1973-10-19

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of parliament.
Two days ago I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs if members of parliament could be accredited as observers at the national tri-level intergovernmental meeting to be held in Edmonton next week. This meeting is to be open to the press but closed to observers. The minister replied that observers could not attend because "there is just not sufficient room available."
Yesterday, I moved a motion that the government direct the planning secretariat to permit one member of each of the four parties in the House of Commons to be accredited as an official observer. This motion was blocked by the government supporters.
Following this action, I consulted with the management of the Macdonald Hotel in Edmonton, where the meeting is to be held, and I was informed that the extended Tonquin Room holds 1,100 people theatre-style or, for a dinner setting, 800 persons. The suggestion that four members of parliament could not be fitted into a room of such dimensions is ludicrous and underscores why I am raising this question of privilege.
The meeting next week will be the second national tri-level conference. It will deal with the super-problem of urbanization, considering such issues as management of growth, land use, housing, transportation and finance. These are problems that parliament as a whole has a responsibility to solve, not just the government. It is vital, and within our rights, for members of parliament to have first-hand information on the various points of view presented by all governments. If members of parliament are forced to rely on press reports we may get a picture that is incomplete, to say the least.
For example, the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary last July was open to observers. It is a good thing it was, for the day after the Calgary conference I was able to come back to the House and report to all members my impressions and evaluation of the conference which were quite at variance with the slick, co-operative image of the federal government conveyed by the communications media. That speech is reported on page 6054 of Hansard. If members of parliament had not had direct access to the western conference, we would not have known the full story.
Of course, the government does not want opposition members of parliament around when they are doing business. The record of this government has been one of continual downgrading and diminishment of the role of the member.
Some non. Members: Order!


Douglas Roche: The case I am presenting to Your Honour today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should indicate as soon as possible the nature of his question of privilege. The hon. member did give me notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege and I had serious doubts whether it was. I think hon. members who claim to have a question of privilege should indicate to the Chair as quickly as possible the nature of that question so as to give the Chair an opportunity to make a ruling. The hon. member might wish to conclude his remarks as soon as possible.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I might be of some help in this situation. I received a letter from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford), delivered to me last evening, which I have not had an opportunity to convey to the hon. member who is raising this question of privilege. The contents of that letter might be of interest to him.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points. The first point, which has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), is that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), after consulting with the co-chairmen of the tri-level conference has extended an invitation to each of the parties to provide observers to this tri-level conference. So, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, the member who has raised this question of privilege has not been fully informed of events.
The second point I want to make is that I take very strong exception to the growing practice of members making straight political speeches and attacks on the government under the guise of a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: The nobodies have become somebodies and you do not like it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If this practice is to continue, if members of the opposition are allowed on questions of privilege to make political speeches, we shall demand the opportunity to reply on each and every occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 19, 1973
Visit by Prime Minister to China


Mr. Bell:: I have two points to make. First, if it had not been for the initiative of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, nothing would have been done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: I think he deserves a great deal of credit for getting up in the House and making democratic representation at this meeting possible. Second, the House leader can tell us when we are supposed to bring up these matters of justifiable complaint and we will comply if we are out of order in the opinion of the Chair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Railton.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to hon. members on my visit to China which, as the House knows, concluded just a few hours ago.
The invitation to me to visit the People's Republic of China was first extended by Premier Chou En-lai in 1971 and was renewed again several months ago.
We left Canada with high expectations. I am able to say, Mr. Speaker, that the willingness of the Chinese government to accept our point of view and to engage with us in activities of benefit for the people of Canada more than met those expectations. The high degree of interest of the Chinese government in Canada and the willingness of that government to work toward the maintenance and strengthening of friendly relations with Canada were made evident by the amount of time they, the Chinese leaders, were willing to devote to me and to my party. Chairman Mao Tse-tung extended to me the courtesy of a long conversation. Premier Chou En-lai met with me for many hours of formal discussions over the course of several days and chatted with me at even greater length in informal circumstances on a number of occasions.
One of the main objectives of any visit by a head of government, whether a Canadian travelling abroad, or a prime minister coming here, is to ensure that each country understands the policies of the other and the circumstances which give rise to those policies. It is seldom possible to come to agreement on the wisdom or the effectiveness of all policies, nor would one expect that this

could be the case in a world in which the vagaries of history, the realities of geography, and the variations of social systems lend distinctive directions and points of view to governmental policies. What I found most heartening, however, in my discussions with the Chinese leaders, was their understanding of, and sympathy for, Canada's foreign policy. In particular I was not subjected to any demands that future Canadian relations with China would depend for their warmth on our attitudes toward any other country. I stated in Peking, both in the privacy of conversation with the Premier and on public occasions, that Canadian foreign policy seeks to avoid tension, to strengthen the institutions of international cooperation and to assist the economic development of the newly independent countries. I said as well that, in my belief, the true measurement of national greatness was found not in military might or in political hegemony but in the willingness of a country to recognize the importance of individual welfare, human dignity and a sense of personal accomplishment and fulfilment.
Many of the issues which were discussed with the Chinese leaders, and in the several committees of officials that were established during the course of the visit, reflected these beliefs and the desire of Canada to expand its international trade.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Premier Chou and I signed a formal trade agreement which will serve as a framework for the development of trade between Canada and China for the next three years. I should like to table now, in both official languages, copies of this agreement.
Hon. members will find that this agreement established a joint trade committee which will meet annually. The Canadian suggestion that the committee address itself immediately to the areas of transportation, forestry and agriculture, was accepted by the Chinese. Agreement was reached as well that detailed discussions be initiated quickly in the fields of aluminum and wood pulp. We also agreed that further discussions take place soon with respect to potash, sulphur and nickel. The Canadian side was heartened by the obvious Chinese interest in increasing the purchase of Canadian manufactured goods and contemplating the purchase from Canada of complete plants. Throughout our discussions in this area, emphasis was lent by both sides of the mutual benefit to be gained from long-term commercial agreements.
Satisfying as were the discussions on trade and commercial relations, I was moved most by the several understandings reached in the areas of medicine and human relations. Hon. members will be familiar with the important work done last spring in China by a joint governmental and professional medical mission to China led by Dr. Gustave Gingras, the then President of the Canadian Medical Association. That mission recognized the immense benefits that could be realized in health care services in Canada if more were known about several areas of Chinese medical techniques. The hope was subsequently expressed by the two major medical bodies in Canada that the Canadian government attempt to encourage the Chinese to engage in co-operative activities with Canadian doctors to these ends.
October 19, 1973

I am delighted in the progress that we were able to make in this respect during my visit, which provides for teams of Canadian and Chinese physicians visiting one another's countries to study advanced techniques in each place. The field of interest chosen by Canadian doctors in this first phase is that of acupuncture analgesia. I am informed that if this technique proves as successful in the Canadian social environment as has been the case in China, its contributions in the elimination of anaesthetic complications, in the reduction of costs associated with surgery, and in the extension of surgery to elderly and high-risk patients now denied treatment, will rank it as one of the major contributions to Canadian medicine.
I am particularly appreciative of the willingness of Premier Chou to agree to my request that facilities be instituted which will lead to the reunion of families. Just as I regarded this question of reunification as one of the most important of the subjects in which I engaged Premier Kosygin in discussion-and which has since led to the exit from the Soviet Union of several hundreds of persons to join relatives in Canada-so I emphasized to Premier Chou the importance with which Canadians as a whole viewed this aspect of Canadian-Chinese relations.
I have instructed Canadian officials to waste no time in the implementation of this new understanding which permits Canadian immigration officers to proceed to China to process applicants for entry to Canada. An officer of the Department of Manpower and Immigration is already on his way from Ottawa to Peking.
Understandings were reached in other fields as well: cultural and sports exchanges, for one, consular arrangements for another, and science and technology for still another. The latter was made possible by the extensive work done in advance of my arrival by the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
My visit to China, Mr. Speaker, leaves me without any doubt of the wisdom of the decision of the Canadian government to reverse the longstanding policy of ignoring the People's Republic of China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because that immense country of talented and industrious people will have an increasing impact on world affairs, and because a strengthening and enrichment of the bilateral relationship between Canada and China can be beneficial to Canadians, that decision was right and will increasingly prove to be right. The presence of China in the United Nations and in other international councils makes it vital that Canada's interests and Canada's views be understood and, hopefully, supported by the Chinese government. It will be of increasing advantage to Canada that Canadian leaders have opportunities to explain Canadian attitudes and policies to Chinese decision-makers just as, amongst other things, I exposed to Premier Chou the positions Canada will advocate at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I was heartened again and again by the genuine friendship
Visit by Prime Minister to China extended toward Canada and Canadians by the leaders and the people of modern China. I am confident that the diversification and enjoyment of our new ties with China will not interfere with the longstanding friendly relations which we enjoy with those several countries with which we have special ties. Nor will it detract from our efforts to seek, to our advantage, the easing of tensions and the increase of contacts with other parts of the world.
It has not been the vastness of the Pacific that has acted as a barrier between Canada and China. The gulf has been found all too often in the minds of those of us who are unwilling to recognize the magnitude of one of the most significant revolutions in the history of the world and the extension of basic human amenities to hundreds of millions of persons to whom they had been denied for millennia.
The name of Canada is held in high respect in China, Mr. Speaker, and as a consequence Canadians are beneficiaries. It is the aim of this government that this reputation, and those benefits, increase and continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, before commenting specifically on the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to China I should like to take this occasion to congratulate him belatedly on his birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think that the good wishes of the House on the Prime Minister's birthday are really quite relevant to any discussion of the China visit because of the right hon. gentleman's published tributes to the aging leaders of that centuries old society. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying in regard to this aging leadership: "It is this kind of faith that leaves me full of admiration when I see these really aging leaders prepared to begin all over again." Along these lines, Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to remind the Prime Minister that, while he has had another birthday, I am still older than he is. Of course, I am doubly pleased that the Prime Minister's remarks indicated an appreciation of all leaders who are capable of beginning all over again. Here again, I might claim membership in that club.
When I visited China in 1971 it was a wonderful, illuminating and fascinating experience, but I encountered somewhat the same difficulty that I faced on a visit to the Soviet Union in 1970. This related to clarifying my position as Leader of the Opposition. I found on both occasions that, while I was most hospitably received, within the systems of government operating in those states an identifiable and active leader of the opposition was a rather foreign concept. I came to understand that in certain parts of the world it was accepted that by the time you found out there was an effective opposition, it was perhaps too late. The relevance of this observation to the contemporary Canadian scene is perhaps, I think, self-evident.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Visit by Prime Minister to China


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The exchanges of people and ideas in the areas of medical science, health care technology, culture, education, sports and the media should be very beneficial. There is much that we can learn from one another. There is no doubt about that. In the technique of acupuncture alone we have already seen remarkable results in Canada. Just look at what it has done for the Ottawa Rough Riders.
Our economic and diplomatic relations with the Peoples Republic of China are only beginning to develop fully and to offer significant potential benefit to our country. I feel it is helpful and timely that the Prime Minister, the head of our government, participate directly at this stage of the relationship. Therefore I offer the Prime Minister my congratulations on his visit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I feel that the visit further demonstrated that our two countries are building friendly and constructive relationships and that Canada has a growing commitment to expand its activities on the Pacific rim.
I am sure that all Canadians were pleased to learn of the various projects between our two countries that were formally announced during the Prime Minister's visit to China. With regard to trade and economics, we welcome the agreement establishing a joint trade committee which will meet annually. The understanding of both governments to increase and widen trade between our two countries can be of great importance. Interchanges suggested by the Prime Minister in the areas of transportation, forestry and agriculture are certainly appropriate. However, the agreement really only establishes a framework to develop our trading opportunities. It provides a challenge to Canada and should be seen in that light.
While we expect a significant increase in the volume of trade with China next year and have long supported the continued growth of our wheat exports, Canadian trade with China, and with everyone else for that matter, must involve a far greater proportion of manufactured products. We are faced with extremely energetic competition in this new market. If we are to realize our true potential with regard to China, decisive strategic leadership must be taken at home. Any effective long-term trade relationship with another country must also be a two-way relationship. With that in mind we accept that part of the agreement, of course, which extends most- favoured-nation tariff treatment to Chinese goods entering Canada. This is realistic and quite equitable, because it should be pointed out that Chinese sales to Canada totalled only about $48 million last year, less than one-fifth of our sales to China.
I touch on only one disturbing note, Sir. There was no mention in the Prime Minister's remarks today or in his Peking communique of nuclear bomb testing in China. I would sincerely hope that our new relationships as well as our older ones would permit us to be prepared to be frank and open on matters of Canadian and world-wide concern. I felt that we were less emphatic than we might have been in our protests to the French government over their latest test series. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to give the House some assurance that he did convey to the

Chinese leaders the very deep concern of the Canadian people about continued nuclear bomb testing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to be misunderstood, Sir. I repeat what I have said in the past: The comments of Canadian leaders on sensitive issues do not have to be rude or offensive, and I do not expect them to be, but they must be firm, they must be unequivocal and, most important, they must be made.
In the consular field we welcome the simplification of visa procedures and the provision for each country to set up a consulate general in the other country. I welcome fully with the Prime Minister the fact that it will now be possible for the Canadian government to process within China applications for the reunion of families. This, of course, is of deep concern to many Canadians, and I trust this long hoped for opportunity will be acted on energetically and as a high priority.
I again congratulate the Prime Minister. I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister and Mrs. Trudeau have completed their long journey and returned home in good health.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I join the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) belatedly on his fifty-fourth birthday. I merely add this: In his statement he talked about the realities of geography. He experienced those realities himself, as I understand he celebrated his birthday twice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He was making up for all his earlier years.


David Lewis: He celebrated two birthdays without any advance in age. He did so as a result of the realities of geography in this world. He did so in China on October 18, and he did so in Honolulu on the same date, October 18.
I also want to join the Leader of the Opposition, although I shall put this in slightly different language, in welcoming the Prime Minister and Madam Trudeau back to Canada. I think all Canadians recognize the role Mrs. Trudeau played in the success of the Prime Minister's visit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He should have taken Justin, too.


David Lewis: What this trip and what the last two or three years indicate is the unwisdom of Canada and other countries in having refused to recognize the Peking government of China for so many years. As every member of this House knows, my party has been advocating that recognition since 1950. I think the value of recognizing a large country, despite the disagreements we may have with some aspects of the social system there, has been fully justified by what has happened, culminating in the trip the Prime Minister has just made to that country. I
October 19, 1973

express the hope that other countries, particularly our powerful neighbour to the south, will see that any attempt to isolate any country, large or small but particularly an important country like China, is harmful to the future of the world and to the relationships that must be developed in the world. I look forward, if I may say this as a Canadian without trying to interfere, to the day, I hope soon, when the United States of America will also recognize China. We will then have a situation in the United Nations in which no one fails to recognize the importance and place of the Chinese Republic in the present world situation.
The modern world, Mr. Speaker, has produced new problems as a result of technological and industrial development and it has inevitably produced different social systems and different social ideas. One absolute precondition for peace in the world and for the possibility of the world's continued growth and development is that all of us must accept the fact that there are differing social systems and differing social ideas in this world and not make them an issue for war or conflict or a refusal to deal with each other as citizens of the world.
I note that toward the end of the Prime Minister's statement there is a very important sentence which may have escaped the attention of hon. members. I congratulate the Prime Minister on using these words:
The gulf has been found all too often in the minds of those of us who are unwilling to recognize the magnitude of one of the most significant revolutions in the history of the world-
Note the following words, Mr. Speaker:
-and the extension of basic human amenities to hundreds of millions of persons to whom they had been denied for millennia.
I take from those words a recognition that the government and the people of China is doing its best in its way to improve the standard of life of its people, and the Prime Minister congratulates them for the progress they have made and wishes them well in future. As a fellow Canadian I join him in those congratulations and in those wishes.
The Leader of the Opposition has dealt with most of the important, relevant details of the agreements as set out in the statement, all of which my colleagues and I support wholeheartedly as, indeed, did the Leader of the Opposition. There are times, Sir, when partisanship is pushed aside, and those times are probably the best in the history of our parliament.
I want to say this in conclusion. No one in Canada who knows anything about foreign affairs has ever had any illusion that our country can play the role of superpower, can play the role of imposing ideas on any part of the world, or that we are able, because of our economic and military power, to push people in a right or wrong direction as we see our interests to be. No one has ever had that kind of illusion about Canada's role. But some Canadians underestimate the role that Canada can play. Canada is an important middle power. Canada has a history without any colonial connections. Canada has a history of supporting all peoples around the world seeking independence and freedom. Canada has no black pages in its history of colonizing people or exploiting them from the centre of some imperial power. Because it is a middle power, because it has that happy history, Canada can play a significant role in relations among the governments and
Visit by Prime Minister to China nations of the world. I am delighted that our Prime Minister has tried to play that role in his visit to China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. members who have just spoken, I am glad to see the right hon. Prime Minister returning in such great form.
We are happy to see him and Mrs. Trudeau in perfect health and happy after an excellent journey.
May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Prime Minister on his birthday. We have something in common: we are both Libra. As there is a two year difference between us, he must certainly be older than I am. Being both Libra probably means that we are the two better balanced hon. members in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's statement certainly gives us food for thought. Approximately twelve years ago, I heard about and read a book entitled "Two Innocents in China". As I was reading a few days ago about one of these innocents who had certainly never expected to return as Prime Minister of Canada, I could somewhat envision what had happened previously.
Mr. Speaker, here is what riveted my attention and which makes sense in the Prime Minister's statement.
I said as well that, in my belief, the true measurement of national greatness was found not in military might as in political hegemony, but in the willingness of a country to recognize the importance of individual welfare, human dignity and a sense of personal accomplishment and fulfilment.
Those thoughts should be pondered over not only in Canada but also in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister then stated that trade agreements have been concluded with China. He said, for example, that the Canadian delegates noted, to their great satisfaction, that the Chinese were anxious to increase their purchases of Canadian manufactured goods and that they were considering the purchase in Canada of complete industrial facilities. Throughout those talks, emphasis was laid on both sides on the mutual advantages of long-term trade agreements. In my opinion, it would now be necessary to know exactly what we could exchange with the Chinese from the technical or technological point of view. But the cultural and scientific agreements are quite valuable; they will greatly help Canadians learn about China and the Chinese to learn about Canada. Acupuncture, which was a laughing subject for years, and which is now considered with greater attention and seriousness in Canada, is mentioned here. Moreover, the Prime Minister says that some Canadians have ensured him, and I quote:
-that if this technique proves as successful in the Canadian social environment as has been the case in China, its contributions in the elimination of anaesthetic complications, in the reduction of costs associated with surgery will be remarkable-
Mr. Speaker, these are essential points, and when I was questioned during the Prime Minister's visit in China, I answered unequivocally that not only did I not object, but that I would also encourage these scientific, technological

October 19, 1973
Visit by Prime Minister to China and cultural exchanges which could increase not only our own knowledge but also that of other people.
However, I did find the following comments, which have also been mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), somewhat revolutionary, and I quote:
It has not been the vastness of the Pacific that has acted as a barrier between Canada and China. The gulf has been found all too often in the minds of those of us who were unwilling to recognize the magnitude of one of the most significant revolutions in the history of the world and the extension of basic human amenities to hundreds of millions of persons to whom they had been denied for millennia.
I am rather skeptic about these remarks contained in the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister did certainly not see a parliamentary system like ours in China. There are no leaders of the opposition in China like there are here. There is no freedom such as ours in China. I therefore think that it is a bit much to praise a revolution because the country which made it is large. This is the same as saying: We are happy about what happened in Cuba and Czechoslovakia. We welcomed the events which took place in Chile and China. If we consider what is happening closer to home we would be glad to have the separatists controlling the province of Quebec for the very same reasons as those mentioned in this statement!
The freedom of speech and action we are enjoying in Canada must be respected and we should not yield to anybody through any system imposed forcefully through revolution while there is so much room for agreement, comprehension and co-operation.
I do not accept the Quebec separatists nor their spirit of revolution and the violence they use and I will never approve violence in any country whether it be China or Russia. Even though the Prime Minister's visit was beneficial in certain areas, if we must recognize a forcefully imposed political system I disagree. For instance I agree in the case of-


Some hon. Members:: As in Chile.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly, the very same thing happened in Chile. When it happened in Cuba our NDP friends did not object. When communists are responsible for bloody revolutions, they are applauded by Canadian socialists.
Mr. Speaker, I have seldom seen liars of this kind. In Parliament we are shown a window display but they do quite the reverse outside.
When I mention revolutions it is to state clearly that I object to them and when I say that we should not encourage those revolutions in Quebec-they raise fear throughout Canada.
Should the Prime Minister say: At last, Quebec which has been misunderstood would do well to separate from the rest of Canada because since Confederation it has been under the tutelage of the federal government, we would not accept that.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in exchanges while having our identity respected, but our identity is characterized by freedom which allows us to breathe freely as human beings can and must do in the world.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. (John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that a large number of Newfoundland's inshore fishermen are adversely affected by the existing Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations, and in view of the federal government's obvious lack of concern and understanding for this problem, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the Ministers of Manpower and Fisheries, in their collaboration in working out changes to the existing Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations as they apply to fishermen, be instructed by this House to adopt the recommendations of the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union which are as follows:
"1. That the date of eligibility for benefits be advanced to October 15 from the present date of December 15.
2.	That the maximum period of eligibility be increased by one month to a total of 24 weeks.
3.	That benefits be calculated on an average of all stamps rather than on 20 as is now the case."


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek leave to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the continuing attitude of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) with regard to the matter of food prices. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs be required to appear before the Committee on Trends in Food Prices to explain his statement that-and I quote: "With food prices going up the way they have been lately, the average family today has only two choices: readjust household budgets to allow more dollars for food, or stretch the food dollar by shopping more wisely".


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
October 19, 1973


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege. On two occasions I have sent a note to the hon. member asking him to give me the page number and exact reference to demonstrate where I am supposed to have made that statement, and as yet he has failed to do so. I ask him to do so now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I can speak to that point of order since it has reference to me, it is a sad state of affairs when a minister of the Crown has to write to a member of this party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: -and ask where those offensive statements made by the minister appear. I will gladly give him the documentation right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I feel I have to do so directly in this way since I was not able apparently under the rules to get my point across. My point of order relates to the attempt by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indirectly to leave the impression that he did not in fact make the statement I have attributed to him which was the substance of a question I asked him yesterday, to which he declined to reply and of my motion today. I think the minister should be required to state directly that yes, he did make that statement or no, he did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows full well that is not a point of order nor a question of privilege.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question related to our petroleum problems and I direct it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from the fact that the chairman of the National Energy Board and the chairman of the British Columbia Energy Commission met, I think two days ago, to discuss the problem of alternative supplies to avert the possibility of a gas shortage for gas customers in British Columbia. Can the minister now tell the House what action will be taken on this matter following that meeting?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the report of that meeting is that the chairman of the British Columbia Energy Commission agreed with the position of the National Energy Board that the first immediate step should be for West Coast to secure alternative supplies of gas, principally from Alberta producers. My understand-
Oral Questions
ing equally is that those discussions are continuing at the instance of West Coast; I understand there is no conclusion to report at the moment.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF EXPORT CUTBACK BY ARAB COUNTRIES APPLYING TO CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: With regard to security of supplies of petroleum in the east, has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources now been able to ascertain whether the declaration made two days ago, I believe, by the Arab Middle East countries regarding a cutback in exports of oil will apply to Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated yesterday, and again this is the situation today, the international community generally has been having some difficulty in clarifying the exact impact of these various announcements by the Arab oil producing states.


MINISTER'S PROPOSAL TO SYNCRUDE RESPECTING PRICING OF CANADIAN CRUDE-RELATIONSHIP TO LANDED PRICE AT MONTREAL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In relation to the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the principals of Syncrude had found that his proposal for the pricing of Canadian crude would permit the continuance of that project, involving an investment of about $1 billion, I should like to ask the minister what proposal he described to the principals of Syncrude, since this is of great importance to all Canadians, and whether in fact he proposed that the price of crude in Canada will move up or down to the extent that the price of crude landed at Montreal, measured by some index, moves up or down. What precise proposal did the minister describe?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was in terms no more specific than in talking to the various parties. In essence, it was that the price of crude oil products in Canada should be related to international prices at Montreal. The difficulty in calculation is, of course, with the great variety of sources of oil at Montreal and the great variety of freight rates. As the hon. member suggested yesterday, a formula will be required for the purpose of determining a fair average price which in turn will determine the Canadian price.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter being fully clarified. Does the minister mean that, once an index is worked out for measuring the price of offshore crude landed at Montreal, the price of crude in Canada will move up or down as the index of the price of offshore oil landed at Montreal moves up or down?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The intention would be that the National Energy Board would decide, on a month to month basis or perhaps quarterly, what the price was and that price would then be the basis for the determination of
7042

October 19, 1973
Oral Questions
the price throughout Canada, with a deduction for transportation costs as you move back to the producing centres.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Would the minister inform the House as to the formula he has in mind in connection with relating the price of crude from Syncrude to the international price of crude landed at Montreal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Depending upon the quality of the oil, the producers of Syncrude would be paid the same price as any other producers in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members are seeking supplementaries. With the co-operation of the House, the Chair will try to complete the first round of questions and then return to these supplementaries.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises out of the report tabled in the House yesterday. In view of the extraordinarily high profit performance this year in the corporate sector, three further examples of which were reported this morning, what assurances can the minister give the House that such benefits as may have flowed from the reductions in tariffs and sales tax were not, in fact, cancelled out by unconscionable profit-taking?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The only answer I can give is to refer the hon. member to the conclusions of the report itself. This is the information I have and which I presented to the House.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, since the report itself is not accompanied by any statistical evidence whatever to support the conclusions to which it came, will the minister table in the House the data which entitled him and his department to draw those conclusions?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The nature of the data behind the report is outlined in the report itself. I will be happy to check whether it is in a form that can be appropriately tabled and report to the hon. member later.


POSSIBLE NEW MONETARY MEASURES AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX TO COMBAT RISING PRICES
Terrence Wyly Grier: I should like to direct a final supplementary to the Minister of Finance. In view of the conclusions to which the report came, is he now prepared to announce new monetary or fiscal measures to combat rising prices, especially for food, fuel and shelter and, particularly in view of recent profit performances, is he entertaining the possibility of an excess profits tax or some measure of that kind?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: All the
items to which the hon. member referred are, of course, budgetary items and any changes would be announced in the usual way.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the statements that he made earlier concerning agreements reached with the People's Republic of China, can he say whether he also proposes to reach such cultural and trade agreements with the new Chilean governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is no doubt aware of the fact that in 1968 or 1969 the Canadian government sent to South America a departmental delegation in order to reach with these countries a maximum number of trade, cultural and scientific agreements.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to put a supplementary question. Are these agreements or meetings with the Chilean authorities continuing since the overthrow of the Allende regime?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get more details. However, in a general way, the new Chilean government has certainly not indicated to Canada that it proposed to cancel any practice or agreement.


PRICE OF WESTERN OIL UNDER PROPOSED PRICING
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have further clarification from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the proposed pricing formula. Once the average price is worked out for offshore oil landed at Montreal, does he envisage that the price paid for western oil will be more, about the same, or less?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In effect, depending on where western oil is delivered the price will, subject to deduction for transportation costs, be related to the price of western oil delivered to the Montreal market if that be possible, and would therefore be equivalent to the average I have talked about. In Edmonton, of course, it would be a lower price because of the reduced transportation cost.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I put the same question in another way. In view of
October 19, 1973

the fact eastern oil companies have one request for an increase currently before the Energy Board and that possibly there will be another before the end of the year, can the minister give the House some assurance that the Montreal price will prevail across the country and that there will, in fact, be equality of pricing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is the hon. gentleman talking about the present period or about the period when, in effect, the national oil policy line ceases to exist? I think this is an important difference.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like an assurance from the minister that there will be some guarantee in future of equality of prices across the country with the exception, of course, of differentials for transportation costs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In general terms, I think that would be the objective. Certainly, it would be much more the case than at the present time.


PRICE GUIDELINES FOR OIL PRODUCTS-SUGGESTED NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE SANCTIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: In view of recent examples of the failure of the government's voluntary price guidelines covering oil products such as anti-freeze, gasoline and engine oil, would the minister now bring in additional legislation which would put more teeth into those guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I point out to the hon. member that the products he mentioned were not covered by the freeze right from the start.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members are interested in proceeding more effectively, perhaps we should try to move to another subject. There are six or seven members seeking supplementaries on this subject, which would take up most of the question period. I am not sure if that is what the House wants, particularly if each member insists on having two or three supplementaries.


NATURAL GAS-GUARANTEE OF SUPPLY TO BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSUMERS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a supplementary question related to gas. Does he have any information to impart to the House as a result of the discussion held two days ago, I believe, by the National Energy Board and the Energy Commission of British Columbia about a guarantee of supplies of gas to consumers in British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think I have just answered a similar question from the Leader of the Opposition in the sense that one cannot be more specific about this matter until one finds out what the alternate supplies are.
Oral Questions


NATURAL GAS-PRICE OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SUPPLIES TO BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSUMERS-REVIEW BY ENERGY BOARD
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary on the same subject. Has the minister asked the National Energy Board to review the impact which alternative natural gas supplies to British Columbia will have on the prices consumers will be asked to pay for these new supplies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Sir.


OIL-POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF RATIONING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question to address to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Outside the House a few days ago he indicated that in certain conditions Canada might have to institute oil rationing. Can he now confirm his thinking on this subject matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I indicated we were considering all possible contingencies over a period of time. In specific response to the question whether rationing was one of those possibilities, I said yes. I would not wish at this point to give further details of the whole range of contingency planning.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. In the conversations in Peking, did the Chinese raise the embarrassing fact that Canada imports rice from the United States to a value of about $12 million or $13 million a year? This rice is imported from the United States, not from China, and both countries are exporting rice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, not in
my presence, but I would have to inquire whether the matter was raised during the meetings of officials which went on parallel to my own meetings with the prime minister and his ministers.


DISCUSSION BY PRIME MINISTER WITH CHINESE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the government leader.
Could he tell this house if, during his talks with the political authorities of the People's Republic of China, he
7044

October 19, 1973
Oral Questions
discussed the stoppage of nuclear tests, and if he has defended in Peking Canada's point of view in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have defended in general Canada's point of view on the nuclear question. I did not specifically bring up the subject of nuclear explosions in China by China.


INQUIRY AS TO RECOGNITION OF GUINEA-BISSAU
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that on Monday, September 24, 1973, the recently formed National People's Assembly in Guinea-Bissau declared their country an independent and sovereign state, in view of the fact that Canada has frequently proclaimed, together with other nations of the world, its support for the independence and self-determination of the people of Portugal's colonies, and in view of the fact that the greater part of the country is in fact under the control of and administered by the representatives of the National Peoples' Assembly, will the government recognize the new independent state of Guinea-Bissau?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have on several occasions opposed the colonial policy of Portugal. I have also encouraged the independence of those areas now under Portuguese rule. We are watching developments in Guinea-Bissau with great interest. So far we have not been able to establish that the so-called independent government is effectively in control of that country.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If as I am informed, most of that country is now in fact under effective control of the so-called liberation forces and the independent government of the country, will the minister undertake in those circumstances that recognition will be granted?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The question of recognition, as the hon. gentleman knows, so far as Canada is concerned is who is effectively in control and able to discharge international obligations. As I said in my earlier answer, we are following events there. We have not been able to establish the fact, as the hon. gentleman put it, that the so-called independent government of Guinea-Bissau is effectively in control of that country. In fact, the capital and most of the larger centres are still under Portuguese control.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo has a supplementary to earlier questions and will be recognized, followed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


OIL PRODUCTS PRICES-POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN GUIDELINES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arises from his earlier answer to me. In light of the minister's admission that none of the proposed guidelines currently in effect will do anything to regulate the prices of oil products such as antifreeze, gasoline and engine oil, what additional measures does he intend to put into effect to do something about the prices of these very important products?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We indicated before that our primary purpose was to reach the prices of gasoline and heating oil, which have had the most direct impact on the consumer price index. At the present time, I have no intention to extend it to a further range of oil products.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I should like to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister advise the House if he has had a response from the Soviet Union to the request of the Minister of the Environment that it cease fishing herring beyond the ICNAF quota on George's Bank?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of that question. I am not absolutely sure what the present situation is.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister if the ice operations information centre for the icebreaking fleet on the Atlantic Coast is to be located this winter at Dartmouth instead of Sydney where it has been for many years?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the ice operations centre which is now at Sydney will be transferred to Dartmouth but the icebreakers will remain at Sydney. There is no link between the two. This is not a problem of eight or ten jobs as was mentioned but half a job a year plus four assistants for part of the year. This means that altogether two and a half jobs are being transferred; that is all.
October 19, 1973


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the vast amount this minister knows about nothing. May I put a supplementary to him. The transfer is already a fait accompli. In view of the fact that the cabinet representative for Nova Scotia is from Cape Breton Island, is it the intention of the government to remove every federal government facility it can from that island? This is going on daily, one facility after another.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman made the same kind of argument concerning the Coastguard College. He contended that it was going to be moved to Ottawa, which is not right. The Coastguard College is going to be improved and the number of students increased. Contrary to what he stated, it is going to stay there and will not be moved.


Robert Muir: I have a question of privilege, with your approval, Mr. Speaker. Joe, why don't you remain seated on what brains you have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that as usual the minister is misrepresenting the facts and attributing to me lies and misconceptions. He recently announced that the removal of the Coastguard College was to be postponed for one year. He did not say it would stay there permanently or that it would be expanded. Is this because he thinks there may be an election and that this action will get him over one year? What happened to the pilot boats and all the other facilities that were moved from Cape Breton Island? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) ought to get to work on you; he is sitting next to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Supply and Services who has had a quiet time lately, although I am sure he has been busy behind the scenes. In connection with the Post Office mechanization program, is the Department of Supply and Services awarding a contract to the American Chain and Cable Company and its Canadian associate, Mclnnis Company of Windsor, in the face of criticism from project officers of the Post Office Department and consultants to the Post Office arising from the lack of technological competence and experience of the Mclnnis Company in manufacturing sophisticated mail-sorting equipment and also its failure to meet the specifications under the provisions of a performance type contract?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister can reply to that question very briefly he will be recognized for that
Oral Questions
purpose, but I suggest to the hon. member and to all hon. members that a question of this type should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency it could be considered at the time of adjournment. However, the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this file, generally speaking, and you may be sure that I shall be pleased to review its particulars and inform the hon. member as soon as possible.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the fact that technological competence is essential in meeting vitally important delivery and operational deadlines announced by the Postmaster General for the Post Office mechanization program, and in light of the superior technological competence of other firms bidding on the contract, will the minister postpone his decision until all tenders have been reviewed as recommended by the Post Office consultants?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, if my memory is not failing me, the contract has already been awarded.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he indicated to the Chinese leaders our concern or even disapproval of the policies of states such as China which further inflame the situation in the Middle East?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We had quite a lengthy discussion on the situation in the Middle East. I indicated to the Chinese authorities that our policy was quite different from their policy in that respect. They announced that they disagreed with us, but that they would respect our views and would not try to change them. I indicated in turn that I did not think I would be able to change the views of the Chinese authorities on that matter. Therefore we both stayed on our positions.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and it refers to the announcement by the president of

October 19, 1973
Oral Questions
CMHC that the corporation plans to buy large tracts of land to stabilize prices and put speculators out of business. In view of the fact this announcement was first made to those elements in our community most involved in pushing up land prices, what mechanism does the minister's department or CMHC propose to put into effect to forestall the speculation that will certainly ensue from the president's announcement?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the president was referring to provisions in the budget for national housing.


John Paul Harney: In view of the fact that the president of CMHC claims that the proposed land assembly program is a short-term measure to alleviate what he at least candidly admits to be a critical housing shortage, can the minister indicate whether the middle and long-term planning of his department includes a determination to restrain urban growth?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We have been devoting a great deal of attention to the matter of the management of growth rather than the restraint of growth and, of course, starting on Monday in Edmonton we will be having a tri-level conference, the theme of which is the management of growth.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough East.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Solicitor General but he is away on one of his frequent temporary absences. If he returns to the House, perhaps you will recognize me for the purpose of asking a question.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In recent radio advertisements the statement has been made that Veterans Land Act benefits will be cut off on March 31 of next year. In view of the fact that veterans did not sign up for any specific period of time, will the minister take steps immediately to extend the deadline indefinitely so that the needs of all veterans who have earned and qualify for these benefits can be fully assessed?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as well as other legislation of the Department of Veterans Affairs, is always under study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since this program only serves to make money available at cheaper rates for veterans who have earned and qualify for such rates, why is it being discontinued?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The chief reasons are that these provisions have been in operation for 30 years for second world war veterans and for 20 years for Korean war veterans. Legislation was passed by parliament eleven years ago indicating that this action would be taken. It was pretty well accepted across the country, and if any change is necessary it will be determined.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that some
125,000	have been certified as qualifying under the Veterans Land Act, and in view of the fact it is expected that only 5,000 will benefit, will the minister take a humane approach and review the administration of the legislation to give all veterans the benefits under the act?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: As the hon. member realizes, the legislation was passed by parliament and we have to deal with it. We have no right at this time to deviate from the legislation as it stands.


Mr. Fraser:: You can change the law.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact a crippling strike by tradesmen at the Whiteshell Atomic Energy Commission installation at Pinawa, Manitoba, has been going on for more than a month, can the minister indicate what action he has taken in order to bring about meaningful negotiations between the company and the employees involved?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that this dispute has gone through full conciliation and the conciliation board process. After the report of the conciliation board, strike action was taken in September, as the hon. member has indicated. We have had mediators endeavouring to bring the parties together to effect a settlement. I am renewing those efforts today and will continue to do so during the course of next week.


WHITESHELL ATOMIC ENERGY PLANT-POSSIBLE CUTBACKS IN RESEARCH AS RESULT OF STRIKE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the disrupting strike that has been going on, and in view of the widespread feelings at the Whiteshell installation that there will be cutbacks in the research program due to the strike, can the minister indicate what position his department is taking in respect
October 19, 1973

of any expansion of existing or projected research projects in the Whiteshell installation at Pinawa?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Whiteshell in particular I would have to take that question as notice and respond in detail to the hon. gentleman.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement that the Chase Manhattan Bank is about to begin operations in this country and as this follows upon an announcement earlier that the First National Bank of Chicago is now active in Canada, is the minister contemplating stronger rules and regulations regarding foreign ownership which would keep financial activities in this country under Canadian control?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing that very carefully. We are also reviewing the fact that Canadian banks now hold about a quarter of their assets abroad.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As a supplementary question I should like to ask the minister whether or not he is monitoring the activities of these foreign near-banks, as they might be called, so as to determine what impact they will have on Canadian monetary and fiscal policy?


John Napier Turner: It is a little hard to trace the source and application of funds. We do monitor the source of funds in the sense that we know the volume coming across both ways month by month and week by week.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that Canada, and Ontario in particular, has been the recipient of abnormal shipments of live cattle, can the minister assure the House that he has contacted the Food Prices Review Board as to why they have not shown more concern regarding the fact that beef prices have not come down in accordance with live purchase prices?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question relates more to the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, but I would be happy to see that the hon. member's remarks are brought to the attention of the board.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What nonsense!


PENITENTIARIES
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question. In view of a report that the body of an escaped inmate from Collins Bay penitentiary was found on Wednesday trussed in a blanket on the banks of a river in western Ontario, with several bullet holes in the torso, and in view of the apparent organized way in which the escape by four inmates was made last weekend, has the Solicitor General made any attempts to discover whether the escape involved collusion with criminals outside the institution?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, once the escape was discovered we took every step to alert the police forces, the Ontario provincial police, RCMP and so on, about the escape. They have been investigating it ever since, and they are considering the aspect which has been brought to my attention by the hon. member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In view of the way in which some inmates wait for the Parole Board to assist them in leaving institutions in view of the backlog of applications to the National Parole Board for the granting of parole and day parole, and in view of the minister's desire for speedy passage of the bill amending the Parole Act, what steps has the minister taken to obtain a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to deal with this bill which is now ready to be discussed by it?


William Warren Allmand: Yesterday afternoon I spoke to certain members who have responsibility for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and suggested that they call the committee as soon as possible to deal with that bill.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the obvious success of the Prime Minister's trip to China and the improved relations result-

October 19, 1973
Oral Questions
ing therefrom, is the minister in a position to say whether our two governments will now be ready to work together in renewed efforts to secure the release of political prisoners in both South and North Viet Nam?


Hon.. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is our desire that political prisoners in both North and South Viet Nam be released. I would assume, however, that the Chinese government would not support the idea that there are political prisoners in North Viet Nam.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. A letter to the minister on January 12, 1973, from the President of the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers Union made certain recommendations with respect to unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen. Can the minister tell the House what action he is taking on this, and what are the prospects of having these changes made?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the receipt of that letter,-I do not recall the exact date but some time in the spring of this year-the president of the union referred to attended a meeting arranged by me with the Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and one or two other officials. I think the general feeling or consensus-and here I do not want to misinterpret the views of the leader of the union-was that this particular proposal would not be the most suitable one. Since that time a number of negotiations have been taking place with a view to reaching an alternative formula. As recently as yesterday the Minister of the Environment and I had another meeting, which will be followed next week by a further meeting with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when he returns from his visit to western Canada, to see what kind of formula can be devised.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the startling and disconcerting increases in unemployment revealed in the last statistical reports, with which I am sure he is familiar, can he indicate whether the

Minister of Manpower and Immigration was stating government policy during his swing in western Canada over the last couple of days when he said employment is good where it counts and is only poor in terms of opportunities in certain regions for young people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to refer to the full text of the minister's statement, and perhaps I can give an opinion after that.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that unemployment is severely critical among the age group from 14 to 24 years, and in certain regions of the country, on a continuing basis, as has been the case for the past several years, has the Prime Minister any intention of announcing new plans, policies or budgetary provisions in the near future to overcome this particular problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The matter is under consideration. I have no announcement to make this morning, Mr. Speaker.


PULP-DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE PURCHASES BY CHINESE WITH PRIME MINISTER DURING VISIT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In his negotiations with the Chinese did he indicate that the government might be willing to assist the Chinese in purchasing pulp from Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question of forest products was discussed in some detail and, as I indicated in my statement, one of the subjects which will be discussed, in an early exchange of visitors from both countries, will be that of the forest industries.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell us when the regulations with regard to Bill C-128 are to be published or, failing that, can he tell us now what portion of the cost of security will be borne by the airlines?


Jean Marchand: So far
as the last part of the question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is something which has to be decided by cabinet. I have had a memorandum prepared for that purpose, so I hope that very soon we will know what kind of proposal we are going to make to the airlines. So far as the first part of the question regarding the regulations is concerned, I hope that we will have the regulations prepared in a few weeks and will then be in a position to discuss them.
October 19, 1973


FOREST PRODUCTS-POLICY OF GOVERNMENT ON EXPORT OF PROCESSED PRODUCTS AS OPPOSED TO PULP
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Is it the policy of the government to encourage the export of pulp and not to insist on the export only of processed forest products like paper, liner boards and things of that nature?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at least in my presence the export of pulp as such was not discussed with the Chinese. As I indicated, the first step will be a visiting delegation which will look at the total subject of the forest industries. It will be on that occasion that we will reiterate our policy of ensuring that we export products in as finished a state of production as possible.


ALCOHOLISM-FEDERAL MEASURES TO COMBAT
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having in mind the fact that federal revenue from alcohol now exceeds $1 million a day whereas federal expenditures on combating alcoholism run at the rate of about one-tenth of one per cent of that figure, what steps is the department taking or considering in an effort to combat what the LeDain Commission termed Canada's greatest drug problem, alcoholism?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is quite appropriate to try to equate revenues and expenditures of the government in such an instance. If that were done there would be nothing left to carry on the other programs of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and possibly to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if it is true that his ministry or the Ministry of Transport has sent out lay-off notices to almost half of the firefighters at the Victoria International Airport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to be difficult, but I am sure the hon. member knows it is not correct procedure to ask a minister to confirm or deny a report. The question could easily be asked directly. We will assume it has been asked directly. The hon. member may complete it.
Oral Questions


Donald W. Munro: Have notices been sent out to almost half the firefighters at the airport, following the decision to phase out the anti-submarine squadron from that airfield and, if so, how does the minister expect safety and fire protection services to be provided at that airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question I will have to verify the facts. This is the first time I have heard about it.


AMPHETAMINES-REGULATION OF PRESCRIPTIONS- REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION WITH MEDICAL BODIES
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and arises from the recent announcement regarding regulations governing the prescribing of amphetamines and other related stimulants. In view of the fact the decision to impose controls in the first instance was not a subject for debate, and in view of the fact that this unprecedented unilateral action by the government infringed on the prescribing rights of physicians and reflected on their professional integrity, would the minister indicate if he is now prepared to discuss with responsible medical bodies or with the House the fundamental issue of the prescribing rights of physicians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not accept the prelude to the question, or the implications and assumptions behind it. The one main fact is that, thanks to the regulations that were enacted, there was something like a 90 per cent reduction in the consumption of amphetamines during the period concerned. So far as discussion of this problem with the proper medical bodies is concerned, there was indeed discussion before the regulations were enacted as there was discussion when the regulations were amended. So far as discussion with this House is concerned, I will be pleased to discuss the matter at any time with the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when it meets and has the estimates of my department under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the question I posed yesterday and again today with respect to a statement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about government policy with regard to food prices, and the intimation on the part of the minister that he had no knowledge of such a statement. He requested in a note that I identify it. I wonder if I could have consent of the House to table the document?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot table documents. The Standing Orders do not make it possible for private members to table documents. Orders of the day.
7050

Capital Punishment


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am the first one to recognize my lack of knowledge of the House rules. However, I would suggest to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that he should be a little more subtle in passing the buck, because I am sure the Minister of Agriculture was not the one who started the board. I believe my question is a very important one which the consumers of Canada are asking of their members of parliament and of everybody else.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the voting in this House last night on the amendment to this bill shows very vividly that whether we like it or not, this bill is going to be pushed through by the government.


Mr. Reid:: Not true!


An hon. Member:: Ask your leader.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I point out in this connection that not only can we take the actual vote, in which there was only a handful of retentionists from the Liberal side, but we can review the remarks made yesterday by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) when he was discussing amendments then before the House. As recorded at page 7015 of yesterday's Hansard the minister said:
The bill before the House is a government bill; it was put forward by the cabinet. Under our constitution, the cabinet is legally the government. This is a cabinet bill, approved by cabinet.
He went on to state:
-as far as we are concerned it is a free vote, but not for the government, meaning the cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, I emphasize this because I believe that if this House votes in favour of this bill we are taking a step that we will regret in five, and certainly ten, years' time.
Yesterday I nferred to the fact that a recent survey conducted by tne United Nations reported that very few countries in the word were abolitionist countries. I said that only nine countries could be actually categorized as abolitionist, according to that report. The Solicitor General took exception to that comment and said that he

thought it was unfair-I think he used the words "a little misleading"-without indicating that there were other countries that were nearly abolitionist and only had the death penalty for very severe crimes.
Let us put the record straight on this question, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to be out of step with the rest of the world let us understand that we are. The hard fact is that out of 132 member countries in the United Nations, 102, according to the United Nations review, are retention-ist. That is, 77.3 per cent of nations belonging to the United Nations are actually retentionist in the sense that they have the death penalty for many ordinary crimes, as well as the crimes referred to by the Solicitor General yesterday.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: How many of those countries have democratically elected governments and parliaments?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am rather glad that the Solicitor General raised that point because my second line of attack was going to be that I believe this government, in pushing this bill through, is not going along with the democratic wishes of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: You forgot to answer the question.


John Mercer Reid: What could be more democratic than putting the question into the House of Commons for a free vote?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has not forgotten the recent Gallup poll which showed that 63 per cent of the people in Canada support the restoration of the death penalty. Before he starts pointing his finger at other countries, and questioning whether they are democratic, I believe at some stage he should be willing to tell the people of Canada why he went against their wishes.
The general tone of the government's position on this bill, Mr. Speaker, has been that we should join the more Liberal ranks, the far-sighted ranks, and that we are doing something that is generally accepted throughout the world. However, I believe that the figures I have given demonstrate that is not true. Not only is it not true, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is interesting to review what is happening in certain countries that have removed the death penalty or partially removed it.
The United Kingdom is often mentioned by the government as a country that has abolished the death penalty and they suggest that we should follow its example. But yesterday I commented that in the United Kingdom there are serious second thoughts about the matter. I would also point out that at the recent Conservative conference in that country the matter was raised and, by a vote of 1,404 in favour and 1,228 against, the motion was carried for the restoration of the death penalty.
The United Kingdom is not the only country showing a definite trend back to the death penalty. Our nearest
October 19, 1973

neighbour, the United States, is having serious misgivings concerning the abolitionist stance in many of the states and of the federal jurisdiction itself. Last week I had an opportunity to attend a conference in Washington, D.C. which was called to consider peace in the world. I think it is most significant that I was warned not to risk walking the streets of Washington alone at night. I was told that if I were to walk from the conference hall to my hotel for example, I stood a 50-50 chance of being mugged. That is the atmosphere of which I believe this government is not properly cognizant.
There is, to a certain extent, a rising trend of violence and murder. I think it is interesting to look at the situation in the state of California which has a population approximately equal to that of Canada. That state experimented with abolition of the death penalty for murder. It is interesting to note that, unlike this government, the state of California decided to ask the people for their verdict on whether the death penalty should be restored. In the referendum conducted last year, the people voted by approximately 57 per cent to restore the death penalty in that state.
In this connection I will be interested to know if the Solicitor General has actively discussed with his counterparts of the governments of the various states of the United States of America, and with his counterpart in the federal government of the United States, the concerns and attitudes respecting the continuation or restoration of the death penalty in that country. I say that because I think it might be interesting to review some testimony given by the Attorney General of the State of California. He testified before the legislature of the state in support of a bill for restoring the death penalty. For example, the Attorney General was asked, "Is the death penalty a deterrent?" His reply was:
Yes. The rise in the homicide rate during the last ten years, the experience of jurists and persons in law enforcement, and common sense indicate that it is.
Then, he broke his answer into three separate parts. Dealing with homicide, he pointed out that from 1956 to 1962, there were between five and eleven executions per year in California. During that time the wilful homicide rate fluctuated between 3.5 and 3.7 wilful homicides per
100,000	persons. Then, he said that since 1962, when the courts effectively abolished the death penalty in California, with the exception of one execution in 1967, the wilful homicide rate in California increased to 8.7 wilful homicides per 10,000 persons. I mention these figures because it is alarming to note that the same trends have appeared in Canada as a result of the death penalty not being imposed for murder. As I said when speaking during the second reading debate on this bill, murder statistics for Canada for 1971 demonstrate that the rate of murder in this country has more than doubled since 1956 and now stands at 2.4 per 100,000 persons.
The Attorney General of California went on to point out that jurists and law enforcement officials have repeatedly come into contact with individuals who have stated that they did not carry a weapon, or that they carried an unloaded weapon, because of fear of the death penalty. He then mentioned that he felt it is just common sense to
Capital Punishment
accept that the death penalty is a deterrent. He testified that this inference is substantiated by the fact that in 1960 there was one robbery-murder for every 300 robberies, while in 1972 the rate had increased to one robbery-murder for every 200 robberies.
The state of California chose to ask the people of the state what they desired with respect to the restoration of the death penalty. The people voted overwhelmingly in favour of the restoration of the death penalty. According to the returns on Proposition 17, the title given to the referendum, 5,386,904 Californians said, "Return to death penalty", whereas 2,591,547 persons said, "Do not restore it". That proportion supporting the restoration of the death penalty in California, I suggest, is very similar to the proportion of people in Canada, who would favour the restoration of the death penalty.
I have already referred to the Gallup poll of Canada which last year indicated that 63 per cent of the people in this country favoured the restoration of the death penalty. It is interesting to note that the percentage in favour of restoration last year was substantially higher than the percentage which was in favour of restoring the death penalty in 1966. At that time only 53 per cent asked for the death penalty to be retained, whereas it is clear that the percentage in favour of retention has risen by 10 per cent in the intervening five or six years.
The government ought to take cognizance of what the people of Canada are asking. Why can we not trust the people, and at least delay the railroading of this bill through Parliament, so that the law may be restored to its former status or left as it is at present. In the next election, which hopefully will come soon, the people of Canada, in addition to voting for those who are to represent them in this House, could also be asked to vote on the question of the continuation or abolition of capital pubish-ment in this country.
It is unfortunate that we in this country tend to react rather than give leadership. Surely, we do not need to wait until other countries in the world restore the death penalty before finding ourselves totally out of step. I feel I am representing my constituents well when I support the restoration of the death penalty in Canada. I took it upon myself to ascertain the wishes of my constituents, and I polled them. I point out that 89.4 per cent of those responding to that poll we conducted in York-Simcoe asked for the death penalty to be restored or retained.
If we vote in support of this bill today, we will regret it in future years. I urge members of the House either not to vote in support of the bill or, perhaps better still, if they support it, to change their vote, so that we are not put into the position in which criminals of this country will begin to regard the death penalty as the ultimate punishment to which they can be subjected if they do not obey the laws of the land.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
26635-16j

October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, prior to the luncheon break I was saying that I felt the government, in sponsoring this bill, was out of step with many of the countries of the world and that in fact we were not taking a lead in going the way many abolitionist countries and states in the United States are tending to go, that is back to the institution of the death penalty.
Referring to the state of California, I think it is interesting to note that not only have they had a plebiscite which indicated by 67.5 per cent that the public in California felt the death penalty should be restored, but that state in fact brought in legislation that goes surprisingly far in restoring the death penalty for various crimes. 1 wish to summarize the crimes for which the state of California now imposes capital punishment as a result of a recent bill introduced in that House. One point that is made is that the death penalty should be for those killers and those crimes on which California juries actually and unconditionally returned death verdicts. Their bill provides that the basis for the death verdict must be first, that a homicide has been committed, that the killer has been sentenced to death and that he must have personally caused the act which caused the death, unless he contracted for the murder.
It is interesting to note that in the courts of California the process for the handling of murder trials is significantly different. It is a two level type of trial in which the man is found guilty or not guilty at the first level. If he is found guilty, there is an entirely new trial to determine if the facts dictate the mandatory imposition of the death penalty.
The California act will apply first to first degree murder if the victim is a peace officer and, second, if the victim was a witness to the crime and killed to prevent his testimony. The California governing officials have found instances where a person charged with a crime has admitted that he killed his victim because he realized the victim could testify against him. He knew there was no worse punishment in the then existing laws of California if he killed the man compared with the punishment for whatever crime he had committed. To cover that, the state has now provided for the death penalty where the victim was a witness to the crime and was killed in order to prevent him testifying against the accused.
California has also instituted the death penalty in the case of a multiple murder or of a person who has prior murder convictions. It has been instituted where there has been a history of two or more separate convictions for violent criminal conduct. If there is a first degree murder, they have instituted it if the accused was killed by torture. Finally, it is instituted in the case of first degree murder if it is felt that the accused is not rehabilitable and there are no mitigating circumstances.
In addition, the California act applies where a prisoner under life sentence kills another. It applies to skyjacking if any victim of the skyjacking should die. It applies to kidnapping for ransom, robbery, etc., if the victim dies. Finally, the act in California applies if a train wrecker causes victims to die as a result of a train derailment or

the wrecking of some mode of transportation. I remind hon. members that the state of California has found it necessary to institute such a wide return to the death penalty because, as the Attorney General indicated that, although a few short years ago he was an abolitionist, it was believed that the abolitionist stand resulted in a significantly higher homicide rate in that state than existed in prior years. I would remind hon. members of the facts that he brought out. In 1963, the homicide rate in California was 3.8 per 100,000 population, while in 1971 it had reached 8.1 per 100,000 population. As I indicated earlier today, by 1972 the rate had gone even higher in that state.
In short, the people of California asked that something be done. They were given an opportunity to reflect their wishes in the plebiscite to which I referred earlier. Sixty seven and a half per cent of them said the state should restore the death penalty, and the state legislature has met their wishes.
However, the government of Canada has refused to acknowledge the popular will of the vast majority of Canadians concerning the same subject. I believe that when we consider this matter we should realize that, while it is nice to take trips to China, to Russia and to certain other Communist countries, we will not find in those countries the lenient attitude towards the death penalty which this government feels is the proper attitude to take in Canada.


William Warren Allmand: You would like to copy them?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In a lead story by the Associated Press from Moscow, which appeared in the Toronto Star in May of 1973, it is disclosed that the Soviet Union has the highest rate of executions of any of the industrialized countries of the world. A Soviet court can stand a person before a firing squad even for endangering the life of a policeman. The article states:
In little more than two years since September, 1970, at least 24 Soviet citizens were reported shot for crimes ranging from profiteering to rape. In addition, at least 34 were hunted down by special secret police squads and executed as World War II collaborators or nationalist partisans.
The article points out that hundreds of thousands of people over the last 50 years or so have been executed in the Soviet Union, sometimes virtually without even a trial. I mention this because, living as we do in a democracy with our great freedom, we must always be aware we can only preserve this freedom, both within the nation and externally, if we are on our guard. I believe the people of Canada have a right to expect that they may go about their business and other affairs in the safe knowledge that they are free from the threat of violent crime and certainly from murder. I believe that leaving the death penalty on our statute books for those who commit what we feel might be the most heinous of crimes is a deterrent to those who would challenge the freedoms of you, Mr. Speaker, me, every member of the House and the people of Canada who wish to go on their way without feeling their lives are in danger.
October 19, 1973

In taking the stand it has on this bill, I feel the government must make clear to the Canadian public at the present time, and I hope during the coming election, that over the last few years it has failed to accept its responsibility for instituting not only the death penalty but for seeing to it that, if a person is found guilty after proper court proceeding and is sentenced to death, the penalty is carried out. The government's habit of commuting death sentences has reached the point where it has virtually made it a certainty that no one will hang, despite the law of the land, and has brought our whole judicial system a disrespect that I feel is unfortunate. The people of Canada and, judging from the figures I have cited, people throughout the world, are expecting a return to law and order. This government is not contributing to bringing law and order to this country by pushing Bill C-2, and I certainly intend to vote against it on third reading.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in my remarks, since I do not think there is very much that can be added to this long, and I think about to become tedious, debate. I should like to say that as a new member in this House I was very proud to be in the House last night when the majority of members who had considered this issue elected to continue this country on its road to progress in the 20th century rather than take a step back into a less civilized and less humane society.
I am urged to rise to my feet because the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) continues to argue, as the main thesis in his proposal for the retention of the death penalty, that Canada is out of step with the world. I hope the hon. member is not speaking as a potential minister of external affairs in a government that his party might form. Surely, it has been Canada's traditional role to lead the world, particularly in the area of humanity and decency.
Let me deal with this issue of how the majority of the people of this country think. Gallup polls would probably show that the majority of people in this country favour retention of capital punishment. I want to tell the hon. member for York-Simcoe that I have another poll showing that 50 per cent of the people of this country want to take over and nationalize the natural resources of this country. Would the hon. member change his view on that subject in view of that poll? I would doubt it. I think Burke said it for all of us when he said that the traditions of this House are that our constituents are entitled to the best judgment of their member. I think they respect the best judgment of the hon. members of this House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Do not forget that Burke was defeated at the next election.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, I was aware that Burke was defeated following the magnificent speech that he gave. I do not know whether that was the issue on which he was defeated, but as I have indicated before I am happy to go back to my electorate and run on the basis of the decision I have taken. I explained it before I ran in the last election, and I have explained it since. I believe that once this issue, which has been blown out of all proportion in this country, is considered and dealt with, those of us who vote for abolition will all come back here. The public will under-
Capital Punishment
stand that there are issues other than capital punishment which are of concern to them.
What would happen if the proponents of retention win the vote on the particular issue? Of course, one can say there is still the prerogative of mercy. Well, you know how that prerogative works? I will tell you how that prerogative worked. If the murderer was a well-known person in the community or the son of a well-known person, then the telegrams and the petitions started to pour into the Cabinet. Those with power and those with influence had their sentences commuted. But if a lonely Indian on a reserve had killed his wife, or if the convicted man happened to be a friendless individual in this society, the prerogative of mercy would probably not be exercised. So, the prerogative of mercy is necessarily a discriminatory thing. And the law is very imperfect, too, in the way in which people are convicted. Those with money and those with very good counsel have a far better chance of being acquitted in the courts of this land. So when society exercises the death penalty it will be exercising it in an extremely discriminatory and, of necessity, unfair manner.
I do not intend to say very much more on this subject. I cannot conceive of a country like Canada, which has led the world in many ways, particularly in the United Nations in taking positions in the world which enhance world peace, taking this kind of step backwards. I think we are going to say something about the society in which we live if we make an election to bring the death penalty fully back into this country and, make no mistake, I am sure this would be the effect of a vote defeating the bill before the House at this time.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe has insisted that we are out of step with the society we are in; he has insisted we are out of step with the world community-like South Africa, I suppose, and like Russia and China. I ask him to reconsider. I ask him to let Canada be a country that gives leadership to the world in terms not only of progressing within our own society but of persuading others to progress to a civilized and humane state.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the debate on third reading of Bill C-2. I already made my views known in the debate on second reading and the amendments which were introduced; in the few minutes at my disposal this afternoon I would like to give a few new arguments in further support of the position that was mine during all the debates that took place in the last several years and particularly the position taken in the constituency I represent.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding as well as in the province of Quebec and Canada in general are concerned with the increasing rise in crime in Canada. Not only are we experiencing a rapid increase in the rate of unemployment, the rate of inflation, but also a simultaneous increase in the number of crimes in Canada, and that is of great concern to the population. It seems that the softening of our laws and the tendency of federal and provincial authorities in matters of justice and crime

October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment
repression have in a certain way promoted the rise in crime in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I was completely baffled when I read the evidence given on April 27, 1972, before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs by Mr. Justice Ciale of the Criminology Centre of the University of Ottawa where he stated that in 1967, according to the last comprehensive statistics available, 1,229,000 crimes were committed in Canada. Of course, those are not murders, Mr. Speaker, but crimes and the figure of 1,229,000 must be considered seriously. Those are crimes made known to police departments; how many others were not reported, how many others are in a certain way legalized? We are sometimes inclined to say that the worst criminals are not always behind bars.
Mr. Speaker, in his testimony Mr. Ciale said the following and I quote:
-with approximately 7,000 inmates in the penitentiary who have gone through the entire criminal justice system including the corrections stream. This is approximately one-fifth of one per cent in terms of crimes committed. So we have over one million crimes, but only about 7,000 people wind up in Canadian penitentiaries.
Mr. Speaker, a very small number of criminals are punished and I feel more and more strongly that they know it. I also believe that police authorities may have had orders not to search too much for criminals for if they were all arrested, we would have no place for them. And although we recently built prisons that look very much like palaces, it remains that the available space is nevertheless limited and the prospect of having to provide for prisoners' needs is disturbing for Canadian taxpayers.
We say that the big criminal or murderer doe not start at the top; he begins with larceny. If he is not punished, he gets worse and worse.
I was reading reports from the United States. For instance, in the March 7, 1973 edition of La Presse, one can read the following, and I quote;
The legislative assemblies of two thirds of the 50 states of the United States of America are considering the establishment of capital punishment and in four other states, the legislators already passed laws to restore capital punishment.
The United States Supreme Court decided last July, with respect to cases concerning Georgia and Texas, that capital punishment, as applied in most states, was unconstitutional. The ruling that was passed, the vote being five against four, nevertheless leaves the door open for the establishment of capital punishment, provided that the latter be uniformly applied.
An Associated Press survey shows that the capital punishment issue has been brought up in nearly all states. Most of the projects being considered maintain the death penalty for the murder of a police officer or a fireman, a murder during a plane hijacking, and various other types of murders, including murder committed during another criminal action.
This shows, Mr. Speaker, that legislators and police officials in the United States are concerned about the rise in the crime rate and are studying the possibility of taking action to rectify the situation.
In the newspaper La Presse of September 7, 1973-which is not that long ago-Mr. Jean Pochet wrote as follows, and I quote:
Tn 1972, there were 18,520 murders committed in the United States (900 more than in 1971), and 54 percent were committed by means of handguns. One hundred and eight policemen were shot

with firearms. Nearly 100,000 people were threatened with a handgun, and 245,000 armed robberies were committed.
To this first group of figures, let us quickly add a second one. Each year, 1,800,000 Americans purchase a handgun. The national figure for handguns is about 30 million. To which we must add more than 60 million guns of all sizes.
Nearly one out of every two Americans has the means to kill his family, his neighbours, a stranger or himself. In the single week between March 4 and 11, 1973, 325 people were killed. The victims were wives, husbands, children, lovers, robbers, robbed people, policemen on duty. As a whole, 40 per cent more than in 1969!
A visit to a psychiatrist in the United States often costs $40 while the purchase of a hand gun only amounts to $8.
Therefore, for a hare-brained American, it is less expensive to revenge himself than to use another means to understand a situation. This is what is happening in our neighbors' country, but at home, it is not so different, proportionally.
In the Montreal-Matin of September 21, 1973, it is reported that a murder was committed and that the murderer had killed the wrong person. That is too much! One does not even care to ensure that he is going to kill the right person. And in the case I have just referred to, it was the 32nd murder in that city this year. People kill because the hot dog they are served is not hot enough; they kill for almost any reason; they shoot on all sides, it has become a real jungle.
Then, Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Canadian people are increasingly concerned about this situation. And we are right to be concerned as well and to take the necessary steps in order to correct this situation and stop the crime upsurge. We must try to find out the causes of this situation but in the meanwhile, if we amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, I sincerely think we are to blame. We don't care enough about the situation and despite some efforts, we have still an enormous task in this respect. And we make our young people believe by all sorts of means that once their studies are finished, they will get all opportunities to earn their living. But after their studies they find they have been misled because we cannot give them what we promised. In many instances, they cannot find a job in the trade or profession of their choice. Discouraged, they have to find another way to earn their living, but it is not always a good one.
Recently in my area, we witnessed a murder which disturbed the public opinion. A well-known and esteemed man owned a little business profitable enough to make a living. One evening, two young people who preferred to live by theft and rapine, came to rob him of his money but because he had the courage to defend himself, he was murdered.
Today, this happens everywhere. It starts with a theft and when people offer some resistance they are murdered or shot. Mr. Speaker, I think we must put an end to this situation and make potential criminals understand that if they want capital punishment abolished, they must begin by refraining from committing crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we should restore the death penalty not for any case, but to punish capital murder, according to the provisions of the 1961 amendments. In my opinion, the danger of making a mistake is rather remote.
October 19, 1973

Thanks to justice and the appeal procedures, the accused can use every means to defend himself. When it has been shown that a murder was premeditated and committed in cold blood, we should then impose the death penalty so that at least the individuals concerned will know what are the risks by doing so. I sincerely think, Mr. Speaker, that the people will feel protected by the passage of a legislation. Such is their wishes and their will.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, during this protracted debate more evidence has been put forward by those who favour the bill and those who oppose it. What I should like to do this afternoon is not simply repeat what has already been outlined but rather deal with certain basic arguments advanced by those who support Bill C-2, arguments which I suggest lack fundamental logic. They are inconsistent. They do not ring true. They are not convincing to the people of Canada and should not convince members of the Parliament of Canada.
The first is the question raised by those who advocate abolition under the guise of this bill which does not abolish the death penalty but restricts it to certain crimes, namely the murder of a police officer or the murder of a prison guard. These people ask what good would the death penalty do the victim. We might very well ask the Solicitor-General (Mr. Allmand) what good the death penalty for the murder of a police officer or prison guard will do any victim. That is the question which arises. If it is a logical question for him to ask what good would the death penalty do the victim of any homicide, why then does he bring into the House a bill that provides for the death penalty of the murderer of a prison guard or police officer? He asks us to support something which, in his thinking, does not do any good.


William Warren Allmand: Right.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Oh, then he believes he is wrong. Right is wrong. That is an example of the double talk which you get from this minister and, indeed, from the government in general. The point is that there is no death penalty that can be devised which would do any good for the victim. It is not logical to say: let us abolish the death penalty because it does nothing for the victim, and at the same time not abolish any death penalty. What good does it do the victim to incarcerate the murderer in a penitentiary? Is the NDP advocating that we abolish the penitentiary services? The point is that the death penalty would not only be a punishment of the murderer but a demonstration of society's abhorrence of the crime of murder, and society's serious concern about this threat to public security. Society would be saying to the family of the survivors of the homicide act that we share with them in the devastation, in the tragedy that they have suffered, and we show our abhorrence by demanding that he who has callously taken the life of another shall be prepared to forfeit his own.
I suggest that, as we are practising the law in Canada, we are not demonstrating that to the families and loved ones of the victims of murder. We are sending murderers
Capital Punishment
into penitentiaries, not for a life sentence-we use the term "life sentence" in a euphemistic way meaning that we will send them there for ten years before letting them out on parole-but for a much shorter time after which they can be permitted to go out on temporary absence or day parole. It is possible for a murderer, after a short time in penitentiary, to be allowed out on a temporary absence or day parole so that he can go to university at public expense and enjoy the life of a university student, the life of a campus community. At the same time, however, the family and survivors of the victim of his homicidal act are deprived of the one who was their breadwinner, their father, their husband, the one who was the guardian of the home. That is the attitude that we are showing as a society. That is what we are saying to the family of a policeman struck down by a murderer. We are saying that we will not do anything more to the murderer than give him the opportunity to advance himself.
I submit to you that when we ask the question what good does it do the victim, we should be asking: what good will any penalty do? We have to have a penalty that will demonstrate to the whole of society, as well as to the criminal element, that society has this kind of abhorrence for the crime of murder.
The second point that has been made in this debate by a number of speakers is that they cannot support capital punishment because they believe that life is sacred. This has certainly been a strong point strongly made. But if we believe it consistently, we should ask ourselves: how is it that we vote for Bill C-2 which provides at least the legislative authority for the capital punishment of the murderers of prison guards and police officers. If we are opposed to capital punishment in principle so that we deny the right of the state ever to take a life, how can we possibly, consistently and logically support this bill?
Moreover, how can we support many of the other measures that we endorse in parliament which lead, at least potentially, to the possibility of the state taking human life? How can we support a budget in excess of $2 billion for the armed forces which have the potential for taking human life on a grand scale? We are concerned about the principle involved in the possible taking of life of one, two, three, four or five murderers, but here we are supporting the equipment of the armed forces which could take thousands of lives. Similarly, how is it that we support arming the police forces across this country, all of them having the potential for taking life in the line of duty and in the interests of protecting society? How can we support putting shotguns into the hands of prison guards on the perimeter walls and on the watch towers? How can we give them the means by which they can take the life of an escaping inmate for the great crime of attempting escape from an institution? I am not suggesting that any prison guard would deliberately take the life of an escapee, but it certainly could happen with the use of a shotgun. We would say that, should it happen, a guard would certainly be excused the act since it was committed in the line of duty.
If we are thus supporting all these things-and I think it is right that we as parliament should support them-are we not saying that the state has the right and the authority under the circumstances to take life? It seems to me

October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment
that we are logical and consistent only if we take the thoroughgoing pacifist position of saying that the state never has the right under any circumstances to take life. Then, we have to ask serious questions about the state's right to take life in other circumstances, namely in time of war or in the exercise of a policeman's duty.
A third argument that has been advanced in this debate is that capital punishment is too extreme a penalty for society to exact because the courts, being human, are fallible-judges make mistakes and juries make mistakes. There is always the danger of the innocent being convicted and executed. I find this to be a very strong argument. I must say that I am deeply impressed by the need for society to take the utmost care that no innocent person be convicted of a crime and sentenced to death.
However, let us recognize certain other aspects of this point. It shows, not the need to abolish capital punishment, but the need to have an adequate appeal court system, one in which there is ready access to the highest courts of the land so that any person convicted of a capital crime will be able to appeal that sentence and have the trial reviewed in such a way that the highest courts of the land will be satisfied that he had a truly fair hearing when his trial was conducted. It shows, secondly, the need for having some provision for non-capital murder so that any acts of homicide will not lead to a charge of capital murder, unless there is no doubt about the guilt of the person convicted of that murder. Where there is any doubt, certainly where there is any reasonable doubt because a conviction would rest upon circumstantial evidence, there should be provisions for non-capital murder so that the person, if convicted unjustly, would not be executed but would still have the opportunity to have that sentence reversed.
I am saying these things should be, but I recognize, as do all hon. members, that we already have these things; we already have an appeal court system. We already have legal aid throughout the land so that any citizen can have access to the highest courts. We already have provision in the Criminal Code for non-capital murder. In recommending to the House that Bill C-2 be defeated, we are not asking that capital punishment be provided for in the Criminal Code but rather that we return to the 1961 system in which a distinction was made between capital and non-capital murder. At that time a capital murder charge was reserved for those acts of homicide where the evidence led one to believe that the accused committed murder willfully, and with some premeditation.
Under that system we recognized the desirability of having the charge of non-capital murder brought against the accused in cases where there was some doubt, or where the presumption of guilt rested on circumstantial evidence; where there was no premeditation, where homicide took place as the result of an impulsive action, the so-called crime of passion.
The further argument brought before us is that capital punishment does not deter. The evidence for saying this rests on the fact that in the states where capital punishment is part of the legal system there are still murders. I point out that those states represent most of the member

nations of the United Nations. That argument is brought forward by many abolitionists as though it were a great revelation, as though it were the final argument to be made, as though there were nothing more to be said. The point we must recognize is that regardless of what penalty we have for murder, or for that matter for any other crime, there will always be some instances of the crime being committed.
If it is logical to say that we are going to abolish capital punishment because in countries where it exists people still commit murders, we could use the same argument to say that we are going to abolish penitentiaries, simply because in our country people are still robbing banks and committing other crimes. People have been committing these crimes for years, and have not been deterred from committing them by prison sentences.
We are submitting that capital punishment has validity since some people are deterred from committing homicide because of the presence of the capital punishment threat in the Criminal Code. We are also suggesting that the growth of the rate of homicide in Canada since the de facto abolition of capital punishment is evidence of the contrary being the result, that capital punishment is in effect a deterrent, and that the lack of capital punishment is one reason why crimes of violence and homicide have increased and are increasing in our country.
A further argument put forward on this matter is that society is at fault, and that we should not bring down upon a single, helpless victim of social ills the final, supreme penalty of capital punishment. If I recall correctly, in his opening address on this bill the Solicitor General said that every murder represents a failure by society. This is an example of the kind of double talk that is permeating our whole thinking today.
Hon. members will recall the satire written in the late 1940's which visualized the world that was to come in 1984. The society that was to develop by 1984 was to be one in which the meaning of many words would be reversed, so that people would think freedom was slavery, war was peace, and so on. Once again we have an example of that confusion of language and thinking in the way some people are now prepared to suggest that when a murder is committed the murderer is not at fault, but the rest of us are. I suppose that, if we follow that through logically, we should all be punished in some way if we are the ones who are really guilty. But that is not suggested, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, it is suggested that we should minimize the punishment for the person who committed the act.
I submit that our penitentiary system must rest on the belief in individual responsibility. The responsibility of the individual to give an accounting for his behavior is one of the fundamental beliefs of our society, of any civilized society. Unless the individual is responsible for his behavior, then we really cannot expect a society to have any moral foundation at all. We are submitting that the penitentiary system in Canada ought to have the character of individual responsibility as one of its foundation principles. We ought to say to a murderer who has willfully committed that crime, taking from another his most precious possession, life itself, "You are responsible for what you have done. You, having willfully taken the life of another, must be prepared to forfeit your own."
October 19, 1973

One of the things that impressed me on recently reading a book called "The Valacchi Papers" was the judgment of some friends of the mafia killer, Joe Valacchi, that "Joe believes everybody is to blame for Joe, except Joe." Are we not saying that over and over again in the way we are modifying, changing and adjusting our attitude to law enforcement? We are saying that everybody is to blame for a crime except the criminal. What we must insist upon once again is the need for society to say to the individual, who in effect is making war upon it, "You are responsible for what you have done."
The debate on Bill C-2, Mr. Speaker, has aroused more public interest than any other debate by parliament in this session. One reason for the widespread interest is that the people of Canada feel profoundly about the significance of the issue before us. The people of Canada are concerned not only with the letter of the legislation before us; they are concerned with the spirit that it expresses. As a parliament, we ought to ponder profoundly the message that is coming to Parliament Hill from every corner of Canada, the message which says that people want a firming up in the administration and enforcement of law.
People look upon this bill as symbolizing the attitude of Canadian society. One reason the majority of people oppose this bill is that it does not represent their attitude to law enforcement. People want a firmer, more just law enforcement than this bill provides. If parliament were really listening to the people of Canada it would resoundingly defeat this bill.
In the course of this debate there is one negative aspect of the discussion that has concerned many of us, and that is the way some members have imputed certain motives and certain deficiencies to others. There has been an easy assumption on the part of some of those who favour Bill C-2 and are thus abolitionists, that those who oppose it are blood-lusting sadists, red-necked, narrow-minded bigots who want revenge. On the other hand, those who have argued against Bill C-2 and are thus considered retention-ists, are sometimes inclined to think that those who support it are woolly-minded do-gooders, and so on. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think that both sides have come to the debate with honest, serious, heart-searching conviction. In this respect it has been a very good debate and expressive of the best character of parliament.
This House cannot take a decision which will satisfy everybody, but a debate which gives the opportunity to all to express their diverse views, as has this one, is a demonstration of the democratic process. I have welcomed the opportunity to address the chamber, and hope that in the course of the next few days a sufficient number of members will reach the decision that we should defeat this bill in order that the people of Canada may believe their parliament is truly and democratically trying to carry out the will of the people, clearly, forcefully and visibly expressed as that will has been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken in this chamber on this matter; I have written magazine and newspaper articles on this topic; I
Capital Punishment
have appeared on radio and television programs in support of Bill C-2-and here I am, back for another try. This is not because I enjoy talking with a lower jaw that was recently smashed in a car accident, but because I do not give in easily. I hope, just as fervently as the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) hopes that he can convert people to his cause, that I can convert one or two people to mine. This is going to be my last shot at it and I hope hon. members will find it a good one.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said he had assumed, on the basis of last night's vote, that the government was not allowing its people a free vote at all and that we were going to have Bill C-2 rammed down our throats. I think he is wrong. I am not worried about any tyranny exercised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or his followers: if any evidence is needed of that, there is the fact of the lunatic amendment to provide capital punishment for murder committed during rape. I do not know how that ever got on the order paper. Apart from the morality involved in the commission of rape, it is one of the most lunatic propositions ever put forward, especially when you consider the burden placed upon the Crown prosecutor to obtain a witness in a case of that nature, the victim having been already killed. I do not think we need to fear tyranny from the government. I think it will be a free vote over there as it certainly will be over here. x
If I become any more unpopular in my own caucus for espousing a cause, Mr. Speaker will have to put my chair in the smoking lobby because no one will sit beside me. I am not afraid of the tyranny of the Prime Minister or anyone in this House I am not afraid that the whips are going to be laid on us and that Bill C-2 is going to be rammed down our throats. What I do fear, Mr. Speaker, is the tyranny of the so-called public opinion poll.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: We have seen members of parliament stand in this House, go on radio and television and be interviewed by the media, saying, "I, personally, do not believe in capital punishment. I think it is a terrible thing to take another human life. But I have surveyed my riding, I have sent out a questionnaire and the results are conclusive and overwhelming; the majority of my constituents want capital punishment to be retained and therefore I shall have to vote against Bill C-2 and for the retention of capital punishment in all its aspects."
Mr. Speaker, I say to these people that they are doing one thing and one thing alone: they are putting their consciences up for sale. They are bidding for votes at the next election. If they truly believe that capital punishment is a bad thing, let them have the guts to stand up like men and women, state their positions, vote according to their positions and take the consequences next time the only real ballot that means anything is taken-that is, at the next election. Let them have the courage of their convictions and not hide behind this phony defence of a poll. In many instances the polls that I have seen ask, "Are you opposed, or not opposed, to capital punishment: yes or no?" Not any choice, not any option just-"Do you oppose, or favour, capital punishment: yes or no?" That is it. Those

October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment
polls are phony, Mr. Speaker. The only poll that counts is the poll taken on election day.
I have been accused of taking the position that I am going to vote against the will of my constituents because I have not taken any poll. I have not consulted my constituents on this matter, and I have no intention of doing so because I consulted them on October 30 last year. On that day last year, 55,024 votes were cast in Ottawa West and all but 245 were cast in favour of candidates who had publicly declared, in a record number of candidate meetings, some on television and radio and all reported in the local press and nationally-I cannot think of a riding in which more interest was shown by the media-and put themselves on record as opposing capital punishment and favouring Bill C-2.
There cannot be any doubt in my mind where my constituents stand on the issue, Mr. Speaker. There was over an 80 per cent turnout at the polls, and those who voted for me voted for a candidate who had publicly pledged himself to support a five-year extension of the legislation in existence, which is the idea that we now see embodied in Bill C-2. My Liberal opponent took the same position, as did my NDP opponent. The only one in favour of doing away with Bill C-2 and reinstating capital punishment was the Social Credit candidate who received those 245 votes.
If members are interested in polls or opinion-testing, attitudinal surveys or whatever you want to call them, I can tell about one which is more scientific than the ones used here, which are just drops in the ocean and touch one householder out of eight or nine voters. This survey was conducted by a man at the University of Western Ontario. I will not give his name because I have not been in touch with him to get his permission. He selected a sampling of people in the city of London, Ontario, who to his best knowledge and that of his associates made up a representative sampling of the people in that city. He sent out experienced interviewers. I will not go through all his findings, but here are his conclusions:
The most direct implication of the present study, however, is that some of the motives and characteristics associated with favouring the death penalty are inconsistent with important Canadian values and goals. Canadian people and institutions formally endorse the principles of humane legal justice, democratic as opposed to authoritarian values, and equality for all citizens. The present survey suggests that people who favour the death penalty, especially those who favour it most strongly, are likely to have characteristics which are anti-thetical to these values and goals: they are more likely than persons opposed to the death penalty to be seekers of vengeance and punishment, to hold authoritarian instead of democratic social and political beliefs, and to score high on measures of prejudice. These conclusions would seem worthy of consideration by political, governmental, and legal decision-makers; simply noting percentages in superficial public opinion polls is not enough.
I submit that, counter to the nineteenth century views expressed by many of the proponents of the return to the Dark Ages, the problem that the people of Canada face is not that of murder. There is no "Mack the Knife" around every corner, ready to stick a knife in your back. The people of this country do not go to bed worrying about being murdered in their beds. On the other hand, they are

concerned about the rising incidence of crimes against the human person which fall short of murder.
Let me quote some statistics in connection with Ottawa. I chose the month of August, 1973, at random. It is usually hot in August in Ottawa, and if there is ever a time when violent crimes or murder may be committed in this city, it is in August. There were no murders, no manslaughters and no attempted murders. There was one rape and ten other sexual offences. There were 89 assaults, and 17 robberies. In the year 1972 there were five murders, no manslaughters, one attempted murder, and 12 rapes; there were 145 other sexual offences, 18 woundings, 973 assaults, 184 robberies, and so on.
Our legal system provides stiffer jail sentences for stealing somebody's property than for beating that person half to death. I suggest that we need in this country a thoroughgoing review of the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, of the bail provisions, of weekend tickets of leave, parole and other associated provisions. I have said so to the Solicitor General personally and I have said it to him in writing. I believe that is the thing all the people of Canada have the right to be concerned about. The passing of a law that will give the state the right to execute another human being is not going to remove the legitimate fears of our citizens that they may be the victims of violence directed against the person which may fall short of murder.
I will give an example, right here in Ottawa. A few months ago a small store on St. Laurent Boulevard was held up. An innocent bystander was shot and killed in that robbery. Three men were arrested in connection with the robbery. Two of them at that time were out on bail for the offence of possessing a sawed-off shotgun. Actually, I believe the weapon was a sawed-off 22 caliber gun, which is of no use to anyone except for criminal purposes. I could not hit the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) from where I stand with a 22 caliber sawed-off gun, no matter how good my aim is. A gun like that is no good for target practice, no good for pest hunting and no good for anything except holding people up. And you can buy such a gun in any store that sells it so long as you have the $10, or whatever it takes, to buy it.
That people who were hauled in for possessing such a weapon should be turned loose on bail is incomprehensible. Those people were turned loose, just like the snap of a finger, on their own recognizance. I do not want to prejudice their trial and I will not mention any names. In fact, I do not know what has happened to the case. However, if it turns out that they are guilty, we ought to look at two choices-the return to capital punishment, or my suggestion that we pass Bill C-2 and concentrate on stricter bail laws and parole regulations. If we go back to the Dark Ages by resurrecting capital punishment, in the end three people will have been killed, the man who was shot in the store and the two men who will presumably hang for murder if they are found guilty.
If my formula had been followed, nobody would be dead because those men would not have been loose on bail to kill an innocent man, and they would not be executed. We call ourselves civilized, yet sometimes after listening to some speeches I wonder how civilized we are. I could think of a great many crimes for which we ought to
October 19, 1973

prescribe the rope, if we are to include murder as an offence punishable by death. I do not think we ought to kill anybody for anything. Several members who want to see Bill C-2 defeated have been almost Jesuitical in their arguments. They force reasonable people into a compromise position and then turn that compromise position against those people and say that is a reason for not adopting the principle at all.
Those of us who support Bill C-2 do so with reservations, of course. We do not believe that there should be capital punishment for any cause at all; but we are prepared to accept, under pressure, the idea that there may be a certain deterrent effect in the case of prison guards and police officers. And because we are trying to meet the legitimate objections of people who want to hang everybody in sight, what happens: they turn our own decency and our own middle of the road position back on us and try to make this into an argument for rejecting the whole thesis.
If we are to retain the rope, I can suggest a few more categories that might be included in the law. Let us bring to the gallows the directors of companies who run off with company assets, so causing the company to go bankrupt and pouring down the drain the savings of widows, pensioners and orphans. Send to the guillotine all governments that create half a million unemployed deliberately and so kill people, perhaps less quickly than by the gun but none the less effectively. To the guillotine with those people! Send to the guillotine landlords who charge extortionate rents. There is a whole list of people who commit crimes infinitely more harmful to our society than the killing of one human being.
The fact of the matter is that by far the majority of murders in this country, or crimes that are classed as murder, are the result of domestic disputes. Usually the victim is related in some way, often by marriage, to the executioner. The person who commits the crime is not a criminal; yet those people are referred to by certain hon. members as "those members of the criminal element" as though such murders were deliberately committed. They are not. They are committed by men and women who have been pushed too far, so they commit a crime. They are not criminals, and the purposes of our society are not served by their spending one day in jail. But there are other people who commit crimes of violence which fall short of murder. They, in my opinion, ought never again to see the light of day except in the exercise yard of a prison.
Everywhere I have gone in this country I have spoken to audiences that heretofore had been in favour of the reimposition of capital punishment. Everywhere I have gone, people have come up to me and said, "By God, that is a proposition that makes sense, because you are right." Murder is not the rule. It is crimes against the human person that we ought to fear. We punish more severely offences against property than we do crimes against the human person. As I said before, it is possible for a criminal to be given a stiffer penalty for stealing my car than for beating me unconscious. We glorify so-called athletes who batter each other around in the plain view of millions watching an NHL game on television. Those people are considered to be heroes. We do not prosecute them for causing bodily harm to one another; we applaud. We do
Capital Punishment
not censor our children's television programs to make sure that violence is removed from those programs, as we ought to do.
If the people of Canada are worried about anything, it is not that they are going to be murdered as a result of a meticulously carried out, exquisitely planned execution. What they are worried about is that they may be assaulted and robbed as they walk through the park at night, that their daughter may be raped, that their little child may be molested by a sex pervert, or that they or members of their family may be run down by a drunken driver. Those are all legitimate concerns.
I suggest this parliament would do much better to address itself, its energies and its time in meeting those legitimate concerns, to a proper review of sentencing, parole and bail regulations than by spending a great deal more time discussing whether it is right or wrong to kill a human being, regardless of what he or she has done, because there is only one answer to that proposition: it is wrong-and there is no way around that answer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of speaking in this debate other than to comment on some of the things I have heard in the House as this bill has wound its way wearily through this session. There was supposed to be a free vote by members of the House on this bill. I suggest that proposition is utter drivel. Yesterday the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) made it very clear that this is a government bill, a bill introduced by the Liberal government of this country as a government measure, and that the government would-as it indeed has-support the bill completely on every division despite the personal feelings noted by many members on this side and on the government side on an individual basis.
This is a government bill on which the government has deliberately unified, and it has been presented, supported and pushed through this chamber as quickly and as hard as it could be. Despite what the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) said, the government has used its resources to influence the number of members who were here who may not have wanted to vote for the bill. The government has used its resources to put pressure on people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There is no question about it. It is not a free vote on a bill when there are other forms of pressure that that available to the whips.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Maybe we pressured your leader, too.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The foolishness and silliness of this bill was exemplified by the activities of the minister when the bill was before the committee. The minister made a farce of the committee. He attempted to change the whole concept of the bill. He said: Members of the committee, I do not even believe in capital punishment. I want people to be put in jail for 25 years. I want to abolish the whole thing.

October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I never at any time suggested that a man be put in jail for 25 years as a minimum sentence. I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement or produce evidence to the contrary.


Mr. Peters:: You said ten years by regulation and ten years by the judge.


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a further question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is also wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I wish to remind hon. members that they are allowed to raise points for the purpose of making corrections, but when it comes to debate hon. members should make their own speeches and give their own interpretations. In due time they can make their speeches and it will all be balanced in the end.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Unfortunately, I was not able to be at all the committee hearings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I was involved in other matters. I may have misread the report. One member proposed an amendment that imprisonment be for 25 years. The minister did suggest a long prison term. The government wanted to get out of the whole concept of capital punishment but did not have enough nerve to bring it before the House. They were a bit disappointed with the original bill and wanted to change it when it got to committee. Fortunately, that change was not in order.
Rather than stand by their principles-and members may well ask, what principles-they decided to carry on with the bill in its present form. Even though the minister has admitted he does not believe in its principle, he still wants to press the bill through the House as a government bill. We have the strange situation where this government is trying to impose on the people of Canada a government bill that the government does not believe in and does not really want. The minister improperly tried to change it in committee. He did not have the guts to withdraw it and issue another bill calling for the complete abolition of capital punishment, if that is what he really wants.
As the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) said, we have a situation of "newspeak". If you are in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, under this bill you vote for capital punishment for those who murder police officers and prison guards; if you are against the abolition of capital punishment, you vote against capital punishment for those who murder police officers and prison guards. What "newspeak" this government has produced in the name of abolition! What "news-peak" this government is trying to press on Canada!
A lot has been said about constituency polls and what the people of Canada feel. This kind of thing goes on in Canada all the time. I have taken constituency polls by the usual mail-out. There is no question about it; they are not statistically accurate. However, a statistically accurate poll was carried out by students of the T. L. Kennedy secondary school at Mississauga. That was done with all

the finesse possible in the system of taking public opinion polls, by students who were studying and working on that matter. It showed in excess of 80 per cent of the people polled were in favour of capital punishment.
My own mail-out in December of last year, which I admit is not statistically accurate, showed 70 per cent of the people in favour of capital punishment. In September of this year, when the question was asked, "Do you support the complete abolition of capital punishment?" 88.6 per cent replied "No." When they were asked, "Do you support the bill as it now stands?" 89.1 per cent replied "No." You can say those polls are not accurate; you can say any poll is not accurate. As the hon. member for Ottawa West said, the only accurate poll is the one taken at election time. Several other hon. members had better realize that the only accurate poll is taken at election time.
If this issue were a key election issue on which the election of a party or a member would stand or fall, then I suggest those who vote for abolition of capital punishment in the "newspeak" method the minister has presented to this parliament will not return. These members do not trust the public of Canada. They think they are superior. They are superior to people who work in offices, to people who drive buses, to people who live in apartments, to people who really work for a living, because they sit in this great chamber and know better than their constituents how they should be treated. Perhaps we should throw out the entire judicial system which lets the jury decide. Perhaps we should let the superior men and women decide what is best for the poor public.
There are many issues in this country that the average person on the street may not be ready, willing and able to decide. That is why there are members of parliament. They examine issues across Canada, get the facts, and are given research facilities which the ordinary guy on the street does not have. This is why we are elected. Nevertheless, on an issue such as this, which is a clean question of: How, Mr. Citizen, do you want your Criminal Code written under which you and the rest of society are going to be governed?-between 80 and 90 per cent say they want to retain capital punishment in the Criminal Code. Only 1.1 per cent of the people in this poll are undecided on that question.
It is not a case where the evidence has not been put before the people of Canada. They have had the evidence before them for 10 or 15 years. These are people who are obligated to pay the penalty under the Criminal Code, as are we, and these people say, and say clearly, that they want a symbol-I say that this whole debate is totally symbolic-in our criminal jurisprudence that indicates that if a person commits a heinous murder, he pays for it with his life.
Before this bill comes to a final vote hon. members had better realize that this question is going to be an issue with people in the next election. The people of Canada expect their members to trust them, to look at their opinions seriously, instead of discarding them holus-bolus on the ground that those they represent do not have the ability to make up their own minds. I say members who vote against the opinion of the people of Canada had

better have some darned good explanations to give them. There is a demand in this society of ours for justice. Our society today is looking at the symbol of capital punishment to show that our Criminal Code means business.
A lot has been said about the right of the Crown to exercise the ancient right of clemency. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) suggested that that right of clemency has been available only to the rich and the privileged. That is the kind of remark one would expect from a member of his party. That is not at all the case. The prime minister has been exercising clemency in every case since 1962. This right of clemency, on recommendation to the Governor General, whether exercised properly or not, remains the prerogative of the Crown and has been a prerogative of the Crown since time immemorial.
The right of the Crown to exercise clemency, leniency and justice is inalienable. To suggest that it is used only for the benefit of the rich and the privileged is utter nonsense. Our people want a symbol in the Code that provides the maximum penalty for those who commit the most heinous, miserable and horrible crimes contemplated by the Code, including not only murder but treason. This provision of the maximum penalty must remain in our Code.
It is essential in this nation that our criminal law reflects the concepts and ideas of the people of Canada. The people of Canada, including our police forces, prison officials and public officials generally who are in charge of the administration of the Code say that the Code must have the respect of the people. Without this maximum penalty provision in the Code, the Code will not have the respect of Canadians. It is imperative that criminal laws which affect every one of us have our respect.
When we make criminal laws that do not reflect the mores of the society that governs us, we breed disrespect for those laws and for our judicial system. In the result, we hurt all of Canada. This bill and the votes on it are symbolic in that respect. Our system of law must respect the mores of the society it governs, and that society clearly demands that there be capital punishment. When we tell society to go away, that we will not give them capital punishment, we breed disrespect not only for the Criminal Code but for all our laws.
This is one of the reasons for the growth of violence and the growth of disrespect for moral issues shown throughout our society. Perhaps people are not respecting the law. Perhaps they say: Oh, it doesn't matter what the law says. Parliament can do what it wants. That is not the thing that should happen. Parliament must pass laws which reflect the mores, desires and will of the people it governs. This whole debate has turned into a symbolic thing and on that basis, if on no other, the bill must be defeated.
The past election has been referred to. I said there should be capital punishment for murderers of police officers, prison guards and perhaps for airline hijackers and paid killers. There has been a great deal of pressure, a great many speeches, a great many killings since that time. It has been pointed out to me that to say just hijackers, just paid killers, does not cover all of the
Capital Punishment
aspects of heinous, premeditated murder. It has been pointed out to me that the killing of a police officer may not be nearly as serious as the cold-blooded murder of young children. Yet the cold-blooded murderer of young children will go into our luxurious prison system from which he can probably escape if he wants to, and the person who happens to kill a police officer in a gun battle will hang. I have not hardened my views. I have said that we must better define what is a heinous, premeditated murder and provide for capital punishment in those cases.
It was my hope that when this bill went to committee there would be some real study, an honest attempt by the government to try to develop a position toward the Criminal Code which would bear some acceptance by the vast majority of Canadians. But we did not have that right. The government decided it was going to play hanky-panky with the committee, hanky-panky with the people of Canada and do what it wanted.
A great deal has been said about the question of deterrence. It is clear from the government's view of the bill that the government regards capital punishment as a deterrent, otherwise Bill C-2 would not have been presented to us. The government says that if we provide capital punishment for the murder of police officers and prison guards, that is sufficient deterrent. The question of deterrence has been raised by many. I refer hon. members to the whole Criminal Code system. The Criminal Code provides that if you commit a crime you receive a penalty, and the concept of the penalty is that it will deter others from committing the same type of crime. Therefore, for impaired driving we provide a minimum fine of $50 and a minimum three months' suspension on the first offence, and it does not take long before you face a minimum six months in jail or a minimum never drive agaiq penalty. All of us know this has deterred some of us from imbibing more than we might otherwise have done.
We come to the question of car theft, for example. We provide for a minimum sentence of one year. Perhaps it does not deter people from stealing cars, but it sure as heck has an effect when a case comes before the court, because there is another offence called joy-riding and there is a real attempt to reduce the charge from stealing because, they say, perhaps that sentence is too rough. Maybe the deterrence of capital punishment is too rough, but the people of Canada do not think so. I say to the minister that the Criminal Code is governing the people of Canada. He is not governing the people of Canada. He is not a dictator. The government is not a dictatorship yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired unless he has the unanimous consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: Two minutes.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I shall conclude what I have to say in two minutes. I thank hon. members for allowing me to do so. It is essential that we develop something to improve our society's mores, our society's attitude to life, our society's respect for law and indeed cut down the amount of violent crime and other offences that are occurring. A lot has been

Capital Punishment
said by members about the present penal system. We are not happy with it. A committee of this House has been touring the countryside looking at our penitentiaries, and I hope it will soon make a report to this House. One of the things I have heard from members of that committee is that the system is not working well. We are not in fact reforming some of the people who cannot be easily handled, and we are not keeping them under control as we should. Some people are pretty dangerous types and are pretty horrible types. With some people you begin to wonder whether they are people or not. So we have to do a great deal of work in prison reform. That is where the time of the House should be spent, not on this debate.
What we must do is build a more loving society and work on systems that can reform and change people. If there was ever an argument for capital punishment of those who commit heinous murder, the argument is this: the system does not protect us against a person murdering a second time. From the matter in which we have run our prisons, from the inability of our prison system to reform dangerous criminals, persons on the street who may fear for their lives are entitled to demand the protection which the death penalty gives.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that everything must have been said on capital punishment, judging by the number of debates we had and the length of speeches delivered on this subject. Many things have been said, but one surprised me particularly. Not a single hon. member cared to discuss the lot of the murder victim. We did not ask ourselves what we could do to save the life of the victim of a rape or of a kidnapping. We talked about parole, penitentiaries, in short about things which were not relevant at all to the amendment I had introduced.
Anyway, we talked about the value of life, but we did not say a word about the life of the person who has been assassinated. We have also said that capital punishment was not a deterrent and we proved it with several statistics. This proves absolutely nothing because no potential criminal or no confirmed criminal will come and say: I was prevented from assassinating someone because of capital punishment. It proves absolutely nothing. Yet, a criminal arrested recently boasted that he had killed 28 persons in different countries, some of them in the province of Quebec. With capital punishment, the lives of several of these victims would have been saved, including the lives of two fathers of several children; not a single word was said about it.
Here is the best proof that capital punishment is a deterrent: during recent weeks, we visited 15 penal institutions and all but four guards assured us that capital punishment was a deterrent because, for a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment one or two murders do not make any difference; he is sentenced to life imprisonment in any case. This is proof it is a deterrent, particularly among prisoners.
In everyday life, no criminal will come and say he was prevented from killing because of capital punishment. A lot has been said, including some platitudes spoken a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly), but-

The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) when referring to my amendment said that what appears to be rape is the result of provocation or invitation. Let me refer to statistics. From 1961 to 1970, 86 women were killed as a result of sexual assault. Of these 86, 21 were under 15 years of age. So I ask the hon. member, where is the invitation or the provocation when a young girl of two, three or four years of age is involved?


William Arnold Peters: Ask me about the 15 year-old ones.


Albanie Morin: I am referring especially to young girls under 15 years of age. The hon. member for Broadview further mentioned that I had a certain hangup with regard to the crimes of kidnapping and rape, that there was an emotional involvement in my presenting the amendment and therefore it was difficult to be rational about it.
The hon. member evidently did not listen to my speech. I wonder where the irrationality is when I explained that the criminal act of kidnapping was a two-stage decision, and stressed this point particularly. There are two separate criminal acts in the case of kidnapping. Once the kidnapping is carried out, where the aim is ransom money or the liberation of a criminal, it is logical to assume that before the victim is put to death the death penalty will have a deterrent effect. It is only logical to think that. Anyone who is mentally unbalanced is never sentenced to death, anyway.
Another hon. member mentioned that in the United States capital punishment has been abolished. I have a little bit of news for him. I should like to remind this member, first, that a year ago after the Supreme Court outlawed capital punishment, the legislatures in 17 states introduced new laws to meet the objections raised by the Supreme Court. Second, Congress has a variety of bills aimed at overturning the Supreme Court's ruling. Third, President Nixon has called for legislation making capital punishment mandatory for certain federal crimes, including hijacking. So rather than capital punishment being abolished, it seems that some convicts will be sentenced to die in the electric chair or in the gas chamber.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) suggested that many rapes are committed under severe emotional stress when the accused is under the influence of liquor or drugs. I should like to remind the minister that when psychologists, psychiatrists and psychoanalysts testify to the effect that the individual is not in full possession of his faculties, this is always taken into consideration. I should like to repeat this-
[ Translation]
-that the ultimate goal of my amendment was mainly to prevent the murder of kidnapping and rape victims.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), who is not afraid to give her opinion and to express her convictions. I even wonder if she would not be more at ease among us Creditists, because when amendments to legislation as important as Bill C-2 are put to the vote and that this vote is said in the House, in the
October 19, 1973

newspapers, on radio and on television to be a free vote, I wonder if the purpose is not to laugh at the Canadian people; I wonder if it is not to mislead them to make them think that there is a free vote on the capital punishment issue.
I noticed yesterday-I do not wish to make any comments on the vote-that cabinet solidarity is a fact. Members representing constituencies which are completely opposed to the abolition of capital punishment rose to vote against the logical amendments that were before us, but they are ready to vote on third reading for the adoption of the bill as it is now. Besides, some members did not show up in the House to vote because there had been an agreement not to concur in the amendments in order that the government win its case as a result of the vote. That is exactly what occurred yesterday. There is only one solitary group, which has been following its policy since the beginning of this discussion, that is for five years, and it is the NDP members' group who are "against" the abolition of capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: They are in favour of abolition!


David Réal Caouette: They are in favour of abolition. Even Bill C-2 stipulates that, for another five year period, the extension of the law would have for result that murderers of a policeman or a prison guard would be likely to be sentenced to death.
Recently, that is on last May, in the Senate, the Hon. Paul Martin said, and I quote:
Honourable senators, on Tuesday last Senator Choquette asked me for information as to how many persons have been found guilty of murdering prison guards and police officers, and how many have been executed, since the passage of an act to amend the Criminal Code, Statutes of Canada 1967-68, Chapter 15.
The legislation was passed in 1968 but brought before this House in 1967.
The office of the Solicitor General has now advised me that six persons have been found guilty of such a murder and none has been executed. Four sentences were commuted, as follows:
Capital Punishment
Mr. Speaker, murderers laugh in their sleeves when they see this. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) just mentioned a typical case, that of Mesrine, who has recently been recaptured in France. He boasted that he had killed at least 28 or 30 people and stated boldly: I am ready to kill others. He likes it. It is a sport for him. He is arrested in Canada, he escapes, he is recaptured, he escapes again; it is easier to get out of jail than to get in.
Mr. Speaker, Mesrine was caught again in France. He could easily earn his living: he was an architect. All he had in mind was to kill.
Another one with whom we put up until he killed four young children was a man named Dion, from Quebec City. The law did not deal with him. His own jail companions did: they executed him. Meddling with the law like that does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker, I heard some New Democrats say: In developed and civilized countries, the death penalty has been abolished. However, in all socialist countries of the world, the death penalty is still in force. The death penalty is there.
Members of the New Democratic Party should go to Cuba and try to oppose Castro, and let them tell me whether the death penalty does not exist there. They should go to Morocco and see whether there is no death penalty. There is not even a trial. Let them go to Russia and oppose the communist government to see whether they will put up with them. Let them go to China from where our Prime Minister has just returned. The firing squad speeds up things over there.
Mr. Speaker, I hear the New Democrats speak of civilized countries-but is killing young children civilized? As stated by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin), little girls of seven, eight and nine years old are the victims. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said: When they are older than 15, they may have made advances, but not those of 7, 8 or 9. It is mere bestiality on the murderer's part.


DATE OF CONVICTION
[Stage Direction]
11	April 1968
20 January 1970
12	March 1970 15 October 1970

[Stage Direction]
3	July 1969
4	February 1971
23	December 1970
24	February 1972
The two other cases, in which the trial courts registered convictions and passed sentences of death, are still before the courts. One of these cases is before the Quebec Court of Appeal and the other will be before the Supreme Court of Canada, if an extension of time is granted.
Mr. Speaker, after this legislation was passed, there were six convictions but no execution. I therefore wonder about the usefulness of such a law. Why are we discussing a piece of legislation if it is not complied with, if it is not applied? The government and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) favour the total abolition of capital punishment. That is exactly what we are doing right now. The provisions of the law are not followed and we are about to renew for five years this same law, which condemns and commutes sentences. Commutations follow condemnations.
Everybody knows what a murderer is. We try to rehabilitate him, as the former Solicitor General said, who is now Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), but society does not want him anymore. This minister would not hire a released murderer. Myself, I would not hire one in my business. Then, what can a released murderer do? He only can keep on killing, committing armed robberies and doing as he did before being imprisoned, condemned and released.
Mr. Speaker, surveys have been conducted throughout Canada on the issue of capital punishment on which we will vote freely, maybe not this afternoon but probably Tuesday, because too many members will be absent Monday.
Some ministers who are strongly opposed to the abolition of capital punishment will have to vote for it. They will have to explain away their action to their constituents.
But all sorts of organizations are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. For instance, my friends from the New Democratic Party-
[Stage Direction]
October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment
[ English]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) permit a question from the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer)?


David Réal Caouette: Of course, Mr. Speaker.
t Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Temiscamingue is looking for his papers, I might perhaps help him by putting a question to him. The hon. member says that a number of members can vote as one man for the abolition of the death penalty, but knowing very well the discipline and the disciplinary talents of the leader of the Social Credit party, could he explain why all the members of his party, without exception, will vote for the retention of capital punishment? Is that freedom?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that is just about the most stupid question I ever heard, but anyhow, supposing that it is intelligent, I suggest that everyone of my colleagues of the Social Credit party will freely give him a personal answer, without having consulted me concerning capital punishment. None has received any instruction from me to vote either for or against capital punishment. And the minister may smile or laugh as much as he wants-


William Arnold Peters: The same is true of us.


David Réal Caouette: I did not say that the New Democratic Party had to toe the party line; I said that the ministers had to.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Prove it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to prove to the minister of Supply and Services and former solicitor general, in his own riding, that he is wrong and I am right.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: We are going to compare our majorities.


David Réal Caouette: Sure, and I would be pleased to do so. Mr. Speaker I was saying that we are receiving comments on Bill C-2 even from labour organizations, and my friends of the NDP are experts in union matters. I have here a letter received from the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station employees. There is absolutely no doubt that NDP members know these organizations. I have a copy of this letter that was sent to the right hon. Prime Minister. I quote:
During a regular meeting, it was resolved to inform you that Local # 2303 is in favour of the retention of Capital Punishment". We hope to receive your comments on the retention or the abolition of this penalty. On behalf of the members of our Local # 2303, X remain
Sincerely Yours,
R. De Lorme, Chairman.
In another part of the province, namely in Sept-Iles, a kind of referendum or public opinion poll was carried out

by the Chamber of Commerce, and very clear questions were asked. I quote;
I support the abolition of capital punishment.
Yes: 51; No: 300
I support the retention of capital punishment as applied before. Yes: 295; No: 33.
According to you, has the number of murders increased in Canada during the past five years?
Yes: 316; No: 23.
Do you believe in the parole system and in the rehabilitation of murderers?
Yes: 83: No: 265.
Have you ever been a direct or an indirect victim of a murderer's actions?
Yes: 38; No: 308.
Do you know the difference between non-capital murder and capital murder?
Yes: 278; No: 59.
Do you know that California is the last state to have reinstated the death penalty?
Yes: 216; No: 130.
And what people did not know either is that California reinstated the death penalty a few days ago, and it was the last state to accept legislation to abolish the death penalty.
How old are you?
The average age of those polled was 34.
So do not tell me those are aged people or kids; these are ordinary people stating their point of view. And at the end of the letter we are told by the Chamber of Commerce:
Please send your early reply to the Sept-Iles Chamber of Commerce .. .
This is a local Poll. For some it is a matter of religion. I must say that I received more letters against the abolition of the death penalty from Protestant ministers than from Catholic priests. But I have been reading Catholic news reports and an article of a magazine called Aujourd'hui Quebec which is constantly quoting St. Thomas d'Aquinas and I quote;
So, said St. Thomas "although it is bad to take the life of a man keeping his dignity as a reasonable human being and sacred person ..., to take the life of the sinner (that is to say he who through a serious sin has lost his sacred character) may be a good thing."
This is the point of view of an undisputably competent philosopher. Once more about capital punishment, the director of the magazine Rev. Guy Poisson stated and I quote;


DEATH SENTENCE AS AN EXAMPLE
[Stage Direction]
It was recently suggested by abolitionists that in countries where the death penalty had been abolished the crime rate had not increased. Their adversaries stated the contrary. In my opinion those are simplistic views because at the same time we should study all other factors liable to increase or decrease the number of offenses and among others:
the organization of work and leasure, standards of living, the police force, the multiplication and control of liquor stores, etc ... And then, all those who have been dissuaded from committing a crime through fear of capital punishment are not boasting about it.
The hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) referred to it a while ago. The article goes on:
October 19, 1973
[Stage Direction]
This debate on capital punishment retained the whole country's attention following the sad stories of Victor Spencer and Gerda Munsinger. We are informed that representations will soon be made to ask Parliament to legalize abortion.
What will'then be the Prime Minister's position? Will he invite members of Parliament to vote "ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSCIENCE"?
Will those who appealed to sentiments to protect life touch the same sensitive chord to prevent the murdering of innocents? Or will they maintain that God remains the absolute master of life?
Mr. Speaker, we receive comments from almost everywhere against the abolition of capital punishment.
I have here a letter from Mr. Rene Bilodeau, from Sherbrooke, who conducted a survey in that city and I quote:
.. . report on a survey on capital punishment involving 100 persons, 30 years and over, all walks of life; 77 for capital punishment, 7 undecided, 16 against. General comment: why should we reward a murderer who now costs $10,000, keeping him in a warm place, well fed, with medical care, T.V. etc., and denying a pension to eight applicants of 60. I am 59, victim of asbestosis .. .
That man does not get any pension while murderers have security.
Mr. Speaker, as I said it is not because we are vindictive men that we are retentionnist. For instance, hijackers constitute a real danger for thousands of lives. If capital punishment had been invoked for those individuals, 90 per cent of hijackings would have been avoided. In several places, the number of murders would have decreased instead of increasing as is the case now. Every morning when I glance at a newspaper, I can read on the front page: One, two, three murders have been committed last night. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) says: On behalf of humanity, we must save the murderers' lives. If we condemn them to death, that will not prevent other murderers from continuing their activities. One thing is sure: When we hang a murder, he will stop killing. That is a sure thing, but the law maintaining capital punishment constitutes a barrier, a fence, everybody knows that. If you go over it, if you plunge, if you go beyond, you fall into an abyss. For the one who does not want to be hanged, the only thing to do is to refrain from it. Everybody is on an equal footing before this legislation.
Indeed we sincerely believe that this legislation should be replaced by the one in force previously, but which was improved, and under which we would be given the assurance that should there be any uncertainty, small as it might be, the convict would be given the benefit of the doubt and, we would not take the risk of a miscarriage of justice by imposing hanging in a doubtful case.
There have been and, there still are such cases in Canada. Therefore, it is sufficient to avoid passing such sentence-
[ English]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is in some difficulty in that the first speaker for the hon. member's party did not use the 30 minutes allocated to first speakers and in fact finished within 20 minutes. Perhaps it is the mood of the House that the hon. member who now has the floor should have the right to 30 minutes, although this is some deviation from the order made. Is this agreed?
Capital Punishment


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKinley:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, extra time was granted to another speaker this afternoon and it is only right that the hon. member who is speaking should have extra time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the House. As I say, there is a difficulty considering the way the order was passed; but the suggestion has been accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Thanks to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-
# (1620)
I also owe to my colleagues this opportunity of completing my remarks. I will not take unfair advantage of their courtesy.
But, Mr. Speaker, before closing, I should like to say that people who write to me to congratulate us on our stand are not only from the province of Quebec.
I have here a letter from Old Orchard Trailer Park, in Chase, B.C., which says as follows:

I fully support your opposition to the government's effort to extend the partial ban on capital punishment. Specifically, I believe that tha penalty for murder must be hanging or similar execution.
I am sure that if a national referendum were held the Canadian public would uphold your views on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
M. H. McMurray

I have also received letters from other regions, including Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Here is one from Mr. Armand Langlois, who resides in Chandler, in the Gaspe riding, which reads in part as follows:
In Le Soleil, issue of Tuesday August 3, 1971 appeared the following news or release:
Social Credit Offensive to Reinstate Capital Punishment in Canada.
I hereby declare that I fully support the Social Credit Party of Canada in its efforts in connection with the reinstatement of capital punishment, which is of pressing necessity.
Armand Langlois,
Chandler,
Gaspe South County, Quebec
Here is another one, from Annapolis Valley, in Nova Scotia, which congratulates us on our stand in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment. It reads in part:
HURRAH!
The word is written in large capital letters.

Some of us here will be backing you up and praying for you.
[ Translation]
-to reinstate the death penalty in Canada, and at the same time, I am flabbergasted to see the attitude of the

October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment
minister who lives in Montreal, where 90 percent of the people are in favour of maintaining the death penalty. And the minister has the nerve to tell us that the Canadian people want the abolition of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, the solution is simple. At election time, why not write the following simple question on the ballot: for or against death penalty, throughout Canada, you will see the reaction. It is being said that the government is killing people by the people for the people. A democratic government must take into account the views and the will of the people. What is happening to that democracy at the present time? We fall into the trap, we play the game of those who wish to have murders committed in Canada. We are scared of taking position. For what reason? Under whose influence? I do not know.
As for us, we are surely expressing the will of the electors not only of our constituencies, but of the whole of the province and of the whole of Canada on the death penalty issue. I am coming back to what I was saying at the beginning. In several countries, rather strange executions are performed.
When the military junta took over in Chile and confined some 7,000 persons in a football stadium, the members of the New Democratic Party cried shame.
It was totally unacceptable for those bad rightists to crush leftists in Chile. But the New Democrats did not object when students in Czechoslovakia tried to recover part of their freedom that consisted only in putting down their ideas, in writing, not revolting against the regime but only writing down what they thought.
Mr. Speaker, the Soviet army was called in to crush those students. In 1956, Hungary wanted to recover part of its freedom and was literally crushed by the Soviets. Did we hear the NDP protest against that? No. That was all right.
In all countries where there has been bloody revolutions this is the way things happened. But when rightists in Chile returned to power under arms, Mr. Speaker, how unfortunate, scandalous, frightening it is all. The Parliament of Canada is being asked to pass a resolution condemning the army in Chile. But let us not condemn Cuba, or any of the communist or leftist countries in the world. When I hear people reason like that, I wonder what would become of Canada if we ever had a socialist government.
Mr. Speaker, we are lucky to still have in Canada the freedom to face one another, to tell one another what we think, some thing that does not exist in several countries presently, Thanks to British freedoms, we have that right. We have the right to oppose government members. We have the right to talk against Tories, NDP members in the same way they have the right to talk against us. That is freedom. The day we lose it there will be tears shed, tears of blood, to reconquer that freedom. Mr. Speaker, we want that freedom for everybody. We want it for murderers but we also want it so that before a murderer commits his crime, some law will stop him from going ahead, under the penalty of paying for it. Then there might not be so many murderers and order would prevail. It would be more respected in Canada and, naturally, there would be more justice. Some economic and social conditions incite people

to revolt. Then, they lose their head and can be provoked into killing.
So let us establish social, economic and political standards of justice that will enable man to fulfil himself. In doing so, we will finally create a better balanced society where it will be good to live, a society which will characterize the finest country of all, Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I wish to reiterate some of the views expressed on second reading of this bill. As I listened to the speeches on second reading, and now on third reading, I felt a deep regret that so often we have to approach this subject from an emotional point of view. Some seem to think that others have not given full consideration to the question. The abolitionists seem to feel they are the only ones living in the twentieth century. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. I believe every member of the House has looked at this question very seriously from both sides and has reached a reconciliation with his conscience.
If an hon. member's conscience happens to agree with the generally held views of his constituents, then he is not subjected to the tyranny of the opinion poll: his conscience is in agreement with the views of the constituents he represents. There are times when individual members will vote contrary to the generally held opinions of their constituents. If a member says in this House that he is in favour of retention, and that his view happens to be shared by the majority of his constituents, that does not mean in any way that there has been any tyranny of any opinion poll or that there is any reflection on his conscience. It does not mean that he is playing politics or that he is simply doing what the general public wants him to do.
Having looked at this question closely, I have distinguished between premeditated and non-premeditated murder. As I said in the debate on second reading, I would not support the death penalty in cases involving nonpremeditated murder. A number of abolitionist speakers have said that many murders are domestic matters; they are not premeditated and, therefore the death penalty should not be invoked. I think many retentionists agree with that position. But there is another type of murder, Mr. Speaker-premeditated, wanton murder in which a person cold-bloodedly calculates taking the life of another person. That type of wanton, cold-blooded murder must be punished with the supreme punishment which we are discussing today in this debate on Bill C-2.
Nothing in history shows that a democracy is measured by the yardstick of whether or not capital punishment is invoked. The strength of a democracy and of a government lies in its ability to protect the freedoms and rights of all its citizens. It does not depend on whether a democracy is liberal in its thinking, or whether we are free thinkers. Democracy is not bom of weakness and is not exercised from weakness. A democracy is only as strong as its individual citizens. It is strong only so long as the government representing the individual wishes of the citizenry is willing to back up the freedoms which are our right. Those freedoms can exist only if we all obey the law. It is the
October 19, 1973

inherent responsibility of government to maintain the laws of a society and to punish those members who disobey the law. You cannot escape punishment for wrongdoing. Often we consider that punishment for crime is mere retribution. It is not retribution; it is justice.
There is one other point I want to put on record. The case I will mention took place in Manitoba not long ago. It is now before the courts. I will not dwell on it except to say that it involves an 11 year old girl who was sexually molested and left to die. When you meet brutal cases like that you must look at this issue squarely and consider your position on capital punishment.
Why is it that some people who are brought to court are given seven to eight years imprisonment on reduced charges? How soon are they paroled? Actually, Mr. Speaker, capital punishment for premeditated murder is not retribution; it is justice. It has been that way since time immemorial. This is at the back of the principles which this country has upheld for years. I urge all members of the House to seriously reconsider the question of premeditated murder. The only penalty that will bring justice in that situation, if there is justice, is capital punishment.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing myself to the business at hand I ought to begin by saying that we have wasted enough time debating the question of whether or not the life of the murderer is worthier of consideration than other serious problems facing our nation.
I congratulate the movers of the amendments we voted on last night, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), for having brought those amendments forward. I was glad to support the amendments, and sorry they did not pass. However, the will of the House prevailed and that is part of the working of our democratic system. That system has been protected so long by our penal code which we have found beneficial in the past. Part of that code has involved down the years the maintenance of capital punishment as the supreme deterrent, of which I am a supporter.
The members of this House know, my constituents know and I want the Canadian people to know that I am a retentionist on this question. I am a retentionist because I believe that any corporate nation or state should always retain the right to demand the life of any citizen for capital crime. I believe that this ultimate deterrent should not be abandoned. I forget how many times I have spoken on this topic. I recall that I spoke last in support of capital punishment on May 23 of this year. Several months have passed since then. I must say that it appears the issue of capital punishment has taken precedence over the important issues that we should be trying to resolve.
I listened with interest to the speeches made this afternoon. I note that the NDP member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said that the issue of capital punishment has been blown up out of all proportion. I believe I am quoting him correctly. I challenge him on that statement. He also said that some of us are out of step with the world community. I also challenge him on that statement. I employ a recent report of March 16, 1973, to do with the
Capital Punishment
United Nations, the highest and only authority of our world community. The report reads in part:
New forms of terror and violence are provoking countries to revert to the death penalty, still favoured by the majority of people and governments, a U.N. study said yesterday ...
The study said that opinion polls made both in countries which have abolished the death penalty and in those which retain it, show a majority of people favouring it.
So many speeches have been made on this subject, Mr. Speaker, that it would be difficult at this point for one to avoid repeating previous remarks. There is also the possibility that one may repeat statements made by other speakers. I noted that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) berated the tyranny of public opinion. I remind him of the headline in today's Toronto Star which says that it is foolish to underrate public opinion polls. The hon. member for Ottawa West does not like the tyranny of what he calls public opinion. I prefer that tyranny, if it can be termed as such, to the tyranny of lawlessness and anarchy which has so filled the Canadian people with revulsion that they now demand a strong deterrent and retribution in cases involving capital crime.
This is the same Liberal government that was in power when parliament approved the present five-year partial ban on capital punishment. It was the will of parliament during that five-year period that anyone convicted of capital murder would suffer the death penalty. It is implicit in the present law that capital murder is defined as the murder of a policeman or prison official while such an official is considered to be on duty. This is a fine distinction since it has always been considered that a policeman is on duty 24 hours a day. Leaving that aside, the fact is there have been a number of such murders in which it has been demonstrated that the officials killed were in fact acting in the line of duty.
Many members who were sitting in this House during the debate on the bill introduced in 1967 will remember the government's insistence that valuable data on the working of this law would be available to us at the end of the five-year period. Data was to be available to assist us in making up our minds whether capital punishment limited to these cases was in fact a deterrent to the murder of policemen. It has been stated over and over again during this debate that there is no such data. We do not have the valuable data the government insisted would be available to us. As we well know, the government has flouted this law, the law they wanted so much to have parliament approve. The partial ban on capital punishment was not an opposition motion; it was the brainchild of the government: it was they who fought to have it approved and implemented.
Speaker after speaker on the government side in 1967 called for the execution of murderers of policemen, calling policemen the guardians of public life and prosperity. Now we have the government backing off from their brainchild. In fact, they started backing off as soon as the original bill was enacted into law. There is clear evidence at this point that the government never intended to live up to the will of parliament. No clearer evidence is needed than the fact that every convicted murderer of a policeman has had the death sentence commuted by the cabinet since that act

October 19, 1973
Capital Punishment
came into force. The Canadian people are watching the government's pattern in giving dispensation with regard to the murder of Constable Maitland in Toronto.
It has been pointed out by many of my colleagues in this House that the government has in fact opted for total abolition of the death penalty. In taking this stand the government has not only abdicated its responsibility with regard to parliament's expressed will in this matter but it has also chosen to ignore the weight of public opinion. It has long been known that the great majority of Canadian people favour some form of capital punishment for capital crimes. I cannot in good conscience adopt a position on this matter that does not take into account the wishes of my constituents.
Parliamentarians in Canada, Great Britain and possibly some other countries delight in quoting the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke. There is no doubt that when Burke was in his prime in the 1770s he was among the greatest parliamentary orators. On at least one occasion Burke said that while he was always cognizant of the majority opinion of his constituents, he did not feel bound to act in accordance with majority opinion in all cases. The present government appears to carry this to the opposite extreme. They do not feel the majority opinion carries any weight at all.
It is this attitude by the government that is holding up settlement of the issue of capital punishment. I cannot accept this attitude, especially in light of a general breakdown of law and order in Canada today and the concern of millions of law-abiding Canadians that their interests are not placed above those who hold our laws and institutions in contempt.
When speaking in this debate last summer, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) noted that some people argue that capital punishment cannot be justified on the ground that the execution of a murderer does not bring the victim back to life or ease the burden of grief borne by the victim's family. He said that the act of murder should carry a price as high as the value of the life taken. To carry it a logical step further, the same people might argue that putting an arsonist in jail for burning a house does not restore the house to its original state.
I do not believe that the state should be denied the power and the right to exact the death penalty whenever it is thought by responsible people that extreme measures are needed to correct an intolerable situation. In my opinion, the recent rash of murders of policemen across Canada is an intolerable situation.
Some strange and interesting stories are told and written about in the anals of crime and punishment. One such story is said to have occurred in revolutionary Russia in the year 1920. The government of that time abolished capital punishment for a while, giving the reason that capital punishment was a bourgeois institution. During a meeting of the revolutionary council, one member announced angrily that a prominent general had been sentenced to death for treason while state law forbade the sentence of death. Another member leaped up and said the general had not been sentenced to death but had only been sentenced to be shot. That apparently satisfied the council. Such is the case in oriental countries today. That great and respected civilization for which the Prime Minister (Mr. 
Trudeau) has so much admiration, the Chinese, still practice capital punishment in a very stringent manner. When they deem it necessary, they line people up against a wall and shoot them.
The point I am trying to make is that many of those who plead the case for abolition are only trying to get out of making a decision that may be unpopular, or a decision that may cast them in the role of executioner. Abolitionists in my riding have said to me, "You are a retentionist. Would you be the executioner?" No, I would not be the executioner. The majesty of the Canadian people would be the executioner. In a civilized society such as ours, those of us in parliament must at some point accept the fact that some of our decisions are going to be difficult. I cannot cast my vote in favour of the murderer, and ignore the victim and the victim's family because my decision might label me as an executioner. I must be prepared to accept this eventuality, and so must every other member of this House.
Should a judge hesitate to sentence a dangerous and deranged criminal to penitentiary for life because some people feel that even animals should not be caged? Should a judge hesitate to pass sentence because the person sentenced will be denied the pleasures of the society that he has rejected and rebelled against? I cannot accept such logic, or absence of logic because I feel too strongly that the chief responsibility of parliament is to the millions of law-abiding Canadians. As legislators, we are denied the luxuries of vacillating and equivocating that are the privilege of some other spheres of activity.
We cannot abondon our responsibility to the majority of Canadians, using the thesis that life is sacred and that not even the state has the right to take a human life. The state does have that right. Capital punishment is an instrument of the state, and while it should be used only in the last resort, and while every avenue of appeal should be readily available to any who are sentenced to death, that right must be provided to the state.
The present government's policies of permissiveness, coupled with the ipso facto absence of the death sentence provided for in Canadian law for capital crime, are already showing their potential as a threat to organized society in Canada. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain also noted in his speech in this debate that there have been recent cases of policemen being shot and killed while investigating minor crimes, one case involving a relatively minor traffic offence. This is an indication that something is drastically wrong and it is time for those who plead the sanctity of human life to plead for the lives of the victims of violent, senseless crime.
Like most other members of this House, Mr. Speaker, I was appalled when the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in July attempted to influence the standing committee to accept an amendment to abolish the death penalty completely. I know that I should not address myself at length to the committee hearings on this bill, but I wanted to make the point that this government in fact tipped its hand as far as its attitude to capital punishment is concerned. It also indicated that its old arrogance has not been abandoned at all; it has only been kept under wraps.
October 19, 1973

In light of the electoral position in this country today, just give this government another majority like it had before and it will be worse than ever.
In the absence of any clear proof to the contrary, we have been prepared to accept the view that the cabinet commuted each death sentence passed in the last five years on its own merits and that this was not a calculated thing, a case of government policy. Now we find that the government in fact wants total abolition. No other case can be made for the actions of the government in the past few weeks, and like some of my colleagues I must ask, why did the government not table a bill that called for abolition? I would like to know the reason, but unless enought of my colleagues also want to know, then we will be kept in the dark.
I would like to say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that last night I supported the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. While I accept the argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that rape and murder would both have to be proved and that this would be virtually impossible, I would still like to see in the law such a provision as that proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. It should be in the law if only for its possible, and probable, deterrent value.
To sum up my remarks and my feelings on this matter we are debating, I must say that I cannot vote in favour of the bill now before the House. As I have said many times before, the bill as it now reads will do nothing in the way of providing protection to the law-abiding Canadian citizen against those who resort to violent crime as a way of life. It will not ensure that proper punishment will be exacted for the crime of capital murder. I know that there are people today who claim that our objective in this matter is not to punish, but until we are able to develop an utopian society where punishment as such does not enter into the scheme of things, then we must continue to punish wrongdoers. No one has come up with a better solution to a very serious problem and we are faced with a problem of major proportions.
I have always regarded myself as a realist and I cannot in good conscience approve of theoretical solutions to a real problem. It should be obvious to anyone that we cannot apply utopian theory to the very real problem of violent crime and brutal murder. I cannot believe that anyone elected to parliament to serve the interests of a constituency would come here and ignore the wishes of the majority of his constituents on a matter as serious as capital murder and violent crime.
My colleague the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) has sent members the result of a questionnaire that he mailed to his constituents, and these figures pretty
Capital Punishment
well match those from my own riding of Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington and from other ridings. They show that 88.6 per cent of the constituents polled in Peel South oppose abolition of capital punishment, and 89.1 per cent are opposed to the bill we are now debating. Most Canadians appear to want capital punishment reinstated as a penalty for murder, not because they have a taste for blood but because they would like at least to have us try something more drastic in our struggle against rampant lawlessness. They hope, I am sure, that the deterrent value of capital punishment will at least prevent some of the violent crimes and some of the murders.
I have said, and many of my colleagues have said, that we appear to be paying more heed to the sanctity of the life of the murderer than to the sanctity of the life of the murder victim. Let us put this matter back into perspective. Let us offer at least as much protection to the victim as to the criminal. It is not my responsibility to berate the government every time it commutes a lawful death sentence for brutal murder, and it is not for me to insist that the government live up to its responsibility under Canadian law and allow the decision of the courts to stand in respect of the death penalty. This bill has been proven to be total abolition of the death penalty inasmuch as the government has commuted every death sentence imposed in the past six or seven years for the murder of policemen.
I am not a vindictive man, and to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that I am bloodthirsty. However, my concern is more for the innocent victim of crime than for the criminal; therefore, I cannot support a bill that does not provide that measure of protection to which the victim is entitled. In conclusion, I am confident that if every member votes on this bill as his constituents feel on this question, as judged by surveys and questionnaires, the bill will not be passed by this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps before adjourning the House the acting House leader would indicate whether this measure will be continued on Monday. There is the difference between whether I adjourn the House until eleven o'clock in the morning or two o'clock in the afternoon. I presume this is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was going to ask.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: That is so. That is the proper understanding, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then it being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned till Monday, October 22, 1973, at eleven o'clock a.m.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, October 22, 1973