1973-05-22

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Manitoba, 1973.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Buchanan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a very important matter for the Canadian nation. In light of the unfortunate cod war between Ireland-Iceland-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: The war would not have lasted this long if it were Ireland-between Iceland and several European nations I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That Canada express its position to the fishing nations of the world, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the principle of ownership by the coastal state of the waters over the continental shelf be upheld.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House.
Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order respecting the proposing of such motions in the House, following which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has taken it upon himself to refuse them each and every day. Today he has done so from a seat other than his own.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what rule pertains thereto, but I am sure that if an hon. member is not permitted to rise in his place and declare his position on an issue certainly it is not permissible for a member to express his position from another seat in the House. I would think that the rules would protect hon. members on that point. I also hope that the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River does not express the attitude of the House of Commons. We have a serious problem on both our coasts with regard to marine resources, and I would have thought that this House would be very anxious to express to every nation of the world our position that the marine resources over our continental shelf belong to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is attempting on the point of order to bring in an argument in support of the motion he proposed in the first place, and that is entirely out of order.


ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The motion arises out of the revelations of potentially disastrous effects upon the Canadian economy of a major northern gas pipeline contained in a report on the evaluation of the impact on the national economy of a northern

May 22, 1973
Fisheries
Canadian gas pipeline, prepared by the economic impact committee of the task force on northern oil development. I would therefore move:
That the report on the evaluation of the impact on the national economy of a northern Canadian gas pipeline, prepared by the economic impact committee of the task force on northern development and all other reports prepared by or for the task force on northern oil development be referred to the Standing Committees on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, National Resources and Public Works, Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, for study and recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion cannot therefore be put.

I English |


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a motion under Standing Order 43 which is related to that of my colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). The situation referred to as the cod war between Iceland and the United Kingdom emphasizes the seriousness of depleting marine resources in the North Atlantic community to a status of extinction because of overfishing by foreign nations. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the resolution passed at the North Atlantic Assembly recommending the appointment of a rapporteur to prepare a full report on this situation be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, and that the rapporteur, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), who made an interim report on May 19, be called as a witness.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who last week indicated that an application for a gas pipeline through the Canadian north is expected perhaps in the final quarter of this year. In view of the wide-ranging questions raised by the draft report prepared by the economic impact committee of the task force on northern development, what body does the government intend to have hear this application that the minister expects in the final quarter? Would it be the National Energy Board?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under the National Energy Board Act the responsibility for approving, at least in the first instance, the construction of any pipeline and, indeed, the export of gas would fall upon the National Energy Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the recommendations by the economic impact committee on page 15 of its report referring to certain basic studies that have to be completed before any decisions could really be made, I would like to ask the minister whether those recommendations have been acted upon by himself or by the government and whether the resultant studies will be made public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that document in front of me. I cannot be specific, but of course in general terms the government has been studying the impact of the pipeline from the standpoints of the environment, the social impact and the economic impact in order to put itself in preparation to receive such an application.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the government seems to be getting advice from its advisers indicating that the subject is much more complex than the minister has perhaps indicated in his answers to questions in the House, I would like to ask whether he would agree to confer with the government House leader and have referred to the appropriate standing committee the whole question of the criteria to be considered in the hearing, and the decision upon such an application, and the conditions under which such an application will be granted? Will this whole question be referred to the appropriate committee with all the reports and information that the government may have so that these questions may be considered by a committee of this House with public hearings, if necessary, rather than simply being decided secretly by the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the conditions and the criteria have been set out by parliament in the National Energy Board Act and, of course, any application there would entail a public hearing. I do not know whether he is
May 22, 1973

expressing want of confidence either in the statute or in the board.


An hon. Member:: Just the government.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-TABLING OF STUDIES-REQUEST THAT PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION BE OBTAINED
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since there have been references to a study I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to table that particular study and the various other studies of his department affecting the Mackenzie pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, a great many of the studies with regard to the Mackenzie pipeline have already been published. With regard to internal discussion documents of this kind, I do not think I would be prepared to table them. I think the government should be entitled to examine these important questions within its own circle without having to make them public subsequently.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is somewhat similar to an earlier question but in view of its importance I think it is necessary to have a definitive answer from the government. In light of the important effects the construction of a pipeline would have on every part of the Canadian economy and every part of Canada, will the minister assure the House that it will not be left to an agency like the National Energy Board that is not directly responsible to the House to decide the matter but that the government will entertain an application only if it is made to the government so that the government can answer to the House and a debate can take place, and that no decision on the building of that pipeline will take place without the prior approval of parliament?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should remind the hon. member again that parliament has declared itself on this question. It has declared by law that such an application shall go to a competent tribunal, the National Energy Board. If the board's decision is favourable to the application, it will then come for consideration by the government. If the hon. member is counselling me to break the law, I do not intend to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking supplementaries. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge. Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I just wanted to indicate that I will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge for a supplementary and then the right hon. member for Prince Albert for further supplementaries.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify the situation, is the minister saying that the government intends to decide on the financing and construction of a pipeline without parliamentary approval and by
Oral Questions
so doing to repeat his government's political disaster of 1956?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir. Parliament has already given approval of the procedures being followed.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROAD AS ALTERNATIVE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has mentioned that the decision in respect of the pipeline will of course have to be made by the National Energy Board. Having regard to the doubts he has expressed respecting the environmental, social and economic effects of a pipeline, as set forth in the report to which reference has been made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, may I ask the minister whether any task force or group is looking into the question of the efficacy of having a railroad built at approximately the same cost as a pipeline? A railroad would actually have the effect of opening up the north and assuring a large population in the north that would not otherwise take place without railway transportation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my response to the right hon. gentleman is yes, there is such an evaluation under way. As the right hon. gentleman knows, the initial study made in this regard was the Queen's study which was in part funded by the government of Canada. In collaboration with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, that proposal is being evaluated. I hope to be in a better position to comment further on it by the end of this year.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for a very complete answer. Would he be able to let the House know when we might expect a decision in regard to the evaluation that is taking place because generally, all over western Canada, there is a widespread demand for just such a railroad?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would expect that by about the end of this year we would be in a position to respond more fully.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South and then the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville for supplementaries, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Champlain and return to this matter later.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION IN LIGHT OF REPORT OF ECONOMIC IMPACT COMMITTEE-SUPPLEMENTARY STUDIES
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that three ministers of the Crown have clearly stated that government policy is to favour the Mackenzie route, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether in fact the government agrees with the report mentioned earlier today or whether it disagrees and, further, if it disagrees, upon what possible basis has the government

May 22, 1973
Oral Questions
for the last several months been assuring us that it prefers the Mackenzie route?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the report to which reference was made is an earlier draft of a report which was part of a series of studies that form the basis of recommendations to the various ministers and, by them, to cabinet. Therefore I see no contradiction in the question asked by the hon. member. There was a decision made by government. The hon. member has referred to statements by ministers. We cannot, of course, be bound by working papers of officials, especially earlier drafts of working papers by officials. If we want officials to give their unbiased opinion, it is clear that in some cases there will be elements of these things which will be contradictory of the final decision reached by the government.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the answer just given, can the Prime Minister assure the House that there have been in fact supplementary studies since the study done in October, 1972, which formed the basis of the government's apparent present position? If so, what are those studies, and will they be made available to the public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that many aspects of these studies have been made public.


An hon. Member:: That is the answer to the question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the answer to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we should not, in fairness, give a chance to the hon. member for Champlain to ask a question, subject to returning to this matter. Before calling on the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville I think we should recognize the hon. member for Champlain, after which I will return to this subject matter.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the tremendous increase in the price of gold coupled with the decreasing value of the American dollar, could the minister say briefly what effect these factors are having now on the Canadian economy?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to answer this question in only one sentence-


René Matte: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister tell us whether the government is now considering the possibility of further promoting the development of gold mines in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I feel that gold prices show opportunities for the development of gold mines in Canada. As for the general state of the economy, the Canadian dollar remains stable in comparison with the American dollar.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT-SUPPLEMENTARY STUDIES
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary to my previous question and direct it again to the Prime Minister. With respect, I do not think the Prime Minister has answered my question. In view of the considerable publicity today as a result of this report I am asking again, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there are supplementary reports that negate the effect of this report we are discussing, and is it on the basis of those that the present apparent position of the government is stated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will not prevent the Prime Minister from replying to the question, but the hon. member suggested that it was a repetition of the first question. The Prime Minister will be allowed to reply if he has any additional information to give to the House, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville on a supplementary.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I might respond to the last question, the preliminary report the hon. gentleman referred to was negated, of course, in discussions in the committee, and there has been consideration and discussion since that time.


OIL AND GAS PIPELINES-SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX ON NET EARNINGS-POSSIBLE TAX ON GAS EXPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. borne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance regarding the economic impact report. In view of information contained in that report that any pipeline would not pay income tax for the first ten years of operation because of tax deferrals and in view of the fact that Trans-Canada Pipelines has not paid income taxes since 1958, the year of inception, can the minister say whether he is considering introducing any changes in tax laws that will require pipelines, either existing or that will be built, to pay income tax based on their net earnings?
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this question is still hypothetical, but I will take the hon. member's remarks into consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville for one supplementary,
May 22, 1973

but we will have to try to move to another subject before the end of the question period. Following the question of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North on the same subject.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is far from hypothetical. At any rate, can the minister state whether the government is now considering levying an export tax on all Canadian exports of gas from the Mackenzie Valley or elsewhere in this country, in effect creating a two-price system?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the sort of policy announcement that would be made during the oral question period.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH GUIDELINES FOR BUILDING NORTHERN PIPELINES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of evidence that the National Energy Board has abdicated its responsibilities under the National Energy Board Act in its advisory function, will the government now consider the advisability of laying down guidelines on the various items that concern parliament and the country vis-a-vis the building of pipelines out of the north?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the preamble, which I think is unfair to the board, I would point out that guidelines have been laid down on a number of occasions directed rather to applicants than to the board as to the manner in which they should make their applications.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the
minister laid down any guidelines for the National Energy Board to consider when an application reaches them for an Arctic gas pipeline, vis-a-vis Canadian participation in financing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that the objective of the government would be to give an opportunity to Canadians to acquire 51 per cent of ownership in any such pipeline and the expectation that it would remain under Canadian control.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. What progress has been made with regard to efforts to settle the dispute with Air Canada to avert a national airline strike in Canada? Perhaps the minister could also report to the House what progress he is making with regard to two
Oral Questions
other disputes under his jurisdiction, the railways and the grain handlers?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that all the disputes in question are in the process of conciliation. With regard to the railways, since the parties could not agree on a chairman, last week the government appointed Mr. Justice Craig Munroe of British Columbia to be chairman of the conciliation board.


James Aloysius McGrath: Does the minister have anything to report with regard to the Air Canada dispute? Has he received a report on this dispute which threatens to tie up Canada's national airline during the peak traffic period in June?


John Carr Munro: I have not received such a report, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE GRAIN HANDLERS STRIKE AT THUNDER BAY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Specifically, what is the government doing in connection with the threat of a grain handlers strike at Thunder Bay? Also, does the government have any plans in abeyance in case a strike comes about and our grain shipments are seriously disrupted?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government does not view with any degree of enthusiasm the possibility of a strike in the area to which the hon. member has referred. We are exhausting all available conciliation procedures to try to reach a settlement. We are watching the situation very closely and will do everything possible to prevent such a strike.


PROVISION OF SUFFICIENT RAILWAY CARS TO SUPPLY VANCOUVER TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is related to difficulties in transportation by rail. Bearing in mind that railwaymen are working to rule at the port of Vancouver, could the minister tell us what action he is taking through the Canadian Wheat Board to ensure that the necessary numbers of cars are there to keep the terminals going and move grain through the port? He has put $42 million worth of hopper cars at the service of the railways; yet there is still concern about the shortage of grain at those terminals.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: The hopper cars are, of course, improving the capacity of the railways to move grain and move it quickly. There are, however, a number of factors over which no one can exercise control, including a bridge out in the course of the last several

May 22, 1973
Oral Questions
weeks. This situation has now been put right and grain is arriving again via the CNR in regular fashion. I am told there were some 1,100 cars in Vancouver today and that all terminals, including the Burrard terminal, will be operating today.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Labour. In view of the rapid increase in the cost of living, at the rate of some 13 per cent per annum on the basis of last month's figures, what guidelines is the minister giving to his conciliation officers in terms of settling disputes relating to wage demands?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we have gone a considerable distance from the original question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East. Perhaps we have brought this on ourselves by the inclusion of two additional matters in the hon. member's question. The Chair does not wish to be unfair to the hon. member. The Minister of Labour might reply briefly and then we will go to the next subject.


John Carr Munro: Without agreeing with the premise of the question, may I say that I believe the question is based on a misconception of the duties of a conciliation officer.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-ESTABLISHMENT OF MINISTRY FOR SPORTS AND RECREATION-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the growing importance of leisure in our society and also of the additional emphasis placed on leisure by the coming Olympic Games, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether while respecting provincial jurisdiction, he intends to appoint in the near future a minister in charge of sports and recreation in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, and I am not quite sure that if we did so the provinces would consider that we are effectively respecting their constitutional jurisdiction.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Is the right hon. Prime Minister prepared to appoint someone responsible for sports and recreation within the Department of National Health and Social Welfare in view of bringing about recognition of the importance of sports and leisure in relation to the Montreal Olympic Games?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under the administrative decentralization principle, such a matter would come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. May I ask whether the government intends to accept the recommendation by the chairman of the National Parole Board that the temporary release program be placed under the supervision of that board? If so, does the government propose to extend the facilities of the board and spread its membership across the nation in various centres so that it can arrive at proper decisions without the risk to society we have experienced in the past?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: As I mentioned on an earlier occasion in the House, a commission was set up last year under Judge Hugessen. That Commission has reported to me. We are presently studying such matters as were mentioned by the hon. member, and I intend to come before the House within a week or two with proposals along these lines.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that there have been further escapes from custody from various institutions over the weekend and bearing in mind that the minister has set up various investigative bodies, may I ask what immediate steps the minister is taking to protect society, particularly at a time when it would appear that the system of keeping people in custody is like a sieve. It is a very dangerous situation, especially when terrible murders are taking place-I have in mind the murder in the city of Hamilton-which are causing unrest and distress throughout society.


William Warren Allmand: With respect to escapes while on temporary absence with escort-I think that is what the hon. member was talking about-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I am talking about escapes. That is what I am talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


William Warren Allmand: I understood the hon. member to open his question by talking about temporary absences with escorts and escaping from the escort. With respect to those I have issued instructions that there should be no more of them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: -no more temporary absences with escort unless the escort understands that the prisoner is not to be out of his sight at any time. It seems that some of these incidents happened after the escort had brought the man to a hospital, or to visit a sick parent, or something of
May 22, 1973

that kind; he left the prisoner out of his sight for a short period of time. I have given instructions that this should be done under no circumstances; if it is, the escort will be suspended immediately.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to clarify my question, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the sieve whereby these prisoners are escaping, other than those on temporary release. What immediate steps is the Solicitor General taking to prevent further escapes of dangerous, violent criminals from custody?


William Warren Allmand: It depends on the institution. There were a great many escapes from Cowansville. We have already taken steps to increase the number of guards, we have put barbed wire on top of the fence, we have cleared back the bush from the fence, put metal screens over the cell windows, and so on.


An hon. Member:: Bolt the doors!


Mr. Baldwin:: Let them know the price of food outside!


William Warren Allmand: With respect to the correctional development centre at Laval, the escape there was not due to defects in the walls or the hardware but to a human failure within the system. We are taking steps to ensure that this will not happen again.


SUGGESTED VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER TO EUROPE TO PRESENT CANADIAN POSITION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As Canada's export trade with the countries of the European Economic Community and Great Britain has declined by more than $200 million a year during the past two years, and since the loss of the British preference will seriously endanger further $500 million to $750 million of this trade, is it the intention of the Prime Minister personally to visit the heads of the countries forming the European Economic Community in the near future in an effort to improve Canada's trading relationship with those countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That suggestion was made to me by another member of the hon. gentleman's party about a week ago. I thanked him for the suggestion and said I would consider it most seriously.


George Harris Hees: As Messrs. Heath, Pompidou, Brezhnev and Brandt have just completed, or are in the process of engaging in, meetings to improve the trade of their respective countries, and as President Nixon will be meeting shortly with Mr. Pompidou, Mr. Brezhnev and heads of the EEC countries, does the Prime Minister not consider it would be worth the time involved to announce a visit in the very near future to these important trading countries to improve our own bad relationship with them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will realize that these gentlemen he has mentioned are just catching up with what we did in the previous parliament.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I personally spoke to Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Heath about this subject.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister relating to the Department of National Revenue. In the absence of the minister, I do not know to whom else I should address it. In light of the fact that 40 per cent of the university and college professors in Canada are not Canadian citizens but are from other countries and in light of the fact that many teachers in Canada in other grades of education are unemployed, can the Prime Minister say whether any steps will be taken to end the two-year tax-free period that is available to teachers from foreign countries when they teach in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Perhaps I could deal with that question since it relates to tax policy. The problem is that the so-called exemption for teachers is provided for under tax treaties and cannot be changed until the treaties are renegotiated. However, we are in the process of renegotiating these treaties at the moment. Our policy has been clearly stated publicly and to the other countries concerned that have bilateral tax treaties with us: we do not intend to include a special exemption for teachers in the future.


Frank Howard: Would the minister consider giving the same kind of advantage in the future to Canadian born teachers that he is giving nationals from South Africa, for example, and help them to stay at home?
4=	*	*


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As there is a shortage of farm labour on the one hand and insufficient summer employment for students on the other, could the minister tell the House if he will undertake a special program designed to establish a liaison between students seeking employment and farmers in need of labour, thus making possible such a project under advantageous conditions?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly give that every consideration. We are taking some measures relat-

May 22, 1973
Oral Questions
ing to this question. One problem is the location of students available for the jobs that are available and, of course, rates of pay and working conditions, but we are addressing ourselves to the problem which has also been raised by other hon. members.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the minister say for how long it has been the policy of his department to require employees, on pain of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, to fill out a form requiring them to give their nicknames, their full employment history, whether they are married legally or otherwise, names of blood relatives dead or living, as well as a full itinerary of their travels to communist countries since 1945?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into this matter and reply to the hon. member as soon as possible.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada registered a formal protest with Zambia in connection with the death of two Canadian girls at Victoria Falls in Rhodesia just a week ago today?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet done this. As the hon. gentleman knows, we have an officer in Rhodesia examining the circumstances of this tragedy. As soon as we have a full report we will be in a position to decide what action to take. I should make it clear that we have not accepted the Zambian explanation, and this is one of the reasons we are making the investigation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Can the minister advise the House whether every possible assistance is being provided to the families of these two girls, and what action has been taken in connection with the Zambian murderers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leith, our Zambian officer, is now in Rhodesia. He has arranged for the funeral of the Sinclair girl. We are in touch with the parents and, as far as I understand, arrangements are being worked out quite satisfactorily. Mr. Drijberg has now arrived in Rhodesia, and the instructions to Mr. Leith are to get in touch with Mr. Drijberg to see whether we can be of further assistance to him in his tragedy. As the hon. member knows, Mr. Drijberg still hopes that his daughter may be alive.



AGRICULTURE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture in connection with a possible grasshopper infestation and the danger thereof. The estimate now is that 350 billion grasshoppers are ready to receive the wheat, oats and barley in Saskatchewan alone. We do not want to be host to such an aggregation; therefore insecticides are needed, one of which is DDT. Although it has been banned, it has the record of being not the first but one of the first means of bringing about control. Would the minister give consideration to releasing the ban on DDT for a few weeks in order to meet the terrible danger that is faced not only in Saskatchewan but also in neighbouring provinces?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, several different people from Saskatchewan and the other prairie provinces have made representations about the same matter that the right hon. gentleman has brought to the attention of the House. We have considered DDT. Other sprays and products are available but more of them has to be used to bring about control. I have not had a report today on what the conditions are, but if they do become very bad I would not hesitate to recommend DDT.



INCREASE IN MACHINERY PRICES-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN OVER-ALL PRODUCTION COSTS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of statements by the three prairie Ministers of Agriculture expressing alarm over recent increases of 4 to 5 per cent in machinery prices in Manitoba, and in view of indications of similar increases in the other provinces, would the minister have his department conduct an investigation into the increasing prices of machinery?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the first I saw of this was in the press. No one brought to my attention during the last few days that the price had increased dramatically or to this extent. I have already asked my department to give me a report.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I also call the attention of the minister to the statement made by the agricultural economics research council-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question. We are running short of time and he has been recognized for a supplementary.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the minister also investigate reports that increases of up to 15 per cent in the over-all cost of farm production will be the sort of increases we will be trying to live with in the immediate future?
May 22, 1973



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Communications. In view of the minister's parliamentary broadside levelled against Quebec on Friday last, has the minister had any success in arranging a conference of communications ministers, or has the parliamentary broadside adversely affected that conference?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any negative effects. The conference of provincial Ministers of Communications has been tentatively scheduled, with the agreement of a majority of the ministers, for next fall, presumably in October.
Preliminary meetings between officers of all the provincial departments and officers of the federal Department of Communications are scheduled for early July.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the fact that the invitation was extended in March for the first couple of weeks in July, I believe, would the minister tell the House whether all provinces have accepted the date in October as a firm date?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker. We have not set a definite date yet, and when we sent out the invitation or suggested that a meeting be held early in July, we did not know then that the provinces wanted to meet together twice before holding a Federal-Provincial conference. We were not even aware that they would postpone their own conference from the middle to the end of May, and maybe even to the beginning of June.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of State responsible for Urban Affairs.
In view of the fact that the investigations conducted in Montreal in connection with organized crime have enabled the authorities to identify important witnesses within Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation personnel, could the minister tell us whether he is considering having an investigation initiated concerning the operations of this Corporation in other Canadian cities?
[ English]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the evidence referred to in the question. I will immediately look at it,
Oral Questions
but any further answer would be dependent upon that evidence.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-GUIDELINES FOR POSSIBLE APPLICATION-OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSE TO DISCUSS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who referred earlier to guidelines the government had announced a couple of years ago with regard to the building of northern pipelines. Will the application that the minister anticipates will be made before the end of the year be heard and dealt with under the guidelines as they have been announced or will these guidelines possibly be modified in some way?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines which were defined in general terms in 1970 were laid out in somewhat more precise terms in 1972 with regard to environmental and social impacts. We now have the national advisory committee on northern pipelines financing considering some of the financial and particularly corporate control aspects. The work of that particular advisory group could lead to additional guidelines on the question of ownership and control.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will there be an opportunity provided for the House to consider the guidelines as they are, put forward in final form under which any such application is to be heard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been ample opportunities, particularly in committee, to discuss the guidelines up to this point, but I am sure an additional opportunity can be arranged as and when they are made available publicly.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether the statement made by Donald Morrison, vice-president of the Canada Development Corporation, was a statement of government policy when over the weekend Mr. Morrison said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is obviously not in order. The hon. member should rephrase his question. He cannot refer to statements made outside the House.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of statements emanating from the Canada Development Corporation to the effect that the head office of this

May 22, 1973
Ora] Questions
corporation will not be located in the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not heard of that statement. I will look into the matter.


John Douglas Reynolds: In view of the fact the Minister of Finance made the same statement in the House in the first week after the Easter break, and in view of the confusion on this issue, would the Prime Minister see that the president of the corporation makes a positive statement backing up the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on April 5 that the head office of this corporation would be in Vancouver, British Columbia?


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that thousands of people who have been receiving and thought they were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits are now being assessed overpayment bills- one of my constituents was recently assessed $2,600 as an overpayment-would the minister instruct that if a person is not entitled to the payments he should be informed sooner than is now the practice in place of the current cruel practice of making payments month after month leading the recipient to believe he is entitled to the money and then billing the recipient for everything he has received?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member appears to be making a representation to the minister and he has to assume it will be taken into account.



FISHERIES


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question on the situation between Iceland, West Germany and Britain. Can the minister indicate whether there was any exchange of diplomatic or, for that matter, undiplomatic notes between Canada and Britain and West Germany over the situation pertaining to the cod war? If so, can he tell the House the general tenure of the exchange in question and, if not, why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to ascertain whether there was any such exchange. If there was, I will try to give a report.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the minister is not aware whether there was, but may I ask the minister whether he will undertake today to exchange notes between Canada and the various fishing nations of the world underscoring the principle that the marine resources of the continental shelves adjacent to coastal states are the territory of the states in question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the position of the Canadian government is that the coastal states have special rights and responsibilities for fishing off their coasts. This has been the position of the Canadian government even before the hon. member was a member of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members are seeking supplementaries. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, and then the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway, and then call orders of the day.



REQUEST THAT MEMBER FOR LAPRAIRIE APPEAR BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS INTERIM REPORT PRESENTED BY HIM TO NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the fact that an interim report has been prepared and presented to the North Atlantic Assembly by the hon. member for Laprairie and in view of the importance of the resolution unanimously approved by the North Atlantic Assembly on the depletion of marine resources, would the chairman of the committee ask the hon. member for Laprairie to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that the committee can discuss the report?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly look into that matter.



FOOD PRICES


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell us when we may expect an announcement about the appointment of the Food Prices Review Board?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A short time ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway has a supplementary. It might be more orderly to hear her supplementary and then the hon. member on his question of privilege.
May 22, 1973


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has been successful in making any appointments to the board yet and, if so, how many?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think we are having a high degree of success, but I think it would be more appropriate for me to be able to make one announcement as to the composition of the entire board, which again I hope will be very soon.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago today I asked the Prime Minister a serious question about a serious matter. I asked whether he was considering, for reasons which I pointed out, in the very near future visiting the heads of government of the European Economic Community. In reply he said that he had been asked a similar question about a week ago and that he had told the hon. member that he was giving serious consideration to his question. Here is the answer that the Prime Minister gave to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary South:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion that I do a bit of travelling.
A lot of laughter followed that.
I have the intention of preparing travel plans for the coming year.
Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Prime Minister today said he answered. He said he told the hon. member he was giving serious consideration to his suggestion that he take such a trip in the very near future. I asked the question again today and he has given a sneering, wise-cracking answer which misleads the House and is an insult to the House and to the people of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously not a question of privilege. The hon. member, with his long experience in the House, knows that he cannot rise on an alleged question of privilege to make reference to an answer which has been given in the House. The hon. member may be dissatisfied with the answer that has been given and he may feel there is a contradiction. He is entitled to his opinion about such matters, but this cannot be raised by way of a question of privilege. I suggest to hon. members that this is not very helpful in the conduct of the business of the House, and I would not think in the circumstances that the Chair should allow the matter to be pursued further. Is the right hon. gentleman rising on the question of privilege?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: According to your usual courtesy, Mr. Speaker, you allow the person involved in the question of privilege to answer. I just want to put it very gently to the hon. member that when I said I was giving serious consideration to making travel plans I was-


George Harris Hees: You did not. You said you were giving serious consideration to his suggestion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I could go on I would suggest that the hon. member should give serious consideration to his question because he prefaced the question to me by a series of statistics which were, I am sure uninten-
Capital Punishment
tionally, misleading. If the hon. member will look at the statistics for the first four months of this year over the same period last year, he will see that we are well up by the largest measure in 20 years. To the United Kingdom our exports are up 26 per cent, to the ECC 23 per cent, and to Japan 102 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously a debate over statistics between the hon. member and the right hon. Prime Minister. This kind of debate could go on every day for a long time and I am not sure, as I said a moment ago, that it helps the conduct of the business of the House. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege. I agreed, as I have always done in the past, that there is nothing wrong with the person impugned or referred to in the question of privilege being given an opportunity to defend himself or to respond by making a brief statement, which is what happened. But I have to rule again that there is no question of privilege, and I do not think much advantage would be gained by pursuing the matter further. The hon. member disagrees with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister disagrees with him. Perhaps they might get together in a private conference and announce to the House tomorrow the result of their discussion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cited the figures that were produced for me and other parliamentarians by the NATO legation in Brussels this week. These are the latest figures available to Members of Parliament. What I said is absolutely true, and the Prime Minister knows this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House today to enter the debate. This is the first time, as a newly elected member for the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, that I have had an opportunity of speaking. My pride in being here as a member of parliament is somewhat tempered by humility, and the thought that I have been selected over two most worthy opponents.
Mr. Speaker, it was with interest and respect that I watched the unfolding of traditions and pageantry which marked the opening of this session and, in particular, the
3958

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
Speech from the Throne and your election to the high office which you presently hold. On behalf of my constituents and myself, I should like to congratulate you on your unanimous selection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Your reputation as a fair, honest, impartial and just Speaker has spread far and wide to all the distant corners of this great land. I only trust that my presence in this House will not make your difficult task more difficult.
Traditionally, all forms of government by means of councils, whether they were tribal councils or the early councils in the political arenas of Greece and Rome, and through the years the evolution of the English parliamentary system, have contained the principle of allowing representatives the freedom to cast their vote as they saw fit. I am particularly pleased that the topic which we are presently debating will be decided by a free vote. In many respects it is unfortunate that the parliamentary system has evolved in such a way that a truly free vote comes so rarely. I trust that all members of the House will jealously guard and take advantage of their proper right to vote as they see fit on this topic. I trust that each member will treat with contempt any person who might try to cajole that member behind the scenes to vote otherwise than as he sees fit for the sake of some so-called party policy or party preservation. I know that members of my party will be divided on this issue and that my party is allowing each member a completely free hand to vote as he wishes.
I can only hope that every other group in this House allows a similar freedom. I hope that this is what I will see when this debate is concluded, but I expect to find it otherwise. Surely, the NDP will vote as a block in favour of this bill, belying the true representation of their constituents. On the other hand, I expect some token division in the Liberal party, but in the majority, support for the government sponsored bill as pressure is applied.
Today, we are dealing with what is frequently considered to be sentencing for what is an ultimate crime. Perhaps this is the ultimate crime in the criminal context as held in the Criminal Code of Canada, but I would like to point out that the true crime is that we are debating this topic at all at this time when tens of thousands of Canadians find themselves in an economic struggle, squeezed between unemployment and inflation. It is truly the great shame of this parliament that the government has brought in this legislation at this time. Indeed, we have spent some seven days debating this topic since the twenty-ninth parliament began, including almost one week at the very beginning, when we should have been and should now be dealing with legislation to alleviate the problems of housing, of unemployment, the abuses to the unemployment insurance fund, inflation, and the budgetary matters which have been allowed to languish by the side, languish in a barrel of unfathomable political ineptitude. Perhaps I might be permitted to refer to the section in the Criminal Code known as section 319 which deals with false pretences. Let me read briefly from the definition as follows:
A false pretence is a representation of a matter of fact in the present or past made by words or otherwise that is known by the

person who makes it to be false and that is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act upon it.
In reading the Speech from the Throne, we note that the government's advisers have stated that the government has assigned the highest priority to two policy areas. The first listed was the economic policy to reduce unemployment, contain inflation, and to strengthen the economy generally. If that is the highest priority, then why are we dealing with capital punishment today. The government stated, first, that they wanted to expand job opportunities; second, to promote stable economic growth; third, to attain a reasonable price stability; fourth, to ensure that the regions of the country benefit through prosperity brought to all regions. It was proudly stated by the government that, having brought forth the two part program consisting of measures to provide more jobs and measures that would add fundamental strength to the economy, they would bring forth in a rush amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Act, reintroduce measures announced earlier regarding screening and expand their policy on foreign take-overs, add to the social security system to assure people who cannot work, the aged, the blind and the disabled, a compassionate and equitable guaranteed income.
The entire throne speech refers to those issues which were discussed in the election campaign leading to the election on October 30. These are important issues for the majority of Canadians. Why has this legislation not been introduced? Why did we wait for 60 days to have parliament called. Why have we discussed pilotage bills, considered a lengthy Speech from the Throne which included platitudes and lollipops, had discussions on food prices, when these are only a small segment of the difficult economic problems which we face? Why was all the legislation not introduced so that it could be considered in good time, and why have we been saddled with a debate which affects, at the most, two or three people and only those people who have committed the ultimate criminal act in the context of the Criminal Code of Canada?
Truly, Mr. Speaker, the greatest criminal fraud is debating this legislation now rather than waiting to debate it at a more leisurely time. On January 26, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) stated, as reported at page 681 of Hansard, that there was no person waiting on death row. Last week, in reply to a question of mine the Solicitor General said that no person has been indicted for having committed capital murder, other than the murder of a police officer or prison guard, and has now finished the entire legal process. Any person who has committed murder since the beginning of this year has yet to go through a preliminary hearing, and finish his trial process. The indictment itself would probably be still weeks away. Surely, this debate can be held in the months ahead. If by chance a person has been convicted and is facing the death penalty, which at the moment is not a fact that person would have his sentence commuted by the government. Perhaps such sentences should be commuted until this question is settled once and for all. At least, the date of execution could be postponed.
The great criminal fraud on the Canadian public and the tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens is that they are
May 22, 1973

being made to take second place to a lengthy debate which deals with only two, three, or perhaps four convicted criminals. Somebody has his priorities sorely misplaced. A reading of the throne speech and the platitudes which were enunciated at that time, to the effect that the government was earnestly going to tackle the economic problems of the country, indicates that the government is misrepresenting itself to the people. It is misleading and deceiving the people, hoping that they will act on that deceit and misrepresentation.
Again, I point out that according to section 319 of the Criminal Code those are the ingredients which constitute false pretence. Mr. Speaker, instead of debating capital punishment the public want us to get on with the main issues at hand, the issues of inflation, wage and income control, unemployment, the unemployment insurance abuses, and perhaps even a budget. The capital punishment situation may be inconvenient to two or three people, but the government can commute their sentences. However, it cannot commute, nor does it appear willing or able, and certainly it does not appear to have the ability or knowledge on how to commute the economic squeeze in which tens of thousands of honest Canadians find themselves. Let us deal with commuting their sentences, so that they can live as they should be able to live. Dealing with this legislation now rather than with important economic matters shows a callous disregard for the good, law abiding citizens of Canada. It is an abdication of responsibility in governing this great land.
I should like to take the time to point out that the controversy which is persuading Canada on whether we should have abolition or retention has been caused by the government's ineptitude in handling criminal justice. This whole question of abolition or retention would not be as emotionally charged today if the government had not misused the parole system during the last four or five years. If the government had not allowed convicted criminals to return to society after a far too brief stay in our penitentiaries, society would feel that justice was being served. The granting of weekend passes, for days and months at a time, has eroded the confidence of the Canadian public in our system, and today the Canadian public is demanding a return of capital punishment in order to give itself a feeling of protection from that portion of society known as the criminal element.
The 70 per cent of the Canadian people who want to retain the death penalty are making a conscious decision because they have been betrayed by the easy parole granted and the favouritism shown to the criminal element of our society. If the abuse of parole and the granting of leaves to criminals had not taken place, I am convinced that a true abolitionist bill would pass, hardly challenged. Not only is a true abolitionist bill an impossibility, and so recognized by the abolitionists, but the government has had to bring in this half-baked piece of legislation knowing that the majority of the Canadian people do not want even it passed. I know from having spoken with people in the parole service over the years that the general feeling is that they cannot rehabilitate the people in prisons. They have decided, therefore, to let them out on the streets as early as possible, hoping they could rehabilitate themselves better in society. This is not what the public expects. This is not what justice demands. We must pro-
Capital Punishment
tect society. Rehabilitation ought to be and should be a foremost consideration in sentencing, but the protection of society is just as important, if not more so, and the Canadian public is demanding that.
A second fault of the Liberal administration that has been in power since 1963, and which has undermined the confidence of Canadian society in criminal justice, has been the 100 per cent commutation by the so-called royal prerogative. This House of Commons, supposedly the highest court in the land, which makes the law, has had its powers usurped by a collection of some 20 cabinet ministers who sit in the so-called treasury benches. "Treasury benches" is a peculiar term, because the occupants of those benches cannot handle the treasury but they stick their noses into areas with which they are not supposed to deal. They have usurped and by-passed the laws of the land, and by breaking the law of the land I would say that they have committed a criminal act.
The law of the land as written in this book, the Criminal Code, provides for the death penalty in section 212, but in 100 per cent of the cases the members of the Cabinet have breached that law and made a law of their own, a function which the constitution does not grant them. Certainly, there is a royal prerogative of mercy, to be used in those few cases where mercy properly should be considered. But, Mr. Speaker, mercy should not be granted in 100 per cent of the cases because then mercy loses its meaning. The royal prerogative is not a prerogative when it becomes the final court proceeding.
You cannot tell me, Mr. Speaker, and nobody else in this House could convince me, that the Queen or her representative at any time has suggested that this prerogative be used in 100 per cent of the cases. It has only been used by those members who form the cabinet of the Liberal government, because they did not have the guts or the ability to carry out the law of the land. It was not their responsibility to make themselves the court. That function is carried out by others, by a judge and jury, duly selected.
For those two reasons, the misuse of parole and the misuse of the royal prerogative, the government has now caused society's great concern and has forced itself into an untenable position. This bill is neither fish nor fowl. It is not an abolitionist bill. The Solicitor General is an abolitionist. He has stated so. Even though he is an avowed abolitionist, he knows that he cannot successfully achieve that objective, and therefore is trying to put in the thin end of the wedge by means of this legislation. I say to him that if he is a true abolitionist let him bring in an abolitionist bill and get a true reflection of the feelings of the elected representatives in this House.
For many years I was an abolitionist. I regret, in many ways, that I am not one any longer. I am not voting against this bill because I know that 70 per cent of my constituents want to retain the death penalty. I am voting against this bill because I know that society as a whole feels cheated, and feels a need of protection. I will vote against this bill at all stages until we have adequately given society its proper right to experience a sense of security. I hope that in the next few years the royal prerogative will not be misused, that the parole system and leaves of absence will not be abused, and that this matter of abolition or retention can come up again after
3960

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
society has experienced a period of security. At that time, I will be voting for the abolition of the death penalty.
I have no qualms about the loss of the life of a criminal. Mr. Speaker, we pay lip service to the loss of thousands of people each year through war and on the highways, and now we are trying to pay more lip service to that person who has taken a life than we do the many law-abiding citizens who lose their lives by accident. Life is important and it is precious-probably the most precious thing in this world but only to the person who possesses that life and to those persons who are near and dear to him or her. But nobody can convince me that the life of an unknown person is precious to me, as I did not know that person, so let us not pretend that this bill and abolition is the godly thing to do to protect the most precious thing in the world-life. Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that we have to treat a person who has caused the death of another person in a criminal act any better than other criminals. It is only some philosophical moralistic burbling which causes certain people to shrink and shirk their proper duty.
Before taking my seat, I should like to inform this House, briefly that I have had experience in criminal law. For three years I prosecuted criminals in Ottawa, the capital city. I have prosecuted bank robbers who have committed five and six robberies and it is all there on their record. They are known as professionals. They call themselves and consider themselves professional robbers. On each occasion they have armed themselves with a sawed-off shotgun, a pistol, machine gun, a submachine gun, automatic rifle and with two or three companions entered a bank or the premises of their intended victim, after having planned for 10, 30 and sixty days in minute and complete detail every step that they were going to take. They have armed themselves, Mr. Speaker, with the full knowledge that they may use those weapons to take a life, and in most instances they are the types of people who would sooner shoot than give you the time of day.
I have no respect whatsoever for those people. They commit an armed robbery and are caught. They are given five years on their first attempt and they are out in 18 months. They are caught again, they get seven years and they are out in IVi years. Perhaps they do not get caught for the next two or three times, but ultimately they are found out. Then, they are tried on two or three armed robberies at the one time and this time they are sentenced to ten or eleven years, so they are out in three or four years. Finally, in the course of a robbery they kill someone because that person happens to be interfering with their criminal act of robbing. When a criminal has such a record why should we give him special consideration? I think, Mr. Speaker, I would rather have special consideration given to the law-abiding public. Then, on the other hand, I have dealt with the criminals who were just sadists, and I would like to deal with one case in particular which gives some indication of whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent.
On January 3, 1969 at the end of the festive season, two couples, one couple in each car, were minding their own business and driving from Ottawa to Almonte. Three sadistic, brutal, vicious young men followed them for a

period of what must have been 15 or 20 minutes or longer, then flagged down the cars pretending they were stranded at the side of the road. Then, having had the opportunity for 15 or 20 minutes of thinking what they were about to do, they cold bloodedly killed two men, the heads of families, while their wives watched, cowering underneath the dashboard of their car. They pumped bullet after bullet into those people, themselves unarmed, who were just good Samaritans stopping to help somebody stranded at the side of the road. After having had an opportunity to consider what they were doing their course of action for 20 minutes, they deliberately murdered two men. The names of the three murderers were David John Brault, David Dwyer and Donald Phillion. It became known as the Carp murders. Now, the government and its advisers want us to vote in favour of those people.
Let me take this case one step further. I have here a partial copy of the transcript of the court proceedings, uncontradicted, of the preliminary hearing. The murderers went their separate ways after they had committed this act. One of them, David Dwyer, went to Windsor where he was tracked down by a police officer in the basement of a house. On page 251 of the transcript of the preliminary hearing, in examination in chief when giving identification, Mr. Chippit was asked:
Q. What name did you know him by at that time?
A. Dwyer, David Dwyer.
Q. When you saw him, how was he dressed?
A. He had a brown jacket on; hair blond and he had what appeared to be a .22 calibre rifle pointed at my head.
And a little later:
Q. How long was this weapon?
A. It was sawed off, cut down.
On page 252, continuing the examination in chief of Mr. Chippit:
Q. Was there any struggle?
A. No struggle at all, sir.
Q. Did Dwyer say anything at this point?
A. He just walked out very nonchalantly. After I said "Drop it", he said all right and walked out.
And a little later:
Q. Was there any conversation on the way to the station?
A. Yes there was.
Q. What was the conversation?
A. You are talking about conversation in the car after we left the scene?
Q. Yes.
A. That is correct.
Q. Yes?
A. The conversation was, if I remember, we were talking; it was brought up in regard-we were talking of an armed robbery in the city of Windsor. I stated, well, this time don't worry about it, and he-
Referring to Dwyer.
-said, "No, this is a bad city to pull a robbery." He says, "I have had better luck other places."
Q. This was Dwyer; is that correct?
A. This is correct.
Further, on page 254, continuing examination in chief:
Q. -What was the accused's attitude during the time you were in his company?
May 22, 1973

A. He was very nonchalant, sir. He asked me for a cigarette, and then when we were leaving the scene, or the car was leaving the scene in the police car W.H.Q.
Q. W.H.Q.?
A. Headquarters.
Q. Did you get the cigarette?
A. I looked at him and said, "You guys are crazy; just had a gun to my head and now you want a cigarette.'' He said-
This is referring to Mr. Dwyer.
-"I would not shoot you, I would hang for that."
That is the uncontradicted evidence of the preliminary hearing. Those men pleaded guilty and were sentenced for non-capital murder. As indicated, the Windsor police came to where Mr. Dwyer was staying in the basement, where he had his rifle in his hand, having a little target practice in the basement. When the police officer came down the man pointed the loaded rifle at his head but he did not shoot the police officer. As indicated in that transcript, ten minutes later when he was disarmed he asked the police officer for the cigarette and the police officer said "Man, you must be crazy, ten minutes ago you were in a position to shoot me and now you are asking me a favour; you want a cigarette". This person who had already killed two ordinary citizens for which he must have known he was not going to hang, then stated "I would not shoot you, I would hang for that." He did not hurt the police officer, because for that he would have had to hang. You say the death penalty is not a deterrent. There is proof. It was a deterrent for that criminal in that situation. If it was a deterrent for that person, it may be a deterrent for many others. I hope, as I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation brought forward at this time will be defeated.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear from the outset that, based on the evidence I have read and studied, I am in favour of abolishing capital punishmment in Canada. I, therefore, support the present bill as a compromise which extends abolition for five more years, except in the case of the murder of a police officer or a prison guard. I take this stand, Mr. Speaker, despite the survey that I sent to my constituents in January, in which 73 per cent of the over 4,000 people who replied indicated that they were in favour of retaining the death penalty. I know it would be politically safe to go along with them in what I consider a sincere decision on their part. But, Mr. Speaker, this is to be a free vote, and it is a vote of conscience. On the basis, of the evidence of my studies, I could not, with a clear conscience, support capital punishment.
I have listened to speeches in this House on capital punishment and read letters from individuals across Canada. What has struck me has been the legitimate concern of the public for its safety; but what disturbs me about much of this public concern is the lack of research and the undue emotionalism on which many of the arguments, both pro and con, are predicated. As I see it, if one is to argue for or against capital punishment, one can do so on three grounds: Whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent to crime; how society is to be protected from a repetition of capital offences by convicted criminals, and this of course involves parole policy; and, finally, to what degree should society seek the punishment or rehabilita-
Capital Punishment
tion of the criminal. I should like now to put forth arguments on each of these three grounds, which I believe lead one who employs reason and logic to support the abolitionist position.
The most common argument used by those who are in favour of retaining capital punishment is that it serves as an effective deterrent to murder. Indeed, in response to my questionnaire on that question, 52 per cent of my constituents who replied thought that capital punishment was an effective deterrent. Common sense, it is argued by retentionists, tells us that people are afraid of death. Soldiers on the battlefield fear it, you fear it, Mr. Speaker, and I fear it. Likewise, it is argued that the potential murderer will not commit the crime of murder because of fear of execution. Yet does not common sense tell us that if we drive recklessly on the highway, without using a seat belt, we run the risk of a fatal accident? Does the fear of death stop the carnage on our highways? Doctors and medical science tell us that cigarette smoking contributes to death by lung cancer. Surely this warning, coupled with reason, would induce us to stop smoking; yet more people are smoking today than ever before.
The so-called common sense approach to the deterrent factor of death needs to be reassessed. A superficial analysis of this problem has no place in this debate. Common sense may tell us one thing, but reason tells us another. Reason, based on case study analysis, tells us that for many criminals the determining factor is not the fear of death or punishment but whether or not the criminal will be caught. The criminal commits the crime on the assumption he will not be caught. I can think of no better illustration of this than that in nineteenth century England, when pickpocketing was a capital offence and pickpockets were executed at public hangings, pickpockets made their greatest hauls at public executions when the eyes of the crowd were turned upward to the hangman's noose. Also, in nineteenth century England a chaplain who conducted 167 men to the gallows related that 164 of them had attended at public executions. Where was the deterrent?
The professional killers of organized crime, the political assassin or the man who commits homicide in the course of another crime, are not deterred by the death penalty. The professional killer is not deterred because murder is his job and, as he is skilled, he does not expect to be caught. The political assassin is not deterred, because to him the cause is the be all and end all, and he is ready to die for it. The thief who commits murder in the course of a robbery is not deterred, because in the majority of cases he does not plan to kill but does so as an immediate reaction to avoid capture.
According to my studies, such criminals account for only about 29 per cent of all murders in Canada, 71 per cent of murders in Canada being committed as a result of domestic quarrels or arguments with a friend. In these crimes, alcohol is often a contributing factor. Study after study has shown that the murder of a relative or friend, or the homicide committed by a drunk during a fight or by a mentally deranged person, is a murder committed on the spur of the moment, without premeditattion. It is committed in a fit of passion. The person in such a state of emotional hysteria thinks only of killing. He does not

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
reflect calmly on the fear of capital punishment. Capital punishment has not deterred criminals in the past; nor will it do so if it is reintroduced.
Canada abolished the death penalty in 1967, except for the murder of police and prison officials. Did this result in an increase in the frequency of murder in Canada? The important word here is, frequency. The number of murders increased, but this increase was part of the general increase in over-all crime, that is, in crimes of all categories. What is important is the rate of increase in homicides. The detailed and comprehensive study by Dr. Fattah of McGill University shows that the increase in criminal homicide is the lowest among all crimes of violence. Also, there is no indication of any consistent trend in the rate of homicide. The rate fluctuates from year to year. Indeed, the largest increase in the murder rate in Canada since 1964 occurred in the year before abolition, not in the year after. Nor has the retention of the death penalty as punishment for the murder of police or prison officials proved to be an effective deterrent. The largest number of police murders took place in 1962, when capital punishment was in effect. Two murderers were hanged that year. The murder of police has been on the increase since 1967, despite the fact that it is still a capital offence. Research shows that the murder rate of policemen is substantially similar in abolitionist and retentionist countries having the same social and economic conditions. Reason, Mr. Speaker, must convince us that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. We cannot retain hanging in Canada on the ground that it will reduce the homicide rate in this country.
The second ground for discussing this whole issue, as I mentioned, is, how is society to be protected from a repetition of capital offences by convicted criminals? It seems to me that much of the public's concern about the crime rate has to do with present-day parole procedures, the laxity of which in certain cases has led to the parole of dangerous criminals who have committed crimes while on parole. In my opinion, the way to alleviate this threat to the public's safety is not to parole certain types of criminals where rehabilitation is risky; for example, the sexual offender or the psychotic. Perhaps we should provide that the sentence of life imprisonment means the rest of a person's natural life in the case of a murderer involved in organized crime or a professional killer. The whole parole procedure should be reassessed and a more cautious approach should be taken in the matter of paroles. The public has a right to be concerned about our parole policy. I share their concern. However, I do not wish to dwell on this because I believe it is an ancillary issue to the real one we are debating in Bill C-2.
The other question before us, aside from the deterrent factor and the protection of society, is the degree to which we seek punishment and/or rehabilitation. Much of the debate has centered around the argument of a life for a life; he who murders should not expect mercy. I am perplexed that those who advocate capital punishment on the grounds that the murderer, because he has committed a most heinous crime, should be punished accordingly, do not carry their argument to its logical conclusion. If a man commits a brutal murder and if it is vengeance they want,

is not hanging too good to him? Why not make him suffer as much as the victim? Why not revert to the medieval practice of torture before death?
We do not have to go back as far as the Middle Ages for an example of how this could be done. I refer to the case of Jean Calas in France in 1761. This event occurred in an age to which historians refer as the period of enlightenment; today, the age of reason. Jean Calas, a 64 year old Protestant merchant in Toulouse was falsely accused of strangling his son to prevent him from becoming a convert to Roman Catholicism. The public were outraged and wanted vengeance. He was tried, convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Calas appealed his case and, in order to elicit the truth, the court ordered that he be tortured until he confessed. Here is a description of what took place:
The decision was appealed to the Parlement of Toulouse, which appointed a panel of thirteen judges. Sixty-three additional witnesses were heard. All the hostile evidence was hearsay. . . . The final decision condemned only the father. No one explained how a man sixty-four years old, unaided, could have overcome and strangled his mature son. The court hoped that Calas, under torture, would confess. He was subjected to the question ordinaire: his arms and legs were stretched until they were pulled from their sockets. He was repeatedly exhorted to confess; he repeatedly affirmed that Marc Antoine had committed suicide. After half an hour's rest he was put to the question extraordinaire; fifteen pints of water were poured down his throat; he still protested his innocence; fifteen further pints were forced into him, swelling his body to twice its normal size; he still maintained his innocence. He was allowed to expel the water. Then he was taken to a public square before the cathedral; he was laid upon a cross; an executioner, with eleven blows of an iron bar, broke each of his limbs in two places; the old man, calling upon Jesus Christ, proclaimed his innocence. After two hours of agony he was strangled. The corpse was bounded to a stake and burned (March 10, 1762).
If we carried out executions like that today we could, according to those who favour capital punishment, not only deter would-be murderers by the spectacle but satisfy our blood-lust for vengeance as well. I believe that Canadians are more civilized than that. Just as we no longer hang children for petty theft, as we did in Canada 150 years ago, so let us follow the civilized practice of the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Germany and many other countries and abolish capital punishment. There is enough brutalization of society in our 20th century world without state murder.
If we are civilized, surely we should stress rehabilitation rather than vengeance. Where rehabilitiation fails or is impossible, let the punishment be life imprisonment, that is for the rest of the murderer's natural life. Let us not ignore the preventative aspect of the question. I have yet to see a baby born a murderer. We must work to eliminate these socio-economic environments which breed crime and distort human behaviour. If we put more effort into cleaning up slums, reducing unemployment and poverty, mending broken homes, tackling the problems of alcoholism and drug abuse and bringing in tighter gun controls, we will do more to reduce the crime rate in Canada than by throwing the criminals into jail or conducting them to the gallows.
I have tried to explain why capital punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it is a deterrent to crime. I have tried to show that society can be protected from the convicted criminal repeating a serious offence by a more
May 22, 1973

judicious parole system and tighter prison security. I have emphasized that rehabilitation is more important than retribution. I urge the members of this House and all Canadians not to regress to the barbaric practices of our ancestors. Surely, in a civilized and forward looking society, the philosophy of an eye for an eye or of brutal blood lust has no place. Man prides himself on his ability to reason. We pride ourselves on the rule of law that we have developed down through the ages. As Filippo Grammatica wrote in his treatise Pena de Morte, and I quote:
If the law of man does not allow murder, if murder has neither a human nor a social function and hence it is not lawful, if it is ill-advised, if it is immoral, if it is anti-aesthetic, how can it become lawful, moral, aesthetic and functional for a particular offence?
I suggest it can only become lawful if we forgo reason and regress to emotionalism or a primitive desire for revenge. Boris Pasternack wrote in his novel Dr. Zhivago, and I quote:
If the beast in man could be held down by threats-any kind of threat, whether in jail or retribution after death-then the highest emblem of humanity would be the lion tamer in the circus with his whip, not the Prophet who sacrificed himself.
It was that Prophet who, while hanging on the cross, forgave his murderers and taught us to pray "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". It is my sincere hope that, nearly 2,000 years later, we shall finally learn this lesson and abolish capital punishment in Canada.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, we are back again today on Bill C-2 and we see speakers rise one after the other, some of them wanting to retain capital punishment, others wanting to abolish it. What surprises me is precisely the fact that Bill C-2 in no way offers a choice between retention and abolition of capital punishment but is a request on the part of the government to postpone the decision on that issue.
We have arguments from both sides. Some hon. members say that capital punishment can diminish or reduce acts of violence in Canada; on the other hand, other hon. members on the basis of statistics, probably the same, say that it is not the solution to the problem. But everybody forgets that in the first place the government is not trying hard enough as far as the administration is concerned to minimize the incidence of murders or other offences. It is not doing enough to rightly help the population to live decently and it can be seen when studies are made in prisons that a good number of criminals come from low-income groups.
Theoretically, arguments and standpoints are easy to put forward but in reality, practically nothing is being done to control the causes of crime.
I read in the speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I quote:
Underlying all of these characteristics, which make our society so human, is the belief by Canadians that in such a social system they can flourish and pursue their lives free from fear of lawless elements.
Capital Punishment
I wonder whether the Prime Minister would say the same thing had he been attacked as some bank employees are, or had a member of his family been attacked as members of other Canadian families are? We realize that philosophizing is easy, but that concrete action is much more difficult. I resume my quotation from the Prime Minister's speech:
Jailbreaks will be dealt with as the enquiries and the Solicitor General recommend.
I remember that on February 9, when I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) if he had read the report on the Pinel Institute inquiry on a psychiatrist who was implicated in murderer Real Chartrand's case, the Solicitor General told me he had not. We are still waiting for his reply today, still waiting for a statement on the position of the government that part of the problem might be solved before abolishing the death penalty: first things must come first. The first thing the government should do is ensure the well being of society. The second, when citizens have broken the law, been caught and imprisoned, before anything else is to ensure the security of the places of detention.
No need to discuss the problem very long. We only need to read the latest newspapers to realize that there have been 34 escapes. Our prisons have become sieves. Is this the attitude of a law-abiding individual? Absolutely not. What steps are we taking? Inquiries! Inquiries leading where? Nowhere. This is exactly what happened after the inquiry allegedly made by the Solicitor General: no result. The psychiatrist is probably still in a position to parole criminals. Nothing is going to be done about that, yet the government is ready to help those who live on the fringe of society or of the law. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Prime Minister declared, and I quote:
. . . the administration of criminal justice in Canada. No ingredient in this process is less important than any other. None can be ignored by society; none will be ignored by the government.
However, because of the lack of action on the part of the government people are allowed to leave prisons, either as parolees, or as escapees-as is the case now-because of the inefficient prison administration. This is given as much importance as helping society.
I am seriously wondering. What does the government intend to do in this instance? Speaking of prisons, the right hon. Prime Minister said, and I am quoting:
Society intended them in the first instance to be secure. And this government intends to ensure that they are secure.
But what measures is it taking? Inquiries, again and again. Then, Members of Parliament are left to discuss the
advisability of delaying or not the decision concerning capital punishment.
This whole system or argumentation is worthless because it does not guarantee prison security, it does not enable society to be sure that prisoners will remain in prison. And as a justification, the Prime Minister adds, and I quote:
And 1 say, too, with all the earnestness at my command that prisoners who have broken jail or who have exploited temporary leave and other humanitatian reforms-and who by doing so have placed these programs in jeopardy for thousands of other prisoners-

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
The government prefers helping prisoners to helping society. If some prisoners escape, they are recaptured and kept under surveillance, and people are sorry that they restricted other prisoners' freedom. One remembers the case of a prisoner who escaped, disappeared while visiting the Salon de la femme. How many law-abiding citizens are able to visit important functions such as the Salon de la femme, or go to hockey or football matches, as prisoners are allowed to? Can it be that the government prefers to help prisoners and maintain their standard of living, whatever their crimes, to the detriment of the rest of the population?
This is the funniest part of it all, and I shall end on this: the thing that surprises me most, of all the attitudes we see here in the House, is that those who do not want to take a stand, those who want to allow killers to go on killing, are the first to defend the right of abortion, the right to kill a child in its mother's womb. But they refuse the right to punish those who have killed a person. There is a double standard in the minds of these people.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the government will not consider different steps to be taken, rationally rather than emotionally, that is to say, as I said earlier, to secure the welfare of the people; as long as the government will not be assured that criminals will really remain in jail; as long as the government will not have statistics on the chances of rehabilitating some prisoners, namely those who have committed two or three murders and were allowed to return to society and commit another one before being put back in jail-which is precisely something about which society does not feel secure and in which it does not want to interfere-I suggest that we must at least create a feeling of fear among criminals by retaining capital punishment.
As a matter of fact, as soon as the government has passed legislation which will enable the Canadian people to feel secure and not to fear, whenever they are walking along the main streets of big cities, to be killed by some frightening person in the course of a holdup, we will feel better.
Criminals are ready to defend themselves but is society in a position to defend itself against such individuals? I am prepared to believe that statistics are of little meaning and that it is possible to use them to support opposite views but once again they do not in the least demonstrate the necessity of abolishing capital punishment now.
If the government by adopting measures-and I repeat it-guarantees to society the benefits I mentioned earlier, namely the welfare of the population, the security of jails and the rehabilitation of inmates, then it will be in a position to think of abolishing capital punishment.
This is briefly what I had to say today on capital punishment. Once more, I regret that Bill C-2 is nothing else than a measure to abolish or maintain capital punishment. Indeed, it is nothing else but a measure aimed at delaying this decision for quite a while.
Mr. Speaker, before voting on this bill, we should take our time to think about the pros and cons and above all to permit the government to act more efficiently in other areas than it seems prepared to do for deferring a decision such as that required by Bill C-2.

This is what I had to say and, once more, I hope hon. members will take an honest decision on such a question before the vote.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, once more Bill C-2 has been presented to us for debate. To me, it seems stupid and ridiculous to waste the time of this House debating this bill when there is much more important business before the House which is of the greatest concern to the people of Canada. Parliament has been sitting for over four months now, and while some good legislation has been passed there is a great deal more waiting in the wings which is of vital importance, legislation that certainly should have been presented and passed into law by this time.
During the earlier part of the session when the debate took place I believe there were 35 eloquent and passionate speeches made both for and against capital punishment. The news media have polled about 91 members of the House and, with their expertise, have decided that the vote is going to be close. I believe only 10 members are wavering and have not yet made up their minds which way they intend to vote. I suppose it could be said by a great many of the members that just debating and debating the bill is an exercise in futility. We could quote the old statement: "My mind is made up, so don't confuse me with the facts".
We already know from the many eloquent speeches and quotations that anything that will be said from now on will only be repetition. I understand the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that as long as he is Prime Minister no one will hang. That statement was made a couple of weeks ago, but I believe he refuted it a little later. But regardless of that, since he has been Prime Minister, and in fact since 1962, there has been no capital punishment carried out. This is proof that this bill cannot be considered a high priority item and could very well be put at the bottom of the pile.
I understand that in Canada there is one lawyer for every 1,653 persons. However, the ratio is much greater in this House; I believe there are 63 lawyers among the 264 members. In fact, there could be even more, since some members who are qualified lawyers have another profession and may be differently classified. But with due respect to this august and most learned group, these legal people go on at great length speaking in terms and in language that the ordinary layman, especially the new member of parliament, does not understand. They speak about de jure, de facto and so on. I see no reason why they cannot speak plain, ordinary English so most of us can understand. Then, when these members send copies of their speeches in Hansard to their constituents, they will be able to understand it, too.
To get down to the bare bones of the case, I wish to state my position in no uncertain terms. I believe in some form of capital punishment as a deterrent, in the final analysis. If I decide to walk across this chamber, pull out a gun and shoot the Prime Minister in a cold-blooded and calculating manner, and if I am proven sane, I feel there is no other alternative for me but capital punishment. However, I am

not in favour of hanging. I think it is a gruesome and terrible form of capital punishment. Neither am I too impressed with the electric chair or the gas chamber. I feel some form of humane capital punishment is more appropriate, such as administering a drug which would be painless.
As we all know, statistics can be quoted one way or the other, depending on the views of the speaker. It is my belief that certain types of cold-blood and calculated murder can only be dealt with in one way. The dastardly murder of Pierre Laporte, a cold-blooded, premeditated murder, was a murder no one could deny fell into this category. We are all aware that the great majority of murders are crimes of passion, and there is no question that such murderers, if found guilty, will be sentenced to prison terms of varying duration. However, there are certain types of fiendish murder, such as rape killings, molesting and murdering of small children, which are so terrible and horrible that the greatest punishment must be available if circumstances warrant.
I am aware that many of the persons who commit this sort of murder are of unsound mind and on a great many occasions are committed to an institution. I have listened with great respect to many previous speakers, both at the present time and during the earlier debate, and in fact re-read a great many of the speeches that were made, and I was most impressed with them. However, whether we like it or not, we are living in a violent society. We have a great many depraved individuals running around loose who are potential murderers. We also have potential murderers running around loose as well as convicted murderers.
There are a great many cold-blooded gangsters who at this very moment in all probability, are plotting crimes which may lead eventually to the killing of some innocent victims. These certainly are not crimes of passion or crimes which are committed on the spur of the moment. This is the type of crime for which there should be the death penalty, if circumstances prove it is warranted. We have heard statistics quoted by previous speakers. While they concede that the number of crimes is up, they believe there are mitigating circumstances. The latest figures provided by Statistics Canada show that the number of violent crimes of murder has increased 113 per cent. Again, let me emphasize that I would recommend the most humane form of capital punishment available. This, I think, could be provided through an amendment. A great many speakers on the abolitionist side have gone into the gory details of hanging. They have resurrected ancient history by going back a thousand years.
One hon. member a short while ago cited a murder, and the terrible punishment involved, in the year 1762. Hon. members have gone into the matter in great detail. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) cited cases. I believe he went back to the time of William the Conqueror. Mr. Speaker, we are intelligent people. We are talking about capital punishment in this day and age, 1973. It is not necessary for us to refer to the gory details of ancient times or as far back as 1,000 years. This makes very good reading and makes cold chills run up and down the spines of many people. It starts them thinking that probably capital punishment should be abolished. Every
Capital Punishment
day members of the police forces risk their lives trying to capture and imprison criminals. Then, they watch in dismay and anger while the courts juggle sentences that do everything except fit the crime. The more dangerous the criminal is the more protection the law seems to give him or her in attempting to evade prison, utterly ignoring the victim or possible future victims as soon as the criminal is loose again.
We seem to be going overboard in this permissive age in giving the greatest consideration to those who evade the law rather than to those who are the victims of the criminals. Several hon. members have forwarded questionnaires to their constituents. A great majority of these have been returned overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of capital punishment. Surveys taken by newspapers have also verified this. A survey taken by the Ottawa Journal last fall, with additions added to it, verified that over 90 per cent of the people were in favour of retention. Certainly, these 90 per cent could not be classified as morbid, vengeful people who have no compassion. I am aware that among younger people there are more in favour of abolition, but still the majority, the population favours some form of retention. I have received many letters from citizens in my riding outlining their views. The great majority favour retention of capital punishment. They also point out that this should not be restricted to the killing of policemen or prison guards, which would be the case if this particular bill should be enacted.
This brings up the point mentioned by previous speakers that this bill is neither flesh nor fowl. It is neither a bill for abolition nor for retention. There are, I believe six clergymen who are members of the opposition. I believe we should listen more closely to what is said by the six clergymen in this august House. A poll of these six members shows that three are in favour of abolition and three are in favour of retention. Certainly these distinguished and honoured members of this House should not be classified as vengeful people. I believe there is one clergyman on the government side who, I imagine, would be an abolitionist.
I should like to comment on that great moulder of public opinion, the news media. I believe a poll of this group would probably show the great majority to be in favour of total abolition. Therefore, it follows that editorial stories and news reports are slanted quite often in such a way as to portray the position of the writer. Cartoons show the scaffold and noose in the chilling dawn. On Tuesday morning of last week, I was up bright and early listening to the CTV news program "A M." which I believe came on at eight o'clock. The reporter was giving news of the world. Then, he casually mentioned that the capital punishment bill would be debated on that day, which it was. Certainly, that statement was not biased in any way. However, behind him there was a cartoon denoting the noose and the scaffold. If that is not biased reporting by the CTV news media, then I do not know what is.
The Toronto Star some while ago made some comments on this bill and included a cartoon with a grey coloured chilly dawn, a scaffold and a rope. This makes the situation as gruesome as possible. Why should the cartoon not depict the sordidness of the murder of a young woman or child rather than this. Weekend magazine had quite an
3966

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
article on hanging. Again, however, this is a misnomer in a way. This bill is called the hanging bill. It is a bill to retain capital punishment. It will enable the cabinet to reprieve the sentence, as the have done in the past.
Mr. Speaker, last week we listened with great interest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party when they spoke in sequence. As we know, they are all abolitionists. The Prime Minister cited the position of the government as well as the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and voiced his opinion. Our own leader voiced his opinion. The eloquent and knowledgeable or know-it-all Leader of the New Democratic Party stated his opinion as if it were the Papal edict and the only one which should be considered. He stated he was an abolitionist. He conceded that the people in his riding were in favour of retention but that they probably did not know what they were talking about. He went on at great length to point out that this House should make the decision. Naturally, he was putting across his case for total abolition.
It has been emphasized during this debate by those who are putting across the case for abolition that those who are retentionists must be acting primarily on the basis of vengeance or on the basis that capital punishment is a deterrent. However, this idea of vengeance is really pleaded in a most vehement way. And, of course, they cite vengeful forms of capital punishment in use throughout the past 100 years.
There is one other thing which we must emphasize, and this has been brought out time and time again. We speak about compassion and mercy. It seems to me that all the compassion and mercy is for the criminal or the murderer. There does not seem to be too much consideration or compassion for the victim or for his loved ones who are left behind. They do not seem to be considered. It is the opinion of the abolitionists that no matter how depraved the criminal is, he can certainly be rehabilitated and put back into society. I think we are all aware that there are certain individuals for whom redemption is not possible and, therefore, they should be eliminated from society in the most painless way possible.
The ordinary man and woman have lost their faith in justice and those in authority, seem to be on the side of the criminal. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) suggested in the earlier debate that a referendum be held at the next general election. I am certainly willing to stand up here and vote as my conscience tells me. If it is the opinion that there should be a general referendum, then possibly there is merit in this suggestion. However, let me tell you that it seems to me the great majority of those who favour abolition are diametrically opposed to any referendum being held, and with good cause. They know only too well that a referendum will show that people are overwhelmingly in favour of retention, and we have these figures, 70 per cent, to put it at its lowest, or 90 per cent to put it at its highest, to prove that is the case.
Capital punishment for the criminal who has committed first degree murder must be put back on the statute books and enforced. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, justice must

not only be done but must be seen to be done. A great many members of this House have been quoting learned people and experienced penologists. They have quoted Dr. Fattah, Dr. Thinner, and so forth. It might be a good idea to read into the record some of the comments of just plain, ordinary citizens. I have some letters here. One of them reads:
Dear Mr. Darling: We wish to inform you we are against the government continuing its policy of abolishing the death penalty.
Mr. X of Bracebridge.
Here is another one, and this one might be considered
biased because it comes from a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Policeman. He writes:


Stan Darling: Mad dog murderers should be disposed of permanently, not stored up in the pen. This means not only for the killing of policemen and prison guards, but for any other person. The entire population must receive this benefit. It is not the question of a deterrent, it is the question these murderers mut pay with their life-as simple as that. Politicians must be virile, strong people, look the matter squarely in the face. If any of their family or close friends were murdered, they would be the first to raise a fuss. As an ex-mountie, I, like other policemen, are sick of the pampering of criminals. No wonder the country is weak and divided . ..
And he goes on.
The following was conveyed to me by telephone by a merchant in the town of Huntsville:
One of your voters wishes you to know that I have been talking to hundreds of people re capital punishment and they want it reinstated 99 per cent.
Then, he said: "Are you in favour of it?" Here is another letter which reads:
We, the undersigned, wish to express to you our desire for the restoration of capital punishment for the crime of murder.
I could go on and on, and read all these into the record. These letters are from God-fearing citizens. Certainly, I have received letters from those who are in favour of abolition, but the letter run ten to one in favour of retention. I believe that three of the ministers in my riding stated that they hoped parliament would consider abolition on compassionate grounds.
We must forget about this inane compassion and mercy toward premeditated killers. This House will have to decide. I know the vote will be close, and I know the people of Canada are looking very closely at how this will turn out. When the time comes, I will be casting my vote for the retention of capital punishment. Let me hope that if I am privileged to be in the House for a number of years I will be here long enough to see the time when Canadians will be able to abolish capital punishment, but we are in a society now that does not warrant it.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate with some reluctance only because I want to see the bill sent to committee at the earliest possible moment, and I do not want to prolong the discussion. But I do hope that having reached committee stage certain amendments might be considered. For while I support the bill in principle and shall vote for it, I have two major reservations. First, being in favour of the total abolition of capital punishment, I find it illogical to make exceptions for any one group, be they prison guards, police officers or heads of state. Others have dealt with this
May 22, 1973

aspect of illogicality, and I shall not repeat their reservations which I share. Second, I do not believe that we need another five year trial period, and I shall return to that point later. Also, I regret that this debate on the retention or the abolition of capital punishment-for that is really what we are debating-is taking place at a time when the viability and effectiveness of both the penitentiary system and the parole services have been called into question by an increasingly sceptical and resentful public.
Recurring prison breakouts have become synonymous in the minds of many Canadians with the present debate on capital punishment to the extent where some people are quite convinced that all inmates are guilty of murder. I think we have a responsibility to delineate the differences in these major areas of concern, that is between capital punishment and reforms to the penitentiary and parole systems, in order to correct the distortion and the confusion that now abound.
We are all primarily concerned with the protection of society from the crime of murder. That goes without saying. There is no one here who does not consider the protection of the public to take precedence over every other concern. The question that naturally follows is whether or not capital punishment is a protective measure. It is, only if it can be clearly proven that it has a deterrent value. But the statistical evidence for such a conclusion is lacking.
I have heard statistics used to support the abolition of the death penalty and I have heard them used to support the retention of the death penalty. One statistic I have not heard used is that there have been only two murder repeats in Canada since 1897. Professor Fattah's study, which has been referred to repeatedly in this debate, shows that murder as a component of violent crime has risen less than other crimes of violence in recent years. His conclusions firmly state that "the increase in criminal homicide in Canada during recent years cannot be attributed to the suspension of capital punishment." He rejects the argument that capital punishment is a significant deterrent.
Other studies based on research done in the United States where, until a recent United States Supreme Court decision, individual states had the right to establish a death penalty or not for whatever crime they deemed necessary, have shown, (a) that the death penalty has had no discernible effect on homicide death rates; (b) that abolitionist states have fewer killings of police officers than states with the death penalty, and (c), that a comparison of homicide rates in states that have abolished the death penalty, before and after abolition, shows that abolition did not give rise to significant change in homicide rates. In Canada murder rates have increased less than many other indictable offences. Since the abolition of the past five years has resulted in no significant increases in murder rates, we can probably predict with some degree of accuracy that a return to capital punishment would not significantly reduce homicide rates.
But the area to which I would like specifically to direct my attention is rehabilitation rather than the contentious, and to this point unresolveable, argument about deter-
Capital Punishment
rence. And I must admit candidly that I find it difficult to discuss this or any other aspect of the capital punishment debate with dispassionate objectivity.
Having been involved in voluntary work in the prison system, having spent long hours in discussion with people sentenced for murder, having seen the work and effort put forward by individuals to rehabilitate themselves, all make it impossible for me to approach this debate impersonally. And I must say in this connection that having seen what some individuals have accomplished in the way of rehabilitation, my response to them is one of admiration. On occasion, I have accompanied inmates on their day out, have had women sentenced for murder visit my home while on special passes, and I have seen them go on to earn their parole and re-establish themselves in their communities. I know businessmen and community workers, in this city and in others, who were once convicted of murder and who are now contributing members of society.
There are other individuals currently in our penal institutions who have utilized their time to upgrade their skills and their education-yes, people who have committed murder, but who have spent long years working through correspondence to a university degree in social work, in law, in the arts and in other fields. And their acquired knowledge is being used to benefit their fellow inmates.
I mention these people only to express my firm belief in rehabilitation. These people, on whom society might have inflicted capital punishment, remained instead to contribute to that society. You may ask, but what about their victims and the relatives of their victims? What about compassion for them? I admit that I have never known the relatives of a person who has been murdered. But my stand in favour of abolition would in no way be changed were I to do so, for execution of a murderer would not restore the victim to life, nor would it comfort or solace his family and friends. It makes no sense to me that one protects the sanctity of human life by taking a life. If we consider that an act of violence, hanging, is necessary to avenge an earlier act of violence, murder, then surely we are saying that our society is bankrupt in its struggle to reach new levels of humanitarianism.
I cannot rid my mind of the possibility of mistakes being made in our judicial system. Neither our judges nor juries, like all other human beings, are without their imperfections. In this connection just the other day I read a letter in the Ottawa Citizen as follows:
We have heard quite a few times about the date of the last hanging in Canada. How much do we know about the first one? While reading in the Kingston Public Library about the town (or village as it was then) of Bath, Ontario, in 1795, I found it was there the first hanging took place. The man was charged with stealing a watch and later was proved to have been innocent.
That was our first public hanging in this part of the country.
I wish to return now to my reservation about the five year trial period. We have already had one five year trial period, much of which has been wasted because the government and the department ignored, neglected or deliberately decided to do little or nothing in the way of research that would have provided the basic data and hard facts about murder on which a better informed judgment could have been made of this question at this time. I realize that
26314-34J

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
Professor Fattah's study has been published, but its terms of reference were limited primarily to the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Professor Ciale of the University of Ottawa is engaged in a more in depth study, but when will it be available? At the committee stage, I would like to see an amendment introduced reducing the trial period from five to two years, during which intensive efforts would be made to correlate information about those who have committed murder with mental stability, social and economic background, motivations, and many other factors, for I am convinced that not only murder but most crime is rooted in our slums, in our broken homes, in our deprived areas and with our deprived citizens.
Capital punishment is not the answer to the eradication of crime, but a concerted attack on the ills of society could be the answer. I urge this intensive study, Mr. Speaker, for we know so little about the reasons that turn people into criminals. In this connection, I wish to recount an incident which took place recently in one of our federal institutions. Dr. Jean Vanier was speaking to a group of about 200 inmates and his message to them was his well known appeal for change, for sharing, for love. "Every man has the right to know he is loved," he concluded.
A moment of silence followed Dr. Vanier's address. Then, one inmate in the audience burst out in an emotional indictment of the social conditions which brought him to a long sentence in prison. His words were like these: "You were speaking about, like, children going through hell. Well, you had it easy. You don't know what it's like to have your bloody brother stand by when you're eight years old while boy friends rape you. You don't know what its like to be burned with a cigarette. "You don't know what it's like to be six years old, and your junky old man comes home too sick to think, and you reach out and you cook the dust for him. Friends call you from the lane. You go to the window and say 'Wait a minute.'
"Your little sister bumps you. Out goes the fist with the fix. Your old man jumps from where he is sitting at the table, kicks you in the head and breaks your jaw, picks you up and throws you clear across the room against the wall. "You don't know what its like to have to steal out of parked cars and sell in pawn shops to feed yourself and your little twin sister, your kid brother and kid sister. And you have to end up hustling your body when you're nine years old because you can't provide no more by stealing- you can't get enough to fill their needs.
"You don't know what it's like to end up trying to escape the same way your folks tried to escape, with a fix, and you're ten years old-having to hustle even more. "You don't know what it's like to be 11 years old and walk into the room at 2 o'clock in the morning just to have the man in blue grab you and haul you away to a reform school until they can find a foster home for you, because they have busted your folks, and you have to bounce around. "Until you know-until the world knows and does something about it they better never speak to me about love cause I'll kick their head in!" That was the answer given to Dr. Vanier.
Until we know-until we know that it is situations like this in which crime flourishes and escalates-until we are

willing to face up to the relationship between crime and social and economic injustice, we shall go on arguing and agonizing about the band-aid approach of capital punishment to a deeply ingrained cancerous illness which afflicts our nation.
Let us bring this debate to a quick conclusion so that we can direct our efforts and our energies to tackling the problem at its roots.
Some hon. Merfibers: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate centering on the government's proposal for suspension of the law on capital punishment in Canada for a further five year period. It is an important debate and is being followed, I am sure, by a great many Canadians in every part of the country, but it is a curious debate. It is curious because the government, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has given no indication that in the event of the defeat of its proposal in parliament it will respect that decision any more than it respected the decision of parliament taken about six years ago requiring the death penalty for the murderers of prison guards.
Mr. Speaker, aside altogether from whether we favour abolition or restoration of capital punishment, and I have heard extremely good arguments on both sides, as we have heard them today, I submit that the government's failure to respect the decision of parliament, of this House and this body of people representing the people of Canada in the matter of carrying out the decision taken six years ago regarding capital punishment has, in my view, led to a lessening of public belief in parliament and to an eroding respect for that part of our democratic fabric known as the law of the land. Mr. Speaker, I say this is a curious discussion with great towering speeches which, so far as we know, will have no real effect on whether the policy of Canada will or will not be that of capital punishment. As has been said by a notable speaker of many centuries ago about the speeches of one of his contemporaries, "His speeches are like palm trees-they soar high but bear no fruit."
This is the first point I should like to make; that the government should state clearly that it will now respect the decision of parliament in this matter as to the retention, suspension or abolition of capital punishment. Otherwise, our talk here will be empty and those who sent us here will know it. It is natural that there has been a good deal of emotion in the speeches we have heard so far. The death penalty is a matter about which we are apt to have feelings and beliefs and/or prejudices that have their roots perhaps far back in our ancestral past. These feelings naturally influence our views and utterances on this subj ect.
For example, I suppose that we all know of people who will listen to no arguments for the abolition of capital punishment. Their hearts, and therefore their minds, are already made up. Some of them, surprisingly to me, are religious people. They are among the foremost in demanding restoration of the death penalty, seemingly not so much for any hope that it may save human life by acting as a deterrent. Really, as I understand their letters and I think many hon. members will have recieved similar let-
May 22, 1973

ters, these people have feelings and desires for retribution and indeed vengeance in this situation.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we have abolitionists, not a few of them in my own party who recoil, who shut their ears and close their eyes to any arguments that it may well be right for a community to take a life which has destroyed the lives and liberties of other individuals and which threatens to do so again or which acts as an example, if unchecked, to others with like murderous or violent designs. No such prejudice motivates me, Mr. Speaker. I approach this subject as pragmatically as I did 15 years ago when I first proposed to the then Conservative government that consideration should be given to a five-year suspension of capital punishment for a trial period.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, as you may recall, back in 1958 there was at least in my part of the country, British Columbia, and no doubt other parts, a great controversy over the question of capital punishment or no capital punishment. Indeed, it continues to this day. It appeared to me then, and again in 1968 after I was elected to this House, that we should have a five-year or at least a test period without capital punishment. This came into being about 1967 and it was taken, I thought, after a great deal of soul-searching and debate and was supported by some members, including myself, solely on the basis that it would indeed provide some gauge or test of whether capital punishment was necessary in this modern age. I certainly supported that vote for the five-year suspension and, like many others, I kept track of the results of that five-year period.
The question I asked myself then and which I ask myself today is: does the absence of the law of capital punishment in the form of the death penalty utilized by the community, result in the increase in capital punishment which takes the form of murder by individuals who decree death and who carry out the execution of another? If it does, if the absence of capital punishment results in the loss of human life and liberty, then surely we must still, at this stage of our social development, retain it. If it does not, if collective capital punishment is not a deterrent to individual capital punishment, then I believe we should get rid of it.
In making the representation for a five-year trial period suspension of the death penalty in Canada in 1968, I did so as a writer, not then a member of this House. My feeling then and since has been the pragmatic one that such a test period could help to provide the public, the parliament and government of our country with a gauge to help to decide whether people still require the preventive and deterrent factor of the death penalty. I did not know and I had on open mind. I retain that view.
As I have said, and as others have said, I kept close tabs on the result of the suspension of capital punishment. The result is disconcerting to those who claim that capital punishment does not deter killing. Statistics Canada has the record and the record is this. An average of 360 people, being about one per day, have been murdered per year in Canada during the five-year non-death penalty period as compared to 233 persons per year in the previous five-year period. In 1971, the last year for which I have records, the number of murders had risen to 422-this against the 233 figure when capital punishment was at least on the books.
Capital Punishment
That is an increase of 65 per cent in the number of murders during the five-year suspension period, from 1.3 murders per 100,000 population to 2.5 per cent. In light of those figures, I think the government would do well to take back the present proposal for a further five-year extension of the period of non-capital punishment.
Like the previous speaker, I would agree to a shorter period, say of two years. In view of the importance of the issue of violence, death, crime, and all the factors that are involved in it, I think the entire subject might be given further consideration and a more realistic decision might be arrived at than the one we are liable to arrive at now on the one or other side of this question. Certainly, the absence of capital punishment for murder in the past five year suspension period has been accompanied by a very substantial increase in the number of murders in Canada and the murder rate in Canada has gone up. The absence of the penalty, in my view, is not necessarily linked to the increase in the rate; nevertheless, it is there and I think that a further five year period of trial is too long. I think the further trial period should be for two years when, as I suggested, the whole matter could be further discussed.
It seems to me that those of us who wish and work for a more humane, more small "L" liberal, philosophy with respect to the rehabilitation of criminals should stop and take note of the fact that in recent years in North America it almost seems as if the rate of violent crime has been rising in direct proportion to the extension of so-called permissive steps. We will not help the improvement of the treatment of those who break the law if we close our eyes or our ears to the facts of life-in this case, to the facts of death. That will not help those who seek to reform our system of discipline. I think the reverse very likely will be the case.
In the light of the record of the previous five-year suspension of capital punishment period, in the light of the rising wave of crime and violence and the erosion of civil rights and liberty, I cannot support the present proposal of the government for a further five-year suspension of capital punishment. I think that if the suspension period were two years, as I have suggested, there might be a more comprehensive investigation of this cancer of violence which is afflicting North America in particular. I think a two-year ban would win support not only among members of this House, but among many members of the public who, having seen and felt the results of the first five-year suspension, would be unwilling to risk a second such period.
In conclusion, may I refer briefly to an article I wrote for the Toronto Star in the fall of 1971 on this subject. I said that the rate of murder in the suspension period up to that time was up by 53 per cent. Assaults were up by 52 per cent, according to my article. The rate for attempted murder had doubled in the same period, and so on. In fairness, I also noted that in 1970 one fire accounted for 40 victims, but only one person was charged. That should not be overlooked. Nevertheless, the rate of violent crimes had increased and has increased since then in Canada. These factors are important in determining how we are to review the matter of parole, sentencing, and rehabilitation procedures, which we are trying to improve.

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
We are dealing with a subject of extreme and vital importance to all Canadians, and I think we had better deal with it before, as has happened in many American cities, it is unsafe for us to walk alone at night and citizens, knowing themselves to be without real protection from violence by their constituted authorities, take the law into their own hands in the form of guns. If that happens, we will have everybody's law, which is nobody's law, and murders and violent crimes will grow among us. I, for one, hope to see us taking logical and sensible action on the issue before us. In my opinion, it is preferable that we not have a five-year suspension of capital punishment but a two-year suspension period. If that were done, we might well offset something, which I foresee arising in addition to crimes of violence, namely, an outraged and fearful public, whose backlash can erode our civil liberties just as surely as those are now threatened by the violent.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, some members regard this debate on capital punishment as a waste of time because each member knows how he or she will vote, irrespective of the speeches of colleagues. However, I think the debate has been good, because it has shown the serious division of opinion not only in this House, but among the public. Thus there is no immediate answer that will receive genuine, widespread approval. We must search for the best possible solution that will ensure as much as possible the proper penalty for murder and the security of the state.
As we know, and as those who have taken part in the debate have dwelt on, we have been asked to debate a bill that has three purposes: To reinstate the five-year extension of the ban on hanging, which expired on December 29, 1972, and to extend the ban to December 31, 1977; to eliminate the term "capital murder" in relation to murder punishable by life imprisonment; and to ensure that the definition of murder punishable by death refers to the murder of a police officer and prison guard, and so on.
The main issue, as we know, is whether Canada should abolish or retain capital punishment. Since 1962, no one has been hanged in Canada, and although there have been four convictions for the murders of police officers since 1968, the cabinet has commuted each one. Studies about the effects of capital punishment as a deterrent are inconclusive, not only in Canada but in other countries. For instance, the New Zealand experience of abolition and reinstatement of capital punishment shows that there is no significant effect on the murder rate.
From this point I want to develop my argument in depth Mr. Speaker, so I wonder if I could call it five o'clock and return to my remarks after the supper recess.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Daniel):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 40, it is my duty to inform the

House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Unemployment Insurance-Study on decentralization of offices-Publication of report; the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly),-Agriculture-Brucellosis-Request that compensation to farmers be equated with fair market value-Suggested vaccination program; the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse)-Housing -Rochdale College-Possible use after foreclosure.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West) moved: that Bill C-17, to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters' list), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, is to change our present system of enumeration and to provide a permanent voters list. I am proposing this bill with the full understanding of the objections raised by such people as the Chief Electoral Officer and the representation commissioner about the feasibility of such a system. Our present system may be good; however, the problems of disenfranchisement, particularly those of the last election, indicate to many of us that it is not good enough. We, as a nation possessing high quality technical and human resources are capable of something better.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to briefly outline why a change is needed in our present system, why a permanent voters' list would be more advantageous and what some of the possible systems are that we might borrow from or adopt. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this House are concerned that thousands of Canadians are denied the right to participate on the most fundamental level of our political system, elections. It is my hope that out of a concern for this problem, the members of this House will refer Bill C-17 to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that a thorough and extensive discussion of this important question can take place.
As in many western democracies, the concept of political participation plays a very important role within the Canadian political system. The right of a Canadian citizen to vote in elections has evolved from a period of restricted male suffrage to our almost complete state of universal suffrage. Because we have not always enjoyed universal suffrage, Canadians regard highly their right, at one time
May 22, 1973

their privilege, to participate in the electoral process. Compared to our neighbour to the south, we enjoy a relatively high enumerated voter turnout with some 70 to 80 per cent voting at each federal election. Thus, when the right to participate is denied a legitimate claimant, there is a grave and serious problem that must be overcome. The individual voter is upset and so are the foundations of our democratic system.
Our experience, particularly that of the last election, tells us that a great number of eligible Canadian voters were not enumerated and were unable to vote. During the election campaign of 1972, newspaper editorials and letters to the editor pointed daily to the inadequacies of our present system of enumeration. Many blamed these inadequacies on the new electoral law, on the shortage of time in which the election was called or on the fact that there were not enough good people to carry out the enumeration properly. However, problems such as these have existed in the past and we have coped with them. However, with the increasing population and the growing complexity and mobility of Canadian society, their present adequacy is in question.
Failure on the part of our present system to enumerate those who have a permanent and fixed residence is only one problem. It has been estimated that at least 6 per cent of these potential voters are not enumerated. There is another larger group of citizens who are continually disenfranchised because our present system has an enormous difficulty in coping with their residence status at the time of an election. These are the eligible voters who are living away from home, within or outside Canada, at the time of the election or those who are travelling here or abroad. The Canada Elections Act of 1970 did make provisions for proxy voting for fishermen, prospectors, the physically ill and students. However, the procedure involved is almost intimidating to the potential voter. For those Canadians who are travelling or temporarily living abroad, no real provision for absentee voting exists. At present, before this House, there are three bills, C-43, C-56, and C-140, and one motion that are attempting to rectify this problem and extend the franchise to those who are excluded. It is my belief that a permanent electoral list would provide the necessary checks and information to facilitate absentee and proxy balloting.
Poor enumeration can restrict people from voting but, perhaps more important, it can foster feelings of alienation and/or discontent among those affected. Even if people want to vote, they seem reluctant to overcome the obstacle of not having been enumerated. Often they turn to one of their candidates for help, but in a great many cases they are too late and succeed only in further aggravating themselves.
Another problem that supports the argument for a change in the system is the length of our present campaign and the resulting time span between parliaments. In the 1970's, with our systems of transportation and communication, one wonders if a 60-day election campaign is not an anachronism. Long campaigns involve an excessive wastage of time, energy and money. The public become saturated to the point of distinterest by the continual bombardment of events and news of the election. A shorter
Canada Elections Act
election campaign would ease the physical and emotional burden of all those concerned, including the candidates.
Of greater importance is the fact that the inevitable disruption in government caused by elections could become a serious problem. Since 1867, the average time between the date of the election and the first day of the new parliament is 82.7 days. On 20 occasions since 1867, the period has been more than 60 days. If we add this period to a long election campaign, almost a third of our year has vanished. In the world today, things happen too fast. If emergencies arise or problems have to be dealt with, will our present system allow us to adequately deal with them?
In trying to evaluate and compare systems of enumeration, I think that there are four basic criteria which should be kept in mind; first, comprehensiveness of enumeration; second, possible effects on voter turnout; third, time required to hold the election after the election writ is issued and, fourth, cost per person enumerated. It seems highly possible that we can develop a system of a permanent electoral list, which is updated periodically and which may be revised up to the fifteenth day before polling day, which would surpass our present system on all of the basic criteria except the fourth, cost per person enumerated. I would like to discuss briefly some of the present systems of permanent voter lists in our country and elsewhere, and to point out their advantage in the areas of enumeration, voter turnout and time. Before proceeding with this, I think it is necessary to examine the question of cost.
Nelson Castonguay in his report on "Methods of Registration of Elections and Absentee Voting" in 1968 concluded, and I quote:
The system of continuous electoral rolls currently in use in the Commonwealth of Australia, including the method of compulsory registration on the part of the electors, can be adapted for use in federal elections in Canada, to reduce the time required for the holding of elections and to provide improved facilities for voting by electors.
However, he felt that such a system would be very costly. Other analysts have reached the same conclusion, that a permanent electoral list would cost more. The important question must then be asked: Are the benefits that will be derived from a permanent list worth the cost? If a permanent voters' list means that fewer people will be left off the rolls, the answer must be yes. In addition, if the same list were utilized by other levels of government, the provinces and municipalities, the cost per voter at each election would be significantly reduced.
On a more practical level, it must be noted that we have experienced an election every 3.6 years since confederation. When elections have been close together, such as the ones in 1957 and 1958, the cost of the latter enumeration has been very low. In 1957, 4.38 persons were enumerated per dollar spent. In the present period, when parliaments do not sit the full five years, the cost of the permanent list will not be as great as predicted.
Another practical administrative detail that should be considered is the problem of getting a sufficient number of relatively competent enumerators in the future. This problem was used as an excuse during the last election. Effective implementation of a permanent list, which would be

May 22, 1973
Canada Elections Act
updated annually and have provisions for revision prior to the election, would require a permanent staff, and temporary employees needed could be used every year. If Canada were to adopt a system with a permanent electoral list, we would have to tailor one to meet our own needs. Because of our geographic size and the mobility of our population, it is clear that a permanent list, if it is to be an effective one, must not only be updated periodically, but must also be subject to revision quite close to election day.
The province of British Columbia and the Commonwealth of Australia are two examples of systems of continuous electoral rolls allowing revision up to a fixed date before polling day. From the Representation Commissioner's report of 1968 on "Methods of Registration of Electors and Absentee Voting", I should like to summarize the main points of these two systems and the benefits afforded by others mentioned.
In British Columbia, no yearly registration campaign takes place. Persons duly registered who vote at each election have their names retained on the electoral rolls. If a person moves and notifies the Registrar of the fact, the rolls are amended accordingly. If he does not so notify the Registrar, he may vote by absentee ballot as if residing at his former address, provided such address can be considered his place of residence by the terms of the Elections Act. Registrars keep their rolls up to date throughout the year by the addition of new registrations and by noting changes of address forwarded to them by the electors concerned. Registered persons who did not vote in the election are sent postcards and if they are returned undelivered, their name is taken off the rolls. Several years ago, all the rolls were cancelled and a complete registration took place. The method usually employed to keep the rolls uo to date is to cancel the rolls for certain electoral districts and take a door-to-door canvass, carried out by enumerators to compile new rolls for those districts. In other electoral districts, a partial cancellation may take place with registration centres set up at convenient places for the use of electors. Before the 1966 election, all registered voters were sent a card telling them they were eligible to vote. Those cards which were returned indicated to the registrar that the voter had changed his status in some way. A massive advertizing campaign encouraged those who did not receive cards to register at local centres or by mail. The onus to register is thus placed on the individual. The mailing procedure is supplemented periodically by a door-to-door campaign. Since there is a permanent list, a relatively secure system of absentee voting is possible.
Under the Australian system, enrolment as an elector is compulsory and responsibility for enrolment rests on the elector. In order to be enrolled, persons must sign an electoral claim which is available from all post offices and electoral offices. An annual review of the urban areas is carried out by casual labour making use of such aids as death certificates, prison records, etc. In rural areas, this review is undertaken by means of an electoral agency system which employes persons, usually public officers such as postmasters and police officers, who are appointed to note the changes which have taken place. Postal voting is permitted in Australia for several classes of citizens

who may be absent from their electoral division on polling day. This privilige extends to citizens travelling under conditions that may preclude voting-including travelling abroad-or who are seriously ill, infirm, or, in the case of women, approaching maternity, or members of certain religious orders. The percentage of electors voting by post generally averages from 2 to 3 per cent of the total vote polled.
As in the case of other methods of voter registration, it is difficult to judge with accuracy the success of the enumeration undertaken. Under these systems, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the elector, the on-going updating that takes place, and the revision before an election. Under these systems voter registration is facilitated and encouraged, and late revision allows any concerned individual the opportunity to vote. When permanent lists are established, many persons who are normally excluded by other systems are able to vote by absentee or postal ballot. Moreover, the time needed before an election can be greatly reduced. In Great Britain, three weeks is all that is needed because no provision is made for revision. In Canada, the period of time needed would be four to five weeks.
The problems of complete enumeration will probably forever plague us. If we entrust the citizens of our country with the duty or responsibility of registration, then only they are to blame for any shortcomings. If this duty or responsibility is further strengthened by legislation and a systematic review, a great deal will have been done to encourage maximum participation at the electoral level.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, we can do better than our present system. To my mind, a permanent electoral list affords the best opportunity to bring about meaningful and necessary changes. As active participants in the last election, we are aware of the problem involved. There is a real need to review our present system and perhaps make a change-if only temporary in nature. It is my hope that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, will get second reading today and be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections so that we, as Members of Parliament, can discuss, and make recommendations on, this most important question.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. gentleman who has just spoken for his very fine research as well as for his sense of priorities. I think it is important we should constantly take stock of our electoral machinery and seek means whereby we can improve the process of elections.
After a good many years of studying many jurisdictions,
I believe we are much blessed in this country; we have a very fine election doctrine and a good elections Act. A good election process is, it seems to me, far more important than a grandiose Bill of Rights-some countries have the latter in abundance but on polling day the practice and the theory are often far removed. We are intent on improving the Elections Act.
I believe every member will agree with me that we have been fortunate during many years that the person occupying the office of Chief Electoral Officer has been a man of ability and impartiality. We are blessed in this. I agree
May 22, 1973

with the hon. member that there are always areas in which improvement is possible. It used to be the practice that as soon as was reasonably possible after an election, the whole of the Elections Act was sent to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for careful examination. Whenever this was done, good suggestions were forthcoming. We did learn lessons during the last election. We found that mistakes had been made, and the day will come when these will need to be considered. For example, there were too many spoiled ballots. I have been a member of the committee for almost ten years-I am almost like a Father of Confederation on that committee. We thought what was done would be an improvement, but, somehow, we erred. Perhaps the city of Ottawa has come up with a better ballot, one with a circle. This is a matter which will have to be considered.
There is, of course, no perfect solution, no way of attaining that glorious day when every single qualified elector will find his name on the list. I agree with the hon. member that it is far better to be working on the list, structuring the list, at a time other than the beginning of a campaign. We found during the last election that it was a mad scramble to get information about the enumerators available to the returning officers 59 days ahead rather than 54. Even in a highly-organized, progressive and perceptive constituency like Hillsborough, where people have shown their good judgment for a long time, some effort was required to get those names in. So, people are appointed quickly, they do not have time in which to receive the necessary instruction, and they have to carry out their duties quickly.
It would be far better, in my judgment, as in the judgment of the hon. member, if there were an office, an emanation of the state, in which the lists were brought up to date regularly. I like the hon. member's suggestion that other jurisdictions could use the list. If they were smart enough, they could do so. But we need to be sensible about this; we cannot have one province saying a person is mature enough to vote at 19 while others say they are not mature until they reach the age of 21. Some pattern of co-operative federalism needs to be forthcoming. I should like to see an officer appointed who would look after the registration of voters. Other jurisdictions would make use of that office. The hon. member suggested that lists be kept open closer to the election date. Some countries open the lists only once a year, which allows for too much slipping in the accuracy of the list. He thought the list should be open until 15 days before polling. In other words, you would get 99.9 per cent of the job done. Then, you have properly trained officials with the required expertise who do their very best to get the other names in.
I quite agree with the hon. member that, while it is easy to say that if a citizen wants to vote he should make sure his name is on the list, we have found that that is not enough. This is the point of having revising officers and agents under the act. All of those involved in party politics-some of us get involved in that at election time, if not at any other time-would suggest we could give a little nudge there so people will get their names on the list. Parties spend money on advertising and I think they could suggest to these people that they put their names on the
Canada Elections Act
list. I am sure that every member of this House has been with the person whose name, by jove, is not on the list, but they do not tell you until it is too late, which is a most unfortunate thing. All people should be able to exercise this important act of citizenship, namely the right to vote.
I am not going to predict that we are going to have a series of minority governments; I think we will sweep through and have a comfortable majority next time. But the question is all the more serious if we are going to have elections every two and a half or two and a third years. I have gone through seven elections now. Constitutionally, we say it is a five year term, but politically it is a four year term. I should be 100 instead of looking like 100. If we are going to have the disruption of dissolution-and that does disrupt the country-there is also disruption in having a series of minority governments, so let us try and get some permanency into our structure by making provision for a permanent voters list.
Another argument that the hon. member put forth in a very reasoned and well organized presentation, if I may say so, was that his proposal would allow for absentee voting. I have always found that proxy voting is not enough, though there were certain examples in the last election that showed that proxy voting was too much. However, that was an aberration of the system, certainly not the purpose for which it was intended. The absentee voting system can function well, and in a practical way, if we have a permanent voters' list. We live in a more mobile society than ever before, and there are Canadians all across the country and in many parts of the world whose interest in, knowledge of and concern for, the parliamentary process is not vitiated by the distance they happen to be from their home. We can hardly expect Canadians to sit around waiting in case someone calls an election, and one of the great uncertainties of our system is that we are never quite sure when an election will be called.
I have also heard, as has the hon. member, of this question of expense, but I am not so frightened of that. I suppose having spent so many years in this place I have watched the big money spenders in action time and time again. However, I believe that once established, in view of the increasing cost of enumeration as election follows election, the cost differential will not be so enormous. Even if it would be more costly, the question we ask is not that but: Will it allow more Canadians to exercise their franchise? On that test, and on that test only, in my opinion, should this proposed bill be viewed. After the most careful consideration of the matter, I believe we would be well advised to push this bill on to committee, and in committee I do not think I would have the slightest hesitation in supporting it and doing everything possible to have it become part of our election structure before we next go to the polls.
I close, as I began, by commending the hon. member and assuring him of my complete support for his efforts to improve our election machinery.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill presented by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan), I want to say at the outset that I agree with his motives, which I think are to make it possible for the largest number of Canadians to be in a position to exercise their franchise. I think this is the hon.

May 22, 1973
Canada Elections Act
member's main motive. His second motive is to shorten the election campaign period, and I want to take some issue with that. However, I am glad that he has brought this bill forward. I have no objection to its passing second reading and going to the committee on Privileges and Elections because it is unlikely that we will be dealing with electoral law of much more significance than this, namely the matter of the control and limitation of election expenses.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), myself and several other hon. members were members of the committee on privileges and elections in 1968 and 1969 when the committee dealt with the report of the commissioner, Mr. Castonguay, on a permanent voters list. If I am not incorrect, I believe the committee was unanimous in accepting Mr. Castonguay's report. Although the cost of the hon. member's proposal would be two to four times as high as the cost of the present system of enumeration, given a country with our kind of geography, mobility of population-a matter the hon. member for London West mentioned in presenting his bill-climate, living habits and a number of other factors, we chose to accept the report of the electoral commissioner.
This is not to say that the principle of a permanent list is invalid. Perhaps over the next number of months or years parliamentarians and people expert in electoral law may come up with a system that suits our needs. But let us not be under any illusion as to what will be the cost. In 1967 and 1968 when the electoral commission was conducting their investigations, they estimated the cost at $1 per voter. We suspect that by now the cost would be $1.50 per voter. If one updated the list once a year, that would entail spending $20 million to $30 million a year on maintaining a reasonably accurate and updated permanent voters list.
However, even a permanent list will always be out of date to some extent. We should remind ourselves that there are literally tens of thousands of people in this country who choose not to vote for religious, political or economic reasons, or a combination of all three. I would not be surprised if they amounted to one or two per cent of the electorate. They are people who will not vote for a variety of reasons, no matter how accurate the method of putting their names on the list.
I must also comment on the fact that in the course of the meetings of the committee on privileges and elections we talked with people from other countries, and I was surprised to find how complimentary they were about our method of enumeration, bad though we think it is. I have listened to people from Puerto Rico, Australia and some of the states of the United States being very complimentary to us in terms of the method we use in trying to enumerate the maximum number of people possible prior to a general election. So let us look both at what we are now doing to improve the system and at the establishment of a permanent list, something I do not foresee happening until at least one or two further general elections have been called. In light of the present parliamentary set-up, it is unlikely that a permanent list could be established.
However, we could make some relatively simple amendments to the present electoral law to increase the eligibility of the number of people able to vote on election day. Some of these have already been mentioned such as, for

example, a method for absentee balloting and a larger number of days for advance polls.
We have had reference, also, to swearing in at rural polls as well as urban polls. I had the misfortune of driving three different voters to the polls on election day in Regina last fall, all of whom thought they were on the enumerator's list because they had that little slip of paper which the enumerator had left with them. They did not read the slip of paper carefully enough and thought their names were on the list. They were all born and raised in this country, but could not vote. Had they lived a mile, or even one yard, outside the city limits of Regina they could have cast a ballot in a rural poll by being sworn in. This situation seems to me to be intrinsically unfair. These are some of the things we could do now to improve the present system.
I wish to take some issue with the remarks of the hon. member about shortening the election period. His riding is London West. I do not know how much rural area he has in his riding. It is all very well for members who can walk around the constituency in a day because it is a mile wide and three miles long to talk about shortening the election period, but they should think of their colleagues who have 40, 60 or 80 communities in their constituencies. These members, even if they spent half a day in each community, would not be able to cover all of them between the time the election is called and the time the vote is cast. Members such as the hon. member for London West should think about other members who are entitled to as much opportunity as anyone else to visit a maximum number of their constituents. This is what I meant when I spoke about taking our geography into account when talking about the election period which it is alleged we could shorten by having a permanent voters' list.
My riding is of moderate size. It encompasses nearly
6,000	square miles. In it there are between 40 and 50 hamlets, villages and towns, in addition to half the city of Regina. I am ashamed to say that there were 12 or 14 locations which I did not have time to visit during the last election campaign. My campaign manager tells me, however, that this might have been a good thing, because I won in two or three of them. If one were to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, we would all stay home for the entire campaign and still be re-elected.
When talking about a permanent list, I believe it is legitimate to remember our geography and our climate, as well as how difficult it is for candidates of all parties in a reasonable manner and in a meaningful way to visit a maximum number of their constituents. If the election period were shortened in terms of the period between the time the writs are issued and election day, it would mean that the voters in a number of constituencies of Canada would have much less opportunity to see, meet, hear and question their candidates.
I feel, and have felt for some time-and this provision was included in the government's proposed bill last year on the control and limitation of election expenses-that the public is angry about the high cost of election campaigns and the continual bombardment on radio, television and the press for seven or eight weeks by all the
May 22, 1973

political parties and their candidates. The bill which the government brought forward last year proposed to limit the period in which that kind of campaign could take place to the last 28 days of the campaign. I submit that that is the kind of shortening of the campaign period the people of Canada want.
Most of the people are not particularly interested in, and do not care about the mechanics of setting up the election machinery, and so on. However, all of us who are experienced in respect of returning officers, election clerks, the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff, as well as the amount of work they have to do even once the election machinery is all set up, know that there is need for every possible day because of our thinly spread population, our geography and the problem of communications. So I submit we should look into this question and do everything we can to devise a permanent voters' list. In the meantime, there are a number of things which could be done to make the electoral process much better than it is now, by using the present law.
Proposals for a permanent voters' list have taken a number of different forms. From what I have been able to find out from the people who lived in British Columbia in the first few years when they had a so-called permanent list, it would seem that it was a debacle, a complete disaster, in some parts of the province. A large percentage of the population was unable to vote on election day. I have heard complaints about this type of system from people in Australia and Puerto Rico. However, that is their problem.
One could think of placing in a computer the name of every person in Canada and running the names off according to their social insurance numbers. In that way we might have a permanent list. The date of birth of each person would have to be on the social insurance card. The information on the social insurance card, which everybody has, ought to be sufficient. The card could be presented at the polling booth with other appropriate identification. Perhaps that would accomplish the purpose, or perhaps the Canadian citizenship card would accomplish the purpose.
The question is whether every voter would carry his card to the poll on election day. We all know the answer to that question. There would be those who would say that they had left the card in their other suit, or that it has been lost or stolen. Also, there would be the possibility of fraud. But I submit that no matter what kind of electoral system we have, there always will be the possibility of fraud. However, since such a tiny percentage of the electorate would resort to fraud, I would rather err on the side of making it as easy as possible for people to vote while maintaining reasonable safeguards.
This is a good bill for us to discuss and to turn over to the committee. I find it passing strange-or perhaps it is not too strange-that there is silence again by members of the government and of the official opposition concerning legislation on the control and limitation of election expenses. Unless we have some measure of control in this respect, a permanent list, enumeration or whatever method is used, the system will still involve wholesale inequities and there will still be in the minds of Canadi-
Canada Elections Act
ans suspicion about how our elections are financed. I submit that much of the suspicion is justified.
In view of the scandals in our history, and the use to which political contributions have been put recently in the United States, it is all the more urgent that strong, effective and forcible legislation be brought in at once. Since 1966 I have listened ad nauseam to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He said this reform is a must, a high priority item. I listened last year to the members of the government when they brought in a bill with two major loopholes in it which rendered meaningless the entire legislation. There was a limitation on candidates, but no limitation on parties. Isn't that handy for the bagmen of the old-line parties? There was not even an attempt at a modest form of disclosure, which rendered meaningless everything else in that bill.
I hope the House will agree to send this bill to the committee and that the government very shortly, I hope tomorrow, will bring in a half decent bill to control and limit election expenses.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak in favour of Bill C-17, in the interest of greater democratization, so that democracy will apply to all citizens, without restriction or bias, because it is well-known that when an election is announced, a voters list is hastily put together, made up of members of political parties who are committed people, not necessarily objective, and that during election campaigns you often come across passions and hatred in constituencies, with the result that the enumerators are often somewhat less than objective.
This is how certain abuses have been discovered in the past. Voters from areas that supported an opposition candidate were simply not on the voters list. This even happened in my constituency, during the last elections. Most of the tenants in the same block of apartments who shared the same political opinions were not to be found on the voters list. This is something that would not happen if we had a permanent voters list. These deliberate omissions could not occur, since people would have enough time to correct them.
Some elderly citizens, for example, who had lived in the same place within the same municipality for maybe 50 years, ever since they were born, discovered upon arriving at the polling station that their names were not on the list, that they had no more privileges than if they were Africans or Europeans. This sort of thing could not happen if we had a permanent voters list.
I will not comment on what is done in a move under hand manner, "fiddling" with lists, etc. In addition, the names of some individuals appearing on lists shown in public places, on posts for example, may not be included in the official book. When the official voters list will be used on voting day, these people will be unable to vote.
At the present time, there is no previous registration in rural areas, that is people vote if they can prove that they live in the area. There is no problem in that connection. Thus, the permanent voters list could perhaps apply only to urban areas, since this is were problems are found. A permanent list could be drawn up in cities. Such a system

May 22, 1973
Canada Elections Act
has been established in Quebec this year. This very month, enumerators have undertaken their work even if no election has been called.
There would be no objection for the federal government nor the Quebec government to use the Quebec permanent electoral list, since in that province as in the federal system the same voting rules apply, I mean all citizens over 18 have the right to vote. The federal government could use those lists and pay a financial compensation to the province of Quebec for saving it the trouble of doing that work.
In those cases where there are provincial electoral lists, the federal government could use them without having to incur additional expenses to establish its own.
Speaking of costs, I do not think it is a sound argument, at a time when we genuinely want to democratize politics, when we really want to give all citizens the opportunity to express themselves, to defeat a government, as will happen, I hope, at the next elections. I think such thing is priceless. I much prefer paying a few cents more to give the franchise to a 50-year old who has always lived where he is to vote than to see others pass "telegraphs".
At this time, every one in Canada has a social insurance number. Now I suggest that the electoral officer might consider using that number to draw up the permanent list. No extraordinary expense would be involved and even if 10, 20 or 100 citizens bear the same name identification would be achieved through the different numbers.
I shall not go further into this issue as I should like to see this bill put in order that it may be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation and I think that if there were agreement in the House to send the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and to discharge the bill, the government would have no objection. I hope this is acceptable to members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is it agreed that the order be discharged and the subject matter of the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is so ordered.
Order for second reading discharged and subject matter of Bill C-17 referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


John Mercer Reid: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Do hon. members agree to calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hour appointed for consideration of hon. members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.45 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments for which I spoke before the dinner recess I stated that in this critical debate we must search for the best solution possible that will ensure justice, the proper penalty for murder and the security of society. We are dealing here with the highest question Members of Parliament can face, the question of life itself. We cannot slough off our responsibilities in the guise of adhering to questionable public opinion surveys. We are responsible to our constituents and to parliament itself to use our best judgment in resolving the capital punishment issue. The people who sent us here must be able to evaluate our reasoning process.
My mail on this issue has been sharply split into the retentionist and abolitionist camps. I will quote two letters, expressing opposite opinions, which are reflective of the opinions expressed in my mail. Mr. Robert B. Manly, of Edmonton, writes:
My family, my friends and neighbours with whom we have discussed the matter are deeply concerned with the increasing lawlessness in Canada, especially the increase in the number of murders and other crimes of violence. We are therefore strongly opposed to any extension of the present ban on the death penalty .... No one is afraid to commit murder any longer in Canada. Even when, despite all the technicalities which hamper police officers in obtaining evidence and getting convictions, a conviction is obtained, our judges and juries have been too lenient, judges frequently giving out sentences that are absurdly inadequate.
The only real deterrent to vicious crime is the certainty, upon conviction, of adequate punishment. In the case of premeditated murder such punishment must be the death penalty. Even the most vicious murderers do fear the death penalty. They certainly don't fear a sentence of four years in prison.
An opposite view is expressed by Mr. and Mrs. Lavern Burkhardt who urged me as in follows in a telegram:
Please support legislation to entirely abolish capital punishment irrespective of type of victim. We favour life imprisonment for a minimum period of 25 years. Executing convicted murderers sparks more sympathy for executed person than for victim. Death is not a greater deterrent than imprisonment. Civilized people should not be vindictive.
The weight of my mail is on the Manly, retentionist, side rather than the Burkhardt, abolitionist, side. But as I studied the opinions expressed to me I became convinced that most of those who support the death penalty do so out

May 22, 1973

of a desire for more safety in society and less so for revenge or retributive justice. In the present mood of Canada it is not enough simply to be an abolitionist or a retentionist. The people are clearly disturbed at the rising crime rate and want more protection. More than a "yes" or "no" on the question of capital punishment is called for.
Another constituent, Hans D. Ehrenlechner wrote me. It was his letter which most clearly pointed out a moderate course for the country to follow. Here is what Mr. Ehrenlechner wrote:
As a voting member in your constituency, I would like to express by deep concern over the forthcoming decision by free vote to either completely abolish or reinstate the practice of capital punishment in some form.
From a religious, metaphysical and moral point of view I am most certainly opposed to the reinstatement of capital punishment in any form whatsoever. However, we live in an imperfect world and such a step would likely not accomplish in practice what theoretically it should-i.e., contribute to the humanization of our society. Nor do I feel that the majority of citizens want and expect total abolition of the death penalty. You must be aware of the rising concern over lawlessness which the average voter believes is taking a sharp upward trend in recent years, and all those who advocate the reinstitution of the death penalty rest their case on this and similar grounds.
Mr. Ehrenlechner continues:
Surely there is an alternative solution to the problem that would both serve to protect the public-which should be the first concern of the law-and yet not detract from the high standards and ideals it is in our power to realize in this generation.
Having thought about the matter for some time, I feel that the only fair course of action at this time is to initiate another five-year extension on the banning of capital punishment in Canada. Reluctantly, I agree that the capital punishment be retained for the murder of policemen, prison guards, etc., and all those whose lives would be immediately endangered by the absence of any form of capital punishment. Again, from an aesthetic point of view this discrimination between police officers and the general public does not make sense, but then we are dealing with an emotional issue here and any strictly intellectual or "religious" arguments could hardly come up with a solution acceptable to the people.
Mr. Ehrenlechner closes his arguments this way:
One further point. Let's put a stop to the farce of life imprisonment. If we are to relax the laws in some respects, let's at least enforce the ones we have. I'm sure you've heard the stories about the Parole Board and their candied sugar-plum attitude to criminals, lax granting of paroles and easy bail for law breakers. Our entire judicial system, and the government backing it, is to be severely reprimanded in this respect.
I am of the opinion also that an enforced sentence of life imprisonment would equal or even excel capital punishment as an effective deterrent to crime, if an effective deterrent exists, that is.
I have gone into some detail in revealing the various views of my constituents to indicate that I have taken them most seriously into consideration. It was through this correspondence that I realized just how strong is the desire for improved security in our country today. We are paying a heavy price for the permissiveness of modern society. But I have to ask myself if the death penalty will achieve the safety the people want. Thus, I have examined that precise question.
There is no way that I can abdicate my responsibility to use my conscience in forming my decision as to how to vote. Some people think a Member of Parliament is a
Capital Punishment
delegate to carry out automatically the wishes of the majority of his constituents, assuming the majority can be defined. But that is not my concept of the job. I believe a person is elected by constituents who repose a sense of confidence, for the time being at least, in his judgment and expect him to use it. The assurance that he will always vote according to his conscience is the best service that a Member of Parliament can offer his constituents.
The starting point for my analysis of the capital punishment issue is my belief in the sanctity of life. When a murderer violates the sanctity of life by an act of violence on his victim, how is the sanctity of life preserved by another act of violence on the murderer, this time by the state? We are allowed to kill in self-defence, as we know, but for the state to execute a criminal is to perpetuate violence. I believe in a morality which excludes violence as permissible conduct. If we accepted execution as Retributive justice in an earlier period, we should be thankful that society is becoming more sensitive and that there is a movement throughout the world for total abolition. I agree with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who said when introducing the present bill in the House:
The state must set the clear example of respect for human life, through the tolerant and patient application of law which looks to other more effective means of protecting society and discouraging crime, even murder.
In addition to the philosophical side of this question one must study the practical. As many have noted, the strongest argument for retention is that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. But does it? The government sponsored the now famous study of the deterrent effect of capital punishment by Dr. Ezzar A. Fattah, associate professor of criminology at the University of Montreal. Dr. Fattah studied the circumstances surrounding the slight increase in criminal homicide in Canada over the past eight years and concluded that the increase could not be attributed to the suspension of capital punishment. The increase in criminal homicide is the lowest among all crimes of violence studied, a fact, he says, which indicates that such increase can neither be attributed nor related to the suspension of capital punishment. In short, Dr. Fattah concludes:
A study of homicide statistics in Canada jointly with the statistics of other crimes of violence and comparisons between the provinces and between the years do not lend support to the assumption of the uniquely deterrent effect of the death penalty. Thus, in deciding on the question of the reintroduction or abolition of capital punishment, reintroduction cannot be justified on the argument that it is a more effective deterrent to potential killers than the alternative of protected imprisonment.
Others in this debate have quoted statistics showing there does not seem to be any relationship between the existence of the death penalty and the rate of murder either in jurisdictions where capital punishment has given way to abolition, as in New Zealand, or contiguous abolitionist capital punishment states in the U.S.A. The case for deterrence has not been proved, and thus we cannot look to capital punishment for safety in society. On moral and practical grounds, then, full-scale capital punishment should not be reintroduced in Canada. And yet, as I have said, a simple abolitionist position is not sufficient.
The government has undermined the safety of society by giving the impression that all sentences of execution for killing policemen and jail guards are being automati-

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
cally commuted. We know that there have been no executions since 1962. Moreover, the escape rate of convicts, including killers, has been inordinately high, and the rehabilitative system of early parole and weekend passes scandalously lax. I believe the news coverage of the aberrations in the penal process has obscured much valuable rehabilitative work. None the less, as a result of government mismanagement the people feel that the rehabilitation of the prisoner has been given a higher priority than the protection of the public. The people need to be assured that public safety will be given a higher priority than prisoner rehabilitation.
I am convinced that minimum mandatory sentences for killing, and stricter enforcement in penitentiaries, will actually act as more of a deterrent and give the public a greater sense of security than capital punishment, which will likely be commuted and followed by parole only ten years after the crime. The question is: What is a minimum mandatory sentence? At first I thought the judge should make this determination in sentencing, but as a result of the impressions made on me by correspondents I now believe that parliament should fix the specific minimum sentence for premeditated murder at 25 years. Again, I say that such a well-publicized sentence will, in my opinion, act as a stronger deterrent than capital punishment which is rarely invoked.
Thus, I shall vote for Bill C-2 on second reading, because at the very least it extends the trial period of partial abolition for another five years. But the principal purpose of my affirmative vote is to send the bill to committee where the 25-year amendment can be examined. It may be that the committee, and ultimately parliament will decide that we do not yet have enough evidence to justify taking a definitive step. If so, the next step should be the appointment of a royal commission charged with responsibility for collecting the needed factual information and for conducting public hearings where individuals and groups can express their views.
There should be no hurry to come to a quick decision; it is better to take a slow course to help develop public understanding of the complexities of this issue. One of the benefits of such an organized examination would be to throw a spotlight on the reasons for violence in our society and its effect on the murder rate. As the United Church of Canada recently put it:
Our entire society needs creative outlets for expression of frustration or anger. Violence has become a way of life that we accept and that we condone in our so-called entertainment, and in our general approach to life. The death penalty is only one more violent reaction to violent action.
In other words, the causes of violence, from frustration through rage and all the way to murder, need to be examined so that we can purge our society of violence. A vast canvas will appear before us, including such factors as alcohol, drugs, gambling, emotional disorders, sexual deviation, the effects of brutalization dramatized on television, and the availability of deadly weapons. By reducing those elements in life which promote or lead to anti-social behavior we will be taking a big step forward, not only in the safety of society but in enhancing the dignity of human beings and the right to life itself.

If Bill C-2 fails to pass second reading, Mr. Speaker, then we will have reverted to capital punishment. Many people think that the simple act of retention will improve society. But it will not, for unless we get a better understanding of crime and what leads to it, unless we pass stringent gun control laws, unless we make productive and valuable citizens out of men and women who would otherwise lead lives of crime, we will be deluding ourselves that progress is being made. We will improve society by attacking the reasons for violence.
The public must be adequately protected. The guilty must be punished, and proper systems of reform maintained. But to take simple recourse in retribution is to close our eyes to the sanctity of life and the complexities underlying crime in modern society.


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, a new member rising to join in the debate on capital punishment cannot help but recall the speech delivered by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) shortly after this session began. At that time the dean of this House advised new members that their first speech would be the most difficult they would be called upon to deliver. While this is not my initial opportunity of speaking in the chamber, it is my first encounter with a speech on such a complex matter that is to be decided by what is termed a free vote. Out of respect for the sage counsel of the right hon. gentleman, I am inclined to agree that this is indeed the most difficult speech. Moreover, I hope that future events will bear out his words, as I cannot contemplate facing a more difficult challenge than that presented to every member by the question of capital punishment.
Certainly, I have never had to make as difficult a decision and I do pot believe that any more years of experiencing the workings of parliament, or experiencing life itself would have made the issue any clearer, the burden lighter or the decision easier. Rather, Mr. Speaker, I have spent the same months of study and research, anguish and soulsearching that have accompanied every member of this chamber in his or her consideration of the question of capital punishment. As we all know, the companion of this issue is the question, as old as parliament itself, as to the basis on which a member should decide how to vote. I believe that this latter, over-all question must be resolved before a member can begin to consider the specific legislation on which he shall vote.
My purpose, then, in rising today, Mr. Speaker, is to place before you and my colleagues, and before those whom I am honoured to represent, both my decision and the reasons for that decision-the basis on which I shall vote. I would no more have constituents agree with me for the wrong reasons than I would have them disagree because I failed to explain my position.
It is to the credit of all party leaders in this House that we are being given what is termed a free vote on this legislation. As a new member, I am particularly grateful to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) whom I am proud to support as leader of my party. The granting of this free vote acknowledges that the decision which hon. members are called upon to make transcends usual partisan considerations and so very deeply involves our con-
May 22, 1973

cepts of justice, morality, the powers of the state and, indeed, the value of human life.
We are summoned to this chamber to represent the people who have elected us. For whatever period they decide, we have the responsibility to share their dreams about this country, to advance their hopes, to voice their opinions and to ensure that they are represented when the decisions are made which affect their lives. I believe that my foremost responsibility is to represent here those who have sent me. Further, I believe that I represent them best when I act, on the basis of both intellect and conscience, to do what I honestly think is best for them and for our society.
This approach to my responsibilities is not to indicate that the views and feelings of my constituents should be unknown or unheeded by me. Quite the opposite. I am particularly grateful to the many who have taken the time and trouble to express their opinions on capital punishment. Every letter and conversation has received deep consideration and played a significant part in my decision.
I have tried to approach the extremely difficult question of capital punishment with an open mind and have weighed, to the best of my ability, the many and valuable arguments on both sides. All of us know that there are some people in this land who are so convinced their viewpoint is right that the possibility does not exist of there being another side to the question. No such intellectual luxury is open to the Member of Parliament, who must give fair and full consideration to all viewpoints. There is a tremendous gap between the onlooker who need only hold an opinion and the member of this House who must make the public decision on behalf of his constituents.
Of course, throughout the whole process of heartrending consideration I sought anxiously that one argument, that extra statistic, that new bit of information which would suddenly decide the question for me. As we all realize, no such convincing argument is to be found which would give us greater insight or more wisdom than that allowed to mortals. Rather, we have all sought and received from various sources the inconclusive statistics, the different viewpoints and the reams of information. It is left to us as individuals to consider all these things, to interpret them as best we can and then to face the questions. As uncertain as I am about this question and the ability of any man to deal with it, I do not shrink from the responsibility.
I shall not, Mr. Speaker, go into the numerous arguments on both sides. Time does not permit, and they are known to hon. members. Simply, I want to tell you that I have decided to favour the reinstatement of capital punishment for the crime of premeditated, rationally calculated and intentionally committed murder. I do so, not out of a lust for vengeance, not even out of a call for justice-for what is to be gained by revenge, and what justice can there be for the ultimate crime against a member of society? Rather, I call for the reinstatement of capital punishment out of hope-hope that even one innocent life might be saved, that society might be a bit better protected, by the restraint on he who ponders murder of the penalty to which he will be subject.
Capital Punishment
The deterrent effect is the crux of the question. Some state, with absolute sincerity, that capital punishment offers no deterrent effect; others believe, with equal conviction, that it does. The deterrent effect is an uncertain proposition, I readily admit, because one cannot prove it absolutely one way or the other. Nor can we ever lay claim to fully comprehending the actions of any man. However, in full consideration of the information available, and given my limited understanding of human behaviour, I believe that the threat of capital punishment can act as a deterrent to one who in full possession of his mental and physical faculties contemplates cold-blooded murder.
If one wished to get cynical, Mr. Speaker, he might even suggest that it is the deterrent effect of the threat of death that accounts for the success and loyalty to be found for decades in organized crime. A man's greatest temporal possession is his life, and his greatest fear is the loss of that life. That is my belief and the basis of my hope, and that is the reason I want innocent lives given the maximum possible protection. At this time might I just say that the over-all questions of the increase in crime and the need to review our laws and their enforcement are of great concern to me and I hope we shall find it possible to deal further with them during this parliament.
Being in favour of the return of capital punishment I am, of course, opposed to the provision of Bill C-2 as introduced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). However, it would not be surprising for me to join other retentionists, whatever their reasons, in voting "yea" on second reading so that the bill might be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This would allow further detailed study and an opportunity for amendment.
If the minister, for whom I have personal regard and respect for his efforts in his department, had introduced a bill for total abolition I would certainly agree to vote so that such bill might receive study in committee. I would, of course, reserve the right to vote against the bill when it returned to the House for third and final reading. However, Mr. Speaker, I can lend no such support to Bill C-2 in its present form-for while the end result of giving this bill second reading would be to have it referred to committee, the vote on second reading is known as approval in principle. I cannot give approval in principle to the furtherance, not even for study, of a bill which I regard as hypocritical.
For one thing, the minister-and, I would predict, almost all of his cabinet colleagues-are abolitionists. Yet they present us with a bill that provides for the death penalty in the case of murder of a prison guard or law enforcement officer. If that alone is not questionable, surely the hypocrisy of this legislation is clear when the government presents us with a proposal it has no intention of carrying out. If a government is unable, or just plain unwilling to carry out legislation, it insults this House by presenting such legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: The present government would not enforce the penalty provided for in this legislation for the

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
murder of a policeman or prison guard. To suggest it would do so is preposterous; to incorporate that suggestion into legislation is hypocritical. For that reason, I cannot even consent to give this bill second reading.
Having put before this House my reason for asking the reinstatement of capital punishment, I wish to acknowledge that I rather doubt that my reason, my fervent but admittedly uncertain hope, will sway the decision of others. That is my intention for, as I have stated, this decision is a lonely one; to be made by each individual member, alone.
Mr. Speaker, I would end my remarks with an appeal to all hon. members to recall their duty, which is higher than just carrying out the wishes of their constituents. It is the duty to do what one thinks is right and is best for his or her constituents and for our society. In making this choice I ask hon. members to recall that we, just as murderers and criminals, will one day be called to judgment and for sentence by He whose work we are called to do but whose role we should not presume to play here on earth. Recognizing our shortcomings as those of all humans, I tend to think that He will be less concerned with how each of us voted on this question than with the sincerity and honesty behind each of our votes.
Given this most difficult decision to make, we might apply to ourselves the last words of society, under the British system of justice, to one sentenced to death; "And may God have mercy upon your soul."


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of the few minutes allowed to me to express certain opinions on Bill C-2, which is quite simply an extension of the current legislation concerning the death penalty.
I respect the opinions that have been voiced here, and all those that will be expressed by hon. members who speak after me. I think it is important for every member to express his opinion on this bill, and I am glad that there will be a free vote on this matter. Hon. members will thus be able to satisfy the wishes of their constituents and the demands of their consciences.
This bill, which-the term is appropriate-is of capital importance, has been before us for some days, and we all know by now that it was necessary to introduce it, since more than five years have gone by since the legislation at present in force was adopted in 1967. The legislation before us, which is identical to that which existed previously, prescribes hanging for the murder of two sorts of people, prison guards and policemen. I need hardly say that this bill incurs very great responsibility for us, and we must think seriously about all the briefs and communiques that we have received, as well as the statistics provided by the news media and official bodies.
After all this reading, I wished also to know what were the opinions of the constituents whom I represent. And so, a few months ago, I distributed to my constituents a questionnaire on the death penalty, and after receiving
6,000	answers from 83 per cent of my electors I came to the conclusion that they want me to vote in favour of the

retention of capital punishment. I think that I cannot ignore those answers because as federal members of this Parliament it is our duty to respect the feelings of the people who elected us, and I will respect the wish of my electors.
In any case, it so happens that the wish of my electors coincides with my own. I think that some people have been trying for a certain time to inspire sympathy for the hard-core criminal. I am wondering to what extent we as members of this Parliament must let ourselves be influenced by statements from psychiatrists who say that society is always too hard on those who feel free to do anything.
For example, I am thinking about the improvement of our penal institutions. According to some people we must ensure that those criminals have the services which society offers us to the extent we abide by the law. It must be said that the criminal who was sentenced to a number of years in prison deliberately chose to deprive himself of certain liberties.
Perhaps I will now sound cruel by refusing to listen carefully to the advice and recommendations that are often made to improve prisons so as to make them really interesting for those who have to live there. In fact, now and again we hear complaints about the food, the lack of facilities to fill leisure time. I think it must be recognized that the condamned acted deliberately. They have run the risk of not getting caught in the act and, today, I clearly have the impression that people seem to take a little too seriously all these amendments which appear, to some individuals, a priority within our society. Therefore, I may appear somewhat less sympathetic than most to these reforms.
I refer to the professional criminals, because they certainly exist. For all sorts of other reasons, some inmates deserve a certain measure of rehabilitation and attention. There exist, however, some criminals in respect of whom we must take severe action because of the extremely severe action they have personally taken against their fellow human beings.
I should like to insist on prevention. Indeed, people are increasingly inclined to favour parole systems as preventive measures; yet, they must be seriously examined. It would be certainly too late to wait until an individual has reached an advanced age to consider prevention or rehabilitation in his case.
Very objectively speaking, it is the function of the state, I think, to provide for the most expedient implementation of preventive measures.
Therefore, in the present social context, there are shortcomings; one will readily admit that our society is faced with both economic and social problems. These are interrelated and, in certain environments, may result in some individuals becoming criminals because of extremely difficult circumstances.
To what extent can the state improve these difficult environments? How, in the present social context, will we succeed through enforcement of the death penalty in reducing the number of criminals? Hanging itself is certainly not a solution. I think however that, for the hardcore criminal, hanging is a cause of great concern.
May 22, 1973

The criminal who did not hesite to kill his neighbour to carry out his aim deserves a similar treatment. Endlessly repeating "Thou shalt not kill" is not a deterrent. Did the murderer also think about those words? And in the present social context, for instance, if we only reinstate capital punishment without thinking of other solutions which could possibly decrease the number of murderers, we will certainly be wrong. I am one of those who believe that the killer must suffer the same fate as his victim. Others, for all kinds of reasons, think differently.
We are dealing with a bill introduced by the government; all members are still free to express their views about this bill. We all know very well that the bill specified hanging for two categories of person.
We must recognize that capital punishment has not been applied for five years and I am concerned and disappointed. And we know also that the bill before the House calls for the suspension of capital punishment for five more years except for the death of prison guards and police officers. And until now the government has not taken a firm position against capital punishment. Does that mean that criminals responsible for the death of prison guards or police officers would have the advantage of having their death sentence commuted to life imprisonment? In view of the statements made this afternoon by a number of government members, we must ask ourselves some questions while evaluating the bill before us. If we are against hanging, we can absolutely not support this bill. If we are for the maintenance of capital punishment, we cannot support this bill either. Therefore, this bill is clearly inadequate and from our passed experience it is obvious that the former law was violated even though it was adopted on a free vote five years ago. I regret the government did not respect, as the House wished, a law which has been adopted in a most democratic way.
I would remind the House that 83 per cent of my constituents have participated in a poll made in my riding. I would like to invite the House to give special attention to what might be called the correction of a social climate. It has been demonstrated-and we realize this through various organizations and commissions-that our social context includes what we call underprivileged classes where people live under difficult conditions. To what extent is it possible for a government or a Parliament to set up organizations or commissions responsible for implementing a prevention system? I think we have much to do in this field and, once more, I will not insist by blaming the government. However, as members of Parliament, we should see to it that this prevention system be implemented so as to prevent an ever increasing number of people from taking inadmissible liberties, whatever their motives.
I think it is incumbent upon us to set up organizations which could improve considerably our social climate. We are perfectly aware as well of the fact-and we admit it- that 30 per cent of the people live in poverty. Certainly, in such conditions, there are people who do not have what we call the vital minimum and, therefore, if we do not correct this injustice, if we do not improve social conditions, we might experience difficult times when it comes to crimi-
Capital Punishment
nality. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must seriously consider deterrents.
As for parole, many people have spoken about it. We know the results of some experiments that took place; it is out of question, of course, to release on parole a criminal recognized as such. However, there are groups of criminals who have committed quite serious crimes, but not the most serious, and who surely deserve special consideration for rehabilitation. I suggest that it is our responsibility to enable these groups of criminals to be rehabilitated, but we must first proceed with a careful screening.
In my opinion, we should give priority to all possible deterrents which would eliminate at the same time the need for rehabilitation.
Of course, our law enables the accused to defend themselves. It is quite normal, in a civilized society, that criminals be able to defend themselves. We often come to wonder whether a given crime was premeditated or not. We must not hesitate to bring back capital punishment for so-called hired guns. We are perfectly aware that there is a group of people who, for a few hundred dollars, do not hesitate to kill somebody, and the real criminal, as a rule, is not quite he who commits the crime. Nevertheless, the indivudual who decides to take someone's life must expect the state to take action to protect society and to ensure respect of the right to life. And I believe the paid killer should expect no sympathetic treatment from justice.
I also have in mind the man who does not hesitate to commit a bank robbery, or to gun down either a teller or a policeman. We will often be told, of course, that he did not intend to kill. Why, then, did he enter a bank after taking good care to load his weapon?
My opinion is quite clear on that point: the same man could carry out his robbery without necessarily loading his weapon. If his intention is only to frighten the teller, he will achieve it. But if he goes to the trouble of loading his gun, I believe he accepts the idea of killing in case it should become necessary, and in my opinion it is evident that if he foresaw that it might be necessary to kill in order to succeed in his venture, we are dealing with a criminal who has no right to freedom.
In the underworld, there is no reluctance to use a gun and I believe it is the government's responsibility to protect society against this group of people who, as we well know, have leverage in many places. I feel the mafia should not escape severe justice and that we should therefore not hesitate to restore the death penalty, at the least for murders of policemen and prison gards. There are other categories of murderers who, for debatable reasons, may win some sympathy either from the court or the public.
For about ten years now, we have been dealing with drug users. In some minds, it is clear that whoever, for some reason or other, takes a small dose of drugs, is not responsible for the carnage he may provoke. Still, it is surprising that the same man should be able to go to the address he was given to commit his crime. Some will be tempted to prove, by all sorts of means, that he was not aware of what he was doing; yet, he committed his crime perfectly. I therefore have many reservations about whoever justifies himself by claiming that he was drunk or

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
under the influence of some drug or other, and who therefore is not responsible for his act.
Let me return again to a wider use of preventive measures. It is important for parliament to set up a mechanism whereby young people can, at early age, be withdrawn from an unwholesome environment, conducive to making of him a hardened criminal.
We know that with the parole system, some criminals may serve a certain number of years in jail and then be released. The people are very much concerned about this and I have had the opportunity of getting several opinions on this from the public. I have read the brief presented by the police association which is very much concerned about the freedom that is being granted to some dangerous criminals. And we recognize more and more that guards and policemen are worried about the release of certain dangerous criminals. I think that this should make us show much more severity toward these criminals.
They will try and justify themselves with statistics. What is the use of statistics when one is faced with crimes such as those we have seen these past few years? For those who believe that the death penalty is not a deterrent, I repeat that it gives the most hardened criminal cause for reflection and I think that for the one who took the liberty of killing his neighbour, there is no other punishment than that of death penalty.
The recent escapes may have been found more or less funny. I think that the department concerned must quickly undertake the investigation which it requested and find who is responsible for those escapes. I would not dare say that the minister must be held responsible for those escapes, surely not. I know the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and his great sincerity. However, we find it very strange how easily some prisoners recently escaped. I think that the investigation should be held as soon as possible and that we must ask serious questions about the management of our prisons. I imagine that the inquiry will bring us sufficient evidence to show that there are guilty parties in the prisons; as for those outside, I know nothing about them. One thing is sure, however; offenders should be severely reprehended and escapes have become a joke among people as well as a most serious and alarming problem. They should end as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make these few remarks because I consider the legislation under consideration quite important. I believe that as members we should take part in this debate and express our views. In fact, it is important that the opinions held in our various regions should be made known in the House. There will always remain this basic question: Why and how does one become a criminal? I think this will be the everlasting question for us to ask ourselves every day and that the state's task is to spare nothing in order to set up these prevention and rehabilitation systems whenever the latter is possible.
The government and Parliament have the responsibility to severely punish whoever abuses individual freedom. Therefore, it is quite clear that I shall vote against this bill which is the repetition of a law that we have had. Being dissatisfied with the legislation already passed, I could not honestly support the bill that is before us now.

And if this bill is to be defeated, I shall be only too happy about it because I believe in the reinstatement of capital punishment for the criminal who does not stop at anything to make his wishes come true by any means. And I trust that Parliament will continue to try and set up prevention services which would also reduce the number of criminals. To the extent where the social climate is improved, their number will be reduced. To my mind, we have a great deal to do to set up various institutions in order that these corrective measures be applicable and applied as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I would like to say once again that I admit that it is not only by reinstating capital punishment that we will improve our society, but through the implementation of several corrective measures. If the responsible departments use a great deal of imagination, if the social climate is improved, we may at last reduce the number of criminals. I am convinced that the criminal who deliberately commits murder must be severely punished and that means the death penalty.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this now rather agonizing debate because of my own moral conviction that capital punishment serves only to wreak social vengeance on the one hand, and brutalize our entire penal system on the other. Although I believe in total abolition, I am prepared to support Bill C-2 which calls for a further extension of the trial period of abolition of capital punishment except in cases relating to the murder of policemen or prison guards as defined in the Criminal Code.
For those who would argue on fundamentalist grounds that the noose should be brought back, I can only say that it is my belief that the Christian ethic of love and forgiveness precludes the taking of a life for a life. In my opinion, one act of violence does not in any way call for or demand another act of violence. In the past decade we have seen, on a global scale, violence beyond imagination where legal murder in the name of war and political idealogy has wiped out many thousands of lives. We have lived through a violent decade. Must we continue, through capital murder, the destruction of human life?
I am not a bleeding-heart when it comes to sympathizing with a convicted murder who in cold blood and full knowledge of his act has taken the life of an innocent person. But what advantage is gained in legally murdering the perpetrator of a crime, no matter how useless a human being the convicted slayer might be? To me, capital punishment is morally and socially debasing. It appeals to the lower animal instincts of revenge and retribution, totally disregarding the years of effort, study and the practice of rehabilitation on the part of those dedicated to improving the dignity of even our most anti-social citizens. How can you rehabilitate a dead person?
This latter view is particularly cogent when one considers the following statistics, although I am aware of the fact that in this particular debate statistics can be misleading. Between 1920 and 1967, 151 persons who had been sentenced to death in Canada had their sentences commuted and were subsequently paroled. Of this number, 92
May 22, 1973

were successful in that they were never returned to prison on any charge. This experience is similar to the experience in the United States in respect of recidivism related to parole. The recidivism rate of paroled murders is very low.
It is interesting to note that of all types of criminals, most murderers, with the exception of the mentally ill, are the most responsive to rehabilitation. Indeed, experience has indicated that a majority of persons convicted of murder are not criminals in the sense that they earn their living from crime but, rather, are involved in a crime of passion, often of a domestic nature, and their violent act is a once in a lifetime matter. Such persons often can be safely and usefully released back into society long before 25 years. Some members have proposed a 25-year imprisonment period, which is totally unacceptable to me personally because we would be lumping all convicted murderers into one group. Some, obviously, cannot be rehabilitated in 10 or 15 years, and perhaps some never.
I wish to emphasize that I am not referring to convicted murders who fall into the general category of the criminally insane, the sexual psychopath and the hardened criminal. In fact, we must tighten our parole and pass system to ensure that such criminals do not gain even temporary freedom until fully cured, if indeed they can be cured at all. If the latter is the case, and unfortunately it is in most cases, then society must be protected and they must be denied their freedom even if it means for a lifetime. It is my opinion that inmates who are incapable of parole should not be left to rot behind bars but, under very controlled circumstances, should be put to work in gainful employment contributing in some way to the development of this country. For example, why not put them to work in various parts of the country building highways, bridges or airfields, or put them to any other gainful employment?
For those who argue for the retention of the death penalty on grounds of the deterrent factor, a great deal already has been said. Impressive arguments for and against the effectiveness of capital punishment in deterring others from committing murder have been made, and statistics have been used and abused. Murderers usually fall into three main categories: the person, otherwise law abiding, who in a fit of passion kills a person without premeditation; the mentally ill or the psychopath; and the hardened criminal whose life of crime one day results in murder, premeditated or otherwise.
Jealousy, greed and emotional instability are difficult to control by those so afflicted although they live useful lives within the law. To what extent does the threat of the death penalty deter those caught up in passion and rage? I suggest there is no deterrent factor here at all. Let us keep in mind that this first category comprises the vast majority of murderers. Also in this group are those who kill as a result of being in a state of intoxication or under the effects of drugs, or a combination of both.
Does capital punishment deter the mentally ill? Again I suggest the answer is no. The only real deterrent here is cure through medical science, which unfortunately is woefully ill-equipped to handle such persons in our mental institutions today due to insufficient funds for research,
Capital Punishment
lack of staff due to inadequate salaries compared to those of psychiatrists who work in a free enterprise system and, as a consequence, difficult working conditions for the personnel who have the courage and dedication to enter upon such difficult careers. Trying to cure the criminally insane today is a horrendous undertaking, and I suggest that governments at all levels must drastically improve the situation.
We come now to the hardened criminal. In most cases these people come from socially deprived backgrounds; not always, but usually. They often come from broken homes where a sense of human dignity and the worth of the individual are virtually non-existent. They have been battered and bruised both physically and emotionally for years-unfortunately, the young, impressionable years. They develop anti-social attitudes and a complete disrespect for authority. They turn to crime because they have no respect for their fellow human beings. They have no sense of human involvement or community involvement. Society is to be paid back for what society has done to them in the form of neglect, poverty or rejection: at least, this is their attitude. It may be a warped attitude, but it is their attitude.
Does capital punishment deter this kind of criminal? It might in some instances, but statistics neither prove nor disprove that the threat of being hanged enters a hardened criminal's mind on the way to the bank with a loaded pistol that results in the death of the manager or some innocent bystander.
Professor Fattah, in "A Study of the deterrent effect of capital punishment with special reference to the Canadian situation", concludes that the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is so limited that its abolition cannot have any serious effect on the incidence of murder. He cites the following limits of deterrence: first, deterrence is irrelevant to the bulk of the population which follows the normal norms of society and whose self-concepts will not permit them to commit crimes. I am referring to the conclusions in his report.
Second, deterrence cannot be effective in the case of certain acts of an impulsive nature where high emotions or strong motivations are involved. Third, deterrence cannot be effective for certain categories of criminals such as insane, abnormal, impulsive or compulsive offenders or those consciously or unconsciously seeking to be punished. Fourth, the death penalty cannot be an effective deterrent for those who are not afraid to die or those who have a conscious or unconscious desire to die. This includes murderers who commit suicide. Fifth, deterrence cannot be effective in cases where punishment can be avoided.
The error of the deterrence theory can also be shown statistically with reference to the United States. Now that several states have had no death penalty for several years, it is possible to compare some neighbouring states with similar populations and educational and economic levels, some with and some without capital punishment. For example, Rhode Island, without capital punishment, has a consistently lower murder rate in proportion to the total population than its neighbours, Connecticut and Massachusetts which do have capital punishment.
Similarly, Michigan, without capital punishment, has a better record than Indiana or Ohio both of which have

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
capital punishment. Wisconsin, without capital punishment, has a better record than Iowa or Minnesota which do have capital punishment. If all the states are compared, the murder rate is from two to three times greater in the states which have and enforce the death penalty than in those that do not.
This by no means proves that abolishing the death penalty will reduce the crime rate by one half, but it does prove that other considerations-social, economic, educational, racial-have far more to do with deterring or favouring crime than does the kind of punishment called for by the law.
If the retentionists are really convinced that capital punishment is in fact a deterrent to the commission of murder, then I wonder why hangings are held in secret, in the middle of the night, and not in the market square in public, complete with colour television cameras. I know this has been said before, but it should be repeated: once hangings were done in public-without the cameras, of course-but we still had murder.
The Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers argues that the issue of the death penalty is really one of ethics and morality. I quote their words:
As social workers, we feel that the worth and dignity of man is cheapened and lessened by state execution. We are in strong support of abolishing the death penalty.
The association goes on to say:
We believe that there are more important issues than the issue of capital punishment, such as the inadequacy of current rehabilitation schemes and the need for effective programs in combating the causes of crime.
This brings me to the crunch of the whole argument as I see it. It is my opinion that due to the obvious increase in the crime rate as a whole, the general public, concerned about public safety and protection as they should be, are confusing the death penalty as a deterrent to murder with the death penalty as a deterrent to all serious crimes. In other words, bring back hanging and we will have fewer bank robberies, muggings, crimes of breaking and entering, and so on. This is a fallacious argument, in my opinion. While the crime rate has gone up in recent years, the murder rate has not gone up at a corresponding rate; in fact, Statistics Canada report that in the year 1972 the crime rate in Canada actually declined slightly.
I mentioned earlier that we must get tougher with first and second offenders while they are still young and at least potentially responsive to proper rehabilitation. We must also make sure that dangerous inmates are not prematurely released back into society to pose a threat to life and property. We must continue with an enlightened parole system based on successful rehabilitation, provided that the authorities are not lax in the screening processes they have developed. If a person is given a life sentence, and if he cannot be rehabilitated, then his freedom to mix in society must be permanently curtailed. We must tackle the social, economic and educational problems which create and promote criminality.
The increase in the murder rate in the last five years was the lowest among all crimes of violence, a fact that indicates that such increase can be neither attributed nor
related to suspension of capital punishment. The increase in murder is part of a general increase in criminal violence. Most murderers are not responsible for their crimes in a vacuum; all of us in Canadian society must share the responsibility because we allow conditions of poverty, exploitation and discrimination to exist in the context in which murder takes place.
I call on hon. members to vote for Bill C-2, to give their support to another five-year trial period in the hope that more evidence at the end of that time will unquestionably show that the state taking a life for a life is not a deterrent, or at least an effective deterrent to murder. If Luxemburg could abolish the death penalty in 1822, Belgium in 1863, Portugal in 1867, Holland in 1870 and Brazil in 1891, then surely we in Canada can support this bill extending the moratorium on hanging in the hope that at the end of the new trial period we will abolish capital punishment forever.
Some speakers in this debate have made reference to the growth of violence. Unfortunately, we live beside a nation which from its very origin has to some degree almost boasted about the law of the gun. I am not anti-American when I say this, but for generations the gun has been law in certain parts of the United States. And yet we have had hanging in the United States, we have had the gas chamber, we have had electrocution: until recently we had the death penalty in 39 of the 50 states. It is true that in the last two or three years they have not been putting people to death, but up until five years ago some states were putting convicted murderers to death; yet the crime rate increased.
Unfortunately for law-abiding Americans, the American city today is no longer safe. I ask those who are retentionists to reflect upon this point, that that country in its major cities has become a violent nation. Yet for generations, indeed for centuries, it put people to death for murder and for other acts of violence. And we still have this growing crime rate.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the retentionists that hanging in the United States has not worked as a deterrent. It is possibly the best example of any country in the world where hanging, or the death penalty in general, has not worked as a deterrent. I think that should be adequate proof that at least this bill to extend the moratorium on capital punishment should be passed on second reading.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the many speeches made in this House and I feel that by now we have aired all the views both pro and con. Consequently, it is my intention to make my remarks brief and of a general nature only. It is my opinion, having discussed the question of capital punishment over the years and listening to the speeches made in this House, that it is virtually impossible to convert a confirmed abolitionist into a retentionist or to convert a confirmed retentionist into an abolitionist. Both have arguments to support their views, both are sincere and both are able to adduce statistics to support their arguments.
Bill C-2 which we are debating today has the effect of placing a moratorium on the death penalty for a further

May 22, 1973

period of five years except as it relates to the murder of police officers and prison guards or officials. We are being asked to extend the ban after a five-year trial period because, in the words of the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), the government does not have the full data for the whole of the previous five years. He said in the debate in this House on January 26, as reported at page 688 of Hansard:
Statistics are some two years behind and therefore at the moment we are only in possession of full data covering the first three years of the trial period.
I find that statement hard to accept in this age of computers. Surely the government, being aware of the fact that there was need to deal with this matter on or before December 30, 1972, could have given top priority to the compilation of statistics in order to have the information available to this House. But supposing we did have the statistics, Mr. Speaker-what would they prove? I suggest they would prove nothing, because since 1962 no person has been hanged in Canada. In effect, there has been no capital punishment in Canada since 1962. Since 1968 there have been four convictions for the murder of police officers and the government has commuted their death sentences.
After listening to the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this House on January 30 last, I can appreciate the heavy responsibility that is placed upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of his cabinet when faced with the decision of whether or not a sentence of death should be commuted. But I find it hard to believe that the circumstances surrounding all murders since 1962 have warranted commutation.
There is great concern amongst responsible citizens in Canada as to the direction in which our society is going. They are concerned about the safety of their families, and well they should be under present circumstances where bail procedures are such that potentially dangerous criminals are allowed out on bail to commit further crimes, where weekend passes from prison are almost a right rather than a privilege, and where prison breaks in Canada are almost a weekly occurrence.
It is the responsibility of the government and of this House to take steps to make certain that society is protected and that citizens are able to live without fear of violence. How does a government assume this responsibility? Mr. Speaker, it assumes it by passing the legislation which makes certain that we have law and order in our country, laws which provide the rules by which we live and penalties that are punitive in nature and will deter an individual from breaking the law.
It is a further responsibility of a government to see to it that the law is enforced and that the sentences handed down by the courts are carried out. The extent of the punishment depends upon the seriousness of the crime. There is no point in having the same punishment for robbing a parking meter of a few dollars as there is for robbing a bank at gun point of $10,000. Therefore, we must have punishment which fits the crime in that the punishment must be of such a nature that it will act as a deterrent.
Capital Punishment
There is no greater crime than the taking of another's life. It has long been recognized, however, where a person was insane at the time of commission of the crime and did not know the nature and consequences of his act, that he was not guilty of murder. It has been recognized that killing in self-defence is not murder. It has been further recognized that people, being human and having emotions, at times due to aggravation, are unable to control their emotions and kill one another. This is not necessarily murder, depending upon the degree of aggravation.
Mr. Speaker, in instances where someone deliberately and with premeditation kills another, that is murder. It is also murder when a person kills someone in the commission of a crime, for in these instances he knows what he is doing and must be held accountable. If he is prepared to knowingly assume the risk, he must also assume the consequences if we are to have law and order.
In my opinion, there is no distinction between the killing of a policeman or a prison official or the killing of a private citizen. It is a life of an individual, not the life of a person in a particular occupation that is important. It is my opinion that capital punishment should be extended to those persons who kidnap another and hold them for ransom in fear of their lives, or those persons who hijack an aircraft and endanger the lives of the passengers. This, Mr. Speaker, is the stand I took throughout the election campaign and a conviction I have held for a number of years. It is not based on any poll that I took of my constituents, or on public opinion.
I know that the abolitionists will say that capital punishment is revenge on the part of society, but I ask them: Is it revenge to spank a child when he misbehaves? Is it revenge to send a man to jail for robbing a bank, or to fine him for speeding? It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that a man who commits murder has forfeited his right to live and remain as a part of our society.
I was disappointed to hear the hon. Solicitor General in the closing part of his argument recite some of the gory details of execution, possibly in an atttempt to emotionally shock retentionists into changing their opinion about capital punishment. I did not hear him speak of the victim or the families of victims. Perhaps he has not spoken, as I have, with members of families who lost a son or a daughter as a result of murder, or to a woman who was present when her husband was murdered. Perhaps he has not given thought to the terror experienced by a young female child or young woman who was sexually assaulted before being violently beaten to death.
With respect to the method of execution, I am not satisfied that hanging or the gas chamber or electrocution is the means by which the death penalty should be carried out, because surely in this day and age there must be a more sophisticated means of putting a person to death. It is the fear of death, not the method of death, that is the deterrent.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we live in a democratic society, one in which the government must express the will of the people. I do not feel that simply because I was able to win an election and come to Ottawa as a Member of Parliament that I have suddenly become more knowledgeable

May 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
than my constituents when it comes to making a decision on what I believe is basically a moral matter. The Gallup polls have indicated that an overwhelming majority of people in Canada believe in capital punishment. That is the will of the people; that is democracy. If the abolitionists who are in the minority can satisfy the majority that capital punishment is wrong, then it will be abolished. But let us not, as representatives of the people, be swayed by emotion or by statistics which are inconclusive.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore my intention to vote against this bill.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of abolition of capital punishment has been under debate in this House for at least the past two decades. I have just listened to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) express his viewpoint and I recall that it was an earlier member for Moose Jaw who introduced the private member's resolution for the original debate in this House on the abolition of capital punishment. I refer, of course, to the late Ross Thatcher who once was the member for Moose Jaw. At that time the abolitionists were outright abolitionists and you had a clearcut decision when the vote came before parliament. In response to the debate during that decade, the government of the day moved forward with legislation which again gave Members of Parliament a firm legislative basis upon which they could make a decision.
The government of the day back in 1961, I think it was, introduced legislation which divided the crime of homicide into two distinct categories, capital and non-capital. That was the legislation that applied until the more murky decade of the 1960s when the element of uncertainty, which hovers over this debate tonight as it has during the whole period the matter has been under discussion, was introduced. We are not debating abolition, and we are not debating retention tonight; we are debating a compromise piece of legislation which would retain capital punishment, for reasons that can only be known to the government, for two isolated instances of homicide.
As a matter of fact, we are back to the legislation of 1961^because the trial period that began in 1967 expired at the beginning of the year and we are now operating under the legislation of the two distinct categories, capital and non-capital murder. It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that the compromise legislation of the government only tends to confuse the issue.
I think there is a much more important issue which demands the attention of this House, otherwise we are going to lose the progress we have made in the field of the rehabilitative approach to the handling of crime in Canada and we are not going to settle the very difficult issue of capital punishment. The atmosphere and the mood, as I have listened to the debates in this House of Commons and as I have read the editorial comments in the newspapers across the nation, refer to the fact that because of the breakdown in our penal system it is impossible for either parliamentarians or the people of Canada to make a clearcut decision on this matter at the moment. The issue we should be discussing, and which will be considering in committee when the committee starts functioning, is the whole question of penal reform.
[Mr. Neil.l
As the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) himself has indicated, our prisons are overcrowded and rehabilitation programs are inadequate. As we know, the inevitable result has been the increase of breakouts, which have been referred to by hon. members and which have brought our penitentiary system into disrepute during the past few weeks.
I would also remind the Solicitor General that there is a piece of legislation that is fundamentally important to rehabilitation but is being left in a state of suspension. I refer to the government's attempt to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which fell by the wayside one year ago. It was withdrawn and has not yet reappeared on the order paper. If there is any period in life when it is more important than in any other period to deal with the rehabilitative approach to crime, to recidivism and to all the other problems associated with lawbreaking in this country, it is the juvenile years when there is some hope for bringing about reform and in redirecting the lifestyle and personality of young Canadians.
It is tragic that Parliament is being forced day after day to discuss an issue which from the standpoint of retention or abolition is to some extent phony. Even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), when he spoke the other day, said that he is an outright abolitionist but will be forced to vote for this bill which is partly retentionist.
My recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is that we remain where we are at the moment. At least Members of Parliament will know where they stand, and at least the people of Canada will know where we stand. The legislation which provides for capital and non-capital categories of murder makes it possible for the courts of this country, under our system of jurisprudence to exercise a rehabilitative approach in cases of non-capital categories which involve unpremeditated murder, and so on. On the other hand, the law makes it possible for the courts-that is, the judges of Canada-to exercise their responsibilities, and surely they have responsibilities under our system of jurisprudence, and decide what categories of crime shall come under the capital murder category.
At present we are living in an era of moral confusion and uncertainty in this country. That may be the reason for the government's fuzzy thinking on this issue. There are murderers, perpetrators of homicide who will not respond to rehabilitation under any circumstances. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) dealt with one such specific instance in his contribution to the debate this afternoon. Some murderers are placed in the category of psychopaths. They have no sense of values, no conscience, and murder with impunity. Their existence, I think, reflects the fact that we live in a society that is confused and morally sick.
Many editorials have appeared on the subject. One appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 22 of this year. An article on rehabilitation under the byline of Jackson Toby referred to the fact that some criminals will never respond to any attempt at rehabilitation because of their childhood circumstances and experience. There is the childhood of the unwanted child, the slow learner in school, the stigmatized child in the neighbourhood. When these people grow up they are incapable of rehabilitation
May 22, 1973

because they have developed what the psychologists call a psychopathic personality. Those are the categories to which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) referred this afternoon. No prison, no probation, no psychiatrist can provide a new childhood, said Mr. Jackson Toby, and anything but a new childhood is too late in dealing with this category. Perhaps that is why the founder of Christianity referred to the new birth as the only solution to behaviour of this kind, and why modern psychology is working on the whole question of behaviour modification.
Scandinavia has recognized the problem and has now resorted to what it calls internment, which is long deprivation of liberty without duration fixed in advance. In other words, for the psychopathic personality involved in homicide there is indeterminate sentencing. Internment is their treatment of the crime, in place of capital punishment.
One of the reasons for moral breakdown, of course, is that there is breakdown in the basic institutions of our society. The family, which should be the healing place of the soul, has become the breeding ground for juvenile deliquency, divorce and all the other problems which beset the modern family. I think we are all aware that the late Governor General, Georges Vanier, and Madam Vanier instituted the Vanier Institute of the Family to deal with this fundamental problem in our society.
Our schools are having the same difficulty. As someone has said, and oversimplified, in addition to teaching the three R's, our youngsters are being taught the fourth R, that of rebellion. The problem is reflected in some of the legislative initiatives of this government, inasmuch as the permissive legislation of recent years has reflected the moral decline of society. Several members have said during this debate that to resort to capital punishment even for the heinous kinds of crime that have been referred to, even for murder performed by the psychopathic personality who has no moral compunction, is to brutalize society and lessen respect for life.
To show the moral confusion that this reflects, let me say, as I think we are aware, particularly since the Alliance for Life was in Ottawa some two years ago, that the so-called therapeutic abortion legislation in effect means on demand. This indicates an absolute disrespect for life inasmuch as thousands of unborn human beings can have their very lives terminated in the name of therapeutic abortion. When the Alliance for Life was in Ottawa it referred to the moral crisis of the nurses who have to gather the dismembered bodies of those children. They referred to the slaughter of the innocents. That indicates how life has become brutalized and how confused we are in our moral concepts. On the one hand we defend the right of the psychopathic criminal to life, and on the other hand we deny the right to life to the innocents who are now being eliminated by the thousands in what, in effect, is abortion on demand.
Murder is the ultimate crime. I am not going to argue the problem on religious grounds because you can get theologians to argue on both sides of the question. There is a phrase that I think is appropriate, that man was made in the image of God. When someone commits murder against his fellow man, that creature made in the image of God is
Capital Punishment
destroyed. It is the ultimate crime. In some instances it deserves the ultimate penalty.
As society has progressed there has been a gradual elimination of the death penalty. I only wish that in the society in which we live Canada could go for complete abolition. This is not possible. This was determined back in the fifties by legislation of that day. The government in its wisdom has concluded that it is not possible to do so because it retains capital punishment for the murder of prison guards and police officers.
This House would much better use the time at its disposal by dealing with urgent issues awaiting the consideration of hon. members, leaving this matter where it stands with capital and non-capital murder. The safety of the state would be assured in cases of syndicated crime, the Mafia sort of homicide, hijacking, treason, murders carried out in cold blood by individuals who in many instances are psychopathic.
I am not going to argue from the standpoint of deterrence. That is beside the point, because social scientists can quote statistics on both sides. I argue that there is something in mankind; as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) said the other day when quoting Pasternak, there is a beast lurking in every human heart. The same thought is expressed by the concept of the id lurking in the murky labyrinth of the subconscious which is supposed to bubble to the surface and cause the perpetration of all sorts of heinous crimes. I am talking about the Christian concept of human nature which says that the heart of man is desperately wicked beyond all human understanding. Here is the situation, in human nature, in the moral confusion of society at the present time that has brought about the growing feeling of concern and anxiety of an increasing number of people in Canada.
Let us get on with the task of dealing with the breakdown of our penal system. Let us get on with the task of a comprehensive examination of the growing problem of crime and violence. Punishment is something we must retain in our criminal system unless we are going to make the whole system meaningless. Whether that punishment be life imprisonment, capital punishment or a different penalty, we have at the moment legislation that is adequate to deal with the problem as reflected in the expressed concern of thousands of Canadians across this country who want to see capital punishment retained for certain crimes and eliminated for others.
Let us carry on with the business of the nation, and not compound and confuse the issue with the half-baked legislation before us. Some will vote for the legislation as retentionists, some will vote against it as retentionists, some will vote for it as abolitionists and others will vote against it. Nothing will be settled; we will be back where we started. The problem of penal reform is much more important.


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


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: With your agreement and that of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it ten o'clock.

May 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on two different occasions I directed questions to the attention of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) relating to the administrative costs of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. These were on March 7 and March 16 of this year. At that time I asked whether there was a blitz on in the department against administrative efficiency and excessive expenditures to correspond with legislation presently in effect whereby claimants were being given a hard time with regard to their UIC benefits. I do not wish to be quarrelsome this evening but there are a few points I wish to raise in connection with the administrative costs of the unemployment insurance program.
There has been a great deal of verbiage this session about the various ramifications of Governor General's warrants and other aspects of the unemployment insurance program. However, little has been said in this House about the horrendous increase in costs and the great problems of inefficiency that have been manifested to those who have studied what has gone on in this department in the past few years.
I want to raise just a few points. First, I wish to protest against the administrative costs that have resulted in the misguided attempt to restructure the unemployment Insurance Commission. According to my information, two or three years ago the administrative costs were in the vicinity of $43 million to $46 million. At that time the committee and the public were told that when computers and decentralization were brought in regional pay offices and the so-called improvements, they would result in benefits to the claimant and the taxpayer. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
Recent news items and news releases indicate that in this administrative year the commission is going to spend $14 million to put the service back to where it was in 1971 before district offices started being closed. The real scandal is that it is now costing in the vicinity of $145 million for administrative costs, whereas a couple of years ago this cost the taxpayers of Canada between $43 million and $46 million.
What has happened is that in many areas of Canada there has been great hardship. My constituency is only one

of several areas where people have had to spend a great deal of money and go to a great deal of trouble in order to receive the service they once received as a matter of course. The former national employment service was not bad in that respect. One of its architects was Tom Kent, at that time an eminence gris in this venerable place.


Donald MacInnis: He won
his war on poverty.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He was the man who came out with the concept of a national manpower strategy. This has been nothing less than a disaster. What has happened is that labour unions, claimants and all those affected by the Unemployment Insurance Commission have borne the brunt as far as the organization of the UIC is concerned. The ridiculous part is that after causing a lot of misery to the people of Canada, the government is spending $14 million to put back what they took away only a few months ago.
I want restoration of the type of service once provided for my constituents. I say this as a result of many complaints and representations made to me by labour unions and by people who have legitimate complaints to make against the UIC. My complaints-I want to make this clear-in no way reflect upon the efficiency or the cooperative spirit with which the UIC staff has acted in the terrible situation which has been foisted upon them by those who are supposedly in control of the department. The Halifax regional office and, indeed, the New Glasgow regional office have done their best in individual cases to bring satisfaction to individuals who have been adversely affected by government policies. But the way in which administrative costs have gone up by millions of dollars, at the same time as service to the client has degenerated, is nothing less than a national scandal. There has been a complete failure of planning and, as a consequence, unnecessary work has come to the attention of Members of Parliament in all parties.
I hope the government has learned a lesson from this colossal blunder involving the administration of the UIC. I take pleasure in stating that unless some effort is made to put the blame where it belongs, that is, on the senior officials of the department, the government will encounter even greater difficulty in obtaining co-operation from Members of Parliament. The minister has requested hon. members to put forward suggestions. He has asked that we be patient. But unless the government pays attention to the situation it is creating as a result of these bureaucratic blunders, it will receive no co-operation either from the people of Canada or from those directly affected. The way the government has administered the affairs of the UIC amounts to nothing less than a disaster.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have just come from a meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration at which colleagues of the hon. member closely questioned my minister on these very matters. My answer here must naturally be much more summary than that which my minister was able to make before the committee.
May 22, 1973

I am advised that a special report prepared after implementation of computerization concluded that in 1970-71 the Commission realized a saving of $1,841,000, based on the 1967-68 manual operation. The reason for the increase in costs is therefore other than the institution of the computerization program. In actual fact, administrative costs for 1971 and 1972 were as follows: the costs for 1971 amounted to $86,098,000; for 1972 the cost was $122,174,000; and the estimated cost for 1973 is $145,163,000.
Starting in 1970, increases in the workload and major operational changes resulting from the introduction of the new act have caused expansion of the regional facilities. The increase in program administration costs is due to a number of factors. Escalating costs, such as salary increases, accommodation, rental costs, postal rate increases and the elimination of mailing privileges have affected the administrative expenditures. Increased costs have also been incurred in providing improvements in service to the public through a more personalized approach in dealing with claimants and the decentralization of the commission's operations. In addition, the increase in the workload I have already noted has resulted in the need to increase the staff complement to a level commensurate with that workload.
Last year the commission responded to 13 million inquiries, handled 2.5 million claims and made 17 million benefit payments. These are impressive figures indeed, and when we put up against them the fact that only in a fairly small number of cases were there problems on the part of claimants, problems that we are doing our best to remedy, we realize that the system is working very well.
If we had thought it was working perfectly, we would not have felt it necessary to implement the changes that were recently brought into effect. However, I assure the hon. member that the commission itself is making every effort to provide the best possible service, and the new system of decentralization which is being instituted we believe will ensure an even better service than has been the case in the past two or three years.


AGRICULTURE-BRUCELLOSIS-REQUEST THAT COMPENSATION TO FARMERS BE EQUATED WITH FAIR MARKET VALUE-SUGGESTED VACCINATION PROGRAM
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a series of questions last Thursday, May 17, and also on the following day, regarding Bang's disease, more scientifically known as brucellosis, which has occurred in northern Saskatchewan. Some of the answers that the minister gave me at that time were quite satisfactory, although I think some of them were slightly evasive and not too satisfactory so far as some of my constituents are concerned. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not in the chamber; he was here until a few minutes ago.
Saskatchewan was a Bang's-free area until several years ago. During the 1950s there was a program of extensive vaccination of cows or heifers against Bang's disease. This program was dropped by the federal government in the late 1950s and early 1960s in favour of eradication of the disease by eliminating reactors. Some veterinarians now tell us-there seems to be some conflict here among
Adjournment Debate
veterinarians-that cows are not suitable for the export market if they have been vaccinated against this disease because they can show up as reactors or give a positive result when tested. On the other hand, I hear from good sources that many states in the United States do not accept imported cattle unless they have been vaccinated. I am told that the only countries in the world that do not accept cattle vaccinated against Bang's are countries like Japan and Russia.
In addition to the questions I asked the minister last Thursday, there are several other questions that I want to pose to him tonight in response to points raised at a meeting held in the area of Big River, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, by a group of farmers who are very concerned about the spread of this disease. There have been cases of this disease in the area around Prince Albert, Debden, Victoire, Big River, Meadow Lake and Pierceland. This covers an area of about 200 miles from Prince Albert to the Alberta border. It also extends south and north of this line.
Some of the farmers whose animals have been affected by this disease made the following suggestions at a number of meetings they have held in the past several weeks. I would like the minister, or his parliamentary secretary, to reply to some of these suggestions. First of all, it is felt that the Animal Contagious Diseases Act should be amended in such a way that farmers who have an infected herd would be required to dispose of their herd entirely, and the federal government should exempt those farmers from income tax for a period so that they could restock their herd. Further, a farmer should be required to restock only after a waiting period of one year, under the supervision of the health of animals branch, and compensation for cow and calf should be in line with the replacement value plus one calf crop for one year.
I might add that I have received many letters from farmers who have been asked to dispose of their cattle because of Bang's disease. On the average they have been receiving around $200 for a cow at the stockyard. Further, they receive on the average about $100 in compensation. It works out to an average figure of $300 per animal. When a farmer buys a cow, he must pay $400 to $450 on the open market. Since the farmer probably has lost a cow which has been aborted, he has also lost a calf which would be valued at between $100 and $200. These farmers feel the compensation should be considerably higher than it is, and that it should be equivalent to the replacement value.
The Canadian producers in our area, and I would say throughout northern Saskatchewan or any area in Canada which is affected, feel there should be a little more provincial-federal co-operation in respect of the control of brucellosis and that, particularly, there should be more stringent action regarding disinfecting stations. The farmer who sells diseased animals to the stockyards should have access to proper disinfecting equipment. I understand that in many cases they do not have access to such equipment.
There should be more stringent regulation of community pastures. The farmers also feel that where there is any possibility of infection, or where animals have been in a community pasture and have had Bang's disease, there
3990

May 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
should be a hay area or buffer zone established around the area so that the animals in community pastures would be controlled so far as contact with healthy animals is concerned. It is also felt that many patrons who use the big community or PFRA pastures should be notified that there is Bang's disease in the area, so they can take appropriate precautions.
Furthermore, many farmers in the area feel that the Department of Agriculture should post a notice on property where infection is known to have occurred, indicating the presence of brucellosis. This notice should remain in place for a period of one year or until the property is properly disinfected and certified as being free of Bang's disease. It is also felt that the Department of Public Health in areas where there is Bang's disease should be notified so that it can monitor hospitals to determine whether or not Bang's disease has spread to humans. In humans this disease is known as undulant fever. There are four things-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the level of compensation payable under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. The problem is under very careful study, and it is hoped that there will be a statement on this matter soon.
The number of reactors to this disease, in Saskatchewan, are as follows:
1966-67	889 cases
1967-68	711 cases
1968-69	389 cases
1969-70	885 cases
1970-71	1078 cases
1971-72	2033 cases
1972-73	2544 cases
For 1973-1974, 1109 reactors have been found to date. The situation is under constant surveillance, by the department's Health of Animals Branch.
At this point, I should perhaps mention that there are two justifications for this increase. First, the slaughter of entire herds when there is evidence of a large number of reactors. As the herds increase in size, the number of reactors follows suit.
The incidence of the disease has increased in the north of Saskatchewan. The department has intensified surveillance and testing in cattle enclosures, auctions, etc., and is doing everything possible to have animals identified as reactors slaughtered as quickly as possible. An extra official has been sent to the area to help implement the checking program.
The hon. member spoke of vaccine; I should like to mention that there is an available vaccine for calves. However, it is not 100 per cent efficient and it interferes with the testing program, since it is impossible to distinguish between animals that have been vaccinated and those that have been infected naturally.

As regards cases of the disease in human beings, the Health of Animals Branch gets its information from officials of the provincial health units.
For Saskatchewan, three cases were reported in 1967, three in 1968, one in 1969, two in 1970, one in 1971, and four in 1972.
The Saskatchewan Department of Public Health stated that it had not yet obtained statistics for 1973.


HOUSING-ROCHDALE COLLEGE-POSSIBLE USE AFTER FORECLOSURE
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his attendance tonight. This subject was discussed last week in one of the adjournment debates and a statement was made by the parliamentary secretary that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) wrote on April 13, over a month ago, to the metro police commission chairman and to the attorney general of the province of Ontario setting out the federal position respecting Rochdale, and offering full co-operation in the attorney general's proposed investigation of that institution. He asked for the consent of hon. members to table copies of the minister's letter at that time.
I called Sessional Papers this afternoon asking for a copy of that tabled letter, but was told that it had not been received because it was contrary to the rules for any documents to be tabled during these adjournment debates. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome a copy of the minister's letter if I could receive it in some other way.
Recently at Rochdale college in Toronto a young man in my constituency met a tragic death. Nothing can be done to restore him, but something must be done to prevent this tragedy being repeated. Rochdale college should become a place in which the public can believe and of which it would not be ashamed. It was erected as an institution for free education; it has become a supermarket for drugs. The government has been urged many times to put this government-financed building to better use, but it has been slow to act. Perhaps it has been reluctant to admit it made a mistake in the first place when it funded the construction of Rochdale and then subsidized it with LIP and OFY grants. Whatever the reason, it has been slow to act.
The government has begun foreclosure proceedings in the courts. It has appointed a management receiver to supervise administration. But such steps are not enough. While foreclosure proceedings drag on, the drug traffic continues. While the receiver makes his efforts at reform, violence still reigns. A report on police activity at Rochdale shows how sordid a record this social monstrosity has. This report tells of drug trafficking so extensive that since January 1, 1973, 379 persons have been charged with drug and narcotic offences, 100 have been charged with trafficking and seizures have been made ranging up to 450 pounds of marijuana. Other offences have included robbery, dangerous weapons, thefts, obstructing and assaulting police, harbouring criminals, dangerous driving, driving under suspension, and even one case of murder.
May 22, 1973

J. S. Boldizar, vice-president of Rochdale, is reported in the press as saying that as many as eight major drug suppliers and 75 dealers operated in Rochdale last summer. The receiver has recently announced that drug traffickers and users must go. This action is welcome, but in many ways it is too little and too late.
I urge the minister to take an action on which I have sought legal advice. Let him, through the management receiver, take over full authority for this building. Let him appoint new administrators. Let him clear out the present tenants. Let him replace them with other citizens who will devote this building to a decent and useful purpose. It could be a home for senior citizens. It could be an apartment house for low-income earners. Every week I receive appeals from pensioners who now have to wait up to two years for public housing because the need is so great. Every week I receive appeals from low-income earners whose names are at the bottom of an Ontario Housing waiting list 17,000 names long.
The minister may defend his policy of doing little and as late as possible, but the people of Canada cannot take him seriously if he says they have put about $5 million into a building and yet must allow it to be abused this way. The management receiver is said to have told the Rochdale college council that his firm had no mandate to clear out the building. I urge the minister to give the receivers that mandate and tell them to act on it.
Rochdale is reported to be more than $1,375,000 behind in mortgage and tax payments. Over $150,000 in collected rent is said to have disappeared in five years. What home owner, struggling to pay his mortgage and his taxes, could get away with that? When representatives of the government tell us that the law forces us to tolerate this, the ordinary citizen must conclude that Mr. Bumble was right and the law really is an ass.
I urge the minister to take an action that the law will permit-to take over the management of Rochdale college and devote it to a purpose the public can support. Threats of riot and mayhem must be rejected. We have been told that there would be a bloodbath, that there would be chaos if the government moved in this direction. But if a group can blackmail a government with that kind of threat, we no longer have a government.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member with some dismay because this analysis of the situation, with all due respect, comes from a person who is either being deliberately mischievous, ignorant or grossly stupid. When the hon. member suggests that the government should do this or that, and that the minister should tell the receiver manager to do this, that or the other, I would like to put the facts on the record.
The fact of the matter is that the position of the Government of Canada with regard to Rochdale is simply that of anyone who has lent money on a mortgage. That mortgage is in default and CMHC has acted as quickly as the law
Adjournment Debate
allows. We have to live within the law-I think even the hon. member would agree with that-and the government has proceeded within the law to secure its rights under that mortgage with all the expedition that the law allows. It commenced foreclosure proceedings on August 17, 1971. At that time it sought in the courts of Ontario interim possession and interim receivership of the building, and was refused by the courts.
If the hon. member is telling me that in spite of that court order which refused Central Mortgage and Housing, refused the Government of Canada possession of the building, the government should take possession illegally, then he is very ignorant or is being very mischievous. Having failed through the courts to get interim receivership or interim management of the building, we took unusual and novel proceedings, which have worked, by applying to the courts for the appointment of a court appointed receiver, not for Central Mortgage and Housing but for all of the creditors. That was granted and on September 1, 1972, the Clarkson company was appointed by the courts as interim receiver and manager of the building.
That receiver accounts, not to me, not to Central Mortgage and Housing but to the Ontario Supreme Court. He reports to the court and is under orders of the court. On the basis of Friday's press release, I think he is making progress in cleaning up the situation in Rochdale. In the meantime, Central Mortgage and Housing and its solicitors, under my instructions, are proceeding as expeditiously as the law allows to prosecute its foreclosure proceedings. I hope they will be set down for trial as early as possible.
I hope the Chief Justice of Ontario, who is responsible for placing matters on the trial list, will see that the action of Central Mortgage and Housing on foreclosure receives an early trial and is handled expeditiously in the Supreme Court of Ontario. That is not under my control. As the hon. member knows, the setting of the trial date is a court proceeding in itself. However, I hope it would not be improper of me to suggest, in regard to these proceedings, that the Chief Justice take note of their special nature and the need for the protection of the interests of the taxpayer and give this matter an early trial.
In the meantime, if the hon. member and his colleagues want to continue making political hay out of this situation in which the government is acting as fast as the law allows, he should use his political influence to get an answer to the letter he mentioned which was written to the chairman of the metropolitan board of police commissioners, and send a copy to the attorney general of Ontario asking for co-operation. He might get a reply to that letter from his Conservative colleagues in Ontario. It has not been replied to as yet. If the hon. gentleman wants to make political hay, I will meet him on these grounds. But he is rather silly to be urging the government to take action that the courts of Ontario have specifically barred it from taking.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
26314-35.)

Wednesday, May 23, 1973