of the death penalty today. I agree with him; I think that is fair comment. We do have de facto abolition. And I agree with Dean Maxwell Cohen, Q.C. who in 1960 noted that we have a virtual suspension of the death penalty in Canada and said, "Let us legalize our convictions". As it is now applied the death penalty is nothing but an arbitrary discrimination against an occasional victim.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Executions at one time were public spectacles, but they did not have the moral effect which it was thought they would have on the public. Gradually executions became private, or nearly private, since it had become abundantly clear that public executions had failed in their avowed purpose which was to deter others from the commission of murder and other capital crimes. So we have seen the gradual elimination of public executions. I remember seeing, as a boy on Battlefields park in Quebec City, the black flag flying and the great crowds that gathered when a prisoner was to be executed. Though we did not actually see the execution everybody sensed what was taking place. I know that as a society we have become more and more averse to such unaesthetic and revolting spectacles, to such cowardly performances
DEBATES	4097
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence where the state in the name of law snuffs out a human life.
It is clear that historically the trend in the popular attitude to the death penalty has been for abolition. We have in fact seen an international movement toward the progressive abolition of capital punishment. Hugo Adam Bedau, who is professor of philosophy at Tufts and is also known at many other United States universities, has written several books on this subject in which he is recognized as an outstanding scholar. He says that the spirit of the times is unfavourable to this penalty and that to prove this is so all we need do is glance at history.
Personally I had hoped that we, in this centennial parliament, might have had the satisfaction of ending this archaic punishment and of ridding our jurisprudence of something that soon, will be ended of in any event. The attitude of the public, of responsible spokesmen of churches, of those who speak for the sociological and penological societies, is that this penalty ought to be abolished. Today in the United States 13 states now are without the death penalty, involving the greatest number and greatest regional distribution of abolition jurisdictions in the history of America. Today more people in the United States live without the threat or the protection, if such it be, of capital punishment than ever before.
As the Solicitor General stated a short time ago, in all the legal jurisdictions of the great United States total executions in 1966 numbered one. In talking about the United States we are talking of 200 million people. Yet notwithstanding this fact the murder rate in the United States has not shown any marked tendency to increase. I point out that in 1960 there were 9,140 murders in the United States, the rate per 100,000 of population being 5.1. In 1965 there were 9,850 murders-the population had increased-and the rate per 100,000 of population remained at exactly 5.1. In the period 1960 to 1965 the murder rate had not changed.
Let us look at the number of executions. In 1960 there were 56 executions in 20 executing jurisdictions; in 1965 there were seven executions in four executing jurisdictions and, as I mentioned a moment ago, in 1966 there was one execution in one executing jurisdiction.
In that country crime and arrest data indicate no substantial increase in aggressive crimes during recent years. This is borne out by an examination of statistics on murder
November 9, 1967



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
Contract for Airport Taxi Service and non-negligent manslaughter as released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its annual Uniform Crime Reports.
This brings to mind the argument of the hon. member for Chapleau and the hon. member for Red Deer that the government in bringing this bill before parliament is wasting valuable time. Of course this bill represents a certain waste of parliamentary time but we hope that it will not take too long. We hope that some kind of decision may soon be reached.
There is an enormous waste in our society because of the dubious state of the present law with regard to capital punishment. Let me illustrate what I mean. Every year the courts hand down far more death sentences than the prisons carry out, and this has been alluded to by several speakers. In the current decade the gap has grown to truly disturbing proportions not only in Canada but everywhere where the penalty continues to remain in force. For example, in the United States in 1966, 113 persons were sentenced to death. At the end of 1966 no less than 405 persons in custody were under sentence of death. The total number of persons under sentence of death has steadily mounted.
Of considerable sociological and penological significance is the fact that over this period about which I speak the median time endured by those under sentence of death has stretched from roughly 17 months to nearly four years. As President Johnson's commission put it:
All the members of the commission agree that the present situation in the administration of the death penalty in many states is intolerable-
The conclusion is reached that there is nothing in sight, short of outright abolition itself, which promises to relieve the expensive and interminable process of appellate litigation.
Mr. Alkenbrack:: What about Canada?


John Ross Matheson: Canada's position was well illustrated in the white paper on capital punishment which was produced by Hon. Guy Favreau, the former minister of justice, in June, 1965. The cases are listed and numbered from 1 to 85, and I think case No. 68 represents the last execution in Canada. That was a 29-year old man who had killed a policeman and was executed for that crime on December 6, 1962.



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

["Mr. Speaker, the hon. member\nNovember 9, 1967\n4122\tCOMMONS\nProceedings on Adjournment Motion made reference to confusion among pensioners relative to the guaranteed income supplement. I would like to advise him that the program is operating exceedingly well and with a minimum of difficulty when we consider that in the course of a very short space of time we have been able to make supplement payments to more than 700,000 old age security pensioners. The application of the guaranteed income principle has meant that all old age security pensioners have been guaranteed a minimum income of $105 per month.\nThe income test which is applied is a very simple one based on the applicant's income for the previous year. Because of this, the program requires an annual return in order that eligibility can be maintained. It is not a means test. A means test requires a very close look at a person's assets, property, etc. The income test is very similar to that which more well-to-do persons must carry out in completing an income tax return. It is simply a matter of the applicant declaring to the department his income for the previous year.", 'It does not single out any individual, but treats everybody alike. The application of this principle has meant more money in the hands of those old age security pensioners who need it most-and surely this is as it should be.\nI think hon. members might well be interested in knowing that in the next fiscal year some $264 million will be paid out to old age security pensioners as a supplement to their basic pension. The cost of the basic pension for the same year will be $1,317 million.\nWith regard to veterans, I should like to point out that the allowance paid under the war veterans allowance program is far higher than that paid under the old age security guaranteed income supplement program. Notwithstanding this, a number of war veterans allowance recipients whose income is below $105 per month are being assisted under the guaranteed income supplement program.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.', 'Friday, November 10, 1967']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Service-legislation to increase pensions of retired civil servants; the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins), National Defence-Ontario regulations respecting voting by military personnel; the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Grills), Old Age Security-request that means test be eliminated.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cowan:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of any contract entered into concerning taxi service to and from the Ottawa railway station, since January 1, 1966.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for York-Humber speaks now he will close the debate.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Contract for Airport Taxi Service reply pointing out that the buses were now going into the basement of the airport building, that they were used primarily by the employees of the airport, none of the employees had complained about the fact that the buses were hidden from public view down in the basement, and the Department of Transport thought the service was quite satisfactory. If the Department of Transport thinks that putting the buses in the basement of Malton airport and having them patronized primarily by employees of the airport and not by passengers deplaning from the planes, who never see the buses because they do not show up at what is known as the flight arrivals level, is satisfactory, then the department is certainly very much out of touch with things as they are at the public airports.
On this Ottawa railway station matter it was brought out by some of the speakers favouring open competition that with the opening of the new Skyline hotel in Ottawa, an independent taxi firm had offered a service from the Skyline to the Ottawa railway station and out into the Carlingwood area, I presume to serve some of the more modern motels out there, and had not been able to get any allowance from the government or the Department of Transport to break in on the taxi monopoly that had already been granted.
I have emphasized before, and since these remarks are supposed to close the debate I would like to emphasize again, that when the contract limousine service-limousine is only a word dreamed up to get around the taxi regulations of the municipalities in the Toronto area-was advertised-pardon me, it was not advertised for tender-I made a serious investigation into when an advertisement was put in the press for the taxi service at Malton airport. I found there were no advertisements inserted for the public transportation service and I was told the reason was that the service was of a value of less than $5,000. It is a very interesting commentary on the perspicacity of the government which issued the contract-it was the one prior to the Pearson administration-that since the contract was worth less than $5,000 it was not necessary to advertise it, and so a contract was granted.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
You will be interested to know that a 51 per cent interest in the company was sold to an organization based in Woodstock, Ontario, about three years later for more than $1 million. Bear in mind, of course, that in buying a 51 per cent interest for $1 million the

purchaser realized that the contract at the Malton airport was not worth more than $5,000 and that it was therefore unnecessary for the Canadian government to call for tenders from the taxi operators in the Toronto area to give service to those travelling to and from Malton airport. The pleasant thing about the Ottawa railway station, so far as those of us who are patrons of the Montreal's Dorval airport, the Halifax airport, the Toronto airport or Stevenson field in Winnipeg are concerned, is that at least the Ottawa transit system is operating to the station. It certainly is giving the people in Ottawa a choice of transportation even though the government, by forcing the Ottawa railway station to move, makes everyone subject to a taxi or bus fare to and from the station instead of having a station in downtown Ottawa where people would be let off at their hotel destination and a service would also be given to the people of Hull.
Many members will remember that the late Alexis Caron, the very fine representative from the city of Hull, opposed the movement of the station to the outskirts of Ottawa and pointed out that as a result of this move farther from the Rideau canal and the Ottawa river into the southern part of Ottawa the residents of his constituency, the city of Hull, would get poorer and poorer railway service. I do not believe any consideration was given to the people of Hull because I think that in moving the Ottawa railway station to this distant point the desire was to fatten the profits of the taxi service of the monopoly contract holder who no doubt was well known by the government at the moment the plans were made to move the station.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the member for York-Humber and I realize it is a little late in the proceedings to bring this point to his attention but, as he knows, when the house is considering a motion for the production of papers the subject matter is very limited and the hon. member who proposes the motion should address himself to the matter of the advisability or otherwise of the papers being produced. As I said, I recognize that it is a bit late at this stage to make this point, but I believe it is my duty to remind him of the procedural aspects of the matter.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that we must abide by all the rulings of the Speaker and are not allowed to commend him. Since it is not considered good manners
November 9, 1967

to commend a Speaker, might I extend my thanks to the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) for his co-operation in this regard.
I simply should like to see the terms of the taxi contract which exists between the operators of the Ottawa railway station and the monopoly contractor for the service at this time. I know for a fact that there are not sufficient taxis at the station on numerous occasions to serve the number of passengers who get off the trains. I hesitate to refer to a member of this house who is not here but the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), who sits immediately in front of me, on more than one occasion has protested about the half hour delay in waiting for the taxi service provided by the monopoly contract holder since the independent cabs will not service the station at the rush hours when they would be helping the monopoly contract holder to carry the burden which he has agreed to carry under his contract.
When I ask for the production of papers in this matter I do so because I believe that the members of parliament, the representatives of the people, are entitled to see the terms of such a contract. I am becoming a little provoked at being told that these are things which are of such brilliance or are so sacrosanct that our eyes should not behold them or that I am only a representative of the people and why should I want to look at contracts given to taxi companies which serve the public. One reason I believe we should be allowed to see them is that we are responsible to the people and when the people are being gypped out of competing taxi services we are entitled to see what the terms of this monopoly are. This applies to a great many things other than the Ottawa station taxi service contract. I for one wish very much to see a copy of this contract. I believe the reason it is concealed from the eyes of the representatives of the people is that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. Perhaps I should not use that reference after the way in which some people have commented on the action of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) in using the word "rotten". I am quoting Shakespeare, not the Secretary of State. I think these contracts should be open to members of parliament who are the representatives of the people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand from the hon. member's remarks that he wishes to withdraw his motion?
Contract for Airport Taxi Service


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Sir, I have no such desire nor intention.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for York-Humber wish to receive a question from the hon. member for Verdun?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am quite anxious to receive a question or even more.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to participate in this debate and did not realize there were no other speakers and that the hon. member would be terminating the debate. I would, therefore like to ask the hon. member this question. In view of the tremendous amount of research reflected in the hon. member's speech, I should like to ask whether he has heard of the flagrant increase in the cost of the service from Dor-val to Verdun by Murray-Hill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member's contribution by way of a question is not relevant to the debate before the house. Is the house ready for the question?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? In the light of standing order 6, paragraphs 7 and 8, and the difficulty of interpreting that standing order, and without prejudice to the right to argue its interpretation at a subsequent time, could it be understood that the vote on the motion now is proceeding by leave?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member
that this is a very irregular procedure. So far as the Chair is concerned I am bound by the rules. I may point out to the hon. member that there is a precedent which goes back to October 31. I agree that there cannot be a vote according to the standing orders but, as was pointed out by the Deputy Speaker when he was faced with a similar situation, to decide whether or not there should be a vote the Chair has to take the sense of the house and if it is the sense of the house that there is opposition and five members rise, then the proposed vote is delayed until the resumption of the business of the house at eight o'clock. But this has to be determined in the first instance.


Frank Howard: That is exactly the point we want to argue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can argue the point if he wishes.

November 9, 1967
Private Bills


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


PRIVATE BILLS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
house to consider doing something by consent? Because of the importance of the debate under government business relating to capital punishment and the desire of hon. members to have as much time as possible between now and eight o'clock, may I ask the concurrence of the house to adjourn upon the conclusion of consideration of Bill No. S-17 or at seven o'clock, whichever is the earlier?
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the suggestion of the hon. member that the house consider bills S-16 and S-17, and that following consideration of these two bills the house will, by consent, adjourn until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CABRI PIPE LINES LTD.
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-16, to incorporate Cabri Pipe Lines Ltd.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was considered by the Senate committee on transport and communications on June 30. Representatives of the company appeared before that committee to answer questions. What the bill proposes is a storage facility in connection with a gas distribution company. It will be located across the Alberta-Saskatchewan border. The distribution company is seeking permission to build a pipe line connecting producing wells with a dry hole located some distance from the Alberta border in Saskatchewan where gas will be stored.
Perhaps hon. members know that the demand for natural gas is high in the wintertime when production difficulties are extreme. Natural gas can be recovered at a much greater rate in the summer when the demand is low. As a result of the passage of

this bill a pipe line will be built to carry the gas from the producing wells in the summer to a dry storage well. This will enable the company to recover gas at a maximum rate in the summer when the demand is low and store it in the dry well for consumption in the winter when the demand increases. In this way the gas supply can be evened out during the year.
This bill will enable the incorporation of a company which will construct this line. This construction also requires the authority of the National Energy Board, which decides in the final analysis the feasibility and economy of the project. It will also be subject to the regulations of similar boards in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, both of which must regulate the rate of recovery, distribution and so on.
All the sponsors of the bill and all the shareholders are Canadian citizens. The company will be owned exclusively by Canadians and there is no thought in the minds of the officials that the shares will be offered to anyone else. The companies interested are all Canadian owned and engaged in the distribution of natural gas in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, particularly in the vicinity of Lloydminster.
The passage of the bill will allow this company to put its operations on a more economical and efficient basis. Federal incorporation is necessary because the construction of this line will be interprovincial, running between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The powers requested are necessary in the event that further lines are required. If this is the case the company must again apply to the National Energy Board as well as to similar boards in the two provinces concerned. As hon. members perhaps already know, following the adoption of this bill an application will have to be made to the provincial boards and this bill itself will be referred to the committee, at which time hon. members will have an opportunity to question representatives from the company. I hope the bill will receive passage today in order that these representatives may appear before that committee to answer questions.


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

Warner Herbert Jorgenson: the second reading of Bill No. S-17, to incorporate Vawn Pipe Lines Ltd.
November 9, 1967

He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very-similar to the previous one, the only difference being that it involves the production of gas and, hopefully, oil in the western part of Alberta on the British Columbia border. Federal charter is necessitated again because an interprovincial line will have to be built. The companies interested are engaged in the exploration and production of oil and gas in western Alberta.
This bill is designed to provide the means of gaining access to markets by tying into existing transmission lines in the British Co-lumbia-Peace River area. The distance involved is 20 miles. Again the applicants will have to appear before the National Energy Board as well as similar boards in the two provinces concerned before they will have permission to construct the line.
This is again a wholly owned Canadian company and it is intended that it will remain that way. After second reading this bill will be referred to the House of Commons committee at which time members will have the opportunity to question representatives of the company.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious connection between those seeking incorporation of Vawn Pipe Lines Limited and Cabri Pipe Lines Limited in that the Chieftain Development Company Limited and the Blue Crown Petroleum Co. Limited are involved. I am wondering whether that is the reason the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) made such a point of referring to Canadian ownership in respect of Cabri Pipe Lines. He did not make the same point in respect of the Vawn company. I am wondering whether this is entirely Canadian owned and whether there is any intention to make shares available in the future to anyone else other than a Canadian citizen. I put this more in the form of a question to the hon. member than a speech.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made that point to which the hon. member refers. In any event that is precisely the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Pursuant to a special order made this day this sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence SITTING RESUMED
The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the course of my remarks I advised the house that in the period 1957 to 1967 45 convicted murderers were paroled and that 43 of them were still on parole. My officials have brought to my attention the latest information in this respect, which is that five had their parole revoked, so really 40 are on parole now who were granted parole in that period. I thought it only ethical that I bring this to the attention of the house at the earliest possible moment.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, we are
fortunate in a debate of this kind to be able to make fairly exact and precise scientific comparisons between homicide rates in different countries of the world. To a considerable degree we are more knowledgeable in this field than we were ten years or a quarter of a century ago. I note that in figures published in the Demographic Year Book of the United Nations in 1952 we have a comparative homicide death rate, based on the year 1948, of some countries with and without the death penalty for murder. These are rates per 100,000 population. I discover that Belgium, without the death penalty, has a figure of 1.4, which is precisely the same rate as Spain, with the death penalty. For Western Germany the figure of 1.2 is exactly the same as Canada, with the death penalty. Sweden, without the death penalty, has a figure of 0.8, which is precisely the same as France, with the death penalty. For abolitionist Norway the figure is 0.5, which is exactly the same as England and Wales with the penalty. The Netherlands has the extraordinarily low rate of 0.4. And of course, some countries with the death penalty have very much higher rates. El Salvador has a rate of 44.3 per cent. This is one of the reasons why public opinion in scholarly institutions has shifted toward abolition and with it has shifted the views of western society.
In the 30 years between the first Gallup poll on capital punishment of April, 1936,
4104	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence and the most recent Harris survey of July,
1966,	public approval of the death penalty in the United States dwindled from 62 per cent to 38 per cent, whereas abolition sentiment grew from 33 per cent to 47 per cent. We can conclude that the American nation has changed virtually within a generation from overwhelming support of the death penalty to a near majority in opposition to it.
I think a much more noteworthy feature is the shift in public posture within the department of justice in Washington. For many years the most outspoken defender of capital punishment in the United States was the director of the F.B.I., J. Edgar Hoover. His views on the subject have often been released to law enforcement personnel through official F.B.I. publications and have been reported to royal commissions in this country and in the United Kingdom. But two years ago, in a letter to Congress, Ramsey Clark, who is now attorney general in that country, wrote: "We favour the abolition of the death penalty." He reiterated these views at his first official press conference in March,
1967.	Mr. Speaker, that great scholar Hugo Bedau sums up his judgment on the issue of capital punishment in these terms:
-the trends in public opinion, the views of government spokesmen, the unmistakable decline in executions and the piecemeal abolition of death penalties across the nation-all these are clear signs that whatever the facts and the consequences, the death penalty is now in the twilight of its historical role as a mode of social defence against crime in America.
If the figures which I have read into the record are correct, that in 1948 the rate in the United States was 5.8 per 100,000 population whereas the figure for Canada was 1.2, this indicates a far greater American problem; yet even there we can discern no progressive increase toward homicide. The problem has remained quite constant there and here. In 1966 the Americans were able to get by with one execution only with a population of approxmately 200 million. I ask, does it seem too difficult for us to completely abolish the death penalty in Canada, where it is demonstrably shown that we have far less crimes of violence?
The hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. La-prise) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) referred to the British experience. This of course is something that we must face frankly. We are mindful on the rate of increase of murders in the United Kingdom since total abolition of the death penalty was enacted in 1965. But let us look at this in perspective. First of all, there is no

DEBATES	November 9, 1967
reliable evidence that there is any relationship between the abolition of capital punishment and the increase in the number of murders. Moreover, no matter in what law area we may study at any particular time, there are always short term fluctuations in the murder rate. If we look at our own statistics in Canada we will find that in 195657 a total of 18 persons were convicted of murder, but in 1958-59 the number of convicted persons jumped to 33. This is an increase of 80 per cent. In 1960-61 convictions however settled back to a total of nine. Therefore, in our consideration of homicide we must look at it both in the short and middle run.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The royal commission in the United Kingdom suggested that after abolition there might very well be, for a short time, a slight increase in homicide, but it would appear that as soon as the country has become accustomed to the new form of extreme penalty, abolition will not, in the long run, lead to any increase in crime. I believe that this is supported by the best scholarly evidence there is on this subject.
Reference has been made to the work of Thorsten Sellin, a person whom many of us in this chamber have come to know and whom we have heard speak. I wonder if it might be useful to inform any members who may not know Dr. Sellin that he is a professor of sociology, born in Sweden but best known for his scholarly research at the University of Pennsylvania, doctorial work at the University of Minnesota and post graduate and post doctorate work in Paris and Uppsala. He has been an important visiting professor, at such institutions as Princeton, Columbia and Cambridge. He has served as a consultant in criminal matters to governments virtually all over the world. From 1959 to 1964 he was president of the international penal and penitentiary foundation. He was chairman of the governors commission on penal and correctional affairs in Pennsylvania. He has won so many awards of distinction in the field of penology that when we mention the name Sellin we do not do so lightly. He is an expert who frequently has been called away from his chair in Pennsylvania to give evidence around the world. We rely with some confidence on the thorough work that he has done.
As will be recalled, he appeared before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on capital punishment, the
November 9, 19S7	COMMONS
report of which is dated June 22, 1956. It was claimed that additional administrative problems would arise in penitentiaries if all convicted murderers were imprisoned. This problem was put to Dr. Sellin, who had made a profound study of this subject extending over many years. The report summarized his answers to four of the questions that were put to him by our joint committee at that time. May I say that there has been no challenge to these views. I will read part of the report of that committee which contains the following summary of the discussion. The committee said:
We cannot conclude from your statistics ... that capital punishment has no deterrent effect?
Dr. Sellin answered:
No, there is no such conclusion.
You see, sir, at no point has he ever tried to make more of the argument for abolition than a scholar should. Then the committee said:
But can we not conclude that if it has a deterrent effect it must be rather small?
Dr. Sellin said:
I can make no such conclusion, because I can find no answer one way or another in these data.
In other words he said that abolition makes no difference at all. He continued:
It is impossible to draw any inferences from the material that is in my possession, that there is any relationship . .. between a large number of executions, small number of executions, continuous executions, no executions, and what happens to the murder rates.
Then the committee said:
I think you have already agreed that capital punishment cannot, on the basis of your figures, be exercising an overwhelmingly deterrent effect?'
At this point he was able to be conclusive and said "That is correct". The committee then asked:
But you would not like to go any further than that?
To which he replied "No". That is as far as he was prepared to go.
I simply read this report as a foundation for some of the rather convincing material that has been read into the record in the brilliant address of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell).
An interesting approach to the problem of murder has developed in England through the studies of Terence Morris and Louis Blom-Cooper in their book "A Calendar of Murder" which covers criminal homicide in England since 1957. This book provides
DEBATES	4105
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence thumbnail sketches of every person indicted for murder in England and Wales since 1957 and a brief outline of his crime. I studied it and am grateful for it to that wonderful Canadian humanitarian J. Alex Edmison,
Q.C., who has been a student of capital punishment for many years. I only wish I had his gifts and his knowledge and experience to serve this house in this debate. This book demonstrates how dull, depressing and stupid are so many of these homicidal crimes. Laid bare before the reader are the myths which surround the crime of crimes, the predominance of sordid domestic homicide, the high incidence of mental instability and disorder, the unpremeditated nature of almost all killings, the role of the victim in precipitating his own violent end, the comparative rarity of the "sex monster" and the special position of the professional criminal.
I have visited many of our penal institutions and have come to know convicted murderers who, in some instances, have been paroled and in other cases remain lifers in our institutions. It is all a pretty tedious and dull business. There is nothing very romantic about murder. It might be helpful for Canadians generally to look at the government white paper on capital punishment and study the cases, starting from February 14, 1957 and try to understand the type of people who have been executed or who have had their sentences commuted.
For instance in one case we see the following note under the heading of mental condition: "not psychotic but possibility of D.T.'s". In another case we find "below average mentality", and in another one "psychopathic personality with paranoid manifestations of a neurotic order". The last one relates to a man who was executed in 1960. Another man executed in 1961 for having killed his girl friend with a hunting knife was described as having "below normal intelligence". On December 4, 1962 the governor in council decided to execute a man for killing with a revolver and knife. He was described as being of "low intelligence".
The fact is that these are not the kind of people who can be regarded as romantic adventurers or people who need some kind of a lesson. When you look deeply into their lives, as I have with some who are lifers in penal institutions, you find how pathetic, drab and anti-social have been the environments which helped reduce them to these crimes.
An issue has been made, and of course we expected it, of the lack of logic of the bill in
November 9, 1967
4106	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence its present form. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of October 26, 1967, said the following:
Much as I want to protect the lives of police and prison guards, surely we don't apply grades on human life-
He also said:
While the government wants to get rid of capital punishment entirely, it has in the bill also accepted the view of many police and custodial officers for partial retention.
This is a compromise bill which to many of us is quite unsatisfactory in the long run, and yet this is exactly the story of many of the bills that have been introduced in many western countries before final abolition took place. The homicide act of 1957 in the United Kingdom was a compromise measure with inherent anomalies and imperfections, which has satisfied neither those who urged retention of the death penalty nor those who would consign the scaffold to the museum. Dr. Sellin tells us, and I think there is no refutation of this opinion, that the experience of prison administrators with murderers is that they are by far the best behaved prisoners. We get more co-operation from them and more work from them. If we were smart we would start to study them scientifically and we would use all the facilities of sociology, psychology and psychiatry to do so. We would work with these people, and perhaps in a generation we would know how to substantially reduce crimes of violence, o (8:20 p.m.)
It is from the group of lifers that the warden always draws a considerable number of the most trusted inmate employees. I know this from personal observations. Almost all the killings, Dr. Sellin tells us, committed inside prisons are done by prisoners serving sentences for crimes other than homicide. While homicides do occur within prisons, they are almost never committed by those serving a life sentence but by people committed for robbery, forgery or whatever.
In the last 100 years, Rhode Island has retained the death penalty for murders committed in prison; but there have been none. The likelihood of there being any in Canada is very remote. The claim of the police that the existence of the death penalty reduces such hazards is a myth, yet like other myths is accepted as a fact in many parts of Canada. It is accepted still by many people in this house. It is for that reason this bill has come to us in this form. I would be delighted if we could simply abolish capital punishment now
tMr. Matheson.]

and move on into the second century of Canada's history with a clean record.
There is the view that abolition would adversely affect the personal safety of police officers in the daily discharge of their duties. There is the view, also, that abolition would produce problems within prison institutions. Consider the following evidence that was given before our joint committee of parliament which studied this question of capital punishment in 1955. A number of questionnaires were sent to all police departments in American cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, according to the 1950 census. In the six states that had no death penalty in 1955 and the 11 states that bordered on them-I am referring to material which Dr. Sellin produced-information was requested on the number of policemen killed by lethal weapons in the hands of criminals or suspects each year, beginning with 1919 and ending with 1954. Full reports were returned by 266 cities, representing 55 per cent of the cities in the abolition states and 41 per cent of those in the capital punishment states. It was found that there was no difference between the rates of policemen killed in the cities of the capital punishment states and in those of the abolition states. It was therefore quite impossible to conclude that the existence of the punishment in law or in practice affords any special protection to the police that would not be afforded by the threat of life imprisonment.
In other words, the belief that the death penalty is a unique instrument for the protection of society against murder, and superior to life imprisonment in this respect, is not supported by any credible evidence now available. I am satisfied that bill C-168 is only a step in the social progress of our country. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would have been delighted to have seen total abolition. I am certain that the former prime minister, with the wealth of experience in this field of a man who has made it the great concern of his life over many years shares this view. However, for the time being this bill is the best that can be expected to gain majority support. After all, politics is still the art of the possible. It is in that spirit, sir, that I, and I hope most members of the House of Commons, will support the bill, looking to better things in the years ahead.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicioria-Carle-ion):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to make some remarks concerning the bill itself, I
November 9, 1967	COMMONS
want to say that I have listened to the debate thus far with a great deal of interest. I feel impelled to make some remarks in connection with it. First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister on both the excellence and eloquence of his presentation. While I cannot say he has won me over to his point of view as yet, it was not the result of any lack of eloquence.
Before proceeding with any remarks in connection with the bill itself, I want to acknowledge that I was quite shocked when I heard we were going to have such a bill presented to us. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we in this twenty seventh parliament had this proposal submitted to us and dealt with it about 18 months ago. I believe that having the present bill before us is to a degree irregular, and perhaps that is somewhat of an understatement. I am not so sure that a good lawyer could not prove it is illegal, and I propose to try to prove that point.
A debate took place in this chamber during the early part of the first session of the twenty seventh parliament. A decision was arrived at on April 5, 1966. I am sure it was the understanding of all of us that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was anxious, and the government was anxious to have an expression of opinion from this parliament on the whole matter of the abolition of the death penalty. He was anxious to have it from the spokesmen for the people of Canada, that is from those of us who are gathered together in this house. I feel it was altogether fitting and proper that he should have sought that opinion. An arrangement was made therefore by which a number of people from the various parties combined to have four private bills submitted to this parliament jointly and an opinion expressed on them. It was on these bills that we had a full debate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that there was an amendment proposed to the original resolution at that time. The resolution read:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of
(a)	abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under that act;
(b)	substituting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in those cases where the death penalty is now mandatory; and
(c)	providing that no person upon whom a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment is imposed shall be released from imprisonment without the prior approval of the governor in council.
There was an amendment proposed to this resolution which, in substance, excluded the 27053-260
DEBATES	4107
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence prison guards and very much the same group of people who are included in this bill. I have just read the resolution which was debated at that time and I have given the substance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein).
A clear opinion was expressed in the debate on that resolution, which states that it was expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of abolishing the death penalty in respect of all offences under the act, and that opinion was that it was not expedient to introduce such a measure for that purpose. This was the decision of the twenty seventh parliament. Now, we have Bill No. C-168 before us which asks us to decide the very question this parliament decided on April 5, 1966. Here we have a bill which 18 months ago this parliament decided it was not expedient to introduce. In my opinion this represents a sort of deliberate defiance of the expressed wishes of this parliament. I believe it is capable of this interpretation. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, there is an attempt here to override an already expressed opinion of this, the twenty seventh parliament of Canada. This is capable of being interpreted as a reflection upon the government, which seems to be acting with a sort of indifference, in defiance of parliament itself. This might properly be described as showing a contempt for this parliament.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Who are the members of the cabinet? I think that is a good question to ask, because this is a public measure. It is surely a measure for which the government takes full responsibility. It has the stamp of approval of the government in its presentation by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), who is acting on behalf of the government.
It seems to me that the cabinet is a committee of parliament. Its members are obliged to be members of parliament-not like the United States, where anyone can be a member of the cabinet. You must be a member of this parliament to be a member of our cabinet. I know this rule is waived occasionally, but not frequently.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and what I am about to say may be subject to argument. However, it seems to me that the bill which is presented on behalf of the government by the Solicitor General, which seeks to make into law something that 18 months ago this parliament in session assembled decided it was not expedient to do,
November 9, 1967
4108	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
is somewhat irregular and, to say the least, an unusual procedure.
I therefore ask myself what is the reason for this debate. In his argument the Solicitor General gave no reason for the great urgency. Neither did he give us a reason why the decision that was arrived at by this parliament 18 months ago should be ignored completely. In the course of his eloquent remarks he made a lot of good points in support of his contention, but he did not tell us the reason for the urgency of this debate, and why he was disregarding a decision already made on the matter. I hope he will deal with this question when he concludes the debate on second reading.
This debate is not an argument as between one party and another in this house. I am sure everyone is anxious that out of the deliberations and consideration of this bill shall come something of benefit in solving this problem. Any criticism I have to make of the government is not for the purpose of scoring a point against it. I make the criticism in the hope of turning something to the advantage of the people of Canada.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to tell us why he is disregarding the decision made 18 months ago by this same parliament. Had we had an election and a new parliament had been called since that time, then I would say the government was quite justified in asking us for our opinion. But it is the same parliament and the same members of that parliament who are discussing this same question.
The amendment that we voted on, as reported at page 3910 of Hansard for April 5 last year, was defeated on a division of 179 to 74. The main motion, which moved that it was expedient to do away with the death penalty, was defeated by a vote of 143 to 112. Since we have decided the matter, why is it before us again?
My reason for not supporting the motion for second reading is summarized in the remarks I made 18 months ago. It is also based on one word, and that one word is the "protection" of society, the protection of helpless women, children and old men. I think, for example, of the elderly storekeeper on the outskirts of Fredericton who two or three months ago was brutally murdered for a few dollars. This is the type of protection that I am interested in.
If my hon. friend the Solicitor General were arguing with me about this, I know he would say "Yes, but capital punishment will

not be a deterrent". That is where he and I do not agree. I submit that in this day and age of violence and crime any tampering with penalties is most dangerous. It is the criminals and the members of the underworld who are anxious to have the death penalty abolished.


Thomas Miller Bell: No.


Hugh John Flemming: My hon. friend to my right does not agree, but I am as much entitled to my opinion as he is to his. That shows that this is not a matter of political leanings.
The Solicitor General has told us that the death penalty is no deterrent. However, I am sure he will agree with me that crime is on the increase.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I hesitate to interrupt the interesting remarks of the hon. member, but it is a deterrent. My point is that it is not a special, unique deterrent. I acknowledge that it is a deterrent.


Hugh John Flemming: I can assure my hon. friend
that I am anxious not to do him an injustice.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I realize that.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Hugh John Flemming: I am anxious only to state the facts. I feel it is and has been a deterrent. I feel strongly too about law enforcement. We ought to support our law enforcement officers. When I was a member of the New Brunswick government, I remember one of the first matters that came up for our consideration in cabinet had to do with the remission of a seven day sentence. Anyone who hunted deer with a light, and a light induced deer to come to it, was liable on conviction to a mandatory term of seven days in jail. The government decided that it could not be lenient. If we were lenient, we decided, that statute could be enforced no longer. The man, who happened to be a supporter of our government, served seven days.
On another occasion, when a young man was sentenced to 30 days for interfering with an officer discharging his duty, we were besieged by many people, but not by those whose opinions I valued. Finally I found that those whose opinions I respected had not come forward because, as one of them said, "We feel that though the officer is to be criticized for the way he carried out his duties, as an officer he is entitled to our support because he is the symbol of law and protection."
November 9, 1967

I was impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) and by the speeches of other hon. members. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Matheson), on the other hand, asserts that capital punishment is ancient, that it is not modern and that we should keep up with the times. If I have misquoted him I apologize, because that is not my intention. I submit that the careful definition of capital murder in the Criminal Code and the distinction brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), when he was minister of justice in 1961, between capital and non-capital murder, have done away with the danger of a miscarriage of justice. As defined, capital murder must be deliberate, planned and premeditated. These elements of the crime must be present and they have been included in the code for the protection of criminals.
I am arguing that citizens ought to be protected; helpless people must be protected; those who cannot look after themselves and who need protection must be protected. That is the point my hon. friend ought to remember.


Mr. Churchill:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I contend that parliament has already expressed its will; it did so on April 5, 1966. We ought not to be asked to go over old ground again. This government has many problems to face, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) enumerated this afternoon. I shall not enumerate them, but they are many. Speaking for myself, I am anxious to assist in the solution of our problems and we should be working toward solutions rather than debating something about which parliament already has expressed its will.
I feel strongly about this bill being placed before the house. Very likely it will carry, since any bill the government sponsors pretty well has to carry. Not many government supporters will vote against the government; that should be borne in mind. Though the Solicitor General talked of a free vote, I submit that when the cabinet introduces a bill there is not much danger that any of its members will vote against it; that is not practical. I do not see how they can vote against it, and I do not think that many government supporters will vote against it.
Lest there be any mistake about where I stand, I stand on the side of protection. I do not wish to punish anybody; that is not my disposition. But I want to protect people; I want to see those who are helpless and who 27053-260i
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence live outside the so-called built up areas fully protected by the law. I am anxious that a man who lives in a lonely spot and who leaves his wife and family in order to go to work may feel, with confidence, that his loved ones are protected by the law of the land.
A few days ago we talked about broadcasting. We see much violence today, and I am convinced that part of that violence is occasioned by television, and the violence depicted on television screens much of the time. By not being severe with criminals we shall not help matters.
I seek to protect the law abiding citizens of the country by voting against second reading of the bill. That is my duty, as I see it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that I commend the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) most highly for his remarks on introducing second reading of the bill. Speaking with obvious sincerity, he spoke from the heart and from the head. I have studied the subject matter of this bill for some 34 years and in my estimation the minister's presentation calling for the total abolition of capital punishment was the most magnificent I have heard or read in support of total abolition of capital punishment. There is no question about it.
Unfortunately the bill itself does not call for the total abolition of capital punishment. I hope and anticipate that before the bill is read the third time it will have been amended to abolish capital punishment totally in this country. Nevertheless this bill is a major step forward in Canada to the total abolition of the death penalty, and on second reading I shall endorse its principle by voting for it.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I was particularly interested in the view of the Solicitor General that he hoped members would be able to discuss the important principle embodied in the bill without passion and without emotion. I concur in that view, although I most certainly recognize that passion and emotion can be in the hearts and in the minds of all, whether they are abolitionists or retentionists. That is definitely understandable. We can all view with concern and understanding the feelings of the loved ones, the relatives, the friends, indeed everyone, when a murder is committed in this country. We can particularly understand the passion and emotion when it is a brutal murder, such as the one that occurred in the lower mainland of British Columbia just two or three days ago, where an innocent seven year old
November 9, 1967
4110	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence girl was seized, brutalized and murdered. Yes, we can certainly understand how emotions and passions can be aroused.
At the same time emotions, deep feelings and sympathy can also come to mind when we understand what has happened to the loved ones, the relatives and the friends who are the innocent victims because they are related to or friendly with the person who committed a murder. They are the innocent victims, and unfortunately far too often they are crucified.
It is also possible, and I say understandable, that there is somewhat of an emotional feeling if one has seen a man hang, if one has seen a body after electrocution, if one knows that in past years in our own country men have been hung back to back, sometimes three men dropped through the trap door at the same time, some not killed instantaneously but by strangulation, and if one knows that on at least one occasion in Quebec, the head was torn off a woman. All these things, whether one is an abolitionist or retentionist, can give rise to a feeling of passion and emotion.
I hope, as one who feels very deeply in this matter, that I can speak this evening in a dispassionate manner, in a factual manner, because I believe most sincerely and conscientiously that our decision on this bill should be based upon reason and upon facts. It is because I do feel so strongly that way that, after having heard every speech made today on this subject, I must admit to being disappointed at the approach taken by those who speak as retentionists. I have heard every word that has been said, but I have yet to hear any of those who oppose this bill, who support the retention of capital punishment, put forward one fact to refute the facts presented by the Solicitor General and those who have spoken in favour of abolition.
I have yet to hear retentionists give one fact in support of retention. It is quite obvious that they speak from emotion. This was made particularly clear when we heard the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise). He opened his remarks by accusing the Solicitor General of using old arguments, but at no time did he produce any evidence to refute the arguments, new or old, nor did he introduce factual reasoning for the retention of capital punishment. Indeed he went on to an emotional splurge.
Whilst I was listening to the hon. member I could not help but bring to mind what I read some time ago, written by Arthur Koes-tler, in "Reflections on Hanging." I think he

gives the perfect answer, and I would like to quote his statement:
The defenders of capital punishment have produced no evidence of their own, nor contested the correctness of the documentary material assembled by royal commissions, select committees, etc.; nor even tried to put a different interpretation on it. They simply ignore it... when challenged they invariably and uniformly trot out the same answers; there is no alternative to capital punishment; statistics don't prove anything; other nations can afford to abolish hanging, but not us.
It was interesting to note that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) continued basically along the same line as the hon. member for Chapleau, except that he did bring in a few comments and statistics. But, Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the attention of hon. members that he never followed through on his statistics. He never in any way tried to refute the factual record of 45 nations that have abolished capital punishment, some of them going back to between 100 and 140 years of abolition. He never showed that their record of homicide, on a percentage basis, compares most favourably with countries which are retentionist, and in many cases have a lower percentage ratio of homicide than the retentionist countries.
I was most interested when the hon. member for Red Deer mentioned the statistics in the states of the United States that had abolished capital punishment, and later came back to it. But there he stopped. He did not dare compare the homicide ratio over a period when they were retentionist, moved to abolition and returned to retentionist; nor did he compare their ratio with that of other states because, if he had done so, he would have found there was over-all in these states, whether retentionist, abolitionist, retentionist and later abolitionist and retentionist again-and of these latter I think two or three have become abolitionist again-he would have found there is always the same broad picture and relationship, proving that the facts about homicide do not have to do with whether states are retentionist or abolitionist, but are dependant upon economic and other factors.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
When the hon. member for Red Deer rose to his feet to speak on this important bill I said to a couple of my colleagues behind me that I would make a bet that before he sat down he would bring in "God's will" or the "written word" and, lo and behold, he did not let me down; he did not fail me. He concluded his remarks-and I wrote them down-with a reference to the will of God
November 9, 1967

and the sacredness of life. May I deal with the latter, the sacredness of life. We all accept that; but does not the sacredness of life, the sanctity of life, apply to the state as well as to the individual? Surely because a small minority of the population does not accept the principle of the sacredness and sanctity of human life, that should not be used as a reasoned argument that the state must not maintain the sacredness of human life. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I have never hidden the fact that I stand for the abolition of capital punishment. Because of that, over the years I have received a great many letters from those who support the retention of capital punishment. I would say, at a rough guess, that 80 per cent of those who write to me expressing opinions in favour of the retention of capital punishment bring in what they term God's will or the written word. Because I receive so many letters of that nature I should like to say that we would indeed live in a savage and barbaric Canada if we stood steadfast on the written word.
If one should study, as I have, the written word as it appears in the Old Testament, in Exodus, he would find that the following are capital crimes: Murder, striking or cursing one's parents, slave procurement, fatal attack by an ox, witchcraft, sodomy, and sacrifice to any god other than Yahweh. To these Leviticus adds adultery. Deuteronomy holds responsible both parties involved in criminal assault in the city, a rebellious son, and an unchaste bride. This is capital punishment in the written word. If you study the written word where the method of execution is specified, you will find that it is stoning to death.
In this civilization modern man has advanced. Is there any reasonable argument as to why we should not advance still further? We would not think of these things as capital murder today. We would not think of the penalty of stoning to death, although it is set forth in the written word. No; we have advanced toward the meaning of the written word: "Thou shalt not kill." Eventually that will apply to all states and I hope to the world: "Thou shalt not kill."
Let us look closely at 100 years in Canada. We are celebrating our centenary. According to the information filed on October 24 by the minister, 1,308 persons have been sentenced to death in Canada between 1867 and 1967. Of these, 701 were executed. Then, if we move ahead, we find that fom 1961 to September 1967 there were 183 sentenced to
DEBATES	4111
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence death, 69 executed and 114 who received commutations. This is an example of mercy being applied as the years go by. But now, in recent years, let us make a study of the statistics filed by the minister concerning what has taken place.
Basically it is a sick man or a sick woman who will kill a fellow human being. We are given information in that regard. Brief mention was made of this by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) just a little while ago. If you look at page 9 of the information filed on October 24 which is headed Supplementary Table Bringing up to September 30, 1967 Table D "Leading Characteristics of Capital Cases Occurring Since January, 1957", you will find that 13 cases are outlined. The second last column outlines the mental condition of the person. One was nonpsychotic and showed no evidence of neurosis; one refused to be examined by a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Outside of the one with no psychosis and no evidence of neurosis and the one who refused to be examined, what about the other 11? According to the information furnished as a result of their examination by psychologists and psychiatrists we find the following: No. 1-mentally defective and severe alcoholic; no. 2-sexual psychopath showing psychotic behaviour; no. 3-psychic enfeeblement of psychotic character; no. 4-paranoid schizophrenic; no. 5-sociopathic personality disturbances; no. 6-psychopathic personality; no. 7-sociopathic personality disturbance, neurological cripple; no. 8-not psychotic but neurotic complex, disturbed and irrational; no. 9- not psychotic but emotionally unstable; no. 10 -very neurotic but not psychotic; no. 11- basically unstable, schizophrenic, possibly epilepsy resulting from brain injury.
Capital punishment or no capital punishment, there would be no control over these individuals or over the fact that they have committed or might again commit murder. We have heard a great deal about the protection of guards and police officers. There is some very interesting information on page 12 of the data supplied by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) on October 24 and I invite members to examine this. It is entitled Capital Cases in Which Policemen were Victims in Course of Duty, January 1, 1940 to September 30, 1967. What do we find? We find that 22 policemen were killed by 20 men. We find that in two cases a new trial was ordered and that there were seven commutations. The remainder were executed.
November 9, 19B7
4112	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
We also find that of the 20 men who killed 22 officers in this period, 15 tried to escape from a criminal activity. This interests me. I have visited jails and penitentiaries over the past 34 years. I have spoken to many hundreds of inmates in our institutions. I have spoken to a number who committed murder and were later executed. To each and every one of them I put this one question: When you committed this murder did you take into consideration the fact that you might get life imprisonment and that in all probability you would be hanged? Not one man to whom I spoke who was found guilty of murder and executed, out of the hundreds whom I interviewed in the jails and penitentiaries, ever said that he gave the slightest thought to what the penalty would be if he was caught.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I have spoken to men who have killed in passion and emotion. One specific case comes to my mind immediately. This case involves a man who went home and found his best friend in bed with his wife. He reached for a gun and killed them both. He had no thought of hanging or any penalty; this was done in emotion. He was not worried about capital punishment. Capital punishment never came into consideration. Capital punishment does not come into consideration in the majority of homicides.
The minister has already had his attention drawn to the studies and works of Professor Thorsten Sellin, but I should like to suggest to hon. members who have not read his words that they should do so. He testified before the joint committee on capital punishment, and I should like to put several of his statements on record. At page 718 of volume two of the Proceedings and Evidence of that committee we find this:
One argument for the retention of the death penalty is the contention that if it were abolished, the police would be more likely to be killed or injured by criminals or suspects when they are encountered. It is assumed that the presence of the threat of possible execution deters persons from carrying lethal weapons when they engage in crime or from using them against the police when they are in danger of arrest.
At page 719 Professor Sellin states:
In the author's seminar in criminology at the University of Pennsylvania during the academic year 1954-55, several studies have been carried on relating to various aspects of capital punishment. One of these studies was specifically designed to secure data on the comparative risk of a policeman's being injured or killed by a criminal or suspect using a lethal weapon.

Without going into detail, the conclusion of that knowledgeable gentleman, as it appears on page 723 is:
It is obvious from an inspection of the data that it is impossible to conclude that the states which have abolished the death penalty have thereby made the policeman's lot more hazardous.
These are the facts. They are irrefutable facts. Someone has suggested that this is an opinion, but it is not an opinion. One of the most reputable penologists and criminologists of the world has made available his conclusions based on the history and academic study of cities with more than 10,000 population in the United States. This covers a history of assaults, injuries and deaths of policemen during the course of carrying out their duties. In the breakdown and analysis of his report, Professor Sellin makes these statements, and these are not opinions but facts. Perhaps these are facts that some members of this house do not like.
Let us now turn to a consideration of the hazards of guards. Very few have been killed in Canada during the past 100 years. Several members of this house during discussions have told me that if a man is in jail because he has committed homicide or for some other reason he is likely to kill a guard because he can only be sentenced to the same life in prison. The people who use that argument have not visited our pentitentiaries and have not talked with prisoners. I am afraid they do not know a great deal about penology. The idea that these prisoners may kill again because they can only receive another life sentence does not stand up to the facts.
It has been substantiated that in some cases an individual has killed in order to commit judicial suicide. These people wanted to end it all but because they did not have the courage to commit suicide they have killed with the hope they would be convicted of murder and put to death by society. There are substantiated cases of this nature, particularly in the United States. If there is no death penalty for murder, then these individuals have nothing to gain by committing homicide in order to effect judicial suicide. Perhaps that is a minor argument.
Let us look at one major aspect of this whole situation. An individual in pentitenti-ary on a life sentence for killing someone is faced with a factual situation. There are two different aspects to a life sentence. If one already sentenced to life kills a guard he is treated differently from one who is sentenced to life for a passion killing. If one who kills in passion or one who for any
November 9, 1967

reason is serving a life sentence, behaves himself in penitentiary he is treated with comparative compassion and conscientiousness. He is given the benefit of psychiatric and sociological treatment. He is also likely to receive the benefit of cabinet compassion and parole board understanding. He may very well be returned within a reasonable period of time to society and normal life. Even then a convicted killer is checked by the R.C.M.P. at least once each year, and if he ever breaks a law, no matter what, he is liable to reimprisonment.
On the other hand, if a prisoner is guilty of killing a guard he is treated entirely differently. His fellow inmates will not associate with him and will not converse with him. This prisoner is completely dissociated from his fellow inmates because of this action. This is natural because of the psychological attitude of his fellow prisoners who feel their own privileges have been restricted and discipline more severe because of his actions. Such an individual for his own protection from his fellow inmates is usually put in solitary confinement. If this were not the case he might very well be killed by his fellow prisoners. He also sustains loss of privileges.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
What is meant by loss of privileges? Go into a penitentiary and see what loss of privileges means. It means dissociation from others in the penitentiary, referred to in the past as "solitary" and before that as "the hole". An inmate is put in a cell, with concrete surroundings, with a solid metal door, with no bed, only a mattress on the floor. He can lose his privileges for a long time, he can lose his cigarettes, magazines, books and radio. His correspondence privileges can be denied, as well as visiting privileges. For only half an hour a day will he ever see God's sunlight, daylight, rain, or whatever the weather may be. For 23J hours a day he will be in a dissociation cell.
An inmate knows that this is what will happen to him. I say that is a living death. But for another type of killing he will have the opportunity of rehabilitating himself; otherwise he has to suffer all these indignities and finally the cabinet will say whether or not he shall stay there for the rest of his natural life.
I speak not only as one whose position is among the leaders of abolition but as one who understands the feelings, passions and emotions of those who favour the retention
DEBATES	4113
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence of the death penalty. In this respect we must consider the experience of the 45 nations which have abolished capital punishment. As I have said, in some cases the abolition of capital punishment goes back 140 years and a number of countries abolished the death sentence over 100 years ago. If you study the best information available from any source in the world, the sociologists, the criminologists, the royal commissions and committees which have studied this question, I say that the factual arguments and the reasoning arrived at leads one to believe in the complete abolition of capital punishment. If we are not prepared to advance that far in Canada today, I certainly hope we are prepared to vote for second reading of this bill and go as far as it allows.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask hon. members to consider this most important problem in a reasonable manner. I ask them to consider facts and not understandable and deep-felt emotions. I ask them to consider that as we have wiped out the barbaric practices of the past, we should accept this advancement in world civilization and accept the precept of God's will, "Thou shalt not kill," and vote for second reading of this bill.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all agreed that we must approach this very serious matter of capital punishment in a manner that is completely free of emotion. I think we are all convinced, also, that in our approach to justice there is no place for vengeance, and that our sole purpose in carrying out justice is to deter our fellow human beings from committing crimes against other human beings, and so make the world a better place in which to live. Therefore, our purpose in examining this matter today is to decide how this can best be done, in particular when dealing with those who commit capital murder.
We also know that today the death penalty can be imposed only if a murder is a capital murder. A capital murder is one that is committed in cold blood. It is a premeditated murder, one that is thought out carefully, planned and decided upon well ahead of time. There is nothing casual about it; it is not a crime of the moment; it is not a crime of passion. Those types of murders are noncapital and are not punishable with the death penalty.
So today we are dealing with only capital murder, the kind of cold-blooded, premeditated crime such as I have just described. Some of us have sat as members of cabinet,
November 9. 1967
4114	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence and have had the facts of murders replayed, for want of a better word, in order that we may know all the details and decide whether the sentence of hanging should be commuted to life imprisonment or carried out. When one has been in this position, he realizes that those who commit capital murder are people with twisted and warped minds, minds completely different from those possessed by the normal human being. When you have listened for a number of years, as I did for six years as a member of cabinet, to the recounting of the facts of a great many capital murders, which are given to cabinet in considerable detail so they may make a proper decision on whether the death sentence should be carried out or commuted to life imprisonment, you become shocked and horrified at the kinds of crimes the people who commit capital murder are capable of carrying out. Such crimes are very often connected with sex. They are crimes against small children, young girls, old women, old men; people who are completely defenceless. When one hears the details of these crimes, he realizes that the minds of people capable of carrying out a crime of this kind are very different from those of normal people.
What is the alternative to the death penalty? It is, as we know, life imprisonment. What is life imprisonment? Does it mean putting the offender away from society for the rest of his or her natural life? The answer, of course, is no, because, with good behaviour, life imprisonment can mean as little as nine years in prison. Good behaviour in this case has nothing to do with a change of heart, a change of mind, or a change of approach in respect of the kind of crime for which the offender was committed to jail. Good behaviour in these cases simply means that you have kept out of trouble with the jail authorities, that you have behaved yourself and been a good convict, that you have kept your uniform clean, your shoes shined and have behaved yourself on parade and at other times. It has nothing to do with any change of attitude toward the crime which your abnormal and twisted mind led you to commit in the first place.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Today, when a criminal who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for capital murder is released after perhaps as little as nine years, he comes out completely unchanged, and is ready to commit another crime of a similar nature whenever once again the urge to do so seizes his twisted and warped mind, as it did in the first instance.


To get away from theory and down to actual facts, I should like to encourage all hon. members to read today's issue of the Toronto daily Star. In the bottom left hand corner of the front page of that paper, you will find the following headline "Parkdale Gun Murder. Gentle, Friendly Tailor Meets A Violent Death". The article describes what happened in the following terms:
Morris Mayzel, who made a Parkdale tailor shop his life for over 20 years, met violent death there yesterday.
The short, 66-year-old man-whom neighbors recall as gentle and friendly-was gunned down in his Tip Top Tailor shop at 1530 Queen St. W. about 5.30 p.m.
He died, sprawled on his doorstep and choking on his own blood, as dazed neighboring storekeepers ran to their telephones for help.
Today dozens of Metro police continued a search for his killer which began at dusk last night.
Police, putting together details of the apparent robbery-murder, said there were apparently no witnesses to the rush-hour killing.
Robert Bamlett, homicide squad detective-sergeant, said Mayzel was apparently alone in his store when the assailant entered. What happened when the storekeeper was confronted by the assailant is not clear; the store's cashbox was closed and apparently undisturbed when detectives arrived.
Mayzel was shot three times through his chest and abdomen, but apparently tried to follow his attacker out of the store. A man believed to be fleeing the store jostled neighborhood youngsters, who gave a description to the police.
When passersby reached Mayzel, he was lying in the doorway of the small shop.
We can reconstruct the incident fairly well because it is similar to many of which we have heard in the past. A gunman decided, in cold blood, that he would rob the store, and that if he encountered any resistance, he would shoot and kill the storekeeper. It would appear to me that the storekeeper had the courage to resist this attempted robbery. The criminal carried out his intention, shot the storekeeper three times, and left him in a pool of blood. If the man who committed this murder is found, and we all hope he will be, I feel sure he will receive the death sentence, because this was a cold-blooded, premeditated crime.
The record for the past four years shows us that of the 23 or 27 capital murder convictions that have come before the cabinet, every one has been commuted to life imprisonment. These people were not confined away from society for the rest of their lives, to ensure that they would not commit such a crime again, but were sentenced to life imprisonment, which means that after nine or ten years, if their behaviour is good, they
November 9, 1967	COMMONS
would be paroled. During that time, their attitude about the desirability of repeating the crime for which they had been sentenced would not have changed.
What will happen in this particular case? As in all the other cases, this murderer will be sentenced to die by hanging; his sentence will be commuted; and in nine or ten years, he will be on the street again, his mind unchanged, ready to gun down another man like Mr. Mayzel, who is described as gentle and friendly. As far as we can make out, Mr. Mayzel never had any desire to hurt his fellow citizens; he just wanted to carry on his life in a quiet, peaceful way. So there is a real possibility that when the murderer gets out of prison, he will be ready to commit a similar type of crime because, as we know, and on the basis of all the reports from our penitentiaries, nothing is done there to change the prisoners' attitudes to life. In fact, their criminal tendencies are developed, because they talk and associate with other hardened criminals who teach them ways of getting away with their crimes a little better next time. When they get out of prison, they have a new outlook, which is not to get caught next time, and to try to be smarter at what they do.
I think we must try to be more sensible and constructive in our treatment of criminals. As I say, nobody wants to kill, and nobody wants to take somebody's life just for the sake of vengeance. But one thing we cannot do is to allow people who have committed these truly horrible crimes to be let out into society again with no attempt having been made to reform them. Those who have been members of the cabinet and who have heard a replay of these gruesome murders read to them in all their gory details, realize how twisted, warped and rotten the minds of these people are, and realize that if we are ever going to allow these people to come out into society again and take their place as normal human beings we must reform them and help them to become normal persons. The only way in which this can be done is by skilful psychiatry. I am told that skilled psychiatrists are able to do quite a lot. They are not perfect, and in many cases they cannot bring about a change in the sick mind, but they are pretty good at improving the attitude of the person under their care.
I say that what this and any successive government must do in approaching this matter in a humane, sensible and constructive manner, is to make sure immediately that we make available to our prisons first
DEBATES	4115
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence class psychiatrists in sufficient numbers, so that when we sentence these killers to life imprisonment-which, unless changed, will mean that sooner or later they can come out into society-we will have made sure that their attitude and approach to life has been changed and improved and made more like that of a normal human being.
So I say to this government that its job is to see to it that a very important drive is started to acquire for our penitentiaries sufficient first class psychiatrists to heal the warped minds of criminals, particularly those who commit capital murder.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The record of the government of which I was a member was not quite the same as that of the present government, but we did commute a number of sentences. There will be coming into society quite soon, year by year, a number of people who have committed these terrible crimes, people whose minds, unless they are changed, will be exactly the same as they were when they could bring themselves to sit down calmly and in a cold, calculated way plan these horrible blood curdling crimes. These words, Mr. Speaker, are not too strong, as any member of the cabinet will agree.
I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) nodding his head. Any member who has been a cabinet minister will agree with what I say. I am not overstating the case. I say to the minister that we must pay these prison psychiatrists a very much better salary than is available to them for this kind of work today; otherwise we will not get them. This is the type of expenditure which I, or anyone else, will wholeheartedly endorse at a time when we are trying to cut down expenditures. This kind of expenditure is justified today. My information is that good psychiatrists now concentrate their efforts in the big cities, where they can make a very handsome living. In this respect they are no different from any other craftsmen, scientists or businessmen in Canada. We all have a tendency to settle where we can make the best possible living for ourselves and our families.
We owe it to society to pay the kind of salaries that these people can get in the big cities, and to pay them for the kind of work that must be done in prisons. I say that before we allow these murderers to come out into society again they must, first of all, take adequate psychiatric treatment from these top grade psychiatrists. Then, before they are allowed out they must go before a board composed of the top psychiatrists of the
November 9, 1967
4116	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence country, an independent board which will examine them very carefully and satisfy itself that this man or woman's mind has been changed to that of a normal human being. Then, and only then, when a man has completed the term in the penitentiary, whether it may be 10, 15 or 20 years, when the examining psychiatrists are satisfied the person has changed his mind to that of a normal human being and has no longer the mind of an abnormal, brutal killer, can he be released. I am referring to the person who has the type of mind of the man who killed Mr. Mayzel. Obviously he planned the crime well ahead of time, going into that store with a gun, determined that if the storekeeper tried to deny him that cash box, he was going to shoot the storekeeper. Obviously this is what happened.
Anyone who could walk in and shoot down in cold blood such a man as the one described in this story does not have a normal mind. As any member of the cabinet knows, after having heard some of these cases recounted, in most cases these innocent people have never been seen before by the killer. The killer has nothing against them, except that they have a car or some money or something that the killer wants. This kind of killer had the kind of mind that would permit him to coldly kill this innocent person, rather than be denied what he was after.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This question is intended to be objective. The point the hon. member has made that has impressed me is the danger under the present system of murderers eventually being released on parole but retaining their killer instincts; am I right so far?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Then, does the hon. member know the precise number of people who have been released on parole? I am leading up to a question.


George Harris Hees: It is not coming through very clearly.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Does the hon. member
know how many people who may have been convicted for murder have been released on parole since 1920, and how many of the people who have been released on parole have committed another murder?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member has the figures, and perhaps he has, I would be very glad to have him release them when he makes a speech. At the moment, I should like to finish my own speech. Of course the hon. member can make his speech later.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not making a speech. I asked the question in good faith.


An hon. Member:: Make your own speech.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Now you people are making speeches.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order. The hon. member for Northumberland has the floor.


George Harris Hees: I would be very interested in hearing what the hon. member has to say. I am afraid, however, that perhaps he was suffering from the same trouble as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) in that he was not speaking into the microphone. I could not hear what he said. I would be glad therefore if, when he makes his speech, he would speak clearly into the microphone, because we would all be very interested in hearing what he has to say. I could not hear what his question was.
Another thing about this bill which is difficult to understand is this division of the citizens of the country into two categories, those you can murder and those you cannot murder. It is just as simple as this, Mr. Speaker. If a policeman goes to a bank, for instance, after hearing an alarm, and is engaged in trying to stop the bandits from getting away, and if he appears to be having a difficult time and a civilian passerby tries to help him, the bandit or bandits may shoot down the policeman in cold blood, and they could be committed to the gallows. However, if they shoot down the passerby, the unarmed civilian, they cannot be committed to the gallows.
There are far too few citizens who do help policemen these days, but if they do go to the aid of a policeman and are shot down in cold blood, the killer cannot be committed to the gallows. On the one hand, you have the situation where the policeman who, like the man who enters the armed services, is trained for the job of apprehending criminals; he knows when he signs up that this is the kind of chance he takes; he is trained in the use of firearms, and carries a gun to protect himself. If that policeman is shot down in cold blood, then the man who does
November 9, 1967	COMMONS
the shooting can go to the gallows. However, if a man who has had no training, has no gun, and no arms, nothing except a strong sense of civilian duty, goes to the aid of a policeman and is shot down, then the man who kills him knows quite well that the most he can get for his crime is life imprisonment. In my opinion this is the utmost in unfairness. It shows that this bill is not an honest bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a bill that is being imposed upon this house for the second time In 18 months.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
As you and I know, Mr. Speaker, this matter was thoroughly discussed 18 months ago at great length. It was discussed by this same house, by the same members, and all of us who wanted to express our views did so, and stood up and voted. The majority of the members voted for the retention of the death penalty, but the cabinet decided that they would fly in the face of the decision taken by this house. They completely disregarded it, Mr. Speaker, and in every case since, sentences of death have been commuted.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) said today, as far as this government is concerned there is no death penalty. In order to try to justify what they have done over the past four years we are now having the same kind of proposition put to us, only it is being sweetened up to try to make it more acceptable.
Anyone who believes that this is going to be a truly free vote as far as the members on the other side of the house are concerned is, I think, only deluding himself. This is a government bill. The government cannot afford to lose this vote. Word has gone out through the ranks of the Liberal party that this is a government bill and must be backed.
I submit we must not allow back in society people with minds which are warped and twisted; people with killer minds that made it possible for them to commit crimes which are horrible. Anyone who has sat in on cabinet and heard these terrible crimes recounted, knows how horrible and unbelievably rotten they are. The kind of crimes that are perpetrated against little children, young girls, defenceless old women and men makes your blood run cold.
The suggestion that we simply put these people away for something like nine years -with good behaviour-with nothing being done to change their minds, and then to let them out on the street again, ready to repeat their crimes all over again, is something I
DEBATES	4117
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence cannot condone. I say to the government that if I have to make a decision between the life of the killer and the next potential victim, then I am going to vote in favour of the next potential victim, and do what I can to protect him and his life in the future.


Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate the retentionists have just reached the blind conclusion that the death penalty is needed to protect society. I too want to protect society just as much as the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming). He said he is in favour of retention because he is in favour of protecting helpless women and children. So am I, Mr. Speaker; where we differ is that I feel helpless women and children can obtain the same protection by imposing on the criminal a sentence of life imprisonment. I think life imprisonment is just as much a deterrent as capital punishment.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton went on to say that in this day and age of violence and crime any tampering with penalties is dangerous. We do not live in a perfect society, Mr. Speaker, and we must have laws. Our laws must be refined, reassessed and reviewed from time to time as we become more knowledgeable. I feel that all of the evidence before us today leads us strongly to only one conclusion, and that is that life imprisonment is just as much a deterrent as capital punishment.
If life imprisonment is just as much a deterrent as capital punishment, then because we live in a democracy we have a duty to vote for this bill. Bearing in mind the definition of democracy, I would suggest we have no right to impose any penalty that is more severe than necessary in order to carry out our purpose. In this case our purpose is the protection of the same people the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton mentioned a few minutes ago.


Hugh John Flemming: Would the hon. member permit a question. How did he vote on April 5 last year, for or against the bill?


Harold Edwin Stafford: As the hon. member can see by looking at the debates for April 5, I voted for abolition.


Mr. Webb:: I would like to ask a question, if I may. Would the hon. member accept a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member should not be allowed to make his speech.
November 9, 1967
4118	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Harold Edwin Stafford: Neither do I agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) who claimed that capital punishment would also protect girls in sexual murders, and so on. As I have said, I feel that life imprisonment is just as much a deterrent as capital punishment.
The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) described in blood curdling terms various forms of murder. He stated that psychiatrists are required to do the kind of work that must be done before criminals are released from prison. Then he said we would let them out on the street "to do it all over again". However, Mr. Speaker, you no doubt noticed that the hon. member for Northumberland did not give one statistic that in any way showed that anybody who had been convicted of murder and came out of prison did commit another murder. He just stood up and made that blind assertion.


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Can he prove that people who have been released have never committed another murder?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that it is ten o'clock.


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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 11, as recorded in Hansard at page 2979, I addressed a question to the Prime Minister. This is the way the record reads:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Why is it that the list of legislation which was placed on Hansard yesterday makes no mention of legislation to increase the pensions of retired civil servants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will a decision be taken in time for legislation to be introduced at this session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not able to answer that question at this moment.

At that point, Mr. Speaker, I suggested we might deal with this matter on an adjournment debate. In the meantime we have had a debate on the matter during our discussion of the estimates of the Treasury Board on October 31, but we still have not received an answer to the question as to when legislation to increase the pensions of retired civil servants is to be introduced.
According to the rules, Mr. Speaker, I have seven minutes to present my question to the government, and I take it that tonight the President of the Treasury Board will be replying to me. May I warn him that I do not intend to take the seven minutes. May I put the matter to the President of the Treasury Board as directly as I can.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
You know the need. You know that the special joint committee of both houses recommended on May 8 that these pensions be increased. You know that we were led to believe in July that something would be done in the fall. When will you do it?
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, speaking as the President of the Treasury Board I wish to say that no government in the history of this country has done more for the civil service than this government has. For the first time in our history we have collective bargaining in the civil service. No government has done more with respect to old peoples' incomes than has this government.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Benson:: Our old age pensions are tied to the cost of living index, and our older citizens have a guaranteed annual income.
I have answered the question that my hon. friend has raised tonight. He asks, "When will you do something for our retired civil servants?" I have said that this matter is still being considered by the cabinet and when the cabinet reaches a decision, the house will be informed of it. We shall arrive at a decision and we shall make our announcement. For my hon. friend to ask, "When is legislation with respect to this matter to be on the order paper?" is for my hon. friend to miss the important point. The important point in this matter is the government's decision; and the government will make its decision and will bear in mind its responsibilities to retired civil servants and to all the people of Canada.
November 9, 1967

By voting to reduce by $17,000 item 1 of the Treasury Board estimates, my hon. friend in effect was showing that he lacked confidence in me. He may remember that the House of Commons supported my position at that time; and the government has no overall majority in this house.
When a decision has been reached-and it is an important decision, I agree-the announcement will be made in the house. We shall take whatever action we think is possible and acceptable, bearing in mind always the circumstances that the people of Canada and the civil servants of Canada find themselves in at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But when will that be?


NATIONAL, DEFENCE-ONTARIO REGULATIONS RESPECTING VOTING BY MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I raised a question in the house which dealt with the Ontario election act as it relates to the regulations governing the voting procedures of military personnel, wherever they may be, in Canada or in other parts of the world. First of all I would like to outline briefly the actual voting procedure for military personnel in an Ontario election.
Well in advance of a provincial election it is my understanding that the chief electoral officer in Ontario asks defence headquarters to submit a list of names of those members of the armed forces who have indicated their place of ordinary residence to be in Ontario. In this recent Ontario election I believe that officials of the defence department sent a list containing 34,000 names to the chief electoral officer.
The Department of National Defence is not required under provincial regulations to make up lists on a constituency basis, such as is done for federal elections. The names therefore, of all members of the armed forces who vote in the 117 constituencies of Ontario are simply sent forward in one massive list. The chief electoral officer of the province then asks D.N.D. to estimate the number of potential Ontario voters that are attached to each unit in Canada and to other units elsewhere in the world. In order that the estimated figures will not be too low, the estimate is increased by 10 per cent. After receiving this estimate from D.N.D. the chief electoral officer then forwards their requested number of ballot application cards to the various units. I presume that the province of Ontario forwards the ballot application cards
DEBATES	4119
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion directly to those bases within the borders of the province, and it is my understanding that D.N.D. facilitates the distribution of the ballot application cards elsewhere. It is also my understanding that each unit then posts notices to inform its personnel that the ballot application cards are available for any qualified person wishing to1 vote in the forthcoming provincial election.
The personnel concerned must then fill out these cards and they are returned to the chief electoral officer. The electoral officer staff then checks each application card with the list of names that they have received from the Department of National Defence.
Suppose John Doe is stationed in Zoest, Germany. Suppose he has indicated on a form, which he may fill out once each year, that his place of ordinary residence for voting purposes was to be a particular location in Ontario. When his ballot application card was compared with his name, and information on the master list from the D.N.D., and this comparison did in fact show that he had a vote in an Ontario constituency, then John Doe would receive a ballot by mail from the chief electoral officer. He would then vote and return the ballot to its place of origin.
To add to the difficulties of this procedure, the Ontario election act infers, according to reports and complaints that I have received so profusely, that any person who has resided in the province for 12 months qualifies for a vote. But it does not go on to say anything about the special regulations that have been laid down to D.N.D. by the chief electoral officer of the province in regard to the special arrangements for voting on the part of members of the armed forces. There is a point in question here, and it has come up many times.
Can a member of the armed forces who has lived in a civilian residence for 12 months be enumerated in the usual manner along with his wife and can he vote at the local civilian poll, even though he has designated a place outside Ontario as his place of ordinary residence? On the other hand, a member of the armed forces who lives on a military base could be resident there for two years, or any number of years, but does not have a vote in the riding in which the base is located unless he has specifically indicated that riding as his place of ordinary residence.
At this point I want to quote from the routine order that went out to units from D.N.D.:
A member of regular forces may be enumerated and vote at civilian poll in Ontario in accordance
4120	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
with normal civilian procedure if he does not vote by mail and if he resides in an electoral district (constituency) in Ontario in which is located the address declared by him as his place of ordinary residence for purpose of the C.F.V.R. It is emphasized that unless a member has declared a place m Ontario as his place of ordinary residence for the purpose of the C.F.V.R. and resides in that Ontario electoral district (constituency) in which is located the address as declared he is not repeat not entitled to be enumerated or vote in accordance with the civilian procedure.
That is quite clear and precise. This makes the picture very clear so far as D.N.D. routine orders are concerned. But one big argument arose when it was learned from the Ontario election act that one could vote if he or she had resided in Ontario for 12 months. If the Ontario regulations do not clarify this point in so far as military personnel are concerned, I would like to ask the minister to discuss the matter with the chief electoral officer in Ontario on behalf of our armed forces. I have been informed that the returning officer in Renfrew North instructed the enumerators not to enumerate military personnel, and that he in turn, of course, had been given these instructions by the chief electoral officer of Ontario. On the other hand the routine order which was sent out from D.N.D. headquarters is quite precise and to the point. Yet I have received a large number of complaints from personnel who did not have a vote. Naturally a man considers a vote a very valuable asset and is justly annoyed if he ends up without a vote in cases where he actually qualifies. Would the minister check into the validity of these complaints and clarify the situation? Would he also discuss with the chief electoral officer in Ontario-
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) has raised here tonight a very interesting problem. Unfortunately, however, this is not a matter which is the direct responsibility of the Department of National Defence or indeed the federal government. It is entirely within the responsibility of the chief electoral officer of Ontario to decide how the elections act shall be implemented. Unfortunately there has been some confusion in a number of constituencies where it is assumed that because a serviceman lives in a particular constituency for a

DEBATES	November 9, 1967
period exceeding 12 months he automatically qualifies to vote under the Ontario elections act.
Ontario is one of the few provinces which makes provision for absentee votes based on the serviceman's statement of ordinary residence, no matter where he may be in Canada or abroad. If he shows an Ontario residence, he can vote in an Ontario election. If, however, his statement shows that his ordinary place of residence is outside Ontario, then he is advised through service channels that he should not vote in Ontario, even if he is enumerated.
I believe that part of the confusion lies in the fact that the Ontario elections act provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may take a special procedure under this act, and one of the special procedures has been the taking of votes by mail of the members of the Canadian forces in Canada and abroad. To alleviate the problem of a heavy mail ballot, the chief electoral officer requested that a member of the Canadian armed forces residing in an electoral constituency that is the same as his ordinary place of residence should be encouraged to be enumerated at his civilian poll.
In conclusion I should like once again to congratulate the hon. member for pursuing this matter, since it demonstrates to me his initiative as a member of this house. However I will direct his comments to the chief electoral officer of Ontario, since unfortunately the Department of National Defence is only an agent in respect of this election procedure.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt, but I must point out that the hon. member cannot intervene in the debate because the procedure is that the question shall be put by the hon. member and replied to either by the minister himself or his representative.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, the time allotted to the minister has not yet expired-three minutes. I have kept track of the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I should like to remind the hon. member that we have all the assistance needed for the timing of speeches in the house by an hon. member or by a minister. We know perfectly well that seven minutes are allotted to a member and
November 9, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4121
three minutes for a reply on behalf of the government by a minister or his representative. However, I thank the hon. member for his assistance and we shall try to adjust our clocks.


OLD AGE SECURITY-REQUEST THAT MEANS TEST BE ELIMINATED
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, recently I requested that the government give consideration to the elimination of the means test in respect of the supplementary benefits to the old age pension provided for our senior citizens. I have also requested that the misleading information given to recipients of war veterans allowance benefits be corrected. My reason for referring to this subject at this time is that these people now are being asked to forward a further application for supplementary benefits based on an annual means test. I should like to say a "mean" test.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Lee Elgy Grills: I would eliminate the "s". Also the unusual increase in the cost of living has had a considerable influence at this time. Over the past week end I have received no less than six inquiries about this particular subject. I have had many-I should say dozens-of requests from people asking for advice as to whether or not for different reasons they should re-apply.
This is something that appears to be fluctuating and those on low income are confused. Many of these people are elderly. They are our senior citizens who are getting on in years, and many of them are easily confused. Surely we should simplify these regulations so they may live easier.
Others who are not as old are discouraged, if not confused, because they are accustomed to working and earning their own living. They are reasonably independent, but they now find that if they earn a few dollars they are no longer entitled to the old age pension supplement.
By this policy the government is destroying any incentive that these people may have to earn extra money, and is destroying their pride and their independence. These people no longer have the satisfaction of personal achievement. The satisfaction of having accomplished something at the end of each day is a source of personal pride to most of us. The government has taken this satisfaction from these people.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The cost of living has soared in the last few years, and particularly during this last year. This has had a tremendous effect on these people. It has a greater effect on individuals who are in their later years, and this will continue even to 1970 when the supplementary old age pension will be paid to individuals then 65 years of age.
Many of these people could make a very worth-while contribution to our productivity. Most of them have made a wonderful contribution to this country in the past and are still willing to do so. Many industries are searching for elderly persons for employment as gardeners or guards. Certainly there is a place for them, but we have denied them this satisfaction.
We have been given a great many figures as to the cost of such a program. Let us consider the cost of administering the present method of giving supplementary payments. I have received hundreds of letters, and have written as many to the department in this respect. Presumably the department has a staff to look after such inquiries. I am sure the revenue department spends a great deal in recovering income tax from these people. I believe that we could do a great deal for these senior citizens at very little cost.
I do not want to be sentimental, but the good book says:
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Let me now refer to the misleading information which is given to veterans' widows regarding pension rights. These unfortunate people are led to believe that the supplementary benefits are going to be in addition to their war veterans allowance when actually their war veterans allowance is reduced by the same amount and in some cases in the final analysis the total received is less than prior to applying for the supplementary benefits.
It is my hope that the government will give some consideration in this regard. Many of our veteran pensioners are confused, and many have told me they wish they had never applied for the supplementary old age benefits because they received more before making application. As we approach Remembrance Day, let us remember these people.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Margaret Isabel Rideout: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
November 9, 1967
4122	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion made reference to confusion among pensioners relative to the guaranteed income supplement. I would like to advise him that the program is operating exceedingly well and with a minimum of difficulty when we consider that in the course of a very short space of time we have been able to make supplement payments to more than 700,000 old age security pensioners. The application of the guaranteed income principle has meant that all old age security pensioners have been guaranteed a minimum income of $105 per month.
The income test which is applied is a very simple one based on the applicant's income for the previous year. Because of this, the program requires an annual return in order that eligibility can be maintained. It is not a means test. A means test requires a very close look at a person's assets, property, etc. The income test is very similar to that which more well-to-do persons must carry out in completing an income tax return. It is simply a matter of the applicant declaring to the department his income for the previous year.

It does not single out any individual, but treats everybody alike. The application of this principle has meant more money in the hands of those old age security pensioners who need it most-and surely this is as it should be.
I think hon. members might well be interested in knowing that in the next fiscal year some $264 million will be paid out to old age security pensioners as a supplement to their basic pension. The cost of the basic pension for the same year will be $1,317 million.
With regard to veterans, I should like to point out that the allowance paid under the war veterans allowance program is far higher than that paid under the old age security guaranteed income supplement program. Notwithstanding this, a number of war veterans allowance recipients whose income is below $105 per month are being assisted under the guaranteed income supplement program.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Friday, November 10, 1967