1967-11-16

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should direct my first question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the widespread interest in the country in the Carter commission report, can the Prime Minister advise the house when we might expect some declaration of government policy or intention in this regard?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to receive the hon. gentleman's first question; I hope they will all be as simple as this one. It is simple, Mr. Speaker, because I cannot give the answer. I can tell the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Finance expects to be able to make a statement on this matter shortly, and I hope this will be next week.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the dispute in the port of Montreal over the implementation of the Picard report. In view of the fact that the Shipping Federation of Canada have rejected the minister's proposal for the appointment of an independent arbitrator, may I ask the minister what steps he is now taking to bring both parties together in an endeavour to find a solution to the implementation of the Picard report?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult question to deal with, because I cannot accept the premise that the shipping federation has turned down the suggestion made by the minister. The shipping federation has asked for additional information. I am still in communication with the federation, as we are in communication with the unions involved. When the exchange of useful information has been completed I will make a decision as to whether any intervention is necessary or advisable. In the meantime I might say that reports that I have received within ten minutes of coming into the house indicate that conditions are closer to normal than they have been for several days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he has met with both parties and if the government is giving consideration to following the course which he pursued in respect of the dispute on the Pacific coast, of introducing legislation and appointing an administrator to prevent further dislocation in the port.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have nothing to add to my earlier answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour and I regret that I did not give him notice. In view of difficulties being experienced in the port of Montreal will the Minister of Labour bring the parties, the shipping federation and the I.L.A., together to meet with Mr. Picard in order that he may interpret the contents of his report which apparently they are having difficulty interpreting themselves?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that I can usefully add to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
When vandals attack and damage the property of a member of parliament, can the latter, regardless of his political affiliation expect the protection of the R.C.M.P.?

November 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members regret the indignity to which my hon. friend was subjected, and if there are any appropriate steps that can be taken, I know we will all wish to take them. I shall be glad to look into the matter. Meanwhile may I welcome the hon. gentleman back to the house; I heard that he was indisposed recently. I hope he is feeling strong and fit again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister. I apologize for not having given him notice. In view of the fact that a well known separatist uses federal services to promote his ideology and is even granted a medal for his outstanding services to Canada, would the government consider studying the possibility of indemnifying members of this house who suffer damage for having made it their duty to act as defenders of confederation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is interesting but-

-I do not think it is in order.



PROPOSED U.S. QUOTA RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the report from Washington that 81 members of the United States Senate are prepared to vote for the imposition of import quotas on foreign goods which would be given easier entry into that country because of the Kennedy round tariff reductions, would the minister give consideration to going to Washington and making clear to the United States congress that Canada, which is the best customer of the United States, will retaliate in equal measure if such restrictions are placed on the importation of our goods into that country?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the report in question and we interpret it differently. At

the bottom of the last paragraph of the report I saw in the press there is reference to a gentleman who said he had been told that 81 senators are backing some form of import quota; the report itself has to do with a growing movement to fight protectionist feelings in the United States. We of course are supporting all such moves to offset protectionist measures. Nearly all United States Secretaries have given evidence in Congress against these pressures and the President himself has said that they must not succeed.
I have been in Washington once and I am prepared to go again if I feel that the prevailing climate will benefit from my visit. Our ambassador is in touch almost daily with the appropriate officials in Washington, and I can assure the hon. member that we are doing all we can to offset protectionist pressures.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Industry in a position to announce the measures the government is prepared to take to ease the impact on producers who produce primarily for the Canadian market and who would be adversely affected by Kennedy round tariff reductions?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: ask the hon. gentleman to be patient, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that I asked a similar question just two weeks ago, when I was promised an answer in one week? Patience can last just so long.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It is based on a report of recent research work carried out by a Canadian medical specialist, Dr. Gordon Murray, who, after years of painstaking work on animals and people, apparently has made a major breakthrough in neurosurgery. Doctor Murray was born in Ontario, is a graduate of the University of Toronto, and has had a long list of successes in the research field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 16, 1967


Philip Bernard Rynard: His newest achievement, if it is confirmed by further successes, will bring new hope to millions of people. Would the Prime Minister consider making a suitable acknowledgement of what might be one of the great breakthroughs in this field?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to do anything I can, and I am sure all members wish to show their admiration and respect for Doctor Murray's achievement, which is one of a long list of his achievements in this field. As my hon. friend knows, outstanding achievements in this field are recognized; in the first awards of the Order of Canada, Doctor Murray was made a companion of that order.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning the most urgent social problem in Canada today, our national housing crisis. Since Canada, unlike most countries in the world, has no ministry of housing and urban affairs I am required, in this bizarre circumstance, to direct my question to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows or ought to know the rules; questions ought not to be prefaced by the kind of statement the hon. member has made, which was really a speech. The rules allow the hon. member to ask questions at this time but not to make a speech.


Reid Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I asked the co-operation of the hon. member. He obviously wants to flout the rules of the house. That is not permitted to any member, including the hon. member for Danforth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reid Scott: I now rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Reid Scott: All right; you can get
all the excitement you want. I would ask the Chair with all due deference-and the Chair knows in what esteem it is held by every member of this house-to explain to me the way in which I am flouting the rules.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is in no position to ask explanations of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) the other day concerning the closing of Castle Frank school in Toronto, I gave a correct answer that was unfortunately incomplete. I mentioned that the school had been taken back by the Toronto school board. That is true, but what I failed to mention is that those courses have been transferred to two other schools, one being Brockton school which was later closed. It is true that this school has been closed due to a shortage of students, because we had not sent a sufficient number of them there. We now hope that, before long, there will be enough students to justify the resumption of those courses.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Sainf-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Canadian government intend to co-operate with the Quebec government in the purchase of the Dosco facilities in Quebec to prevent the closing down of the Sydney blast-furnaces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government of Nova Scotia has, of course, been in touch with this aspect as well as with other aspects of this important problem, and some of my colleagues are meeting the premier of Nova Scotia this evening.



ASSISTANCE FOR GOLD MINES IN NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?

November 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is the department now holding discussions with the provincial authorities about the gold mines in northwestern Quebec, particularly in Malartic and Val-d'Or, in order to remedy a situation which is becoming serious?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to pay a visit quite soon to the new Quebec minister of natural resources, and that is one of the matters I would like to discuss at that time.
1English]



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: had a question for the Solicitor General; in his absence perhaps I might address it to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the press announced a bill in connection with amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, but there seems to be no notice of such a bill on the order paper. Will the minister advise us whether the government intends to take the house into its confidence and circulate this draft bill?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minisier of Justice: Mr. Speaker, subject to any correction by the Solicitor General, I would say that the bill is ready; however, consultation was held with attorneys general of the provinces where this legislation will be implemented, so that the bill will be introduced at a later date. I think that is how matters stand at this time.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the reply just given by the Minister of Justice to my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the bill in question is made available to parliament, which after all will finally be called upon to enact it, no later than it may be made available to others even though those others are admittedly concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss that with the Minister of Justice and see if I can satisfy my hon. friend.
[Mr. Caouette.l


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to supplement the answers of the right hon. Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to questions relating to the Juvenile Delinquents Act. I wish to advise the house that the department reduced the recommendations contained in the report on juvenile delinquency into a loosely drafted, discussion form of bill. Then we sent copies to the several attorneys general to obtain their comments, also inviting comment from other interested bodies. We will later firm up government policy and submit a bill to the house.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's statement to the Canadian Medical Association in June regarding priorities of illness, and in view of the impending implementation of medicare, has the minister or his department prepared a list of illnesses in order of priority?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, of course no statement was made along the lines suggested by my hon. friend.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon. Since the implementation of medicare is an impending fact, has the shortage of doctors been taken into account and are any preparations being made to alleviate this shortage?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very great interest being evinced in the subject of divorce reform, irrespective of the date the government has in mind for debating this
November 16, 1967

issue would the right hon. gentleman consider introducing the bill for first reading, so the country and parliament may have an idea of what reforms the government proposes submitting?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would like to do that, Mr. Speaker, and as quickly as possible.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if there is a bill ready to deal with this very important matter of divorce.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, the bill is ready and has already been printed. Now the question is when it will be possible to introduce it in the house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the continuing rise in rents throughout Canada, which is partly attributable to the housing shortage, can the minister tell the house whether the subject of some sort of joint program to deal with the problem of high rentals will be on the agenda he is preparing for the forthcoming housing conference?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have already said several times of late, Mr. Speaker, that we have invited the views of the provinces as to what the agenda should be. If not this particular item, one related to it is almost certain to be on the agenda, although the agenda has not yet been settled and I cannot make a definite statement.


Reid Scott: As a supplementary question, would the minister give us some indication of when we might expect a statement in the house as to what the agenda will be?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I said the day before yesterday-and I have said this three or four times a week and I made it clear at least two weeks ago-it would be at least another week or ten days before the agenda could be settled, and once it is settled the house will be advised.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the minister giving consideration to extending the loans on existing housing? I think if this were done it would help tremendously.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That matter is under continuous study.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with respect to the federal-provincial conference on housing. As a result of the lengthy representations made last week by the association of mayors and municipalities, has this group been asked to send representatives in their own right to the conference, in view of their heavy responsibilities in this area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as stated previously in the house, in the invitations which were sent to the provinces they were told that if they included in their delegations, which would be the appropriate constitutional way, representatives of the municipalities, this would be very welcome to the federal government.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether representation has been requested from the elected representatives of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to attend this housing conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are following the appropriate constitutional procedure here also, as followed by previous governments including that of the party of my hon. friend.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether an invitation has been extended to the elected representatives of the territories for representation from those bodies.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I might say, and I hope my hon. friend would agree with me, that there are just as serious problems in the two territories as in other parts of Canada. I believe he also would agree that they are almost entirely different and are being handled today by the commissioners in close co-operation with the people there. I think they are making a great
4332

November 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry deal of progress. However, I would think that representatives who might come from there would have very little to offer to the conference which is being held down here.


Mr, T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. While allowing the provincial governments to bring municipal representatives certainly would be an acceptable procedure, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that this would not include the officers of the association of mayors and municipalities, since they would not likely be part of the provincial delegations. Would the Prime Minister give consideration to asking the provinces whether they would object to having the officers of the association of mayors and municipalities represented at the housing conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider that. There are other organizations and associations which are very interested in the problem of housing which also have expressed their interest in attending this conference.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport but, if I may, in his absence I should like to address it to the acting minister who I understand is the Registrar General. I regret that I have not given him notice. Is the minister in a position to report to the house on the present state of affairs on the west coast with regard to the strike which began yesterday of ships' pilots serving the Victoria, Vancouver and Nanaimo areas?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Department of Transport, and the minister have been in touch with both parties to this dispute; that is, the British Columbia coast pilots and the chamber of shipping in British Columbia. As a result of telephone calls to the chamber of shipping last night and the meeting being held between the pilots and the chamber this morning, we feel that the situation might very well improve.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question was originally intended for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I would direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it correct that the provincial ministers of finance are holding their meeting today in the ballroom of the Skyline hotel here in Ottawa? If so, how in this time of austerity can this unwarranted expenditure of the taxpayers' money be justified in view of the fact that adequate space is available-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think this question should be answered, because the statement is not correct. The meetings are being held in the west block of the parliament buildings.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister,
We have learned in the news this morning that during an interview given to a representative of the C.B.C., Prince Sihanuk of Cambodia charged the Canadian members of the Control Commission in Viet Nam with being partial and favouring the work of the Americans. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether Prince Sihanuk has made similar representations to him?
{English]


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I have seen a telegram about this statement alleged to have been made which is quite false and untrue. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be able to make a supplementary reply tomorrow or the next day giving some evidence as to the source of this statement.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that a similar complaint has been made against the members of the
November 16, 1967

Canadian Control Commission in Viet Nam on several occasions, would the Prime Minister object to having these members appear before the external aifairs committee to explain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Charlevoix that perhaps this is the type of question which is not in order at this time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give the house a report on the present fighting in Cyprus, particularly in respect of any involvement of Canadian troops?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a report just before I came into the house but I am afraid I do not have it with me. Possibly the Minister of National Defence could say something about this, as I know he received the same telegram.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the incident referred to by the hon. member for Oxford occurred yesterday, when Greek troops opened fire on Turkish Cypriots in a small community in south Cyprus called Ayios Theodoros.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There were approximately 20 casualties among the Turks and Greeks. No United Nations soldiers were wounded and no Canadian soldiers were involved. I understand that a cease fire was agreed upon during the course of the night and that the incident is now over, at least for the moment.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can indicate any timetable for the possible withdrawal of Canadian troops from Cyprus. Will he also at the first opportunity make a statement as to the cost to the Canadian government of keeping its troops there?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is for me to say when Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry troops should be withdrawn from Cyprus. As the hon. member knows, this mandate is supposed to be considered for renewal or nonrenewal on December 26 next. It will be for the government to indicate to the Minister of National Defence whether we should continue to keep Canadian troops there.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread and increasing public concern over matters of pollution, and in view of the difficulty we are having in getting answers to questions about this subject because it falls within the responsibility of two or three ministers, will the Prime Minister consider assigning matters relating to air and water pollution within federal jurisdiction to one minister so we can make some progress in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is the confusion that my hon. friend fears. Perhaps I should consider taking pollution under my own control.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have federal officials been invited to attend the provincial conference on pollution which will be convened by the government of Ontario between December 3 and December 5 in Toronto?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is to be a meeting held in Toronto as a sequel to an earlier meeting in Montreal of the conference of resource ministers. Federal officials have not been invited to attend.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in relation to his answer that the federal government has not been invited to attend a council of resource ministers' meeting. The federal government is a member of that council of resource ministers. Why would it need an invitation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstood me.

November 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
I stated that this meeting to be held in question to the parliamentary secretary to Toronto was a sequel to an earlier conference the minister of external affairs, and I shall of resource ministers.	do so if he will return to his proper place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, should not these questions now be directed to the Prime Minister, since he has taken charge of pollution?


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister of pollution. TRANSPORT



DISCUSSIONS IN WASHINGTON BETWEEN CANADIAN AND U.S. MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Transport if he can inform the house whether the Minister of Transport is having talks with his counterpart, the secretary of transport in Washington; and is he in a position to make public the subject of their conversations?


John Napier Turner: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, but I think the minister would prefer to make his own statement on his return from Washington.



PROPOSED MEETING TO DISCUSS ATLANTIC PROVINCES PROBLEMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information in respect of the intimation that was given at a transportation meeting in Halifax last night that the government would be willing to meet the four Atlantic premiers to discuss transportation matters. If so, when and where will such a meeting take place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question, which accounts for the fact that I have an answer to it. I am informed there has been no such invitation received and that no steps have been taken by the Minister of Transport to call a conference of this kind. However, if the Atlantic premiers desire to have such a meeting I am sure the minister will be glad to accommodate them.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member should direct his question to the Prime Minister.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Then I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman ask the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to divulge to the members of the house the results of the poll that he apparently is now conducting?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister a question along those same lines. In view of the stated intention of the government that the vote on capital punishment shall be a free vote-and I am a member on this side of the house who feels very much involved-will the Prime Minister assure the house that the apparent poll being conducted by the hon. member for Rosedale, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is not a poll on capital punishment and in no way reflects intimidation of government members?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Since hon. members have seen fit to draw attention to my activities-and I appreciate their interest in my career-I should like to make it clear to them that I am not conducting a poll on behalf of the Prime Minister or any other member of the government on the question of capital punishment.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister about the troubled Rhodesian situation in respect of which he gave leadership. The other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that the government feels there is no further action which could be taken within the Commonwealth context. Will the Prime Minister
November 16, 1967

advise the house whether the government still regards the existing measures as serving a useful purpose, and is it intended that Canada will continue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member's question is of a very general nature and seeks the expression of an opinion. I doubt if such a question can be asked at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as house leader. Several weeks ago I asked him whether in view of the importance of our crown corporations, and in view of the need for our committees to work efficiently, the government would consider referring something to the committee on crown corporations so it might hold at least one meeting during this session.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the last time my hon. friend put this question he asked whether we would refer anything to the committee. I would be glad to consider whether we will refer something.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the motion of censure yesterday afternoon by the security council on Portugal's involvement with Angolan mercenaries moving into the Congo, has our government, which is a fellow member with Portugal of NATO, communicated to the government of Portugal our displeasure at their support of the mercenaries in Angola?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that matter. I have not had a chance to study the messages that I know have come from New York on the subject.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF REFUNDABLE CORPORATION TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, but because of his absence at the federal-provincial conference I would ask my question of the acting minister who can draw it to the minister's attention so he may reply on his return to the house. When does the government plan to start refunding the 5 per cent refundable corporation tax which was imposed in the budget of 18 months ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question does not appear to be of immediate urgency.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. He was asked a couple of days ago whether he was prepared to make a comment with regard to the statements made by the Secretary of State with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the statement issued by the directors. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister then said he was considering this matter, I would ask whether he is prepared to make a statement; or does he intend to make a statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it was in answer to a question yesterday that I indicated the results of my consideration of this problem, to the effect that while I reiterated the strong support of the government for public broadcasting and for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the agency in this country for public broadcasting, I think I said that any further statement I would make would be when the bill came back to the house. I will be making it then.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the

November 16, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could he tell us the house when the government expects to make the required changes with respect to the Canadian Labour Relations Board, also, when the government will inform us of the decision it has reached with respect to the application of C.N.T.U. to represent the employees of the C.B.C. French network?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should not be directed to the minister of manpower, but to the Minister of Labour.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) concerning retraining allowances.
I was asked if the retraining allowances would be paid during the holiday season. The answer is no, because the new system is founded on the principle that the worker who takes retraining courses is not a student; he is performing an activity that is normal in this day and age, and must be considered as a worker and not as a student. However, they will have the benefit of statutory holidays just as workers do.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question, not the one answered by the minister, but another, which I should like to direct to the hon. Minister of Labour, since it is within his jurisdiction.
Could the minister tell us whether the government is about to reveal its intentions concerning amendments to the act governing the Canada Labour Relations Board and the request of the C.N.T.U. to be allowed to represent the employees of the French network of the C.B.C.?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question is not supplementary to the statement made by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have noticed that some confusion arose because the minister took the occasion while on his feet to answer another question. I believe the hon. member for Lapointe has the right to an opportunity to ask a supplementary to the question he asked in the first instance. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration said the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe should not have been

directed to him but to the Minister of Labour, and I am now giving the hon. member an opportunity to ask that question.


Michael Starr: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar was rising to ask a supplementary question directly connected with the answer given by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that in about 30 seconds the hon. member for Lisgar will be given that opportunity.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe, I can assure the hon. member and the house that the legislation which the government said would be laid before the house at this fall session will be on the order paper in the very near future. With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, may I say that I do not think it is appropriate on the orders of the day.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I agree with the minister's statement that these are not ordinary students. Some of them are family men-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question?


George Robson Muir: I am just coming to the question, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering how the minister thinks these people are going to live, particularly over the Christmas holidays, without any remuneration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Mr. Orlikow:: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pennell for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Lafontaine.
November 16, 1967	COMMONS


Some hon. members:: Question.


Michael Starr: Filibuster by the government.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, on April 4, 1966, I had the privilege to address this house on a bill regarding the abolition of capital punishment. Today, 19 months later, I could make the same speech, word for word, but I do not want to take up the time of this house. However, with your permission, I should like to read the following part of that speech:
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, as well as all my colleagues, that whatever the outcome of this debate, I shall not consider it as a defeat or a victory, because I am much less concerned with knowing if murderers will be hanged in the future than with the fate of all the prisoners in our jails and penitentiaries, as well as their future when they come back to civilian life.
And I explain, Mr. Speaker, simply-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Lafontaine is having some difficulty being heard because of the many conversations that are taking place.


Georges-C. Lachance: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall give an explanation. I say that whether or not the bill before us is passed-I leave that entirely to the majority of the house-I for one am not in a position to decide on the advisibility of maintaining or abolishing the death penalty. However, I must admit that I do not approve its abolition for one class of the society and its retention for another.
I respect the opinion of those who favour abolition and of those who are opposed to it. I respect the opinion of the member for Rosedale (Mr. D.S. Macdonald) who tries, by respectable means, to sound out the members of the house on that matter. I respect the opinion of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) who advocates the abolition of the death penalty. I respect the opinion of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who favours its retention.
Personally, I am not ready to reach a decision on that matter, because I feel that we are not mature enough to do so. When we have the means to rehabilitate our prison-ners; when the present government or any other government has passed the legislation which will enable us, for instance, to open
DEBATES	4337
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence the doors of the civil service, to destroy criminal records, to set up a probation system, and finally has taken all the other measures about bail, etc., I feel that we will be in a position then to decide on the fate of the prisoners in our penitentiaries.
I have a feeling that we are putting the cart before the horse, and that is why I once asked the hon. Solicitor General whether the government should not present its legislation concerning penitentiaries and correctional institutions.
After having discussed the matter with certain persons, I was told that it was almost impossible for the government-and I readily understand why-to introduce legislation in that field before the report of the commission of inquiry, namely the Ouimet commission, had been submitted. I am also told that this commission will be in a position to submit its report in about two or three months at the most.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is why yesterday I voted for the adjournment of this debate and this is why today, I intend to bring forward an amendment to this proposal.
I will certainly be in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, when the government is in a position to propose adequate legislation in that field. Now, since the government cannot introduce a piece of legislation in this public sector before that commission has submitted its report, I feel, therefore, that we should have the opportunity to study that report before deciding to abolish capital punishment.
I do not want this debate to become impassioned and emotional; as I said earlier, I respect the opinion of all supporters of retention or abolition. As a matter of fact, I am only concerned with the fate of prisoners capable of rehabilitation, and if I am told that all prisoners are likely to be rehabilitated, well I am especially interested in the lot of the majority of them, since, actually, only a very small number of convicts may be liable to capital punishment, that penalty being meted out at present only to those guilty of premeditated murders.
I say and I repeat that I consider this matter as a free vote. Surely, the house accepts the decision agreed upon by the various political parties of the house, namely that this will be a free vote. I trust no one will accuse anyone, not even the government, in this connection, for having voted for or against capital punishment. This is a free vote. Let everyone decide according to his
November 16, 1967
4338	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence conscience. There should probably be more free votes on questions of this kind. How could we possibly approach similar problems in the near future if the vote to be taken, perhaps today or in the next few days, is to be interpreted by the various news media as the vote of members who followed the dictates of their party leaders?
Personally, I consider this vote to be free. I have never been pressured by either side, I am particularly happy to say. It is with complete freedom of conscience that I am making this speech, that I stated my position yesterday and that I shall do so again in a few moments.
Mr. Speaker, there is not much I can add on this subject; this debate was already initiated 19 months ago, and it continues today. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet one single member in this house who is satisfied with this bill. I do not think that the house should decide upon a bill that no one, not even the voters, finds satisfactory. At least, if we are going to abolish the death penalty, I think society wants us to take action at the same time for the rehabilitation of prisoners, those who will remain in jail until the governor in council decides otherwise.
That is why I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal), since this is a free vote-the following amendment:
That all the words alter "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefore:
"the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs for consideration in the light of studies on the penitentiary system in general and on the rehabilitation of prisoners in particular".
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have before me the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lafontaine. I have some doubt whether the amendment is acceptable from the procedural standpoint. Perhaps hon. members might have comments to make to enlighten the Chair. One difficulty is that no copies of the amendment are available for hon. members to study and consider. Perhaps I should read the amendment presented in French and hon. members can listen to the English interpretation.

Moved by Mr. Lachance, seconded by Mr. Regimbal: That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefore:

"the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs for consideration in the light of studies on the penitentiary system in general and on the rehabilitation of prisoners in particular".

Are there any procedural difficulties that hon. members can foresee for the amendment?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would object to the amendment at this stage on the ground of irrelevancy. Not having the advantage of a copy of the amendment before me I will do the best I can.
Citation 203 (1) of Beauchesne states that it is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question under discussion. The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter as the original motion they are admissible, but not when they are foreign thereto.
What this amendment attempts to do is to refer the subject matter of this bill to a committee. This is not for the purpose of discussing the question of the abolition of capital punishment, either totally or partially, but of referring to the committee the whole subject of remedial reform and reform of penology. I suggest that on this ground alone the amendment should be ruled out of order. It raises a new question that goes beyond the subject matter of the debate before the house and should only be considered in a separate motion or resolution put before the house.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words in answer to the point that has just been made. I understand the minister's interpretation of irrelevancy but I would suggest that this amendment is relevant to the subject under debate at the present time.
The crux of the debate so far has centred upon taking sides on whether hon. members are for or against taking away life. I suggest we are on the wrong track when we take this approach. What we should be discussing, I think, is whether it is opportune at this time to make a change. As soon as you suggest change, Mr. Speaker, naturally you have to consider alternatives. There are no alternatives outlined in the presentation that has been made; it is just a question of life or death. No change is suggested in our penal procedures.
I believe we would be well advised to wait until the Ouimet commission has made its
November 16, 1967	COMMONS
report vis-a-vis changes in our penal procedures before we make up our minds on this question. My point really boils down to this: we are not talking of life and death but of change. I believe that at this stage the house has not sufficient information to enable it to make up its mind on instituting a change, and will not have until it receives the expert opinion of the Ouimet commission.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I too at first blush was tempted to agree with the Registrar General, but I think he has missed a very salient point. This bill does not only deal with a redefinition of capital murder; it also deals with the release of any person whose sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment or who has been sentenced to life imprisonment.
In objecting to the amendment the Registrar General seized upon the suggestion that rehabilitative and penal procedures are extraneous to the principle of this bill. I would point out that these matters are precisely germane to the bill. We are not only considering the abolition of capital punishment or the retention of capital punishment.
I suggest that is an over-simplification. There is also in the bill a second provision relating to the release of any person who may have received a life sentence.
Therefore I put it to Your Honour that a study of the processes of rehabilitation is most germane to this whole question. It goes to the heart of the matter. Many hon. members have grave misgivings about capital punishment or the abolition thereof because they feel that a man convicted of capital murder cannot be rehabilitated. I therefore put to Your Honour in the strongest of terms that this amendment is quite in order.
With regard to referral of the subject matter and so forth, I suggest that Your Honour has accepted many amendments of this kind. The only question is whether the proposed amendment goes beyond the purposes of the bill, and I put it to you that it does not.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member for Lafontaine would want to argue in favour of his amendment. I must tell him that after reflection, and in spite of the difficulties to which the Registrar General referred, I believe the amendment should be accepted. It is a reasoned amendment. Normally reasoned amendments suggesting that a subject matter be referred do not include words which go beyond referring the subject matter to a committee. Additional considerations are embraced in the amendment
DEBATES	4339
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence proposed by the hon. member, but I do not think they are irrevelant. In view of these considerations I suggest to the house that from the procedural standpoint the amendment should be accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lafontaine?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly, to add my remarks in support of the amendment which has been moved. The question of the retention or abolition of capital punishment is the germane issue in this debate so far as I am concerned and not the question of a partial retention for a limited group of persons. That, to me, negates the principle of retention.
In my opinion this is a bad bill. Its principle is bad. It abandons all the moral arguments that were put 18 months ago, arguments with which I may not agree but which involve questions of morality and ask the question whether capital punishment is a deterrent. All such considerations have been scrapped by this bill. Certainly it is as immoral to take the life of a murderer who has killed a policeman or security guard as the life of a murderer who in an armed robbery has killed an elderly widow or any other person. The health penalty is kept as a deterrent to prevent the murder of policemen or prison officials. That is the only reason for retaining it in the bill. The death penalty will have a deterrent effect and therefore its inclusion in the bill abuses all logic. That is why this is an entirely bad bill.
On another point also I say that this is a bad bill. Cabinet is the court of last resort with regard to parole. I can think of nobody less well constituted than cabinet to make ultimate decisions with regard to the approval or denial of parole of a convicted murderer who has been sentenced to life imprisonment. I think it is quite wrong. This bill perpetuates the involvement of cabinet in questions of criminal punishment and rehabilitation.
I can readily envisage that in one year, because of a certain prevailing political climate, the cabinet may be tempted in the exercise of its judgment with respect to a man who comes from a certain area to say, yes, it is all right to release this man, and several months later, as a result of a changed
November 16, 1967
4340	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence political climate in the same area, with respect to a convicted murderer the cabinet may say, No, this man shall not be released. A political decision will have been taken, because the decisions of cabinet are political.
I do not think that a man's release from a life sentence should depend on a political decision. This, to me, is quite wrong and for that reason again I say that this is a bad bill.
The implications of the bill ought to be studied. In particular, the implications of clause 2 ought to be studied carefully and we ought to determine whether policemen and security guards should have a protection that is denied to others. I admit that theirs is perhaps a more hazardous calling but I do not think that any other citizen ought to be less well protected. The entire question raised by the government's proposal ought to be studied in committee where we could hear representations from the public.
It must be remembered that this bill was introduced not as a result of public clamour. Prior to the introduction of the bill there was complete quiescence so far as the public was concerned. There was no public debate and the newspapers were quiet.
I submit that no matter on which side of the question hon. members of the house may be, they ought to agree that the amendment is reasonable under the circumstances. I urge all my colleagues in the house to support it. We are dealing with a moral question and we ought to resolve it according to our own persuasions after we have assessed what the government proposes.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Lafon-taine (Mr. Lachance) for reasons which have not been mentioned yet. And I think everybody would be glad to hear me express them.
For instance, I listened to all the speeches made here and I noted that even the sponsors of the bill and those who intend to support it seemed embarrassed in presenting their arguments, which were weak. In fact, I have rarely seen so many intelligent people using such weak arguments.
Even questionable figures and facts have been quoted1. For example, it has been said that in a given period of time-I do not remember the exact dates or figures-so many people have been sentenced to death, so many to life emprisonment, so many paroled, and that the results are good. Well,


Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of this amendment. I might inform Your Honour that I did not take part in the debate 16 months ago, nor have I participated thus far in the debate on this occasion.
I might also say there are a number of members in the house who are in the same situation as myself. We recorded our votes when a similar measure was before the house almost a year and a half ago, but we are still not absolutely convinced either one way or another on the question of abolition. I should like to be in the position of so many other members of the house who are avid supporters either of abolition or of retention. But there are many people in this chamber who cannot come to a decision of this magnitude with such ease and surety.
Discussing this question with some of my colleagues I find that some are expressing a different view from the view they expressed 16 months ago. All of us, I think, with the exception of those who are avidly for or against abolition, are searching for the truth. To whom can we turn in this search?
All of us have listened very carefully to the speeches that have been made or have read carefully the speeches made by various members of the house whom we respect and have weighed the arguments for and against abolition, arguments put forward in all sincerity by the hon. members making the presentations. Many of us have received reams of publications from various interested individuals and organizations. We have received letters from church groups, for
DEBATES	4341
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence example, which are very much in favour of abolition and go to great lengths to quote passages from the Scriptures in support of their view. They quote the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". We have also received literature from other church groups warning us that we ought not to do away with the death penalty on the authority of quotations such as "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword." And so on.
We cannot turn to the churches for guidance because they use the Scriptures to support the conflicting points of view. We cannot turn to statistics to prove the case one way or another because statistics can be presented in such a way as to support any desired point of view. In a recent article in the Financial Post I read the statement that between 1955 and 1967, 160 people had been sentenced to death. Through a letter from the chiefs of police association it has recently come to my notice that murders, both capital and noncapital, increased from 217 in 1962 to 243 in 1965. The point is that the article in the Financial Post, which was in favour of abolition, sought to give the impression that there had been a decrease in the number of murders committed in this country. Yet the chiefs of police-and they should know-have indicated that murders have in fact increased in Canada. I think it would probably be well to put on record this letter which came into my hands this morning, because I think it has great relevance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I suggest to him that contributions to the debate now should be addressed to the amendment before the house and not to the general debate on second reading. I am wondering whether the speech the hon. member is making might not have been made when we were considering second reading. I bring this to this attention kindly and ask him to keep in mind that we have a specific amendment before us.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I thought I was being specific in directing my attention to the amendment which I wholeheartedly support. I am trying to demonstrate to the house that there is a group in this chamber who even at this late stage are still searching for the truth.
I divide the house into three categories, those who are ardent abolitionists, those who are ardent retentionists, and a third party, a grey area if you wish, composed of people who have made no firm decision on how to vote with respect to the measure now before the house.
4342	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has promised a free vote and our leader has assured us that we on this side will be able to vote on this question according to our individual consciences. It is therefore up to us to decide, in accordance with the dictates of our own consciences, the position we should take. The point I am trying to make is that there are two areas of consideration which ought to be taken into account. The first concerns our ability to rehabilitate criminals if this bill is passed. If we find, as a result of the study being made by the Ouimet commission, that it is possible to fully rehabilitate convicted criminals, opponents of capital punishment will have an additional argument in favour of the passage of this bill. However, if the commission finds it is not possible to rehabilitate these people, such an opinion would, I think, influence us to vote against the bill. This is the argument I am trying to make.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am concerned about the letter from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police which appears to refute the argument put forward that removal of the death penalty leaves the incidence of crime in this country unaffected. I was interested to find out that the British royal commission which studied this matter from 1949 to 1953 examined the records of several countries and found that the abolition of the death penalty had not increased the incidence of homicide in them. But it also found out that when the death penalty was reinstituted it has no appreciable effect on whether there were more or fewer murders. Yet today the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has written a letter which seems to indicate to the contrary. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a portion of this letter to bear out the point I am trying to make. It is a letter from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), dated November 15, 1967, and the third paragraph reads:
With crime showing an increase of 11.8 per cent in past year and 35 per cent increase in past five years and murders, capital and non-capital, increasing from 217 in 1962 to 243 in 1965 and attempted murders from 83 to 111 in the same period, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is appalled by the persistence of the abolitionists in parliament, supported by certain outside organizations, to attain their objective.
A letter such as this falls into the area of the search for truth, because after all the police of this country are those who are most closely connected with the handling of crimes. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that we

DEBATES	November 16, 1967
should have another document at hand, namely, the report of the Ouimet commission which would give further creditable guidance that could be accepted by members of the house. It is for that reason that I think hon. members, whether they be abolitionists or retentionists, or those in the grey area, should give favourable consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lafontaine.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief on this issue. It had not been my intention to speak in the debate. My views are well known. I have spoken in the house a number of times, and outside it, as a complete and wholehearted advocate for abolition of capital punishment. For that reason I will not repeat what I have said before and in any event I could not do so now because it would be out of order when dealing with the amendment.
I intend to vote against the amendment for a number of reasons. In the first instance the bill as it stands is not wholly acceptable to me. On the other hand, it does constitute some benefit, some improvement on the existing law. Therefore I want the opportunity to vote for it. Second, and even more important, having got the bill through second reading and into committee it is then open to myself or to any other hon. member to propose and support an amendment which would put fairly and squarely before the house and the country the main question, which is the total abolition of capital punishment. Such an amendment may well be lost but there will be an opportunity to debate it. The only opportunity that I see for myself, holding the views that I do, to cast my vote for an amendment embodying complete abolition is when we get the bill into committee of the whole house.
If I vote for the present amendment I am in effect voting to kill the bill. It would be as though I were voting against the bill on second reading. For these simple reasons I propose to vote against it.
I agree that there are certainly cases when the subject matter of a bill may be referred to a committee, but I would point out that the present matter has been canvassed in this house and throughout the country for many years. It has been the subject of a number of debates in the house. People have come to certain conclusions. I would now like the matter brought to the stage where we can have a vote on the bill, get it into committee
November 16, 1967

of the whole house, and then have an opportunity to express my views in favour of complete abolition. The only way I can do so is to help get the bill through second reading.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this measure last Friday on very short notice because there was not the attendance in the house that we had anticipated on a Friday afternoon, despite the intense interest that some people on the government side have indicated in this bill. I am speaking now simply because I have been reading the speeches and listening with the greatest of care to those that have been made in the interval.
I said on Friday that I was open to have my point of view changed if the weight of argument persuaded me to take that step. I have not yet been convinced because I have found that those who have spoken for retention advanced arguments that have not yet been met in debate by the other side. I think that this subject should be debated not simply with a series of set speeches but with an exchange of opinion back and forth in the house, not necessarily across the floor but an exchange of opinion from various parts of the house with regard to the debating points that are made.
Last Friday I particularly requested that somebody deal with two matters that I raised a year and a half ago and which have not been answered in debate yet. I hoped that someone, yesterday or today, would have dealt with the speech made by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) who produced statistics showing an astonishing increase in crime in one area of our country. But there has been no answer to that. I wonder that the debate is not being conducted in this fashion.
What has just been said by my colleague from Peace River brings me to my feet this afternoon. I understood him to say that the bill as it now stands is not wholly acceptable but he would like to vote for it because it appears to create an improvement in our existing law, and that at the committee stage he hopes to have the opportunity of setting the issue of abolition or retention clearly before hon. members in black and white. It seems to me that we do not have to move into committee of the whole house to deal with that issue. We can deal with it on second reading. The precise issue of abolition or retention was dealt with by the house a
DEBATES	4343
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence year and a half ago. When he was forecasting the discussion of capital punishment during that session, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) expressed the hope that it would be decided once and for all. That is what we thought a year and a half ago, except that by "once and for all" we did not mean for eternity.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
After that debate and decision I carried away the hope that in the next year, two years or three years certain improvements would be made in our parole system, in our prison system and in our law enforcement which would make it possible, after a period of years had elapsed, for people to be able to come to us and give us the assurances we require, assurances of the protection of law-abiding citizens, and ask us to strike out of our statutes capital punishment and retain life imprisonment. In the intervening year and a half, however, these changes have not been made. Consequently the amendment which is in front of us has been drafted, I believe, just because in the minds of those who have placed it before us there is the same thought I had that the changes we desire in our country have not been brought into effect. This is the reason I have not yet been convinced that this bill should be proceeded with. I wish to see these changes made.
As I stated very clearly a year and a half ago and as I repeated the other day in the house, I want to be certain that the law-abiding citizens of this country will be protected and that criminals will not be released from imprisonment to inflict other crimes on the populace. All too frequently, sir, this is what has happened, and it is not necessarily confined to those who are imprisoned because of a commutation of the sentence of capital punishment. Others who have been in prison for other serious crimes have been paroled and have then committed even more serious crimes after they have been let out. This is what really bothers me. I will continue to be bothered by it. I cannot tolerate these crimes against children and women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A few years ago in Winnipeg there was an incident involving a man who had been imprisoned, I forget for what reason, who was paroled and considered ready to enter society. Within just blocks of where I live three young boys were killed. Incidents of this kind remain with one. It so
4344	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence happened that I had no one in my family of the age of 11 or 12 years. The crime was a terrible shock to the community and to the families of these innocent young boys who had been killed. This is what bothers me when we speak now about abolishing capital punishment. My feeling for the sanctity of human life does not go to the extent of protecting people in our society who will commit murder deliberately or who cannot be restrained, whether or not they are capable of restraint.
The second thing that bothers me, which I mentioned on Friday and on other occasions, is that I am worried about the increase of organized crime on this continent which has infiltrated into our country. The people who are given the responsibility to look after our law enforcement have warned us about this time and again. Week after week the newspapers give us indications, through stories of armed robbery and murder, that organized crime has gained a foothold in this country. Where is the protection for society? Are elderly storekeepers and bank managers to be put up as targets by society for these criminals? Are they to be not protected? This strikes me as being odd. It might be different if we were able to provide protection for these people, but we are not providing it.
Before we are asked to abolish capital punishment I say, let us bring in the necessary protective devices. It seems to me that we face the necessity to increase our law enforcement bodies in this country. We are faced with the necessity to give them better training perhaps because organized crime apparently is being operated now by people who are extremely skilful and highly intelligent. Our law enforcement officers require the training and equipment that will enable them to combat this. It appears to me that our parole system must be most carefully examined because mistakes have been made in the past. How many more victims must be put up from among our law-abiding citizens before we correct these errors?
As I have said, the study of psychiatry has not advanced to the stage where we can be given absolute proof that a man who has been imprisoned and apparently has settled down and is ready to re-enter society will in fact be a law-abiding citizen when he returns. Scientific advancement is proceeding by leaps and bounds, but are we doing enough in that particular field? Is it here that we should be putting some of our money, instead of wasting it in other directions, in an effort to find out exactly what it

DEBATES	November 16, 1967
is that motivates certain people to indulge in a life of crime? In these fields, and there are others, I think more work should be done. When that has been done and when we can have some assurance that there is protection for defenceless people in this country, then it will be time enough to abolish the penalty of capital punishment. I know how terrible it is that life should be taken by the state but I think it is even more terrible that the state should be so careless of the life of law-abiding citizens that it will give the advantage to the person who wants to strike against law and order in our country. A choice must be made on that ground.
The amendment, as I understand it, is asking for a further study of this problem, for further restraints to be imposed on those who want to break the law in our country and that we do not actually abolish this supreme penalty. I should like to return to the proposition I put forward a year and a half ago and repeated on Friday. It is not a completely satisfactory one; it is a compromise. I did suggest, however, that I would offer no criticism of the government exercising the prerogative of mercy as can now be done by the governor in council. As I said, as a result of the facts at my disposal I would not criticize the government for exercising the prerogative of mercy if it should wish to continue to commute death sentences.
Let us accept that fact for the time being but at the same time let us retain capital punishment on the statute books in case of necessity. By that I mean the eventuality of an outburst of organized crime or an increase in capital murder. Reference already has been made to this by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). In such a case it might be necessary to exercise capital punishment. Once a statute is struck off the statute books it is very difficult to reinstate it. I would hate to go through the parliamentary experience, if capital punishment had been struck off the statute books, of having to introduce a bill to reinstate it. Why not leave it on the statute books and carry on as we are at the present time, whether the government is right or wrong in what it is doing?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
It is not that I am a thoroughly convinced retentionist, and I am not really emotionally aroused except when crimes are committed against the two classes I mentioned, small children and women. But it is sound, common sense to keep the law on the statute books rather than strike it out and find to our horror a few years later that it should never have been struck out and have to
November 16, 1967

Division
reinstate it. For those reasons 1 support the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The
question is on the amendment of Mr. Lachance. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: In my
opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
And more than five members having risen:


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put to the vote I should like to rise on a point of order.
I do not know whether it would be possible to change the voting procedure for this once.
We have been told that this is a free vote, like the one which took place yesterday, but in my opinion this freedom has been compromised. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if possible, that we vote in alphabetical order, A, B, C, D; I think this would be an excellent way to make sure that the vote is really free.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that this procedure, although perhaps democratic, would be very complicated, and I do not think we have the time to try such a highly complex procedure.

There is no objection to the Clerk seeing the members who are to the left.
[DOT]	(4:50 p.m.)
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I declare the amendment lost.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from voting for reasons expressed last night. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some comments on the bill which is now before the house. Primarily since I believe this entire matter was decided in April of 1966. I see no reason whatsoever for bringing it on the floor of the house once again so soon. Before I resume my seat I will intimate to the house the reason behind this move.
I have in my hand Hansard for January 18, 1966. In the speech from the throne, as recorded on page 9, there appears the following paragraph:
Arrangements will be made for you to decide the issue of capital punishment at an early date.
That "early date" was April, 1966.
Then on January 20, two days later, in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Al-goma East, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson),
[The Acting Speaker.]
DEBATES	November 16, 1967
used these words, as reported on page 70 of Hansard:
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) drew attention to the desirability of doing something at once about the situation with regard to capital punishment... It is, I think, essential that a decision be taken by this parliament one way or another with the least possible delay so as to get out of the situation we are in now-
I ask hon. members to note the words of the leader of the government that the matter was to be put to a decision of this parliament. This parliament today, in November 1967, is the parliament that was sitting in January, 1966. The Prime Minister continued as follows:
-I hope before many days have gone by the members of this house will have an opportunity to declare themselves, as members of the house, on this important problem, and settle it once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: What do the words "a decision will be taken by this parliament one way or another" and "the members of this house will have an opportunity to settle this important problem once and for all" mean? We were given that opportunity in April, 1966, and I believe that we did make a ruling and settled the matter once and for all. Why the cabinet does not follow the instructions of parliament I have been unable to find out.
On June 22, 1966, Mr. Speaker, after the house had voted and parliament had expressed its desire in this matter by a majority of 31 in a vote of 255 members, the leader of the government, in answer to a question from the then leader of the opposition as reported at page 6572 of Hansard, had this to say:
-I think we in the government have to give consideration to this important matter in the light of the discussions and the decisions reached or not reached by the house in the previous debate-
What decision was not reached by the house in the previous debate, Mr. Speaker? In April the house ruled that capital punishment should be retained. In June, three months later, we have the leader of the government stating that in the light of the discussions and the decisions reached or not reached by the house in the previous debate the government would have to consider the question. I submit we reached a decision which, I am sorry to say, has not yet been put into effect.
On January 13, 1967, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the administration a question about bringing
November 16, 1967

in its own bill to abolish capital punishment. As reported at page 11757 of Hansard he asked:
Can the Prime Minister tell the house the position of the government with respect to this matter?
The Prime Minister replied:
As my hon. friend knows, there is a great deal of urgent legislation before the house. I cannot deal with this matter at the present time.
In January of this year, Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of urgent legislation before the house so we could not deal with the question of capital punishment again at that time. It is very nice to realize that in November, 1967, there are no urgent problems facing this country. Evidently we have solved the housing crisis. We have stemmed rising unemployment figures. The cost of living is no longer going up. The situation at Sydney is something of the past. The meetings now being held between the provincial representatives and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) signify nothing; evidently the question is not urgent. Because of urgent legislation before the house in January we could not deal with capital punishment; in November we are dealing with it. Some of us in this house are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are urgent problems before the country today that require the attention of parliament.
On April 20, 1967, the then leader of the opposition, who seems to be persistent, indicated in his remarks that capital punishment might be discussed. In reply, as reported at page 15135 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
I mentioned this as one of the problems which the government has been considering. It is not a matter which can be dealt with this session but I hope it could be dealt with this year in a responsible way.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As a member of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I consider that a slur on the way in which this question was dealt with in April, 1966. It was dealt with in a responsible way at that time. I do not know how other members of the House of Commons reacted, but that was the statement that was made on April 20, 1967, this year.
On April 21 the then right hon. leader of the opposition asked when the government would introduce a bill to abolish capital punishment and the Prime Minister in answering said:
The right hon. gentleman asked me a question which he introduced by saying:
"A little earlier in his remarks he said that capital punishment might be discussed."
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
The right hon. gentleman was referring to myself.
Then the Prime Minister proceeded to quote what he had said the day before:
-but I would hope it could be dealt with in a responsible way.
He then added:
I hope this can be done, and done as quickly as possible.
I maintain that this matter was handled in a responsible way in April, 1966.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It does not need to be brought up again in November, 1967. Having in mind the vote for the retention of capital punishment, I asked the leader of the government on October 11, 1966, the following question, to be found on page 8515 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to address to the right hon. Prime Minister. Speaking in the house on August 31 in respect of the maintenance of railway operation bill, as reported at page 7909 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that when the will of parliament is expressed by legislation the law abiding citizens of Canada will observe the will of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Then I went on to say:
I should like to ask him, does the cabinet not observe the Criminal Code and the law with regard to capital punishment, as it appears in the Criminal Code and as sustained by a vote in this house last April?


An hon. Member:: Keep it up, Ralph.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The reply of the Prime Minister was:
Yes, Mr. Speaker; and when a jury makes a recommendation for mercy it has invariably been accepted in the form of commutation by the government.
I wish to point out to you, my fellow members of the House of Commons, that the cabinet has commuted seven death sentences and in five of the cases there was no recommendation for mercy. In one case of commutation three jurors asked for mercy and nine were against. In the case of Fulton, one juror was for mercy and eleven were against.
In referring to the commutation of the death sentences of seven murderers I wish to refer directly to the bill which says that the sentence of death will be carried out only against those who kill policemen or prison guards. One of the seven whose death sentence was commuted was Marcotte who slew two policemen in St. Laurent, near Montreal.
November 16, 1967
4348	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence I shall never forget the words of Mr. J. J. Robinette, Q.C., who, in speaking at Belshazzar's feast in the west block one and a half years ago, said when asked a simple question: "If you commute the sentence of Mar-cotte how can you hang anybody after that?" This is the cabinet to which we are asked to entrust the task of making certain that those who kill policemen will be hanged. This cabinet has a record of commuting the sentence of Marcotte, a man who killed two policemen. He was not hanged.
We are asked to entrust this cabinet with carrying out the sentence of death against those who murder prison guards. Yet we have the case of Colpitts, a 19-year old man who in Dorchester Penitentiary, New Brunswick, killed a 49-year old guard. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In his case the jury divided, three for mercy and nine against. This is the man who said he would kill the next prison guard he had the chance of killing. Now he is in the British Columbia penitentiary, on the far side of Canada, because the guards at Dorchester were resentful of his having killed one of them.
When it comes to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment I wish to show the house that life imprisonment does not mean a thing to this cabinet. Life imprisonment, by the cabinet's actual performance, means on the average, a sentence of eight years, ten months and one day.
In my hand I have some figures which I secured from the deputy solicitor general. These are the figures that were used by the Solicitor General in introducing the bill and have to do with commuting death sentences.
I told the deputy solicitor general that I would not use names. The facts in this document pinpoint exactly what I have been saying. The document is entitled, "Average Time Served On Commuted Death Sentences 19571967 Where Parole Has Been Granted." The record is here. In 1963, immediately after this administration came to power, one man was paroled after serving seven years, three months and eleven days. The next man served seven years, three months and eleven days. The third man on the list served seven years, three months and eleven days. No. 4 served nine years, eight months and four days. The fifth man served five years, two months and eighteen days. The next man served eight years, eleven months and ten days. The next served fourteen years and six days. The next served nine years, nine


months and nine days. The next served five years, four months and twenty days. The next served eight years and eight days. The man after that served nine years, eleven months and seven days. The next served ten years, four months and twenty days. The thirteenth served twelve years, one month and twenty two days.
By taking the aggregate number of days in the year, the average sentence works out to eight years, ten months and one day for those who have been convicted of murder, sentenced to be hanged and had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment by the present cabinet. Such people are released after serving eight years, ten months and one day of their sentences.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Shame.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: There is something wonderful about these commutations. Dion, who killed four little boys in Quebec city, had his death sentence commuted. So did Wolf son on the west cost who killed two little twin girls. Apparently it makes little difference whether you kill little boys or little girls and whether you live east or west. You will be excused from paying the death penalty and will be granted life imprisonment for the next eight years, ten months and one day. I am not asking what the cabinet considers life imprisonment to be. They have shown what they consider life imprisonment to be by the 13 commutations which have been granted since this administration came to power.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Sit up and take notice.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I assure you, my friends, that I cannot support this bill in this form because it destroys the great principle of justice that all are equal before the law. Why is it that if one kills a woman the only penalty imposed under this bill is life imprisonment, which will mean imprisonment for the next eight years-


Some hon. Members:: Ten months and one day.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: It might be four or five years.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: If the next man happens to kill a policeman or a prison guard he will swing for it. I tell you that the man or woman does not live who can tell me that any policeman or prison guard of this country is more important to this nation than my wife or my three daughters or my six grandchildren.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 16, 1967	COMMONS


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I bring it down to the personal factor and speak of myself and my family but may I say that I do not hold these women in any higher respect or regard than I hold all womankind in Canada. I am speaking for the women and children of this nation. I resent this separation of the population into two classes, leaving policemen and prison guards up on a high plateau and the others, the women and children, down in the ruck.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Speaking personally again, I was born on the corner of Stanley and Union streets in Ottawa in the ward known as New Edinburgh. I knew the people of the district, and I always got along with the policemen at Rideau Gate and the other entrances to Ri-deau Hall. You know, I always thought that the inhabitant at Rideau Hall was the important fellow. I always believed that he was a big man and that he was there for a certain reason. But what does this bill do? It says that if a man goes into Rideau Hall and shoots the Governor General or his wife that man will be imprisoned for eight years, ten months and one day. If any man shoots the policeman at the gate, he will swing for it. I ask you: Why keep the Governor General inside Rideau Hall when he is not as important as the policeman at the gate? Let us put the valuable man, the policeman, in Rideau Hall and put the Governor General at the gate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The comparative value of the two men has been amply demonstrated in this bill.
Another point. We have seen how the Governor General and his lady take second place to a policeman or a prison guard under the terms of this bill. Here we are. The taxpayers of Canada know that members of parliament are paid $18,000 a year. Cabinet ministers are paid $35,000 and the Prime Minister is given $45,000. What we are asked to decide today is: Should that man in Shell Lake, Saskatchewan, when he is convicted, be hanged for killing eight civilians or be given a sentence of eight years, ten months and one day, while the next man who kills one policeman swings for it? Do not eight civilians equal one policeman? Do not eight civilians equal one prison guard? I ask you.
Why cannot this decision be made without throwing this entire house into a turmoil for the second time in 18 months? I have several questions I wish to ask. We talk a great deal
DEBATES	4349
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence about the vote on the flag. That vote on the flag was something. When that vote was taken it was supposed to give us a flag for the rest of time, a flag that all Canadians could be proud of as we saw that red maple leaf fluttering over our heads in a parade. The flag question was supposed to have been settled once and for all. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, that fewer people voted on the flag question than voted on the subject of capital punishment in April, 1966? There were 241 votes cast on the flag; there were 255 cast on capital punishment.
If you can bring back on the floor of this house a capital punishment bill after 255 members declared themselves on the question of capital punishment in April, 1966, when do we bring the flag question back, since only 241 voted on it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I should like to point out that last night there was a vote in this house. In April, 1966, 255 people voted on capital punishment and now efforts are being made to upset the declared will of parliament made known at that time. Last night there was a motion for the adjournment of the debate. How many members voted on it? One hundred and ninety six-125 to 71. That makes a total of 196 people who last night had the opportunity of adjourning the debate. The vote this afternoon was roughly the same. Here we are in a rump parliament being asked to change the decision 255 people made and declared in April, 1966.
I say to you that that was one of the heaviest votes ever recorded in the House of Commons. I believe there was only one other vote in which more members took part. Yet the cabinet does not accept that vote of 255 members as establishing a decision. Moreover, there is a little string attached to the bill before us in that we cannot vote on it again for another five years. Why not? After all, we are being asked to vote now on a bill which was the subject of a decision of the house in April, 1966, only 18 months ago.
There are questions which need to be answered in connection with this vote and I regret that I should be the one who is bringing them forward; I had hoped that many members would have done so. The big underlying question is: How do we force the cabinet to carry out the declared will of parliament? How do we proceed when parliament says it believes in the continuance of the death penalty and the cabinet commutes every death sentence thereafter? That is the
4350	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence problem which faces this county and which faces this House of Commons-to get some responsibility from the cabinet toward members of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I have said before that this bill will destroy the underlying principle of our society that the law secures equal justice for all. How will this be possible when one man who murders a civilian faces life imprisonment amounting to eight years when another who murders a policeman or a guard receives capital punishment? It is not possible under such circumstances to say there is equal justice for all.
I do not wish to refer at any length to the speech made when this bill was introduced. We were asked at one point by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell): "Have we the right to abandon the hope of reforming even one of these men?" He was speaking of convicted murderers sentenced to death. Let me say we certainly have the right to abandon hope for these men, and this is given to us by the Lord himself. When He was sending the 12 disciples on missionary work we find, as set out in the tenth chapter of Matthew, that He divided the 12 into groups of two and they went about the country preaching, healing the sick and restoring sight to the blind. And our Lord and Master said-and I do wish this House of Commons would listen to Him: "Whosoever shall not receive you nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake oil the dust of your feet".
The Lord did not say to His disciples: Spend the rest of your lives trying to convert the first people you meet. Where should we be today if Paul had spent his entire life in Iconium and in the Arabian peninsula? He spent two years there. He sowed the seed. Then he went to the seacoast of Asia Minor and later into Macedonia. Are we to condemn Paul for having abandoned the heathen in Iconium and in the Arabian peninsula or for having abandoned the heathen on the sea-coast of the Mediterranean when he went to Greece? We are certainly not instructed to spend our lives talking to people who will not receive the word or the truth when it is presented to them. The good book still says: "Whosoever sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed".
I wish to mention a statement made the other day by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who remarked that since the law was not being observed we should

DEBATES	November 16, 1967
change the law. That is an easy solution to the problem. If the cabinet will not enforce the law, then change the law so that the cabinet will have the law on its side; if the cabinet is breaking the law, change the law because it is not nice to have the cabinet break the law. I have seldom heard a more specious argument.
I turn now to another point. We are told that a man who kills one policeman will be hanged. If he kills one prison guard he has "had it". What happens to a man sentenced to life imprisonment? Let us take it he has killed the eight people who were murdered at Shell Lake, Saskatchewan. What happens to that man if he is sent to prison and "knocks off" a couple of prisoners he happens to dislike? Note, he does not kill a prison guard; he is careful in that respect; he has to watch himself. If he kills a prison guard-goodnight. He has already killed eight people, he figures he no longer has a great deal to lose, so he decides to kill a couple of prisoners whom he happens to dislike.
I say that every one of these commutations of sentence has been illegal. What defence is offered for the illegality? When we raise the point we are informed that the cabinet has "exercised mercy". The quality of mercy is always appropriate, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. What I object to is the fact that this mercy is always shown to the murderer. Why cannot the government show some mercy to the families of the victims of these murders? [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Repeatedly, of course, we are told that compensation for the innocent victims of crime is a provincial matter. Let me point out to you there is the exercise of mercy in the commutation of these death sentences because there is no law against mercy. But also there is no law prohibiting the Canadian government from giving money, giving compensation to the innocent victims of criminal acts. I do not think any provincial government would object to the federal government doing that.
The federal government wraps this robe of self-righteousness around it and says, "We are commuting the death sentences because we are exercising mercy," Yet when we ask them to show a little mercy to the innocent victims of crime they say, "Provincial law prohibits it." I point out that Saskatchewan has passed a law to provide compensation for victims of crime, Ontario is taking some action, and so is British Columbia. Why does mercy always go to the murderers and no
November 16, 1967	COMMONS
consideration at Ottawa to the innocent victims of crime? I have a resolution on the order paper calling upon the cabinet to consider the question of compensation for the innocent victims of crime. It has been debated for one hour in the past year and a half, and it was talked out by a parliamentary assistant who said he did not understand it.
In his speech the Solicitor General referred to hanging regulations in New Zealand. Might I point out to him that New Zealand is the first self-governing country in the world that brought in a measure to provide compensation for the innocent victims of criminal acts. Why is the cabinet not following the example of New Zealand in that repect if it is going to try to follow the example of New Zealand in regard to capital punishment?
I am not a lawyer but I want to refer to some of the reasons and arguments that were used by the Solicitor General in his speech. You will find, as recorded on page 4080 of Hansard, he submits "that on close examination it will be seen"-something or other, and then on page 4078 we have this:
It is for them-
The retentionists.
-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.
Then he brings in a bill to deter murderers from killing policemen and killing prison guards. He is condemned by his own words, and by the words in the bill. I refer again to his statement, "It is upon their shoulders that the burden of proof clearly rests..."
Mr. Speaker, and members of the House of Commons, there are a number of people awaiting execution at the present time in this dominion of Canada, under sentence of death by the courts, legally constituted courts, well manned courts, well operated courts that have been bringing justice to this nation for well over 100 years. I am only a private citizen. I am not a lawyer. I would not stand up and criticize the courts of this land the way the abolitionists are standing up and talking about the possibility of error. Particularly I think it is poor taste to have the Solicitor General referring to the possibility of error in the courts that are under the
DEBATES	4351
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence control of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) and himself. I now come to his statement:
It is upon their shoulders that the burden of proof clearly rests, and in my view they cannot escape that duty.
Among those awaiting execution in this country today are two separatists in the city of Montreal. They have been convicted of killing a man in a gunshop. In the evidence they gave in court they said they were seeking ammunition, rifles and guns in order to carry out their dastardly purposes. I am 100 per cent against separatism. I am against separatists. I am against the murders of men, but if this parliament passes this bill today or tomorrow, I ask the members of this house, do you know you are going to give life sentences to these two men now under sentence of death? They are separatists who have already killed a man and said in open court that they were looking for guns and ammunition to promote the cause of separatism. This is civil disobedience. This is the next thing to sedition. We still retain the death penalty for treason.
Members of the cabinet want to have the death penalty for the murderers of prison guards and policemen, but if a man is a separatist in Montreal and says he is a separatist, when he has already killed a man and is convicted of murder, and says he was getting the ammunition in order to strengthen an insurrection, then this parliament is asked to commute his death sentence.
I say to you in this parliament that the members of the cabinet commuted the death sentence on Dion, who killed four boys, they commuted the death sentence on Hasse who killed two young girls, they commuted the death sentence on Marcotte who killed two policemen. Why don't they have the character to commute the death sentence on two separatists in Montreal? Are they afraid of causing trouble for the separatists in Montreal? I say this cabinet has to use its backbone and hold this country together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I regret that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, but one of the most despicable chapters in Candian history has to do with the Mackenzie government of 1873 to 1878. I have here in my hands the Dufferin-Carnarvon correspondence, 1874-1878. I wish hon. members would read it. It is out of the parliamentary library but I have other volumes at home.
November 16, 1967
4352	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
You will remember that in the days of Mackenzie Lepine was convicted of murder in the shooting of Thomas Scott in Manitoba in the uprising in those parts. When Mackenzie came into power he was faced with the conviction of Lepine for murder, and Lepine had been sentenced to death. The jury which convicted him consisted of French speaking Canadians, English speaking Canadians and halfbreeds out in Manitoba. Mackenzie and Blake-they sat for Lambton and Oxford -had a tremendous amount of support behind them from the province of Quebec.
The people of Ontario were demanding that Lepine be executed for the murder of Scott. The people of Quebec did not want Lepine executed. Well, how to get themselves off the hook? Just read the Dufferin-Carnar-von papers. You will read in the Canadian history books what happened when Mackenzie and Blake were considering this matter. All of a sudden a telegram arrived from Great Britain, Her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria had commuted the hanging sentence on Lepine to life imprisonment.
We are told in our Canadian history books that Mackenzie and Blake were astounded by this telegram, but they told the people of Ontario that Lepine's sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment by the Queen. Not until 50 years after Lord Carnarvon's death-he was Secretary of Colonial Affairs in those days-did it come out that in order to placate the people of Quebec Mackenzie and Blake, in a roundabout and indirect way-the correspondence is there, don't take my word for it-got the message to Dufferin, "Will you ask Carnarvon to ask the Queen to commute the death sentence and take us off the hook?" And when the Queen commuted the death penalty they told the loyal Canadian subjects of Her Majesty, and they accepted it, that this was a regal action. But five years later we fire-eating Liberals sent Blake over to England to tell the Queen she could no lc nger interfere in Canadian affairs, such as commuting the death sentence on Lepine.
I Ray to you, Mr. Speaker, this parliament today is being asked to commute the death sentence on two separatists in Montreal, two men who murdered a gunshop employee in Montreal, so that the cabinet will not have the responsibility of commuting those sentences.
We have a law of the land which says that those people who commit murder shall be hanged by the neck until they are dead. That law was passed years ago and was sustained in April, 1966. I ask the cabinet to show some

leadership and carry out the expressed will of parliament instead of coming in here with a bill without explaining to the members of the house that the first two people who will benefit from it are two avowed separatists, two confessed separatists, one of them a recent immigrant from Algiers. Let us keep this country together, and let us not get English speaking Canada on its ear once more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Mr. J. R. Comlois (Jolielfe-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I seldom take the time of this hon. chamber, I will take a few minutes to participate in this discussion, even though I think it is useless to go over all the arguments already brought forward last year.
This bill is an effort to save the lives of bandits and criminals while we are preparing to take the lives of innocents in making abortions legal and, Mr. Speaker, the arguments we are given to support the abolition of capital punishment are the same-


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder why the translation is not coming through? Could we have the translation?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is some mechanical trouble but we are making an effort to rectify the situation as quickly as possible.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the arguments we are given to support the abolition of capital punishment are the same that will be brought forward soon to support abortions.
We have reached the point of collective folly of legalized crime; legislation is sought favouring all crimes against nature such as homosexuality and abortion. We will undoubtedly reach mercy killings at an early date.
Capital punishment may not be the sole nor the best deterrent, but it solves the case of a criminal guilty of capital murder once and for all.
Instead of wasting our time, Mr. Speaker, let us consider the thousands of victims who are in need because of these very same murderers.
November 16, 1967

I think the life of an innocent person is more important than that of a criminal.
I believe in the protection of honest citizens, not in the protection of criminals.
Abolition of the death penalty becomes a direct or indirect encouragement to crime, rape and murder. Yet, Mr. Speaker, crime hardly needs encouragement if we refer to an item in a weekend newspaper, which says that in Quebec alone the police has nine murders to clear up this year, not counting those of last year; that between the 1st and the 8th of November, 24 armed robberies were committed in the city of Montreal alone: 4 in banks, 7 in drugstores, and 13 in other businesses. And the same item states that this is seasonal.
In agreeing to this bill, Mr. Speaker, we go back a hundred years, at a time when local authorities in towns and villages employed professional killers to maintain order and to guarantee the safety of their citizens.
Mr. Speaker, will the famous gunfighters return to shoot down ruthlessly those bandits who will not fail, themselves, to come back to loot, rape and kill honest people?
When we have reached the point of instructing our policemen to shoot to kill, as is so rightly said, it will then be too late. The best solution is still to retain the death penalty for capital murders, as provided under the existing legislation.
I would not want, Mr. Speaker, through lack of courage, to have the feeling, later perhaps, of being responsible for a crime that could have been avoided through fear of the death penalty. That fear remains an excellent deterrent, and I shall vote against any amendment to the existing legislation.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I join with those who have had high praise for the eloquence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) when he argued the ease for total abolition in introducing this bill. I submit, however, that the bill itself does not bear out the substance of his eloquent address. It is a bill to retain the death penalty and in retaining that grim measure the bill invests it with a value that the abolitionists have long denied-the quality of deterrence. The bill strikes at the heart of the abolition cause, bolstering at the same time the popular but irrational faith in the death penalty as a deterrent to the would-be murderer. At the same time it places a five year trial period on this unsatisfactory legislation, ignoring the fact that we have already
DEBATES	4353
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence had a five year trial of total abolition in fact if not in law.
The thinking behind these retreats from the principle of total abolition does little credit to the institution of parliament. Does the Solicitor General really advocate, as the bill so clearly indicates, that a murderer of a police officer whose deed passes all the criteria of being sanely premeditated, should hang for his crime. Surely not. To return to hanging now would be the rankest discrimination against such a murderer whose crime in all likelihood would be less repugnant than the crimes of those individuals whose sentences have already been commuted. We are being asked to reduce the number of cases calling for commutation. The government has grown weary of compromising and is asking parliament to share the burden. One can sympathize with the problem but not with the proposed solution.
This bill guarantees that we will have capital punishment on our statutes for at least five more years. By focusing attention now on the narrow range of exceptions, it poses the possibility of public pressure concentrating on those rare exceptions to force a return to executions. What the minister is doing and what the government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is gambling that the minister or a subsequent solicitor general could resist that pressure, intensified by the focus inherent in his own bill.
There is no need, therefore, to repeat in this debate any of the arguments for or against abolition as such because this is not a bill to abolish capital punishment. Many people have assumed it is and have argued very eloquently and have repeated the arguments put before us a year and a half ago. Others have argued for retention. But it is all in vain because the bill does not abolish capital punishment.
One suggestion I would make to those who advocate retention is that they not link abortion with murder, because if they do then they really believe these two things are the same.


An hon. Member:: They are.


Howard Earl Johnston: Then we have each year in Canada several hundred thousand murderers who are never brought to any trial at all.
There is, however, another area in which debate is required. The bill raises very sharply an important question. How significant is a parliamentary decision? On the international level this government is
November 16, 1967
4354	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence engaged in an attempt to destroy an independent political regime on the tenuous grounds that no country is worthy of independence that it has majority rule. At the same moment in this parliament we are busy ignoring a majority decision of a parliament elected by majority rule. It would be better, I should think, to protect democracy at home than to attempt to improve someone else's regardless of the distance.
There are those who see the progress to abolition as inevitable. We have heard the argument: Pass this bill and move part way along the predestined course; compromise now for the eventual good. But surely we know by now that progress is not inevitable and that democracy is not the inevitable product of natural process but rather a careful man-made construction. We cannot afford to ignore a parliamentary decision even from the worthiest of motives. We cannot afford to ignore a decision of parliament even if we believe, as I do, that it was wrong. The missing factor that permitted the presentation of this bill was respect-respect for the institution of parliament and respect for those with whom we disagree.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
tTranslation]


Mr. Antonio Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: In introducing Bill No. C-168, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) made a magnificent and stirring speech in favour of abolition of the death penalty, and I congratulate him for that. Unfortunately, he has not succeeded in convincing me, because many of his arguments are not new but repetitious.
It is sometimes difficult for a government member to dissociate himself from his leaders, but we must not forget that we have our own responsibilities. As for me, I represent people whom I have consulted in order to find the best course to follow.
Therefore, I feel torn between conflicting emotions: on the one hand, friendship and submission, on the other, my conscience and my duty. The people of Maisonneuve-Rose-mont have conferred a mandate upon me and I am responsible to them. I constantly reflect on my duties and the role I am called upon to play.
I am willing to assume that role, within the party, provided no one forgets that structures exist. As long as I believe it is possible to reach our goals within the framework of our party, I shall respect its rules, even at the risk of being considered taciturn.

At times, listening to speeches simplifies one's task. I often repeat myself in mine, without repeating the speeches of others, and I know beforehand that my remarks are debatable, but the speech of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), on page 4106 of Hansard is fairly well in keeping with my own ideas, and I endorse it. I am therefore saving time.
Moreover, I deny what the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) said and which is recorded on page 4117 of Hansard:
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.
Others have spoken in the same vein, including the hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack). I do not accept this statement.
Moreover, the vote will show that there are exceptions to every rule. It must be admitted that everyone has his own conscience and that everyone must face up to his responsibilities.
Since they do not understand or they misunderstand the reason why this bill has been submitted to the house, several seem embarrassed, including yours truly. However, I did not want it and I did not ask for it. I have not even been consulted; that is why I feel reluctant.
It is only 19 months since I had the opportunity to express in this house my personal opinion on capital punishment and I did it quite conscientiously and freely. Since then, my opinion has not changed.
On the contrary, the increase in the number of crimes committed shows that those who voted in favour of maintaining capital punishment were closer to a real solution, according to our system of parliamentary democracy. Parliament returned a majority vote in favour of retaining capital punishment, but the abolitionists are returning to the charge with an identical bill. They are ready to do it again later, if need be, perhaps in order to embarrass some of their colleagues with a show of party discipline.
But let us reverse the vote, we retention-ists, let us try to bring up this question again in the house. Then we will listen to lessons on the respect due to democracy, and so on.
November 16, 1967

I greatly regret having to disappoint some of them because I was, and I am still, for retention, and I challenge anyone among abolitionists to prove that their method and their philosophy have improved the situation. Statistics compiled only recently by Mr. Roland Perron, former assistant director of the Montreal police force-statistics for his area-show that, from 1944 to 1955, there was an average of 7.6 murders a year, and from 1956 to 1966, according to the same source, there was an average of 17.2 murders a year. "Not only, commented Mr. Perron, do we not have the death penalty, but life sentences do not have the meaning implied by that term, and to date, in 1967, there have been 23 murders, and the year is not over yet."
I recall saying in my speech that the death penalty must be carried out to protect society. In my opinion, that is not revenge but social good and the abolition of that penalty would deprive society of security and encourage disrespect for the law. Therefore, it is not matter to know what is good for the criminal but rather what is necessary for society.
Can any abolitionist show me any method or procedure which has led to any improvement since then? Do the Sicotte, Darabaner, Marcotte cases among others prove that those criminals have more respect for the law? If not a single criminal has been hanged for so long, which in my opinion brought about that increase in crime, why not try to be more strict for the same length of time and let the law run its course and the sentences be carried out, because punishment is the price of an evil deed and the capital punishment is the price of the capital crime.
England has tried the same experiment with abolition, and the English people are now living in insecurity. I repeat that future generations will probably judge with severity certain tendencies to do away with the concepts of fault and repentance. It is such an attitude which enables to discharge a culprit too readily and to give him the possibility of committing other crimes, and I feel that this early discharge restricts the effects.
His Excellency Fulton J. Sheen is considered as one of the most progressive bishops in the United States. His T.V. programs are followed by millions of people. Now that we are experiencing an increasingly alarming outbreak of crime, I think that the following 27053-275
DEBATES	4355
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
text of His Excellency Fulton Sheen is relevant, and I quote:
Today, because of a few social workers, a few incompetent judges, some weak minded thinkers and some cry-baby women, we show compassion not to the victim but to the aggressor; not to the police officers but to the drug peddlers.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The new saviours of a perverted society say: "And I do not condemn you. Go and sin even more." May the magistrates and social workers who deny that there is a difference between right and wrong learn, without being themselves victims of crime, that any criminal is not necessarily a "sick person".
If, in this house, there are hon. members whose parents or dear ones have been brutalized, raped before being killed, I am sure to find them among the retentionists, not out of revenge but because they are disappointed to see that the whole judicial process was set in motion and that, when the time came to carry out the judgment, the cabinet, to whom I do not award a medal-because in my opinion parliament voted for the retention of capital punishment-still continued to commute sentences.
We are being served warmed-over hash by being asked to decide upon the same subject once again. I would question the definition of the term "sound democracy", that is, when the minority bows to the wishes of the majority, unless democracy is an empty word used, when convenient, on every other occasion.
It has never been shown that abolition was necessary to maintain law and order, to preserve lives and the security of our society. As I said the last time, to object to the death penalty is not necessarily an indication of great moral strength or social progress, but it might rather be a sign of decadence.
Do I have to repeat that I request the death penalty for capital murder, but not for murder committed under a momentary or blind impulse. I do not agree with those who favour the retention of the death penalty only for the murder of police officers, because every human being is entitled to the same respect for life. If criminals or potential murderers are faced with such a punishment, only then will their fear make them have second thoughts. All the more as a law enforcement officer embodying authority knows, when he is appointed and given a weapon, that he may be called upon to use it, just as a fireman knows that he will have to fight fires; this is their work environment, and it involves some risks, of course, but it is their duty and their job.
November 16, 1967
4356	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence
As to the five-year trial period, it is nonsense in my opinion; it is more of a trick, because death sentences have been commuted for over five years, and look at the result.
I should like to put a question to the abolitionists who sincerely express their views. What about your Christian charity toward the victims of those murderers? When have you asked for compensation for those victims, their wives and children?
Assuredly, this compensation will not replace the dear departed, and I admit it will involve additional expenditure for the government, but this same government will pay to lodge these same criminals and feed them three meals a day. Is this consistent? When there are so many poor who have nothing else than being poor and who sometimes become those poor souls who must be content with only one or two meals a day.
So, if that is the charitable feeling of the abolitionists toward the criminals, why not ask the Canada medal for services rendered to mankind?
Mr. Speaker, I have voted for retention of capital punishment and I shall again vote for it, because I have the same conscience and the same concept as the last time, and it is not a question of simply reflecting the opinion of the majority of my electors. Possibly because I come from the same environment, I have the same way of thinking, and before putting us in the wrong, let us first be shown that new methods have been developed that might improve the situation.
In addition, my similar vote will repudiate the idea that Mr. Ronald Lebel of the Canadian Press has of the 51 Liberal members from Quebec when he published in La Presse of May 8, 1967 an article entitled "Will capital punishment finally be abolished?", in which he said:
In 1966, when put to a free vote in the commons, a resolution sponsored by four ministers requesting the abolition of the death penalty was defeated by 143 votes to 112. At that time, the prime minister refrained from expressing his views; only two ministers did so, one in favour of the resolution, the other against it. But what influenced the balance of the vote most, was the opposition of 51 Liberal members from Quebec. They were personally in favour of abolition but believed they would better reflect the general opinion of their mandators by opposing it.
He probably meant the electors.
Those same members could claim this time that their mandators

He makes the same error again.
-have changed their minds. All in all, it is better to vote as the leaders of the party do.
[Mr. Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemont) .1

Mr. Speaker, I will leave you to appreciate the false picture Mr. Lebel has given his readers of his fellow citizens in Ottawa. As far as I am concerned, the cabinet and I are on a different wavelength. I surveyed the population in my riding, throughout local newspapers, and a very large majority of the replies I received favoured the retention of the death penalty. So, it is their feelings, similar to mine, that I now express by totally disagreeing with the cabinet, under the present circumstances. Now, I may say that, taken as a whole, the activities of this government have my support, and I admit that blunders have been made, but mainly in attempting to solve problems, not in ignoring them.
I would take this opportunity, then, to offer the cabinet this suggestion that I made last year; so, it is my turn to serve them rehash. I will have the audacity if not the courage-this can reduce your popularity, sometimes-to remind them that, if they are there, it is only because we are here in greater numbers.
The hon. members opposite do not have that problem or those responsibilities. Why not consider the problem of the method of execution? Hanging is certainly a rather barbaric and mediaeval system. It should be changed and I am certain that everyone in this house is ready to discuss the matter and to co-operate in the development of a more humane method.
Talking about humanity, I am anxious to see the end of those matters which, I admit, are rather thorny. I come from the working class and as statistics show that the city of Montreal-my home city-unfortunately comprises 25 per cent of all the unemployed in Canada, when I receive people in my office on week-ends, I find that my constituency is sorely afflicted. I think it is more urgent to look after human capital than political capital and I feel that the death penalty, abortion and divorce are secondary problems compared to the plague of unemployment which breeds all kinds of evils, including separatism.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have no intention of attending a school for "enfants terribles", but sometimes certain causes produce certain effects, and I have expressed my opinion in my usual straightforward way. Although I do not rise often in
November 16, 1967

this house under such circumstances, I think that I still do so too often.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


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 the following: The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Groos), Veterans Affairs-maintenance of preference in defence establishment appointments; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), Northern Affairs-Grande Hermine-trip to Gaspe following Expo; the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), Indian Affairs-inability of Indians on reserves to obtain advanced training.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-ll, respecting Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Lambert-Mr. Batten in the chair.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
On clause 1-Extension of time.
Mr. Barnett:: Could the hon. member in whose name this bill stands give us some indication of the results of the consideration of this bill in the standing committee?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am quite happy to report back to the house. I believe that there was distributed today the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 9, of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, which reports in toto the evidence given before the committee by the superintendent of insurance and by three of the officers of the corporation who were questioned at length by the members of the committee who were present at the meeting. The bill was 27053-275J
Private Bills
agreed to after considerable examination, in particular the examination of the vice president and director, Mr. Dennis R. Stewart. He was questioned about where the Principal Group invested their money and indicated it was invested in Canada, apart from some holdings of one of the mutual fund companies which has a minor portion of stock holdings in its portfolio that are really based in the United States. Other than that there is the report of the committee, which was unanimous, recommending the adoption of the bill. If there are any more details hon. members wish I have some material here and I would be quite happy to inform hon. members on it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I gather, Mr. Chairman, from what the hon. member for Edmonton West said that the minutes of evidence were just distributed today. I checked my files and I did not see them, so now I understand why that happens to be the case.
This bill was dealt with and referred to the committee during the period I was absent at the United Nations. I would appreciate some explanation of the reason for its introduction. If I understand the situation correctly, the bill involves the extension of the life of this company. From my reading of the bill I gather that the company has not actually commenced active business. Certainly one of the questions in my mind is why this company, having been previously incorporated, did not begin business and why it, not having complied with the original terms of its charter, should apply for an extension of time. If my understanding is not correct, I would appreciate being enlightened by the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am quite happy to do so. I refer the hon. member to the proceedings in this house on Thursday, November 2, when second reading was given to the bill. At that time the reasons were given. I trust the hon. member does not want me to read what was said then. If I may, I should like to refer him to page 3806 of Hansard for that date.
Briefly, what happened was that in 1965 this company was granted its charter. By statute it is required to commence its business within two years. The certificate was dated the end of 1965, so the company would have had to commence business by the end of June, 1967. However, certain events intervened in 1965 just after the incorporation of this company which caused certain governments to take action to insist upon, and I think rightly so, greater liquidity

November 16, 1967
Private Bills
reserves. The hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni will recall that in the summer of 1965 there was the Atlantic Corporation debacle, as well as other events. The net result was that the Alberta government insisted that there be much greater reserves for some of the companies that were then operating within the Principal Group. At the time of the incorporation of this company it was known as the Collective Group. It was indicated that there would have to be $500,000 paid into the share capital and $500,000 paid in reserves, which amounted to $1 million.
The company group had prospects of picking up a good portion of the money, and it was going to put up the balance. The money that they had available was required within their own other operations as a result of the statutory changes which I outlined in my speech on second reading. There was no complaint about that. In addition, of course, the money supply has tightened up. The company has now complied with the requirements of the province of Alberta and of the province of Saskatchewan, where one of its member companies operates. The company does not foresee, even at this time of relative scarcity of money, that it will not be able to meet the requirements which still exist for the obtaining of the certificate to commence business. It will be seen that the extension is for two years. If the company does not come up with a certificate to do business, then the company will die and that will be it.
Although the expiry date has passed, the petition and all the necessary steps with regard to the commencement of the legislative process in the other place had been taken long before the expiry date. I believe that with the consent and encouragement of the superintendent of insurance this bill was introduced to extend the life of the company. If there are other matters that the hon. member wishes to examine, I will do my best to satisfy him.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wish to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for his explanation and also for having referred me to the debate in Hansard on November 2 when he introduced the bill for second reading. He certainly has answered the questions I had in mind as to the reason for the company not having become registered to engage in business prior to the original expiry date. From what he said I gather this was largely because of factors in the insurance world- 
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Mr. Lamberi:: Rather in the financial
world.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, in the financial world is perhaps more correct, as the hon. member suggests-factors lying outside the immediate control of the people interested in establishing this Arm.
On checking further into his remarks on second reading of the bill I note he mentioned that the company is an entirely Canadian-owned and that its officers are all Canadians living in or around the city of Edmonton in the hon. member's own province of Alberta. I point out this latter fact to indicate to him something of which he is probably aware, namely, that there has been debate about the enlargement of insurance companies' activities in relation to the question whether or not they are Canadian-owned and controlled companies. Apparently this question, which has been raised by a number of members in other debates, is answered to the extent that one could say that the profits of any of these companies once they commence business will remain in Canada, which I suppose could be said to be a mark in their favour.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite the unanimous agreement of the standing committee, which may or may not have included a desire to establish new insurance companies-indeed, they may have been more concerned with whether the company was in a sound position to transact insurance-I think there is some area for consideration in committee of the whole house of the general question of the advisability and necessity in the public interest of an expansion of the number of insurance firms which are presently operating in the country. Probably the hon. member for Edmonton West has heard me express some views on this subject in earlier discussion in this house. He may be aware of my general view that it is neither economically necessary nor desirable, at this particular stage of the development of our country, that this sort of financial institution should come into being. Along with other hon. members I have felt that the suggestion that competition is a desirable thing per se does not necessarily apply in situations of the kind that are presented to us in this bill.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I will resume my seat so as to enable any other interested members of the committee to pursue the details of the bill and to question the sponsor about what course of action the
November 16, 1967

house in committee of the whole should take on the report of the standing committee.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Comox-Alberni has pointed out, this company is apparently planning, and said so before the committee, to confine its investments to the Canadian economy. I hope this will continue to be its policy.
One of the things I have found difficult to understand is the precise relationship between this insurance company and the investment fund with which it appears to be linked in some way. The investment fund is, of course, invested almost entirely in the United States. The principal growth fund, of which 41 per cent is in United States stocks, has assets of about $900,000.
I wonder whether the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Edmonton West, would explain to me in more detail what is the relationship between this company he is sponsoring and the investment fund, trust fund, mutual fund, or whatever it is called. I notice there have been two insurance companies of this kind in recent months that are definitely linked to one of the mutual investment funds, and I am probably not bright enough or informed enough to know exactly what is the connection between these two types of financial organizations.
If the hon. member for Edmonton West would explain to me the nature of this relationship I think it would clear up some of the doubts I have in my mind about this insurance company. I have, of course, grave doubts about all private insurance companies. I think they are an unnecessary element in our economy, but at the moment that is beside the point. Perhaps the hon. member could tell me what is the link between the investment fund and this insurance company he is now sponsoring.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am not too sure what the hon. member has in mind. If he examines the testimony he will see it was clearly pointed out that there is no possibility of cross-investment. In other words, it is not possible for the mutual fund to invest in the insurance company, nor is it possible for the insurance company to use the money of its policyholders for investment in a mutual fund or in any of the securities of the associated companies. This is prohibited. I think Mr. Humphrys was suggesting that there should be legislation to this effect, but this is prohibited by the law of the province
Private Bills
of Alberta. There is no possibility of crossinvestment between the First Investors Corporation, Associated Investors of Canada and the Collective Mutual Fund Limited. I think that is the point that would worry the hon. member, but he will find this clearly stated in the evidence before the committee.


Colin Cameron: That answers me to some extent, Mr. Chairman, but I should still like to know what is the interest in this insurance company of the other companies with which it is associated. As Mr. Humphrys said before the committee, this company, if formed, would be a member of one of a group of companies that are under common ownership. The life insurance company would be owned by a holding company, which also owns some other financial institutions.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, if I may refer to the material I supplied to all members of the committee, the holding company is known as Principal Group Limited. There are as subsidiary companies the First Investors Corporation Limited, Associated Investors of Canada Limited, a number of other companies, and the Collective Mutual Fund Limited. All the shares of Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada would be owned by the Principal group and not by any associated companies; otherwise there would be cross-investing which is prohibited.
As Mr. Stewart points out, the purpose of this company is to write up insurance business. The savings certificates, registered retirement savings plans and investment certificates are to be sold by First Investors Corporation Limited and by Associated Investors of Canada Limited. The registered retired savings plans would provide for payments to be made over 15 or 20 years and would have a fixed value on maturity. In the event that the purchaser of one of these contracts dies and there is an insurance clause in his contract, the unpaid balance of the certificate is collected from the insurance company and credited to the beneficiaries of the estate, who would collect the whole amount of the contract. At the present time the portfolio of First Investors Corporation Limited and Associated Investors of Canada Limited contains securities valued at approximately $60 million odd. Speaking subject to correction, and I believe that Mr. Stewart confirms this in his testimony, the Principal Group has $27 million of insurance

November 1G, 1987
Private Bills
laid off with another company. They propose to write that insurance with their own group.
It must also be pointed out that securities' salesmen cannot act as insurance salesmen; that is prohibited under the laws of Alberta. Insurance salesmen will not be selling these investor contracts. There is adequate protection in that regard. The company proposes, along with this business, to develop the life insurance business, the sickness and accident insurance business, as is indicated in the incorporating bill.
When the company was incorporated it said that it would retain the general accident and life insurance business and the type of business-I forget the name that is used for the type of business with regard to investment certificates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is the hon. member referring to the group security attached to the savings securities? Is that what the hon. member has in mind?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The-Islands will give me back my copy of the transcript of the committee proceedings I shall be able to answer the hon. member. The term I am seeking is "creditors' risk insurance".


Colin Cameron: I am still uncertain as to the purpose for the link between these two companies. The purpose of this bill is to revalidate a previous application for incorporation. The hon. member did not tell us, so far as I am aware, why the company wishes to do this. He suggested that they will be in the general insurance and casualty insurance business and that under the laws of his province they are not allowed to sell simultaneously life insurance policies and investment certificates. Again I ask, why is there to be a link between the two companies? What is the purpose of it? What is to be gained by this link of life insurance companies? This is the second time within the last few months that this sort of application has come before the house. I should like to know what prompted the companies to take this action. Was it hoped that the life insurance company would promote business for the investment fund or that the investment fund or trust, whatever it is called, would promote business for the life insurance company? If not, I do not see the purpose of this link.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, the bill of
incorporation is more or less in standard

form. The powers granted to the company were granted under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. As a matter of fact, any prudent solicitor would advise the present step and I should find any solicitor deficient who failed to advise his clients to seek the powers sought here.
Business operations will not begin immediately. A sales force must be organized and it must be a separate sales force. That is why I raised the question of the distinction which exists with respect to licensing in the province of Alberta. The sales machinery must be organized and it must be separate from the investment certificates sales force. True, economies are to be gained, as indicated by Mr. Stewart, in that I.B.M. computers have been installed. An extensive operation is involved here and First Investors Corporation Limited and Associated Investors of Canada Limited carry on business not only in Alberta but also in the maritimes and Saskatchewan. They carry on other operations too.
May I say that the progress made by this group of energetic and able businessmen in Edmonton has been steady, as indicated by the transcript with respect to 1965, part of which I read into the record. Progress has not been phenomenal; otherwise one might suspect puffery. Investments have been made in mortgages in Alberta as well as in British Columbia. I understand that the businessmen in question have provided funds for the construction of senior citizens' homes in British Columbia. They try to borrow money on a long term and invest on a shorter term. That is why the feature of the long-term investment certificates is included.
A mixed portfolio of securities is carried and a review of the evidence given before the committee of the other place will show that this company is quite as good as other companies of its kind. It does not claim to be any better than most. However perhaps I may refer to something which will commend itself to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In 1962 they purchased Associated Investors Limited from American interest who had bought it from its Canadian holders in 1960-the Canadian company, which was privately owned, being faced at the time with a serious estate tax problem. The company was bought up by United States interests, but was repurchased by the Edmonton people, who now have it moving along very well. I think this is one act which
November 16, 1967

is commendable. If there is anything else I can explain, fine.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not know that this is germane to the bill, but I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West about the prohibition which, if I understood him correctly, exists under the law of Alberta in connection with life insurance. I understood the hon. member to say that the company was entering into an arrangement whereby in the event of the death of a purchaser the insurance policy would pay off the balance owing. Does this mean that when a person dealing with an investment firm enters upon an agreement he turns to someone else to get insurance coverage in the province of Alberta? I ask this because in other areas insurance coverage is often provided without question. Does the hon. member mean that the buyer will have the option either to deal with the insurance company associated with this group or to go to an outside insurance company?
By way of illustration, there is provision in the retiring allowances legislation applicable to members of parliament for insurance coverage which is acquired almost automatically. Is it this sort of activity which is prohibited under the Alberta law?


Mr, Lambert:: No, it is prohibited to sell these investment contracts and at the same time to sell standard life insurance on the basis of group or endowment policies-the standard form of policy sold by life insurance companies. If the hon. member would refer to page 176 of the evidence he will find that Mr. Stewart, the vice president of the company, indicates the precise nature of this type of insurance.
I am personally aware of the type of contract under which a man enters into an agreement of 20 years or so, paying so much per annum. The purchaser pays in instalments and receives a guaranteed rate of interest, completing a certain stated amount of contributions by the end of the maturity date of the certificate. Suppose a man pays for three years on a ten year certificate and then dies. If he had been making an annual payment he would, of course, have contributed only three instalments out of the ten in the contract. There is, at the option of the purchaser, a provision in this contract that for a return of an additional amount each year he can be covered in the event of death occurring. In these circumstances, if he dies at the end of three years, group insurance
Private Bills
will then pay up the balance of the investment contract and the estate will take over the complete amount. On the other hand if the purchaser does not wish to do this, all the estate will get is the accumulation of the payments he has made. It is an additional feature, but it is not the sale of life insurance.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member is really pointing out that whereas in the past this group insurance risk arrangement has been placed outside by the investment company, if this insurance company becomes operative it will then take over this function within its own group of companies.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is so, and they feel that because of the facilities they now have, electronic equipment and so forth, and their knowledge of group security business, they can reduce the overhead. In addition, by obtaining the funds allocated to the insurance company, they will be accumulating capital. The insurance company will be allowed to make those investments which are permitted to it under the Canadian and British insurance companies legislation and, as we know, there is a very strictly supervised investment requirement. This provides for the principal group a wider base of operation, a sounder base of operation and an additional outlet for the placement of capital, because as we know these insurance companies can place money in realty, mortages, and other things. So it expands the operation within the whole group.


Colin Cameron: I notice that on November 2 the hon. member for Edmonton West had this to say-he did not expatiate on it to a great extent.
I have indicated to hon. members what is the purpose of this bill. I wish to point out again that the company is entirely Canadian owned and operated. The principal group has been operating for 10 to 12 years in Edmonton and they have another associated company which operates in the United States.
The hon. member did not tell us what kind of company this was. Is it an investment company or is it an insurance company? What is the nature of the association? What I am mainly concerned about is this: While the hon. member has told us, and while Mr. Stewart has said in the committee, that the investments of this company would be entirely in Canada, I am wondering about the link with this investment trust-whether it differs very greatly from other mutual investment

November 16, 1967
Private Bills
funds in Canada which have a large investment in the United States.
At this juncture in our economic affairs in Canada, this is something we have to look at very carefully. Can the hon. member tell us exactly what is the nature of this association with a United States company? What assurance can he give us that the investment company which owns this insurance company is n,t going to benefit from the insurance company to the extent of being able to invest funds gathered by the insurance company outside the Canadian company? Can he give us any assurance that this investment group will follow a policy of investing in the Canadian economy rather than in the United States?
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is very simple, Mr. Chairman, in that first of all the company that is wholly owned and operating in the United States goes, I believe, by the name of Collective Mutual Fund Limited. I am subject to correction here. At the moment I just do not have the precise name, but I will say that it is absolutely prohibited by the Alberta act to have investments from the insurance company in a mutual fund.
The hon. member should know that the only investments which are permitted to an insurance company formed under a federal charter are those permitted under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. Not only is there the sanction of the law so far as the province of Alberta is concerned, but there is also the supervision of the superintendent of insurance, and if I remember rightly it was stated by Mr. Humphrys that he would view this with some disfavour; and of course we know the power of the superintendent of insurance. At the moment I am working from memory and cannot put my hand readily on the passage in the evidence, but may I say that the American operation is a very small portion of this whole group. It is minute, really.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On the preamble.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the title I would just like to draw attention to a passage in the report of the committee. For some inexplicable reason in the French version of the bill the title does not conform with the title of the company in the preamble. If we look at the French version of Bill S-ll-


-we see that the bill is entitled:
Loi concernant la Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada-
-on the first page as well as in the heading. The preamble reads as follows:
Considerant que la Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada, en francais, la Prineipale du Canada, Compagnie d'Assurance-Vie-
There we see that the company was incorporated under a French name at the beginning. So the committee recommends to the house that the title of the French version of the bill be replaced by the following:
Loi concernant la Prineipale du Canada, Compagnie d'Assurance-Vie.
I have been told-I do not know if that is correct or not-that it is not necessary to introduce a formal amendment for this.
Naturally, I will abide by the ruling of the Chair, and if the Chair decides that it is absolutely necessary to introduce an amendment, I am ready to do so. However, senior officials have told me that it is not necessary and that all this is simply an administrative matter.


The Chairman:: May I suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton West that while the name as outlined in the preamble is correct both in English and in French, the title of the bill in French is not correct, and I have here a note to that effect. I think it might be a better practice if the hon. member were to make a motion for the proper amendment in the French version of the bill. If he has not a copy, I could send him one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I take it that you require the amendment in writing, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Possibly I could say to the hon. member for Edmonton West that since I do have notification that the alteration was made, maybe I could deem that the hon. member has sent me the written amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
On the title:
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the title of the English version carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
November 16, 1967


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That the title in the French version be "Loi coneernant la Principale du Canada, Compagnie d'assurance-Vie".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Title as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.



THE EXCELSIOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, September 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stanbury for the second reading of Bill S-8, respecting the Excelsior Life Insurance Company.
Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is a resumed debate. Therefore the bill could stand only by unanimous consent of the house. Is there unanimous consent for Bill S-8 to stand?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, in addition to my grave doubts about the value of private insurance companies in our economy I have really very serious doubts about this one which, according to the evidence given before the Senate banking and commerce committee on Wednesday, June 7 of this year, is 70 per cent owned in the United States. In his evidence on that occasion Mr. Humphrys had this to say:
The major share interest in the company is owned by a United States life insurance company, the Aetna Life Insurance Company. The major interest of about 70 per cent was acquired in 1960.
Then somewhat amusingly, I think, Mr. Humphrys added:
However, the management of the company remains Canadian. The majority of the directors are required to be Canadian and, in fact, 9 of the 12 directors are Canadian citizens resident in Canada.
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Well, I imagine they would be. People who want to collect the savings of the Canadian people and ship them across the line might well have Canadians do the collecting for them. But, Mr. Speaker, we are facing now, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) told us the other day, an economic crisis. A very large part of the cause of that crisis has been the irresponsible action of those who have had the control of the savings of the Canadian people in various forms, and have invested it outside the country. There are the chartered banks which have involved themselves in the spot loan business in New York to the tune, I believe, of about $500 million, since we passed the amendment to the Bank Act. There are also the mutual funds which again invest a large part of their collections in the United States economy and not in the Canadian economy. Life insurance companies, both foreign and Canadian, follow a policy of directing a very large proportion of funds under their control outside the Canadian economy.
Simultaneously we are told that the Canadian economy requires great infusions of foreign capital. Only recently the Minister of Finance was in New York impressing upon his audience at the Economic Club, as I believe it is called, in New York-which is composed of senior executives of a great many financial institutions such as the Chase National Bank and the First City Bank of New York-how greatly Canada requires investment from the United States in order to keep our economic momentum going. He did not mention that under his supervision the economic momentum had come to a full stop.


An hon. Member:: He prays for it.


Colin Cameron: He prays for it, yes. Stability in the United States may create stability in Canada. I suggest that if we are to incorporate companies whose business it is to collect the savings of the Canadian people, those companies should not only be Canadian owned but should also be controlled in respect of the direction in which the investment of the funds under their control takes.
I myself am convinced that before very long the government of Canada, no matter how long it drags its feet, will have to deal with the question of the draining off of the savings of the Canadian people which find
4364

November 16, 1967
Private Bills
lodgement in the funds of insurance companies, and which should be kept within the Canadian economy for the development of the Canadian economy. It is unfortunate that the present government is not very much interested in the development of the Canadian economy. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) not very long ago at a meeting of a committee told me that this was only one of his concerns. He said that he was concerned about our export trade. The export trade may or may not be of some value; but there is one export which we should not be making, and that is the funds and savings of the Canadian people.
I object very strongly to a company with 70 per cent United States ownership coming before this parliament and asking for a licence to collect the savings of our people, to be invested at the company's discretion. In all fairness I should say that the Canadian companies are not much better than the American companies when it comes to investment policies. Nevertheless, this is a straight invitation to a continuance of this hemorrhaging of capital, which has been going on between ourselves and the United States for many years now, and which has created virtually all the problems with which our unfortunate Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is coping today. He apparently is not going to cope with this in the sensible way, which is to put the plug in the drain, rather than to ask the Americans to turn on the tap and fill the pitcher, a condition which is created by such companies as these which collect our savings and invest them in the United States economy.
Apparently the whole purpose of the government is to direct the Canadian economy in such a way that it will serve the interest of the industrial complex of the United States. I think it is time we began to put a stop to this, and made it very plain to our United States friends that they are not welcome to come here to collect the savings of our people for investment purposes of their own. If we are to accept the proposition, which I do not accept, that private life insurance companies are a valuable adjunct to our economy, then we must insist that they become Canadian companies and invest the savings of the Canadian people, which are entrusted to them in the development of the Canadian economy.
I would hope that this house would not agree to the incorporation of The Excelsior Life Insurance Company. The representatives

of this company in their presentation to us stressed the fact that it is a very old company, incorporated in 1889 in the province of Ontario under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, although it is a provincial company. Beally, that is quite irrelevant. It does not matter what this company was; it is what it is today that is important. Today it is a United States company, a foreign company, and its policies will be dictated by the interests of those in the United States who own and control it. It is all very well to have a number of Canadians acting as directors and taking part in the management echelons of this company, but they will act on behalf of the foreign owner of this company, or will not be in a position to act for very long because they will be out on their ears.
I would be very much surprised if we found that this company were to depart from what unfortunately has been the rule with regard to all insurance companies, to invest an inordinate proportion of their savings in the United States. When this government has been brought almost to its knees by the financial crisis which it has allowed to develop, precisely because of this sort of carelessness, this to me would not seem to be the time to be authorizing a continuance and extension of this dangerous trend, which has brought us to this condition.
I was humiliated when I read the speech of the Minister of Finance, which the officials in his department so kindly sent to me. I was humiliated that the spokesman for Canada should have to go down to New York and assure our United States friends that we really are quite stable up here, although we are having a little difficulty now. As a Canadian citizen I am ashamed that a representative of our government should have reduced us to the position where we have to overcome the effects of companies such as this, by going hat in hand to beg from our friends in the United States.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for consideration of private members business has expired. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair. The house will resume at eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.
November 16, 1967



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
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.
Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker,
I have been listening very intently, sir, to most of the arguments presented during this debate. Most of the time this house deals with legislative matters respecting finance, transportation, defence and other things, but from time to time we must deal with things that are primarily philosophical in nature, and the bill before us is one which falls into that category.
During this debate we have geared our thinking to what is the new code, and the mores based on our present society. One argument put forward by those in favour of the abolition of capital punishment relates to the sanctity of human life. That is a grand phrase: the sanctity of human life. I realize full well that there are many members in this house who honestly and truly believe in the sanctity of human life. There are untold millions in the world who follow the philosophy that life is sacred. I find it rather strange and difficult to understand some of the proponents of this philosophy who seem to feel that life is only partially sacred. They seem to feel that the taking of the life of a criminal is something that we should not do. At the same time many of these people who argue this point of view support the theory of euthanasia, abortion and other moral theories. If life is sacred it cannot be partially sacred. Sanctity is an absolute term.
What exactly do these people mean when they say life is sacred because of the philosophy of human life and, therefore, we must do away with capital punishment, when at the same time they say in all seriousness that when old people are beyond cure of diseases they may have they should be allowed to die? These people are also those who promote quality population. One cannot be two-sided in this respect. I sometimes wonder if we are being asked to adjust our philosophy to fit this argument. How otherwise are we to accept it?
Obviously life is sacred to the living. If one argues that life is sacred he must also argue 27053-276}
DEBATES	4365
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence that all forms of life should be preserved. This philosophy on the part of those who accept those ideas is difficult to understand. In any event this is a matter for us to consider in so far as capital punishment is concerned. We must decide just exactly what capital punishment is and why it should be imposed. Is it confined to murder or to rape? What manner of things should be considered in relation to the death penalty?
I am not saying that capital punishment should or should not be associated with those things with which it is associated today. Today one's wife does not belong to the husband, nor does one's soul belong to another. It is in terms of our present society that we must decide what justifies punishment of this type. Is capital punishment justifiable in respect of the taking of one's property, as it was at one time? This is no longer the case. Is capital punishment justifiable in respect of the deprivation of property, as it was at one time? This is also no longer the case.
We are faced now with another problem. We no longer possess a complete philosophy which complies with our modern thinking and modern problems. We are still going by the old rules and the old code. Consequently we have a Criminal Code which states that a criminal shall be put to death for having done this or that. We have not examined the situation to find out whether the criminal mores today justify capital punishment.
In reality I do not have too much faith in the argument of sanctity of life. There is a natural abhorrence on the part of the human animal to the killing of its own kind. Hon. members will acknowledge that most species of animal life today do not kill their own species. We have very few animals in the world today which are truly cannibalistic. Man is still an animal species and it is natural that he does not want to kill another of his kind. I have in mind of course a rational man; I am not referring to the irrational man who does commit murder.
Up to this time we have said as a society that we will elect someone to decide, or appoint someone else to deal out the punishment. Killing has always presented a problem. We do not as a species of animal like to kill our own. By and large the human animal does not kill, so long as he is rational and follows his normal instincts. However, those who argue that capital punishment is a deterrent should take note of the fact that it is not a deterrent.
In my many years of practice I have yet to meet one individual who contemplated the
4366	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence punishment that awaited him while committing a criminal offence. These individuals are always convinced they will not be caught. Consequently they do not contemplate the punishment. Indeed, this is the philosophy adopted by soldiers during a war. Not one of them ever imagines there is a bullet for him. They feel that death may come to others, but not to them. This is the natural feeling of the human animal. Therefore capital punishment as a deterrent holds very little weight for the argument in favour of it.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
At the same time I find it very baffling to hear those who support the argument that capital punishment remains a deterrent to the criminal who is incarcerated. If it is not a deterrent, then it is not a deterrent. I shall try later to explain what I think will be the advantage of leaving in the bill that section as it now is. I am inclined to think that capital punishment was never meant to be a deterrent as much as it was meant to be a matter of vengeance. There is a human trait concerned in this aspect of the matter. Man alone, of all creatures on earth, has vengeance and carries vengeance in his heart.
No other creature is a vengeful creature. Vengeance in itself is not to be condemned. It is a human quality. The Lord God was a vengeful God originally. There was originally no limit to vengeance. This is why, when society first began, if one of a neighbouring tribe stole your goods you were not limited to punishing that man in reason; you could at that time kill his whole family, his whole tribe, or do anything. There was no limit to vengeance, until the rise of the Sumerian culture about 4,500 years ago. The Sumerians were the first to place a limit on vengeance. They said: You can take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. But prior to that, for 2,000 years there was no limit to the vengeance one could exact. The question now is: Have we advanced far enough to say that vengeance shall not be included in capital punishment? It is the relative of the person murdered or the child raped who wants vengeance. He is the one who says: Do you mean to tell me that this murderer will get away scot-free? I want him punished. Therefore vengeance has a great deal to do with what is commonly called deterrence. I believe that vengeance is 90 per cent of the reason for capital punishment and deterrence is about 10 per cent.
Then there is the question of what will happen, after this bill is passed, to those criminals who have been incarcerated. This

DEBATES	November 16, 1967
raises another philosophical question. If you put a man in jail and confine him there for the rest of his natural life, what you have done is make an animal out of a human being. I say this because one of the great instincts of man is that he must have hope and freedom, or at least hope for freedom. We could say that today many of our freedoms do not seem too secure, but there is the hope that they will be. What will happen when we say to a man: Because you have committed murder you are incarcerated for the rest of your life; you will never be released, and if you are never released you are no more than an animal? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this person will be treated as an animal and will think of himself as an animal. But human nature being what it is, there will always be hope.
I dare say there will be more convictions after the passage of this bill because juries will not be as hesitant to convict a man of murder. As long as juries are composed of 12 men good and true who have to decide on a man's guilt or innocence, in many cases they will have an abhorrence to finding a man guilty if the death sentence is the only result of that verdict. Also, the ultimate sentence could make crown counsel hesitant in his prosecution of a man charged with murder. But once we are sure there will be no capital punishment, juries will be more inclined to find guilty a man charged with murder, and therefore we will have in our jails more prisoners serving life sentences.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you can relate this argument to the fact that you do not have capital punishment. In the United Kingdom more people are now convicted of capital crimes. The fact is that juries have been more inclined to bring in a verdict of guilty. The same thing will happen here.
The argument has been raised as to the possibility of mistake when convicting a man of murder and sentencing him to death. In other words, the argument is that capital punishment should be done away with because of the possibility of mistake. The theory put forward is that our administrative processes could make a mistake and because of this an innocent man could be found guilty. But this is not an argument to be entered into in this debate. It is an argument in support of the very old-fashioned administration of justice. Today we have such sophisticated ideas about telling the truth and testing the validity of statements that it seems we should still trust a jury to decide whether or not a man is guilty, even though it may be
November 16, 1967

influenced by counsel, highly paid or otherwise, in reaching its verdict.
This is a moral argument that the administration of justice needs reform, and I agree 100 per cent. I have discussed this matter with the Solicitor General. I refer to the question of allowing the capital punishment clause to remain in the bill in the event of the murder of a policeman or a person such as a warden performing his duty. Without this provision the abolition of capital punishment will be meaningless. We have not been able to convince our administrators of law and order that we know why criminals act the way they do. They are not sure that we have made any advances in dealing with criminality. They are not sure that this sytem will work and they do not accept the abolition of capital punishment. Without their acceptance you have no law, because if the administrators of law and order do not believe in what the legislators have done, they will find other methods to get their way.
If we consider completely abolishing capital punishment we must consider the reaction of the administrators of law and order. If we incarcerate people and put in their care and control prisoners who could be a threat to the lives of those administering our prison system, in a very short space of time those prisoners would be treated as animals and subjected to such cruelty on the part of our prison administrators as we have never seen before. This is a normal reaction. It has happened before, it has happened in the armed forces. I am sure that many hon. members have examined prison camps of the last war at or just behind the front lines and have found that the treatment afforded prisoners was atrocious. But this is the reaction of prison administrators who do not believe we have found a way of curing the problem of criminality. And we have not. Therefore we have to include this class of people in the bill, to make it workable. The reason I am in favour of the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Olio@: -and the reason I shall vote for the bill is that I do not believe capital punishment is a deterrent. I have explained why this clause must remain, namely in order to satisfy the administrators, and not us. We must satisfy the administrators that they are protected. This clause will not protect them, but it will make them feel more protected.
I know that at the present time we spend little time, energy and research in the whole field of criminology. It was said only a short
DEBATES	4367
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence time ago that we spend more on convicts' shoes than we do in the whole field of research into criminology. This deficit has to be remedied. We are now living in a society that is very complex, and many people cannot adjust to it. We do not know why they turn criminal.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I recall reading a short time ago about a brother and sister team of doctors in New York who had done 14 or 16 years of research in the field. They have now said they can predict criminal tendencies in a child as early as seven years old. There has been some work started, but we have not done anything in this area. Consequently, if we do have our jails filled, and we are going to have them filled, we will be faced with the problem of what we are going to do in this field of criminology. The only thing we will be able to do will be to spend more time and money in this field, otherwise we will be faced with an insoluble situation.
I should like therefore to support this bill, because when we have this situation we will then be faced with another philosophical problem as to whether we should establish the Devil's Island type of camps, whether we should send these people to Alaska or what we should do with them. I say that what we should do is to spend more time and more money in the whole field of criminology research. For the reasons I have outlined, I wish to support this bill and I hope that it carries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had within the House of Commons -perhaps not the first opportunity but the first time I have taken advantage of the opportunity-of speaking on this very important matter. There was an opportunity in 1961 and another one in 1965. I did not speak in 1965. At that time we were discussing a private member's bill and I felt that, while this was a bill and this was a subject which should be left to the individual member's conscience to decide, I did not feel at that time it was possible for the leader of the government to divorce his personal position from his official position. Although I held strong views on the subject, I did not give utterance to those views. I am venturing to do so tonight, Mr. Speaker, although I know that members are understandably anxious to have a decision taken on this matter.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, has been introduced by a minister of the government and in that
4368	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence sense the government has taken responsibility for the bill. However, this does not mean, as I understand some members are worried lest it might appear to mean, that this is in any sense not a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, every member in this house, on this side and indeed on the other side, has the right and the duty to vote with regard to this bill as his own conscience dictates.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: That is hogwash.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The results of this bill-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell your whip.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Every member in this house has a right to express his opinion and try to influence the opinions of others, because that is the very essence of debate, the very essence of parliamentary activity. The proof that this vote is a free vote is the fact that it is not a matter of confidence or no confidence, whatever the result of this vote may be.
This bill is different in two important respects, as all hon. members know, from the bill that was voted upon a year and a half ago. This bill provides for a five year term, and that is a very important distinction I believe over the previous private member's bill. It does, as we all know, exempt from its provisions the murder of police officers and prison guards. The bill, from the point of view of those of us who believe in the abolition of capital punishment, is admittedly a compromise, but in the circumstances I believe it is a reasonable compromise. I would be the first to admit that as a compromise it does put those of us who believe in the total abolition of capital punishment in a position of some logical difficulty. There is no doubt about that. My own resolution of this particular difficulty on this bill in its present compromised form, is that it does provide a further, very important restriction on the exercise of capital punishment, if not the complete abolition of the death penalty. I am certainly prepared to accept it and be grateful for it. I do not wish to prejudice the possibility of not having three quarters of a loaf of bread by taking the stand which would prevent having any loaf at all.
The bill, Mr. Speaker, will dispose of this question for five years if it is carried. At the end of that time the decision can be reviewed in the light of the results that have occurred

DEBATES	November 16, 1967
during that period. If the bill should fail to carry, then the matter is settled so far as the present government is concerned. Of course, every member of the house has the right to introduce any private bill on any subject at any time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? In the event the bill fails to carry, would the government carry out the law of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if this bill should be defeated, and I hope it will not be, the law of Canada will be carried out.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You said that the last time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have all been confronted with the deepest issues in human existence, life, death and society. I do not believe any of us need to apologize, and I do not believe any of us do apologize, for taking the time of this house to debate these fundamental issues. The issues have been argued with sincerity and conviction, and indeed with emotion, in an entirely non-partisan way on both sides of the house.
We have heard statistics used to support the retention of the death penalty in Canada. We have heard statistics used to support the abolition of the death penalty. I have no intention tonight of taking up the time that would be required to examine the statistics for my own argument. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, as others have already said before me, that so far as I am concerned personally I am convinced from the study I have made over a long period of time that capital punishment is not effective enough as a deterrent to murder to justify its retention. In my opinion, its unique deterrent value, its adequate deterrent value, is the only valid reason I can find for retaining the death penalty for any crime. It seems to me that the death penalty stands or falls on that argument, although there are of course other related considerations which affect the issue, some of which I will mention. I think the retentionists as well as the abolitionists accept this position, that the basic question we have to settle is the deterrent value of the capital punishment that some of us wish to abolish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, we never accepted that position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If any other members used other arguments to justify their position, of course I respect those arguments. So far as I
November 16, 1967

am concerned, and I think a good many on the other side of the argument are concerned, the deterrent value was the important part of the issue. We are told if the state can legally and morally kill, it is not to punish the guilty on the savage and primitive theory of an eye for an eye, a death for a death, but to frighten others from crime who might otherwise be tempted to imitate the guilty.
If this is a logical and moral position for those who advocate the retention of capital punishment, and if they believe in the deterrent value of capital punishment, then why do they not go further and insist that executions be held with a maximum of publicity to increase the fear and the deterrent value? That is in fact what used to be done. Surely it can be argued logically that if the death penalty is required because of the need to make an example of murders, maximum publicity should be part of the process, as was once the case not so very many years ago.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
To me, Mr. Speaker, the balance of evidence shows that the existence or absence of the death penalty does not make any measurable statistical difference to the person who is unaware that he is going to kill until the moment of frenzy or obsession or passion hurls him into his terrible calamity. Those who commit tragic murders of that kind are not hanged now, because in 1961 we made a change to the law exempting from the penalty of execution those who commit non-capital murders of that type.
We are told, Mr. Speaker, by experts on the subject that a large number of murders are committed by persons with neither a previous criminal record nor with calculation or planning for their crime. So is there any real evidence that the threat of the death penalty frightens murderers, either of the kind who would not be hanged in any event or those from the ranks of the professional criminals who plan their crimes? I submit there is no evidence which would justify the use of capital punishment as a deterrent for that kind of murder.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as has so often been pointed out in this and in previous discussions, at a time when pickpockets were still executed in England other pickpockets worked the crowds that gathered to watch the execution.


An hon. Member:: That is an old one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it is an old one, but there is a moral attached to it. Even if it
DEBATES	4369
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence cannot be proven that the death penalty reduces the number of murders by its horrible example, then some retentionists argue- and it is an impressive argument-that while those who murder have obviously not been prevented by the fear of execution and death, there must be many other potential murderers who have been restrained by that fear but whom naturally we never know about.
This argument in favour of the death penalty, Mr. Speaker, means, as I understand it, that the greatest and most final of all punishments rests merely on a possibility that no one can prove. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a possibility which cannot be determined is too frail a foundation for Canadian justice in any form, but especially in such an absolute form as capital punishment. Death does not involve degrees or probabilities; it is definite, final and absolute. I think it was the first Earl of Strafford who said "Stone dead hath no fellow".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So is the victim.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it is the same for the victim as for the murderer, but I will come to that later.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Where is the greater crime?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely that kind of punishment should not be administered in the name of a possibility that cannot be determined by any society which calls itself civilized.
Death is also final in another sense, Mr. Speaker. There is no possibility of rectifying a mistake which may have been made in a death sentence; and we know that such mistakes can be made, have been made, and will be made. While the law is simple and blunt and irreversible-and in the case of the death penalty has an awful finality about it-the human spirit is infinitely complex, a collection of constantly competing needs and wants and emotions which no law can perfectly control.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, most of mankind manages for most of the time to keep all these clashing forces that operate within a single personality in a kind of balance and under some control. But when an overpowering primal emotion breaks loose, no instinct, not even that of life or death, can oppose the tyranny of that irresistible force. Therefore a murder can occur. So for capital punishment to really be a deterrent, human nature would have to be as stable and cold as the law itself. And human nature, Mr. Speaker, is far from that. When this kind of human nature
November 16, 1967
4370	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence does exist in an individual, that individual is less likely to commit a murder.
I have tried to show that in dealing with this issue we should all be concerned-as I see it, primarily concerned-with the protection of society from the crime of murder. But we are also concerned-and this concern has been voiced by many speakers in this debate -with certain fundamental moral and social values in our civilization and in our society.
There can surely be no argument that the final justification of any law is in the good it does in the society in which it applies. As Sir Winston Churchill, who was not an abolitionist, said in the British House of Commons many years ago, when he was Home Secretary-and I am quoting from the speech he made at that time:
The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted criminal against the state; a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and an eagerness to rehabilitate ...; tireless efforts toward the discovery of creative and regenerate processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can find it, in the heart of every man. These are the symbols which ... mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation ... proof of the living virtue in it.
Armand Camus put it more succinctly, if less eloquently, when he wrote:
-Every society has the criminals it deserves.
In every capital conviction leading to execution, Mr. Speaker, it is not the condemned alone who stands under judgment. The whole of our society and our most fundamental human values are also being measured. Murder for which, it is argued, the death of the murderer is required is often, indeed is far too often, the end result of a lifetime of tragedy; the final liquidation of a human being who has never had or been able to find a place in society.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


William Heward Grafftey: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The law itself has no way of taking into account those factors of life, personality, heredity and environment which in every individual are parcelled out unequally at birth and which may determine his fate, that fate of which we are all, wrongfully, supposed to be the master. The absolute responsibility of an offender who is to die cannot be precisely measured in any human


system of justice, any more than the responsibility of society in the offender's crime can be completely measured or understood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And so, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the impossibility of absolute justice. Yet death itself is the absolute condemnation. Its sentence postulates that the man is absolutely guilty and that the society which judges him is absolutely innocent; for the death penalty can admit of no qualification or imperfection. It is too final for that.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we know that neither our society, nor our judges and juries are without imperfections; and our imperfect society often makes it possible for the criminal with wealth to put his defence in a way which is not open to the poor or friendless man.
If, as no one can doubt is the case, the death penalty in any form is now considered too gruesome and degrading an example to be carried out in public; and if, as I believe is the case, the death penalty makes no demonstrable difference to the deterrence of murder in our society; if it does no service to society and if it involves the possibility of a mistake for which no rectification is possible, then I must ask myself what other reason there could possibly be for retaining it.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: For the murderers of policemen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We know that the execution of a murderer will not restore the victim to life, comfort or solace his family, help them in any way, or bring comfort to his friends. So why ought we to retain it?


An hon. Member:: There is no alternative.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe the only logical explanation left for retaining capital punishment in our society is a desire for retaliation-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and for revenge.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is to make the punishment fit the crime.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The criminal kills, so he must be killed.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
November 16, 1967	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that this is an adequate reason in any society that aspires to become truly civilized.


An hon. Member:: You have it in the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Retaliations do not protect society from anything. Indeed, such brutal revenge as the death penalty can feed the appetites for brutality and sadism that remain in our society. This is the one and major reason why the death penalty has been abolished from so many political societies.
From this I believe it can logically be argued that if society executes an offender only for retaliation, to make the punishment fit the crime, a closer look will reveal that it is not only the offender but society as well that feels the cruel corrosion of that retaliation. I feel this more strongly, because a criminal impulse is often the result of illness of mind or body, or both, and needs treatment rather than punishment.


An hon. Member:: And protection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Guilty-


An hon. Member:: And protection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Guilty and insane. What is insanity under the law, as it now stands? I do not say this because I am soft on criminals, but because all history proves the ineffectiveness of punishment alone as a cure for crime or as a protection for society. I base my argument not on sentiment but on the record. I believe that crime must be treated, not on the gallows or in the gas chamber, but in the slums, in the ghettos and in the clinics, at the source. And that source is the most intricate and mysterious and precious of all mechanisms, the individual personality and the influence of heredity and environment which affect it.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are deciding in this debate more than the question of capital punishment; we are deciding, as I see it, how civilized we want Canadian justice to be.


Erik Nielsen: That was decided one year ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe that no decision taken by this house can measure more accurately the nature and degree of our civilization than the decision we take on this issue. And we are not truly civilized when the desire for revenge and retaliation, as old as man, is stronger than the desire to reform and restore. Retaliation, even the final
DEBATES	4371
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence retaliation of death, will not correct murder in the nature of man and therefore is not, in my view, an acceptable principle for any law; nor is it a necessary or humane ingredient of our system of criminal justice.
Even if it were otherwise acceptable, capital punishment is not an equivalent retaliation for murder. Our present law considers premeditated murder more serious than murder from an unplanned and unanticipated emotional explosion, and makes a distinction between the two kinds of murder with the application of the punishment of death. But capital punishment is death through a premeditation more calculated than any crime of murder could possibly be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are retaining it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Few murderers have ever been so horrible in their deliberation as an executioner.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that such mental barbarity-and that is not too strong an expression-should have any place in the Canadian system of justice. If it cannot be removed entirely at this time, and I wish it could be, then surely it is a worth-while step forward to reduce it as much as possible, as we are doing in the bill before the house.


An hon. Member:: Discrimination.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe that all Canadians, to some degree, are morally diminished by the doctrine of legal retaliation as employed in the death penalty.
A few years ago, in an article in the New Statesman, Anthony Storr made the following statement:
The criminal cannot be regarded as a different kind of animal with different instincts; for he is also human, and subject to the same laws and the same forces which determine the desires of every one of us.
It is tempting to treat him as something utterly foreign from ourselves and so avoid looking into our own depths-
To condemn him as inhuman is to fall into the trap of treating him as he treated his victims: as a thing, not a person, a thing on whom we can let loose our own sadistic impulses, not a fellow creature who might, even yet, be redeemed.
If society restrains its emotions in such a case and spares the offender's life, he could be examined-if only in an effort to learn
November 16, 1967
4372	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence why he and his kind behave so terribly. In this way, the true purpose of the law, to protect society and correct the offender, would surely be served more effectively than by killing the offender. If, as is said, crime does not pay, the experience of history shows that punishment of crime pays even less, unless it is coupled with successful corrective measures for the offender and with alteration of the circumstances in which he offended.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
As the South African writer Alan Paton once wrote:
An offender must be punished. I don't argue about that-
None of us do.
-But to punish and not to restore, that is the greatest of all offences... If a man takes unto himself God's right to punish, then he must also take upon himself God's promise to restore.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is often argued, and it has been argued in this debate, that opponents of capital punishment are swayed only by emotion, that they are weakly sentimental. I suggest the opposite is the case. I respect the views of those who feel they must oppose this bill. But as I said earlier, in my personal opinion there can only be one reason left for wanting to retain capital punishment if it is not proven to be an adequate deterrent-and it has not been so proven. And that reason is retaliation. And retaliation is based not on reason but on emotion. Who, then, is really swayed by emotion and who is really being sentimental? To the degree that sentimentality may be considered a state of mind relying more upon emotion than upon reason, I suggest it is the defenders of the death penalty who are the sentimentalists.
If it could be proven that capital punishment was an effective and unique deterrent to murder, then even the most emotionally vulnerable diehard humanitarians would find themselves forced to espouse the other, the emotional argument, in its thinking, and I do not believe that emotion should dictate our actions in this matter. We should, instead, do all we can to discourage throughout our whole system of justice and correction, in our police force, in our courts and in our persons, this kind of retaliatory emotion. If we cannot yet eliminate capital punishment entirely from the Canadian system of justice, if we have not yet achieved that degree of civilization, then let us at least take the important

step toward that time which is now open to every one of us in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. More:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Mr. Prime Minister, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) spoke just previous to you, and I notice that you-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has to address the Chair.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I wish to ask the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he agrees with the hon. member for York East that the reason for maintaining capital punishment in the cases specified in the bill is that our law officers and administrators would otherwise take brutal retaliatory measures against these people. This was the statement the hon. member made in explanation of the reason for maintaining these exceptions in the bill. I believe it to be a reflection on those concerned, which should be cleared up at once.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Those views as expressed by the hon. member are certainly not my views, and I do not agree with them.


Mr. Thompson:: I would appreciate the privilege of directing a single question to the Prime Minister. In the event that Bill No. C-168 becomes law and that at some time in the future a person is found guilty, in due process of the courts, of murdering a policeman or a prison guard, would the government commute the death sentence or would it obey the Criminal Code as amended by the measure before us?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman knows that the royal prerogative is exercised in a particular way as a result of the particular recommendation made regarding the circumstances of the case. If there were a recommendation to mercy from the jury in connection with the murder of a police officer or anyone else, that would be one situation; if there were no such recommendation, that would be another.


George Robson Muir: I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question: If, as he says, capital punishment amounts to retaliation, why are those who murder policemen to be hanged?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thought I explained that, Mr. Speaker. I believe in total abolition, but I am willing to accept a bill which does not go as far as total abolition, although it goes
November 16, 1967	COMMONS
toward that idea. I hope we shall have total abolition before long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Sherman:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with respect to a point on which I am not fully satisfied at the moment. Does the Prime Minister believe that life imprisonment should, in fact, mean life imprisonment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is impossible to give a categorical answer to that question, but the hon. member may know that the law was changed not long ago to the effect that in the case of commutation of a death sentence to one of life imprisonment the criminal cannot be released except upon the approval of the governor in council. So there is that protection.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not in the law.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If it is not in the law, then I think it was done by administrative action. I think there should be that kind of protection, perhaps other kinds of protection, to avoid the premature release of those sentenced to imprisonment for life.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I intend to vote against this bill, and-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -a number of hon. members on both sides of the house intend, I believe, to do the same thing. I think it is essential that before a vote is taken-and, speaking personally, I hope it will be taken tonight -those who feel in conscience bound to vote against this measure should have the case put for them.
I do not wish to arrogate to myself the right or the ability to speak for all of them, or to express precisely every point that those who will vote against the bill may have in their minds and in their hearts when doing so, but I think it essential, in view of the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that the case, at least in part, for those who intend and feel they have to vote against the bill, should be put. This should be done, so that when we take the vote, which as I say I hope will be tonight, we will take it with a balance of views having been expressed for and against the bill. That is my intention, sir, because I think there are very important views and considerations which
DEBATES	4373
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence should be put into the minds of hon. members of the house at this stage, as they approach the responsibility of voting; and there should be stated the reasons on both sides, so that the country may assess fairly what was in our minds when they judge what we will have done here.
I am going to attempt seriously not to make an emotional speech or to allow myself to be carried away by what I think were the unfortunate implications of the Prime Minister's speech. I will content myself with saying simply that I think it was an unfortunate speech because I believe the Prime Minister perhaps unwittingly-I hope unwittingly- attempted to put those of us who feel we have to vote against the bill in the position of uncivilized barbarians and as opposed to progress. That is the case I wish to refute.
I have just four points I want to make, some of them related specifically to what the Prime Minister said, others related to the general case. The Prime Minister started by stating that those who argue in favour of the retention of capital punishment accept as the basis for their position that its deterrent value is the main if not sole justification for its retention. Sir, I reject this. This is not a proper or indeed even a fair assessment of the position of those who believe capital punishment should be retained in the interests of society, although certainly many of those who believe in retention think that one of the justifications is its deterrent value.
But on the basis of my studies, and certainly speaking for myself personally, and I believe speaking for many of those who have not yet spoken, and for those who have spoken, we base our position not so much on the deterrent value, which is difficult to prove -indeed that I have always admitted-but rather on the basis of what must be the sanction for society's most important law.
At this stage I do not want to go into a great deal of detail on the philosophical argument about laws and their sanctions, but I think it important to summarize this argument, and I do so as follows. Any law of important application with respect to the welfare of society and the conduct of human beings in the area of which we are speaking must have a sanction as its basis. The importance of law and the expectation that the law will be observed are measured directly by the sanction behind the law. Surely there can be no argument that the most important law to society, if we are to have an ordered society, if we are to preserve the very basis
November 16, 1967

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence of society, is that no individual can take it upon himself as a matter of his own conscious judgment and decision to take the life of another; because if we were to admit for a moment that any individual had that right, or could be justified under any circumstances in making that decision and carrying it out, we would be destroying the very basis of an ordered society. This therefore in my submission is the most important law that society may enact, must enact in its own preservation-the law that says human life may not be taken by another individual.
The question then is simply, what sanction does society place behind that law? How important does society, or parliament acting on behalf of society, think that law, that principle is? I maintain society is entitled to say, indeed parliament on behalf of society should say, that this law-this principle-is so important that he who defies it has forfeited his right to live in society because he has challenged the very basis of its continued and orderly existence. That, as I see it, sir, is the reason for the law of capital punishment.
I do not expect that those who believe in abolition will accept perhaps the logic of what I am saying. I respect their right to disagree and to advance the contrary points of view, but I do ask of them, as I ask of the Prime Minister, and as I ask of my colleagues in this house as they assess their position and examine the position of those who feel we have to retain capital punishment, that they understand that that is the basis upon which we believe that capital punishment must be retained: The preservation of the basis of a lawful and ordered society.
I come then to the question of the basis, of the background of this bill, and whether one should vote against it or not with respect to the position taken by the government.
I am not going to traverse again all the arguments that have been made, the arguments arising out of the fact that just last April, just 16 or 17 months ago, a substantial majority decision of this house was taken, on a free vote, that capital punishment should be retained. I understand the motives and the positions, and would appreciate and accept the motives and the positions of individuals who believe in abolition, in constantly bringing forward private members bills or private members motions to that end; but I do not understand and I do not accept the right of a government constantly to attempt to bludgeon the House of Commons into submission, notwithstanding the clear
[Mr. Fulton.1
and unequivocal expression of the majority opinion of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I resent the fact-I resent it personally, and I think I resent it on behalf of all who feel as I do-that the government feels it must embark on a crusade to abolish capital punishment, a crusade that leads persons like the Prime Minister to say that those who oppose him are somehow barbarians and uncivilized people.


Miss LaMarsh:: He never said that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was inherent in his speech. Nothing could prove more conclusively, as we assess the background of this bill, that it is the determined objective of the government to abolish capital punishment than the speech of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) himself in introducing the bill.
I respect also the motives and the emotions of the Solicitor General as an individual; but I submit to you, sir, and to him and his colleagues that he cannot here act as an individual-that he must act here as a responsible member of a responsible government, responsive to the will of parliament. If that becomes unacceptable or untenable to him, there is but one honourable course for him to follow. I say that in the light of his words, which prove to me so clearly that this is a course embarked upon by the government to abolish capital punishment.
I refer to his words which will be found at page 4077 of Hansard for November 9, which include the following:
X 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.
Promising, for what? Obviously, for the abolition of capital punishment. That is the objective of the government. Then a few sentences later the minister said:
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.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In other words what the minister is saying-he nods, and I respect him for his assent-and saying on behalf of the government, is that they do not accept the law as it now is and that they are dedicated to changing it, notwithstanding the fact that 16 months ago parliament showed that it preferred and approved of the law as it now is. I suggest to you, sir, that it is not appropriate and that it is not open for a government
November 16. 1967	COMMONS
after an interval as short as this one to say to parliament, as in effect it is saying, that parliament was wrong then, and that the government is going to force us to change our minds.
In very fact the government is saying that it is going to force parliament to change its mind, because now we have a government bill; it is not a private bill. Private crusaders I respect, but private crusaders cannot bind government supporters. The government says it is a free vote-sure. But what they really are saying to their supporters is: "This is a government bill, chaps, and it will be very embarrassing if you vote against a government bill".
In other words, this is a government measure, and I completely reject the attitude that they alone are right and that they alone are the humanists. I uphold the right of those who feel as I do, and who will vote as I will, to maintain that we also are humanists, that we respect the sanctity better, than that of the case put forward by am now thinking of the families and friends of society and that we will do as we do because we believe it is in the interest of the greater good of society and that more will be achieved in the interest of greater good by our vote than will be achieved if we accept this bill.
Third, I say that in much of the argument which has been advanced in support of this bill and in support of the principle of abolition-in the argument used by the Prime Minister tonight-it is inescapable that those who use the argument do not understand the present position of the law. They use an argument which might be applicable if the amendment of 1961 had never been made. They overlook, however, the fact that capital punishment is not now applicable, and will not be the sentence imposed upon a person who kills in a sudden fit of passion, upon the moron who may not be technically insane but is not responsible for his actions, or upon the one who kills on an unexplainable impulse. The present law does not provide the penalty of death for these persons, even though they have killed.
So much of the argument advanced by those who have taken the abolitionist position in this debate overlooks that fact. Thus, we find the Prime Minister tonight making the maudlin appeal to emotion which he made when he used the words which I have taken down. He said that if we reject this bill we will be supporting-and here are the words I have taken down-"the idea of the
DEBATES	4375
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence final elimination of the human being who has never been able to find his place in society". As I say, the Prime Minister spoke as one who simply does not know or, if he knows, fails to give recognition to, what the law is as of today; because as I say, after the 1961 amendment the law does not impose the penalty of death upon those who kill because they have been unable to find their place in society.
The present law does not impose the penalty of death upon those who are unable to restrain their impulses because of some innate lack in themselves; it does not impose the penalty of death upon the moron. These people are not liable to the death penalty. We took care to ensure that in the amendment we made in 1961. We took care to ensure that the penalty of death for those who kill is confined to those who kill as a result of a deliberate and premeditated plan, or those who commit the crime of killing in the course of carrying out some other deliberate and premeditated crime.
So, in effect capital punishment today as the penalty for murder is confined to those who kill in the course of carrying out a deliberate and premeditated act, or who counsel or aid in such killing.
I say, sir, that so long as this is an imperfect society-and I imagine it will be until the good Lord summons us all to that kingdom over which He is the head, and where laws will no longer be imperfect, and where human beings will have been translated into the realm of perfection-we will have, as we have now, the human being who is prepared to commit a deliberate and premeditated killing for his own gain, or because he has some objective which is opposed to the over-all good and ultimate aim of society itself.
Speaking as one who has not been uninterested in the past, and who is still extremely interested in the present, in the principle of reform and rehabilitation, I cannot bring myself to deprive society of the protection of capital punishment as the fate of, for instance, the person who as head of a mob operation which is subverting the very welfare of society in its peddling of narcotics and drugs says, "X is in the way, boys; rub him out." That is said: "Rub him out." X then ends up in a grave of quicklime.
I am not being sensational when I say these things, as anyone within reach of my voice knows. This does happen in Canada. I think we would be very much better off if we were to devote our attention, energy and ingenuity to finding ways to control and
4376	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence eliminate these rackets rather than reviving a pointless debate on capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, I said I would endeavour to remain unemotional and speak factually. I believe I have spoken factually, even though I may have brought a certain amount of emotion to bear on the arguments I make on behalf of myself and the others who intend to vote against this bill. I say that the moral justification of our case is equally good, or better, than that of the care put forward by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak tonight, or even at all, on this bill. However, on the invitation of the Prime Minister tonight I rise to defend the position which I will be taking in the vote which is to follow. Someone has asked when it will be. I do not know when it will be. Perhaps the Prime Minister has spoken at the half way mark in the debate, for all I know. The fact remains that previously in debate on this subject the Prime Minister had taken the position which I think was quite correct. That was to refrain from entering a debate on the subject. I say this for the simple reason that there is more power vested in the Prime Minister and in his office than in that of any other individual in Canada. Naturally in a position of this kind, with the power that the Prime Minister's office has the position of those surrounding him becomes somewhat hazy. There is no doubt that the position taken by the Prime Minister is, in my mind, the right one, but I regret very much that he saw fit to enter the debate at this particular time.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We are speaking about something that is neither fish nor fowl. Even the Prime Minister spoke as though this was an abolitionist bill. Yet, as we see it tonight, we recognize it as something that indicates that capital punishment is in fact a deterrent, although many of us do not recognize that fact. Many of us believe that capital punishment is in existence for the protection of society, and feel that it should be retained on that basis. The Prime Minister said that three quarters of a loaf was better than none. He also indicated that he hoped the whole matter would soon be disposed of, but it is my understanding that if this bill passes the situation will remain unchanged for five years.
It seems to me that if this government remains in office for very much longer we will be presented with an amendment which will shorten the duration of this bill. We will

DEBATES	November 16, 1967
be faced with another bill advocating the complete abolition of capital punishment, sponsored by this same government.
Much has been said about police officers and guards. I feel that in this regard there is great discrimination against others who have suffered at the hands of those who wilfully murder and kill. Let us consider protecting these people, as well as guards and policemen. There are many who are absolutely powerless to avoid their own demise, because of the inability to protect themselves from someone who might become a killer. As a result of this bill these killers will spend their time in prison, for how long no one knows.
Someone suggested that retentionists were here arguing on the basis of revenge and retaliation. I think the Prime Minister used these expressions. Let me deny most emphatically that we are here on the basis of attempting to be revenged. This matter does not concern individuals; it concerns the people of Canada. In our democratic structure we in the House of Commons must make decisions, therefore we cannot argue from the point of view of personal revenge. This whole matter is not viewed from a personal position in any way, but from the point of view of representatives of society.
Surely it is absolutely impossible to be completely just through our penal reform system. A convicted murderer could be 65 or 70 years of age. Time will run out on such an individual. But a convicted murderer 16 to 20 years of age who is sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his life may well spend 60 years in prison. That person would be no more than a vegetable. The man 65 or 70 years of age might be quite content to stay in prison, eat three meals a day, have proper exercise and a warm place to sleep. That individual no longer wants to play baseball or hockey. I point this out to support the argument that we cannot mete out punishment without having differences.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Surely, we have lots of time.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Would the hon. member outline to the house the number of murderers of his acquaintance who are at the present time over 65 years of age?


Bert Raymond Leboe: I certainly cannot, as I am not acquainted with the statistics regarding murderers. I have not made such a study my
November 16, 1967

habit. There are murderers who are over 65 years of age. Murderers can be of all ages, depending upon the circumstances at a given time. I need not refer specifically to age 65. There is still a great deal of difference between an individual between 15 and 20 years of age who is sentenced to life imprisonment and one who is between 55 and 65 years of age.
It is my belief that we should be more concerned about the results of crimes, and I am now thinking of the families and friends of individuals who are brought to trial, convicted and sentenced to life. What happens to the wives and children of such men? What are we doing about looking into the situation surrounding those people who are the innocent sufferers? Something should be done in their behalf, and this is much more important than spending hours and hours in this house trying to save the necks of premeditated murderers.
There is one more point I should like to make. If we believe, as the Prime Minister has suggested, that if we are going to retain hanging we should hang the condemned in the open for all to see, then we should also force our prisoners to live in glass houses on the main streets, where everybody can see them incarcerated.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Before taking any final step we should make certain we have maximum security prisons. No one can stand in this house today and say that we have such in Canada. There is no prison in Canada from which prisoners cannot escape. They have been escaping from all prisons regularly, over the years. We must have maximum security prisons for the protection of society. If this bill should pass, there is nothing facing a convicted murderer other than life imprisonment. Certainly this is no deterrent to an individual who decides to shoot his wife. I believe that many innocent people will die if we pass this bill and abolish the death sentence. I suggest that those who have argued in favour of total capital punishment have been arguing in favour of just that, rather than for this bill, which is neither fish nor fowl. More innocent people would die because we have failed to protect society. Therefore I say we should vote against this bill. I say this because so many people in the house have been arguing the case for the total removal of capital punishment and have not been considering the bill that is before us.
DEBATES	4377
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for quite a few days for an opportunity to speak on this bill. The bill before us does not cover the whole gamut of capital punishment, technically, but provides only for the taking away of protection from people who are not able or qualified to protect themselves. This bill provides protection for those people who are equipped with the means of protection, namely policemen and their affiliates and penitentiary guards and their affiliates. It takes away all the protection from people such as corner grocery store operators, bank employees and, down in this part of the country, the caisse populaire employees, post office and express office employees, small boys and girls, women, and other people in isolated situations such as farmers.
The bill we are considering takes away the protection of these people who have not the means with which to protect themselves and simply have to stand around and wait. If this bill passes, very little punishment will be meted out to the criminals liable to murder this type of person. The murderer will serve an average of eight years, ten months and one day of a life sentence. When we get around to imposing a life sentence, that means a life sentence, then we can think about doing away with capital punishment, which is the sentence those who commit premeditated murder should suffer.
The bill before us removes the first two clauses of section 202A of the Criminal Code and leaves only the last two clauses. It removes the clause which says:
Murder is capital murder or non-capital murder.
(2) Murder is capital murder, in respect of any person, where
(a)	it is planned and deliberate on the part of such person,
(b)	it is within section 202 and such person
(i)	by his own act caused or assisted in causing the bodily harm from which the death ensued,
(ii)	by his own act administered or assisted in administering the stupefying or overpowering thing from which the death ensued-
And so on. This debate at this time is very, very unnecessary. We are debating a half-baked, ill-prepared bill that does not do anything to protect people. It really is a shame that the government should have conned the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) into presenting a half-baked bill like this. I cannot understand why this government would try to destroy the minister who is the most highly respected of any minister in the cabinet.
That is what the government is trying to do, destroy the Solicitor General. I cannot
4378	COMMONS
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence understand how a smart man like the Solicitor General, for whom I have infinite respect, allowed himself to be conned into presenting a thing like this to the house, especially so soon after parliament had given a decision on the matter, some 16 months ago; and that decision was to be one the government would live up to.
Where are we going from here? I must make some reference to a few of the very wonderful speeches I have heard. I was very happy to hear the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who really did a bang-up job in his remarks on this bill. We must not forget the speeches of the hon. members for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Wadds), Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Al-kenbrack), along with those of a number of others.
When dealing with this subject we must consider the type of person who commits premeditated murder. Premeditated murder is committed by a person who is fully prepared and very willing to commit such a crime. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, premeditated murder is committed by people who go out on a criminal expedition, robbery or what have you, armed with a hand gun, sub-machine gun, sawed off shotgun, switch blade knife, brass knuckles or any other lethal weapon that you can think of.


Mr. Mackasey:: Bazooka.


Frank John William Fane: No, I think a bazooka is too big. Those people who go out on a criminal expedition unlawfully armed with these weapons should, if they commit murder, be charged with premeditated murder and punished accordingly. The only way to punish this kind of person is to keep him out of the way for good, so that he cannot commit this type of crime again. He should not serve a sentence of only eight years, ten months and one day, but should serve a life sentence. A sentence of short duration is not very final.
The Prime Minister mentioned that the death penalty has an awful finality about it. Does anybody not think there is an awful finality about the person who is murdered? I believe this is something that must be considered. I shall take a little different tack from a lot of those who have spoken, Mr. Speaker. I am going to suggest to the government a way to make it possible to bring in the total abolition of capital punishment.

DEBATES	November 16, 1967
I am against the bill at this time, but that does not mean that this or any other government should not get down to the business of properly organizing the laws of this country and making them work, putting teeth in them, so that we remove the desire of people to commit this type of crime. Then is the time we can talk about the abolition of capital punishment. This is something we must consider.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Before we start to talk about abolishing capital punishment we have to do what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) suggested, and that is make it impossible for persons who are prone to commit murder to have the weapons with which to commit these crimes. We should really put teeth in the law, and say that anyone carrying hand guns unlawfully, or any of these other weapons I have mentioned, receives a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison. The ten year term would be imposed consecutively to any other sentence received. Of course, if the person were hanged first, then he would not have to serve the ten years, so he would get a break that way.
This is one way in which we could make it possible to introduce a bill proposing the abolition of capital punishment; but we surely cannot do that legitimately at this time. We cannot take this course because crime is rampant in this country. One thinks immediately of the inoffensive tailor who was killed in Toronto the other day. The organized crime that is coming into Canada from somewhere certainly does not help the cause of the people who want total abolition of the death penalty. Of course we are not now talking about total abolition. However, if this bill were passed, then the government would come back and want us to vote on total abolition, and probably they would make that stick.
Personally, I think the best way out of this situation would be for the government to withdraw this bill now, before we get a chance to vote on it. In this way, the government would indicate they realize their error in bringing before the house a bill which is not going to do anyone any good. As I have said, the bill just removes protection from the people who need it most. I maintain that policemen, prison guards and the affiliates of these two classes of people have protection. They all go into these positions with their eyes open. They know what to expect, just as members of the Canadian Armed Forces know what to expect. They do not need the
November 16, 1967

special protection that the ordinary citizen needs who is not permitted to carry side arms. They do not need the protection that the housewives, the corner grocery store operator and all these other people I have mentioned need.
How would one feel if he went home some day and found his wife had been shot? How would he feel if he found her lying on the floor in front of the door, dead, because she refused to buy something from one of these itinerant peddlers with which this country is so full at this time? What would we think if our children were murdered? What would we think of so many of these things? These people do not have the protection afforded to policemen and guards. We are only second class citizens, and the first class people are the ones who have the protection.
This is the way I look at it, and I certainly cannot support this bill as it is now. I do believe, as I have said, this is an excellent opportunity for the government to withdraw the bill and save the minister, the most highly respected in the government, from embarrassment and shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate will be very brief. I understand that there has been a disposition on the part of many hon. members to reach a decision on second reading of this bill today. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), even though he spoke against the bill and put forward the arguments of those who support his point of view, expressed the wish that a decision could be taken on this bill this evening. We have had very important participation in the debate from all sides of the house. At the same time, in expressing this wish, I do not want to deprive any hon. member at this stage of the opportunity of making any comments.
With this objective in mind, I should like to move, pursuant to section 6 of standing order 6, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell):
That the house continue to sit this day until the motion for the second reading of Bill No. C-168, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be disposed of.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you read out the rule, please, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is this the rule, sir, that is adopted by the house unless ten members
DEBATES	4379
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence rise to oppose it? This is what I want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct. The rule to which the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has referred is standing order 6, subsection (6).


Gordon Minto Churchill: If anyone objects, sir, I think you have then to ask the question, and I object.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister, is making his motion, referred to the standing order and hon. members are presumed to know what the situation is. If ten members rise, then of course the question is not put.
And ten members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: The question is not put.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight will be very brief.


An hon. Member:: They had better be.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Why had they better be? We are not yet living under a dictatorship. The first thing I want to say is that this publicizing of a free vote is one of the biggest farces that this parliament has ever seen. I would point out that the Ottawa Citizen refers to the fact that only three Liberals split with the party. Now, there was no free vote, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that he cannot reflect on a vote; he can only comment on the matter now before the house, which is the second reading of the bill.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot help but say to you that there was also a directive sent out to hon. members, and it certainly was carried out this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), to see how this vote would turn out.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, earlier today I indicated that under no circumstances were my inquiries with respect to the question of capital punishment dictated by any person in this party other than myself and my own particular interest in the question. Therefore I do not think the hon. member has any right to suggest, as he has just suggested, that I was in any way participating on behalf of the ministry, and I would ask him to withdraw that allegation.
November 16, 1967
4380	COMMONS DEBATES
Amendments Respecting Death Sentence


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There was nothing unparliamentary in what was said by the hon. member; there is no necessity for him to withdraw. But I would once more remind him that there is a very specific matter before the house, which is an amendment to The Criminal Code having to do, I believe, with capital punishment. That is what the hon. member should discuss.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The only thing I would ask the hon. member for Rosedale is: To whom was he referring?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In answer to that question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should make his speech.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure everyone was impressed this afternoon with the speech made by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan). He gave many examples and statistics, and quoted from the Bible in support of the retention of capital punishment. I should like to ask the minister, for whom I have high respect, why it is that Britain, which has tried abolition, is now asking to bring back capital punishment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) suggested in his remarks that people who voted for the retention of capital punishment were barbarians. In my opinion those who vote for the retention of capital punishment are more sympathetic to human life than those who vote against it.
My only other point is this. A year and a half ago I visited a prison in which was confined a man and his son who had committed a bank robbery while armed. I visited the father first of all and I asked him: "Why didn't you shoot somebody, since there were seven or eight people in the immediate proximity?" He replied: "Mr. Webb, the only thing that bothered me was that I didn't want to see my son hang. I didn't care about myself, but I did not want my own son to hang". This is the reason I will vote for retention.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: shall be quite brief, Mr. Speaker. I rise to
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).1
speak on this bill as one who believes in the abolition of capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: Let us vote then.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am going to have my say now. I have listened to the debate with great interest. On the whole I think it was most constructive from both points of view. There is very little left for me to say, except that regardless of the attitude hon. members take on this vote I think we all respect very much the sincerity and attitude of the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell).
I am opposed to capital punishment for two particular reasons, and this is why I have risen and do not worry, Mr. Speaker, I have my eye on the clock. My first reason is that I am not willing to ask another human being to accept a responsibility that I would not undertake. My second reason is that with regard to the person who premeditates murder I believe a long prison term would be a greater deterrent than to have his life suddenly extinguished. Those who commit murders as the result of crimes of passion, and so on, are the type who do offer some opportunity for rehabilitation. That is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have been attempting to catch your eye and have my say, as one would want on such a bill, that strikes at the conscience of every member of this house. We realize this subject bothers some more than others, but this being a free vote and we being a democracy I feel I should put forward a few thoughts.
One particular thought that has not been advanced is this. A number of speakers expressed a desire to know why the government had brought in this bill 18 months after the house had ruled decisively against what is proposed in the bill, and had voted in favour of capital punishment as the law now stands. This subject has been discussed and I do not intend to deal with that particular aspect of Bill C-168.
One of the points raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) caused me to think a little, and perhaps it is this which has provoked the sentiments I am about to utter. He said that no punishment is a deterrent. He said that in this particular case capital punishment is no particular deterrent. If we are to think for a moment about what constitutes a deterrent, and whether punishment is a deterrent, I think we would find that the real test of a deterrent cannot be ascertained unless that deterrent is carried out fairly and decisively.
November 16, 1967

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that ever since 1961 the deterrent of capital punishment has not been carried out. Therefore, if in five years time we look back and say that the number of murders committed over that period is no higher than the number committed in the previous six years, then I suggest the comparison is not valid, because the deterrent of capital punishment was not exercised during that six year period.
May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the minister announce the business?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we on this side would be agreeable to allowing the hon. member and any other hon. member who might want to participate in the debate to finish their remarks, in the expectation of a vote.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I
thought the house had decided on whether or not it wanted to sit after ten. I do not want to go against the wishes of the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before the
adjournment motion is put I should like to ask the government house leader what business we will be discussing tomorrow and the early part of next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will take the committee stage of Bill No. C-161, an act to establish a department of corporate and consumer affairs; the second reading of the act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act; third reading of the Industrial Development Bank bill; and the resolution stage of the amendment to the Post Office Act. On Monday we shall call a supply motion.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, the other day, on November 13, I asked the Minister of National Defence

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion whether there had been any change in government policy with respect to veterans preference in the taking on or laying off of hourly paid personnel at H.M.C. Dockyard and other defence establishments. The question was brief and I should have been glad of an answer at that time. In your wisdom you ruled it out of order and so I placed it on the late show. I am grateful for this opportunity to put the question again to the correct minister.
I asked this question because I met a number of men in my riding who had been laid off from the dockyard-as they felt, unfairly. Perhaps I ought to rephrase that. They did not feel they had been laid off unfairly, but they felt that when it came to rehiring time, the veterans preference was not being applied. They understood that this was as a result of a recent directive dating back to the end of last March.
I wonder whether the veterans preference means anything any longer with respect to hourly paid personnel who are employed by this government. I think the veterans preference does mean something; I have always supported it, and I hope this government in its hirings and firings today continues to recognize the service that the veterans did for their country.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, answering the question of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) regarding the government's policy as it relates to veterans preference, I should point out that there are now 25,000 employees who previously were prevailing rate employees, but who now are civil servants, with all the rights and privileges that go with that classification. I should also point out that this transfer was made with the assistance of my minister, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), after there had been considerable pressure by and many requests on the part of the prevailing rate employees.
With respect to the regulations of the Public Service Commission, which is an independent body, those regulations which apply to all civil servants now apply at their own request to those who previously were prevailing rate employees and who are now civil servants. I should also say that the retention of all civil servants in times of lay-off is on a merit basis. According to the regulations of the independent Public Service Commission, questions of merit do not take into account veterans preference. Veterans preference is still applicable, as it
November 16, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion has always been applicable, in connection with employment in the public service. But the regulations in connection with lay-offs do not take veterans preference into account. I can only suggest that inasmuch as this whole matter of the public service is handled by the independent Public Service Commission, any further representations in this connection should be made to that independent body.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS-&quot;GRANDE HERMINE&quot;- TRIP TO GASPE FOLLOWING EXPO

Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I am very happy to note, Mr. Speaker, that we now identify the hon. member for Gaspe with the Grande Hermine. I rise tonight in consequence of the announcement made by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) on November 8 under the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) to the effect that the replica of Jacques Cartier's ship now at La Ronde in Montreal on the Expo site is to be moved to the shipyards in Quebec for protection against ice pressures during the winter.
We are all glad that protection of this kind is to be provided, but I am disturbed by the fact that the hon. member for Quebec East should have been authorized to make the statement he did. It seems the government is now definitely committed to the use of this ship as part of the development of the Car-tier-Brebeuf park in Quebec city.
I know that during the summer the minister had an opportunity to visit the beautiful Gaspe peninsula, where I am sure he was able to admire nature at its best and became convinced that we have not forgotten the historic event which happened there with the landing of Jacques Cartier in 1534. I am sure all hon. members believe this event should be commemorated to a far greater extent than it has. We in the Gaspe believe there is now a wonderful opportunity to restore history and place those events in their proper perspective.
I believe no centennial project has caused more controversy among the people of the province of Quebec than the restoration of the ship Grande Hermine. Incidentally, I am very happy that the minister is here tonight to reply in person. I strongly hope he will reconsider the decision which has been reached because it does seem to me we are embarking on a dangerous course from a historical point of view, one which is likely to cause a distortion of history. The fact that Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspe deserves commemoration in itself. As the minister

heard from the president of our historical society during his visit to Gaspe, there is great danger of our rewriting history and placing Quebec city as the landing place of the great explorer.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Naturally the reasons given are that we are trying to commemorate the first winter spent by Europeans in this land; but it seems to me much more important that we should commemorate the greatest event, which was the discovery of Canada and the landing at Gaspe in 1534. There is a danger that we are going to distort history. I feel the policy of the government should be determined by the facts of history and be conducted so as to avoid its distortion.
I would like to ask the minister how the government can remain indifferent to the appeal of 3 million people from the province of Quebec, how it can remain indifferent to 505 municipal corporations, 79 boards of trade and 13 historical society groups. All of these have appealed to the government to reverse the decision that has been reached. I hope these appeals will have their effect and that the decision will be reversed.
A further reason for reversing the decision is that we do not yet have the appropriate land in Quebec city to receive the ship. Apparently the city of Quebec has not yet given the land to the federal government. When we think of the enormous expense this development is going to incur, possibly in the neighbourhood of many millions of dollars, then for economic reasons also the decision should be reversed.
The provincial government's policies are those of decentralization and the building up of uneconomic regions. If the government reverses its decision I hope there will flow from it to the Gaspe peninsula and the lower St. Lawrence an opportunity for better development of the tourist industry. Sending the ship to this area would benefit the region. I thank the minister for having stayed in the house tonight, and I do hope he will make some encouraging reply.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, on rising I first want to compliment the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) on his persistence in this matter. He has been faithful and continuous in his representation of the aspirations of the people of Gaspe to receive a recognition, which frankly I believe has been overlooked by the people of Canada, and probably by the province
November IB, 1967

of Quebec. I wish to put on record that I have not seen an area more capable than the Gaspe of attracting visitors in the numbers that I think we should attract from another country, nor have I seen people as competent as the people there to handle the tourist trade and provide the services which tourists want.
I have advised my own people that I want something done in that area, and that we want as much co-operation as we can get from the province of Quebec. To that end the possibility of a national historic park of some dimensions is under very active consideration. I think we have a considerable amount of support from people of influence in the province of Quebec, and I would hope we could make an announcement in respect of that at an early date. I am sure the hon. member knows there is some commemoration there now of Cartier's visit.
I must say to the hon. member that I indicated to the people of Gaspe, when I was there, that we would not be sending the Grande Hermine to Gaspe for the reason that it is not a replica of the ship in which Cartier landed at Gaspe, but a considerably larger ship. We have already removed the Grande Hermine from La Ronde area of Expo, and now it is on its way to Davie Brothers shipyards at Levis in the province of Quebec. We have made arrangements for the ship to be berthed at that site for the winter. It is our further intention that the ship be installed at Cartier-Brebeuf national historic park in the city of Quebec, if the city is able to make the necessary arrangements to expropriate the additional amount of land required for this park.
I should like to advise the hon. member that on my behalf I did authorize the hon. member for Quebec East to make an announcement at Quebec city a week ago. I did this for the specific reason that I thought an announcement of this nature might assist us in the negotiations which are taking place between us and the mayor of Quebec city, and his council, in respect of the acquisition of property there.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for his persistence in this matter and to assure him that we are giving as much consideration as we possibly can to a nation-, al historic park in Gaspe. Also I should like to assure him that I deeply appreciate the ability of the people there to provide the kind of service he has in mind.
Proceedings on Adjourment Motion



INDIAN AFFAIRS-INABILITY OF INDIANS ON RESERVES TO OBTAIN ADVANCED TRAINING

Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister so pleasantly disposed at this late hour. Perhaps he will be as receptive to the matter which I wish to present to him now as he was in respect of the matter raised by the last hon. member.
It is now about three weeks since I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) whether he was aware that many of the residents of certain Indian reserves across the country are finding it much more difficult, if not impossible, to be accepted into the manpower training programs this year as compared to last year. I had thought that perhaps this was the result of a change in policy or a change in the regulations. I have since found out that there has been no deliberate or specific change in the manpower program policy or in the regulations. It seems, however, that there has been a shift in the application or interpretation of the regulations in respect of the manpower training program.
The shift in application has had the result that many residents of the Indian reserves have not been accepted into the various training programs, which at least theoretically are offered and available to them. I refer specifically to level four of program five which is the basic literacy skills upgrading course. Last year when this course was offered on the Indian reserves with which I am familiar there was a fairly substantial enrolment. I am advised by the chiefs and councillors involved that this year if the basic literacy skills course were offered under the aegis of the manpower branch in one reserve alone, for example Alexander, there would be between 40 and 45 local people who would enrol. Apparently, however, they are not being accepted.
In order to give the minister some indication of my understanding in this regard, my information is that they are not being accepted, not because of any change in policy but rather because of a change in the application of that policy; in other words, because of a change in the interpretation given to it by the regional offices and the officers in the field. I am sure the minister is well aware that Indian people, like any other people, would be much more satisfied if they could avoid welfare payments. In this particular instance it seems that there are only two alternatives. They can be accepted into some of these manpower training programs
November 16, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and thereby obtain a living allowance thereunder while they learn a skill or learn the basic literacy skills. If that is not available many of these people will have to revert to welfare. It is true that adult education programs can be of value to these people, and I know that the department of Indian affairs stands ready to offer adult educational courses. However, there is no provision for living allowances. This means that some of these people by taking advantage of the offer, will have to go back on welfare. They might make more of an achievement if they were able to avoid this and enrol in a skill upgrading course, while at the same time earning a living.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
1 ask the minister to prevail upon his colleagues to change the situation to that which existed last year.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want first to thank the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) for raising this matter, which has been discussed on a great number of occasions through correspondence from a number of people in Canada, probably because of the manpower regulations. I have been told that in my own area, in the province of British Columbia, for a period of time we were taking in only about one half the number of Indians we took in last year. No doubt the hon. members question relates to the experience at the Fort Alexander reserve, although we have had complaints from other areas in northern Ontario.
We are dealing here with education in respect of this very difficult part of my responsibility, namely the education of Indians. In this field of Indian Affairs I require the support of everyone in the House of Commons, and so far I have received that support, for which I am grateful.
Let me assure the hon. member that in the general field of education we feel we are
doing a very good job at the present time. We now have in federal schools some 32,000 Indians, and 29,000 in non-federal schools, making a total of nearly 62,000. This means an increase from 47,740 to 61,395 in the period 1962 to 1966. There is an increase in enrolment in universities from 131 in 1966 to 240 in 1967. Contrary to the figures presented by the hon. member, we have had an increase in enrolments in vocational schools from 1,234 to over 2,000. There were also some 724 Indians taking upgrading courses in 1966. The budget in 1966 of some $102 million was applied to education to the extent of 50 per cent.
The hon. member has referred to specific problems regarding Fort Alexander Indians. He was concerned about a level four course under the Manitoba system. Because of this situation, in the case of Indians not qualified under manpower, we are prepared to purchase training places for them when they are available. In the meantime, if necessary, we are prepared to set up courses at this level on the reserves, as far as our resources will allow. We will of course purchase wherever possible such courses from the province.
Under the present policy we cannot pay training allowances, as the hon. member pointed out, but students recruited from the unemployed will in most cases, if not in all, be in receipt of welfare at the provincial rates. This does, however, lead to a number of anomalies, such as Indians receiving allowances different from those paid other persons qualifying under manpower. Let me assure the hon. member that we are aware of this situation, and if we can work within the manpower scheme, we intend to do so as quickly as possible. If we cannot, we will find other means of upgrading these courses as far as possible. I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to our attention.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, November 17, 1967