1973-01-31

['I have the honour to lay before the House copies of the second annual report of the commissioner of official languages for the year ended March 31, 1972.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House, Ottawa January 31, 1973
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, January 31, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay before the House copies of the second annual report of the commissioner of official languages for the year ended March 31, 1972.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in the two official languages the report of the joint study group on the basic rate of pensions.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we move from motions, may I ask whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs is
going to refer the report he just tabled to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: In a matter, possibly, of a day or two.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table the report of A. W. Fisher, Q.C., the hearing officer under the Expropriation Act, with reference to five properties on Lancaster Crescent, Burkeville subdivision, on Sea Island, municipality of Richmond, province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the report is being translated, the French text will be available early next week.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43, involving the chartering of vessels by the Department of Transport, specifically on the matter of the chartering of the Princess of Tasmania for use as a ferry between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Since the five-year charter will cost over $3 million for this British registered vessel, which could have been purchased by the government for less than $2 million, and this amount is now supplemented by substantial extra conversion expenses occasioned by stricter enforcement of British shipping regulations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport for detailed investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Aboriginal Rights of Indians


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity has arisen from the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada today with respect to the claim of the Nishga nation of Indian peoples and the necessity that the parliament of Canada express some view about the matter. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
This house is of the opinion that the decision rendered today by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the land claim's case of the Nishga nation of Indians has implications beyond these particular claims and therefore expresses the view that there should be set aside a period of time within this session, m the reasonably near future, during which a debate may be entered upon relating to the hereditary and aboriginal rights of the Indian people.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's 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 unanimity with respect to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. Therefore it cannot be put at this time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I solicit unanimous consent of the House, under Standing Order 43, to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the delay in taking remedial action and of the inability of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to accelerate payments of unemployment insurance benefits, I therefore move seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the whole matter of payment of unemployment insurance benefits be immediately reviewed by the appropriate House committee and that an interim report be presented to the House by Feburary 15, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. It requires

unanimous consent, since is proposed under provisions of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have noted, as I have, that there is no unanimity. The motion cannot therefor be put to the House now.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning the sudden closing yesterday of the Cosmos Imperial Mills Ltd. plant at Marysville, New Brunswick, with lay-offs of some 300 workers, following similar plant closures by the same company in 1971 and 1972 in Ajax, Hamilton, and Trenton, Ontario, with job losses totalling 210, after the company had in May, 1972 accepted grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion totalling $403,000 for its plants at Marysville, New Brunswick, and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That the dealings of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion with Cosmos Imperial Mills Ltd. under the Regional Development Incentives Act be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development in order to establish whether or not the company acted in good faith when it applied for and accepted offers of grants of $403,000 from the public treasury for the ostensible purpose of creating jobs in the maritime provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the hearings under the Expropriation Act in Richmond, B.C., dealing with the proposed expansion of the Vancouver International Airport, are causing much controversy and grave concern in that area, I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the appropriate minister or ministers consult with the hearing officer and order these hearings to be adjourned immediately on the grounds that the spirit if not the intent of the Expropriation Act is being violated because the government has denied

the residents affected full information as required under Part I, Section 4, of the said act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members might expect the Chair to take exception again to the form of some of these motions. I have long thought that members were perhaps taking advantage of this Standing Order. I doubt whether a motion proposed in the terms of the hon. member's motion is entirely regular in that it is more than a motion; it includes argument and as such would not normally be accepted in other circumstances. As always, the Chair finds it more practical simply to inquire whether there is unanimous consent to put the motion. I assumed the hon. member had reached the end of the motion.


Mark Willson Rose: No, I had not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am somewhat startled but I will allow the hon. member to complete the motion.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I might say that since I am the fourth member to move such a motion I can understand your lack of patience with this technique.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: If I may conclude in a sentence, I make this motion with the utmost seriousness to allow time for the necessary environmental impact studies to be completed and for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to visit Vancouver and discuss the department's long-range plans for the airport with the concerned citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should complete my remarks now that the hon. member has completed his motion. I assure the hon. member that there was no lack of patience. I recognize that the hon. member has the right to propose this motion. My thought was that hon. members in drafting these motions, and I am referring particularly to the motions themselves, should take care to ensure that they respect the general rules for drafting motions and should not include argument. That was the suggestion I was making to the hon. member and others who exercise their rights under Standing Order 43. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House, so the Chair will inquire whether there is such consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have noted that there is not unanimity. The motion, therefore, cannot be put under the terms of Standing Order 43.
Order Paper Questions B.C. INDIAN LAND QUESTION BILL


PROVISION FOR RECOGNITION THAT ABORIGINAL AND HEREDITARY OWNERSHIP NOT EXTINGUISHED
Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill C-134, respecting Indian lands in the province of British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this bill on a number of occasions in the past. I think it is probably even more necessary to deal with it now than was the case in the past. The purpose of the bill is to permit parliament to express an opinion and to give favourable recognition to the historical fact that the aboriginal and hereditary ownership of the land in what is now British Columbia, held by the native Indian people, has not been extinguished. It also seeks to give permission to the Governor in Council to enter into discussions with the native Indian people with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement of these claims.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Mather: What was the annual bicycle traffic death toll in 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: The table below shows the pedal cycle fatalities in Canada for 1970 and 1971. Figures for 1972 are not yet available.
Pedal Cycle Fatalities in	Canada
1970	124	fatalities1971	153	fatalities1972	not	yet available


Mr. Diefenbaker: Since January 1, 1972, have any departments of government removed from mail envelopes, the letters O.H.M.S. and, if so (a) what departments (b) for what reason was such action taken and under what authority?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that

January 31, 1973
Order Paper Questions
question is yes. (a) The following departments have begun to use envelopes without OHMS or related words printed on them (Environment, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Information Canada, Justice, Labour, Manpower and Immigration, National Defence, Prime Minister and Privy Council offices, Regional Economic Expansion, Science and Technology and Public Works), (b) Until 1970 the designs of envelopes used by federal government departments were quite various. In that year, designs began to be adjusted in accordance with the adoption of an identifying federal logo as announced in this House on October 23, 1970.
Pursuant to amendments to the Post Office Act 1971, which eliminated postage-free mail for the departments, effective April 1, 1972, the standards for envelopes and mailing were further amended by the Canadian Government Specifications Board, with deletion of the letters OHMS which were associated with the freedom from postage. Envelope designs have been revised by departments accordingly, as exhaustion of supplies has required new orders.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is a real alibi.


Mr. MacEachen:: It is good to have a real one.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the Province of Nova Scotia indicated to federal authorities whether or not it intends to proceed with the Third National Park on the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The signing of the Memorandum of Intention by the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia on August 25, 1972 indicates the intention of both governments to proceed with the establishment of the Third National Park in Nova Scotia and the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee is presently assessing briefs submitted to them as a result of public meetings held in the area in early November.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What scientific studies were carried out by the Department of the Environment prior to the implementation of a total ban on the East Coast whaling industry?
2.	(a) What are the names of the scientists who carried out the studies (b) how much time was spent at sea conducting the studies (c) what was the name of the ship used by the scientists (d) in what areas of the ocean were whale sightings made?
3.	Did representatives from the Department of the Environment or the Department of External Affairs meet with representatives [DOT] from Russia, Norway, Australia, South Africa and Japan prior to announcing the East Coast whaling ban?
4.	Has Russia, Norway, Australia, South Africa and Japan signed any agreement at the international level to stop catching whales and, if not, what annual quotas have been set for these countries by the International Whaling Commission?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 
Mr. Harding: Do the terms of reference of any of the environmental studies commissioned by the government of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline include the possibility of rejecting the pipeline as environmentally unsound and, if so, which studies include this possibility as one of the conclusions and what are the terms of reference in each case?


Len Marchand: 1. The
terms of reference neither seek nor preclude any particular decision. They make no reference to acceptance or rejection as the studies are intended to provide information on which applicants' or intervenors' environmental impact statements can be assessed. They are intended to supply government with data upon which questions can be based and subsequent answers can be assessed. The objectives of the environmental studies are: (a) to provide the base data required to develop an understanding of the northern environmental and ecological balance, with particular emphasis on probable pipeline routes along the MacKenzie Valley; (b) to provide the technical and scientific information necessary to enable government to assess proposals and statements about the impact on the environment of building and operating pipelines in the North.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there in the former Department of Trade and Commerce immediately before its amalgamation with the Department of Industry?


2.	How many of these were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Alastair William Gillespie: 1. The number of full-time employees in the former Department of Trade and Commerce prior to amalgamation with the Department of Industry was 1961.
2.	Records are not available so as to readily provide information concerning salary ranges. However, the total earning more than $15,000 annually was 170.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there in the former Department of Industry immediately before its amalgamation with the Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	How many of these were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?


Alastair William Gillespie: 1. The number of full-time employees in the former Department of Industry prior to amalgamation with the Department of Trade and Commerce was 768.
2. Records are not available so as to readily provide information concerning salary ranges. However, the total number earning more than $15,000 annually was 157.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has any attempt been made by the Department of External Affairs to negotiate a parole for Canadian citizen R. Patrick Lippert of Kitchener, Ontario, who has been imprisoned in Cuba for ten years?
2.	When was the last time that an official of the Canadian Embassy in Havana was permitted by Cuban authorities to see Mr. Lippert?
3.	Has the government knowledge of Mr. Lippert's present state of health?
4.	Is the present location of Mr. Lippert's imprisonment in Cuba known?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. There have been no negotiations. Mr. Lippert has not been eligible for parole but representations have been made and continue to be made on his behalf.
2.	January 25, 1973.
3.	Yes. Mr. Lippert is in good health.
4.	Yes. Mr. Lippert is at the Guanajay Prison Farm.


Mr. Haliburton: Has any cost-benefit analysis of the LIP program been made and (a) if so, what were its conclusions (b) if not, does the government intend to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of this program?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Yes.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Marshall: What is the breakdown by province of the following items under Vote 20a of the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the Department of the Environment (a) Fisheries Management and Research, $2,882,000	(b) Compensation to Atlantic Salmon Fishermen,
$1,300,000?


Bill Rompkey: In so far as the Department of the Environment is concerned: (a) Newfoundland, $973,000; Nova Scotia, $23,000; New Brunswick, $1,374,000; Quebec, $512,000; Total, $2,882,000. (b) Newfoundland, $273,000; New Brunswick, $850,000; Quebec, $177,000; Total, $1,300,000.


Mr. Marshall: What is the breakdown by province of the following items listed in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the Department of Veterans Affairs (a) Vote 10a, Welfare Services, War Veterans Allowances and Civilian War Allowances, $9,100,000 (b) Vote 35a, Disability Pensions, $9,100,000?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The two items listed in Supplementary Estimates (A) for Vote 10a and Vote 35a are amounts required to supplement the overall requirements of these two votes. The forecast distribution by province of the overall expenditures in these two votes is as follows:
Province	Vote 10a	Vote 35a
	$	$
Newfoundland	5,956,800	2,899,800Prince Edward Island	1,576,800	2,658,200Nova Scotia	10,074,000	15,465,600New Brunswick	7,183,200	9,666,000Quebec	11,388,000	25,856,500Ontario	25,666,800	82,161,000Manitoba	4,292,400	18,365,400Saskatchewan	3,153,600	9,907,700Alberta	5,431,200	16,432,200British Columbia	11,826,000	39,388,900Outside Canada	1,051,200	18,848,700[DOT]	$87,600,000	$241,650,000


Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the National Film Board of Canada removed the following volumes from its libraries The Sceptre and the Mace, The Queen Opens Parliament, The Queen in Canada and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Have any other volumes associated with the Monarchy and with Parliament been removed from the libraries of the National Film Board of Canada?

January 31, 1973
Motions for Papers


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have obtained from the National Film Board the following information. 1. Yes, because those films were out- of-date and seldom used. Moreover, it is customary for the National Film Board to withdraw some films from its film libraries located throughout the country for the above-mentioned reasons.
2. Yes and all those films are kept in the archives of the National Film Board of Canada.


Mr. Godin: On election day, October 30, 1972 (a) how many special constables were appointed in the constituency of Portneuf (b) how many of them were members of (i) RCMP (ii) Quebec Provincial Police (iii) municipal police (iv) casual officers (c) were the casual officers sworn in and in which polling division were they on duty?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer as follows: (a) 43. (b) i. Nil; ii. Nil; iii. Nil; iv. 43. (c) As envelope 169 containing the results of the polls cannot be opened, it is impossible for this Office to inform you if the constables have been sworn in. Polling division numbers: 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 49, 50, 58, 59, 60, 82, 84, 109, 111B, 112, 115, 119, 120A, 128B, 130B, 137A, 138A, 140B, 142, 144, 148, 152, 158, 164, 178, 183, 184, 197, 199,203, 204, 205B, 217, 218, 227, 229, 231, 233A, 242, 245, 256, 257, 266HV, 271AH, 271LV, 272, 273, 284, 288, 316, 318.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 74 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion be deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
RELOCATION OF TRACK IN WETASKIWIN, ALBERTA Motion No. 74-Mr. Schellenberger:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents or correspondence between the government, the CPR, the CNR, and any municipality or individual in relation to the possible relocation of track situated in Wetaskiwin, Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There appear on the notice paper notices of motions in my name, Nos. 36 to 40 inclusive, all of which were set down on January 8 and all of which were allowed to linger on the notice paper during the last session of the previous parliament. Surely in that period of time some decision must have been reached with respect to them. There is an even greater element of urgency now than there was before. I would ask the parliamentary secretary or the minister concerned in this matter whether some response could not be made next week.


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: On a similar point of order, Mr. Speaker, I also have a notice of motion for the production of papers, dated January 8, on the order paper, dealing with the production of the minutes of the British Columbia-Canada Liaison Committee on the Columbia River. That committee completed its work in 1960. Surely the government can make a decision to present these papers to the House?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have just made a note to look into that.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of the press release he issued today saying that revised TD-1 forms permitting a $1,000 deduction by Canadian taxpayers aged 65 and over, as opposed to the $650 previously allowed, were distributed to district taxation offices last August with instructions that they were to be supplied on request. The release says in part:
The purpose was to enable those who wished to have the $1,000 exemption applied to current deductions to do so by completing the revised TD-1 form.
I would like to ask the minister what measures he or his department took to advise those Canadians affected, that is, those aged 65 and over, that these revised forms were available permitting the larger deduction of $1,000 rather than $650, so that this purpose could be carried out?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what steps were taken at the time, but the hon. gentleman will be familiar with the rather substantial publicity given to the announcement of the Minister of Finance concerning these new exemptions that he was proposing, and many people did inquire who
January 31, 1973

felt they would like to use the new exemptions in their deductions and did obtain the forms. It is always possible, of course, that others will not wish to take a chance on that proposal being passed by parliament and having to end up paying a balance when they file their returns. We gave those people a choice, but I think there was ample publicity given to the proposal in the budget.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister's answer is that no publicity was given to the availability of those forms. The release also says that "those who prefer to continue the deduction of $650 pending enactment of the legislation need not complete the form". Will the minister tell the House what action his department took to advise the taxpayers concerned that they had this option of having more tax withheld if they did not fill out this form that was secreted in the offices of the department?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, taxpayers need only file new TD-1 forms when they wish to claim different exemptions from those they have previously claimed. So there would be no need to file a new TD-1 form unless they wished to do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this must be one of the most extraordinary instances on record of tax maladministration. So that we can get to the bottom of this matter, I should like to ask the minister whether he will table the letter of advice and instructions which went out to the district taxation offices with these revised TD-1 forms last August?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that is customary but I shall be glad to look into that possibility.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance when he intends to bring in the budget and the budget bills following it so that the House can act by act of parliament in matters of taxation rather than their being dealt with by press release?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE LEGISLATION TO CONFIRM ADDITIONAL $1,000 EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS AGE 65 OR OVER
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the assurance he gave on Monday that he would give consideration to the proposal I made that he bring in immediately a bill which by itself would confirm the $1,000 additional exemption for those aged 65 and over, can the minister tell the House whether a decision has yet been made?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that assurance that I would consider the hon. gentleman's suggestion will be discussed with the House leader, but I cannot go beyond that assurance and would not encourage him to be too optimistic about it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would not either.
Oral Questions


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint lohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister any other forms available on request that will permit taxpayers to have less tax deducted at source?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR FILING OF 1972 RETURNS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact the new tax act is being implemented and accountants as a whole are still not familiar with the act, and in view of the fact that as of January 15, 1973, the department had not mailed out personal income tax forms and would not distribute blank forms to accounting firms in Alberta, would the government extend the deadline for filing 1972 returns to either May 31 or June 30, 1973?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has been misinformed. The personalized tax return forms went out some time ago. If he has not received his, I shall try to arrange that he get it promptly.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put to the Minister of Agriculture a similar question to that asked of him on January 15 by the hon. member for Assiniboia in regard to the increase in the price of fertilizer in Canada and also the discontinuance of discounts. Can the minister inform the House as to what action he has taken and whether he has initiated inquiries in regard to these increases?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation so far has shown that there is some price increase but not as much as many people would like to make out. The main concern at the present time seems to be a shortage of ingredients that the manufacturers need. The main ingredient comes from Saskatchewan and if more could be produced there maybe we would not be in trouble.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not know who was trying to make out how great the price increase was. What I am asking the minister is this: In view of these reports and, indeed, the possibility of shortages, is he prepared to ask the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to initiate an inquiry and check into possible collusion on the part of the fertilizer companies, both as to price and supply, in order that we will be assured of satisfactory amounts of fertilizer in the coming crop year?

January 31, 1973
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have done some of the very things the hon. member has suggested we ought to do. We have not finalized our investigation into fertilizer prices, but if we find any evidence of what he is suggesting, and there may be some although I am not in a position to say so to the House at this time, we will certainly ask for an investigation as suggested by my colleague.


INCREASE IN FARM MACHINERY PRICES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. As farm machinery prices and the cost of farm machinery repairs have been going up in the past year or so, can the minister tell the House what action his department is taking to implement the recommendations of the commission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that that is not a supplementary but a related question. The hon. member will be given an opportunity to ask his question in a moment. For the time being the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Richmond.


FEED GRAINS-MEASURES TO STOP PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
My question is complementary to the one which I asked him Monday last concerning the excessive price increases of feed grains and proteins in eastern Canada. Can the minister tell us, after having met with the representatives of the Canadian Feed Manufacturers Association and the persons directly concerned with the matter in eastern Canada, what he intends to do to improve conditions concerning the price of feed grains?

Hon. E. F. yihelan (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the main cost is the high cost of proteins. There is a world shortage. I think the latest figures given to me show an increase of 140 per cent to farmers for these protein supplements. We will be making a decision next week as to how we will aid farmers caught in this cost-price squeeze.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister say whether he has actually met the representatives of this association and, if so, what practical solution he is considering for eastern Canada producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have met with many of the producers from different parts of the agricultural industry who use feed grains and protein supplements. I have promised that action will be taken soon. We went through all the ramifications of taking action and I think they were satisfied with what I told them.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister then say whether, in view of his affirmative answer, he intends to inform this House in the very near future that a solution has been found for eastern producers, or whether this is only going to be done at the administrative level?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I promised the producer groups, the people concerned in this case, that before I make a submission to anyone I will consult with them first.


FERTILIZER-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING SALE OF CANADIAN PRODUCT AT LOWER PRICE IN UNITED STATES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I revert to the question first asked about fertilizers, a most important subject. Has the Minister of Agriculture received any submissions from people in western Canada about fertilizer made in western Canada being shipped to the United States at up to $20 a ton cheaper than it can be bought in Canada? Have any groups inquired about this and is his department ready to look into what appears to be a very important matter?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all I recognize that this is an important matter because of the price and because of the availability of the basic ingredients in Canada. As far as I know I have not received a submission from any group, but I will need to check in my office first. I have received many informal representations about costs from individual farmers and from farmers at farm meetings I have attended.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the House might allow the Chair to recognize a few other hon. members who wish to ask questions and then return to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, the hon. member for Assiniboia and other hon. members who wish to ask sup-plementaries on this subject.


POLLUTION
Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and is with regard to the Great Lakes pollution talks at present under way. Would the minister inform the House what was proposed by Canadian officials at the talks yesterday with the United States representatives on the progress of programs to clean up the Great Lakes?

January 31, 1973


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, our main concern was United States performance in building clean-up facilities on the Great Lakes.


Mr. O'Connor:: In light of the United States administration's attempts to cut in half funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress to construct necessary water treatment facilities in the next two years, did the Canadian representatives press for assurance that the United States government will live up to the targets it agreed to in 1972 for the Great Lakes clean-up? If so, has the government received detailed commitments that these targets will be met?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we pressed for that assurance and have been told on several occasions by the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States that the United States will be honouring its commitments with respect to the Great Lakes.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: Can the minister tell the House whether anything was resolved or agreed upon as a result of yesterday's talks? Will he make a full statement to the House, perhaps on motions, as to what progress was made on completion of the talks?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a detailed report on yesterday's talks. I will be glad to consider a statement on motions if there is anything unique that warrants reporting to the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs bring the House and country up to date in connection with the Canadian supervisory force in Viet Nam. What incidents have taken place in the last 24 hours? Are Canadians in any way adjacent to those areas where there have been outbreaks? Also, what representations has the Canadian government made to the government of North Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the information we have does not differ fundamentally from what has appeared in the newspapers. The supervisory commission, consisting of Canadian, Hungarian, Polish and Indonesian groups, is in Saigon at the present time. They have to wait for a meeting of the military commissions before they can begin their work. For this reason, as far as I know, they are not in any danger.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the minister coming to the point of concluding that the agreement made will, indeed, be the Munich of 1973?
Oral Questions


VIET NAM-CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT-ADDITIONAL CONTINGENT OF CANADIAN TROOPS FOR SUPERVISORY COMMISSION
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will another contingent of Canadian soldiers be leaving for Viet Nam and will they be leaving before the situation is cleared up?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the protocol calls for the completion of our forces between 15 and 30 days from cease-fire. That means that our second aircraft will be leaving in about two weeks from now.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will you bring back the Bonaventure?


MANPOWER
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Has he had discussions with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration relating to a recommendation that the Opportunities for Youth and Local Initiatives Programs be placed together under one single program?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. speaker, in a very preliminary way. I am more concerned at this point about this summer's youth project, but that is a longer term objective.


William Heward Grafftey: Will such discussions affect the opportunities for youth program already announced in the House for next summer?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member means for this summer, the answer is, no.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises from the decision rendered this morning by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nishga Nation of Indians land case. Will the Prime Minister make a statement on motions at any early date outlining the government's position with respect to the question of land claims and the aboriginal rights of the Indian people?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will gladly discuss it with the minister, who will, unfortunately, be absent for another few weeks.


An hon. Member:: What about the acting minister?

January 31, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, there is an acting minister and, as I said the other day, there is the excellent parliamentary secretary from Kamloops. Get your questions on line and you will find he can answer them. That is the position.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, partly necessitated by the noise from the far right which did not appear to have much sense attached to it.


Mr. Crouse:: Don't you like your new friends?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on you. That is a terrible statement.


Frank Howard: Would the Prime Minister tell the House today whether his statement in 1969, which then reflected government policy of rejecting aboriginal rights, still stands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will recall that spokesmen for his party as, indeed, for the Conservatives approved the government statement which was made in 1969.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members look up the record of what they said in Hansard, they will see that the only comment they had to make about the minister's policy was: "Too little, too late".


Gerald William Baldwin: Not on that issue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There will, no doubt, be a debate on the minister's estimates and it seems to me the matter can be brought up at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that both the question and the reply by the Prime Minister are debate. Is the hon. member for Skeena rising on a point of order?


Frank Howard: Yes, Your Honour. My point of order is that the statement to which the Prime Minister refers is the one that was issued in the House on June 25, 1969. The question I asked related to a statement the Prime Minister made in September, 1969, in which he called the Indian people historical might-have-beens and rejected the notion of aboriginal rights. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman did not appreciate the force of my question. I want to know whether that September statement still stands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may be the hon. member was part of the riff-raff outside the hall when I was talking inside. He perhaps does not know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently neither the hon. member for Skeena nor the right hon. gentleman know what happened today in the Supreme Court of Canada, because three judges decided to allow the appeal, three were in favour of dismissing it, and Mr. Justice Pigeon decided that since there had not been a petition of right the matter could not be

heard. In view of the fact that no judgment has yet been formally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. member. He knows I always hesitate to interrupt him, but he should ask his question. I am sure that the House will appreciate the information but, this information having been conveyed, the right hon. gentleman might ask the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I found it necessary to give the hon. members some information. In view of the fact that only seven judges sat on this case and there are nine judges in the Supreme Court, would the Prime Minister give consideration to having the matter re-argued before nine judges to the end that a judgment could be secured which would determine once and for all the aboriginal rights of this particular tribe of Indians? In this way justice could be done by simply reconvening the court and having the nine judges present.


An hon. Member:: Not before that court.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only say I lack the rapidity of the right hon. gentleman, who seems already to have read the hundreds of pages of the judgment which only came out yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: It was today that it came out. The Prime Minister is wrong again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was wrong again. I underestimated the rapidity of the mind of the right hon. gentleman. I can only say that the Minister of Justice has the judgment in his hands. I will flip through it, just as the right hon. member did, and try to say something about it.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: In view of the fact that the judgment is only 104 pages long and that a deadlock has been reached, would the government give consideration to referring the question of aboriginal rights to the Supreme Court in full bench?


John George Diefenbaker: That would to it.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACCEPT AS ITS OWN MOTION PROPOSING ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the government House leader. In view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada I should like to know whether the hon. gentleman would now be willing to accept the motion I have on the order paper, No. 49, to set up a House committee to look into all aspects of the aboriginal rights of native peoples?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I promised the hon. member that I would consider the matter with the minister. Unfortunately, I have not been able to do that. But I will do it, and I will consider that
January 31, 1973

suggestion in tandem with another suggestion, that possibly there might be an opportunity to debate the issue in the House at an early date.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us whether his department has received other requests from air transport companies wishing to be authorized to transfer their departure point from Montreal to Toronto? If so, what is the state of negotiations on this matter?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been held between two countries. I think it is well known that these were negotiations between Germany and Canada, and between China and Canada. The cabinet has to take decisions regarding this subject, and I hope that they will be taken soon, but I am still unable to say what they will be.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
The minister stated yesterday outside the House that there was no concern about Montreal's trade volume. Would the minister mean that a decision has already been arrived at on that matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I understood only part of the question due to a faulty listening device.
No decision has yet been taken. There is only a memorandum of agreement which will be submitted to the cabinet.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO DEATH OF TWO WORKERS AT OFFSHORE DRILLING OPERATION
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the unfortunate deaths of two young Canadians this past weekend in the course of offshore drilling operations and the uncertainty of surrounding events, would the hon. gentleman undertake to conduct a ministerial inquiry into this tragic happening?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of the question. I should explain that three representatives of the department's resource management and conservation branch arrived at the site last night along with experts from the Defence and Civil Insti-
Oral Questions
tute of Environmental Medicine in Toronto to investigate the accident. I might add that a departmental representative from Dartmouth had already been on the scene together with an officer of the RCMP, and an investigation is now under way.


RESEARCH
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement made by the Minister of National Defence during the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, in which he pointed out that 91 per cent of all industrial research grants are going to Ontario and Quebec, and in view of the government's newfound interest in industry in western Canada, can the minister indicate what steps have been taken to ensure that the west and, for that matter, the Maritimes get their fair share of these grants?


Alastair William Gillespie: As far as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, I am interested in seeing research and development grants spread right across this great nation of ours.


Harvie Andre: I assume that means that no steps have been taken so far. May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the inequitable distribution of current industrial research grants and the statement of policy issued by her department last September to the effect that the government was going to contract out research, can the minister indicate what administrative provisions apply to this policy so that the west and the Maritimes will be able to participate in the program?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference of the Department of Science and Technology include a survey of the allocation of these funds across the country. If the statistics referred to by the hon. member are available, it is because the department has made the ground work studies which will allow us to make a better balanced allocation of funds.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or whichever minister is responsible for the suggested park on the Toronto waterfront. Would the minister responsible indicate what steps have been taken, apart from the press release just prior to October 30, to carry out this project?

January 31, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: While I am, of course, very much in favour of this project, Mr. Speaker, actually it is my colleague the Minister of Public Works who currently has the closing of the transaction in hand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask a supplementary.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Then I direct my question to the appropriate minister, the Minister of Public Works.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding at the present time with the assembly of the land referred to.


POST OFFICE
Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Does the government or more specifically the Post Office Department have a hiring policy intended to facilitate the rehabilitation of persons with a criminal record? If so, why does this policy not apply to persons who seek a job as mere despatch handler?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, such a policy does exist and if the hon. member has a specific case to put to me, I shall look into it very carefully.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question about the judgment rendered this morning regarding the claims of the Nishga Indian tribe. I have not had time to read the judgment either, but may I say that the information I have is that the right hon. member for Prince Albert is correct in describing the way in which the seven justices decided the case.
In view of this, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he, in combination with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, would consider assisting the representatives of the Nishga tribe (a) to obtain a petition of right or a fiat from the present Attorney General of British Columbia-there may not be much difficulty in doing that-and (b) to apply for a rehearing of their case on the basis of the fiat?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly would be my expectation to have a very early and full discussion of the problem involved in the judgment, and the nature and shape of the judgment, with the minister responsible and to set before him alternatives that may be available. I think we would be interested in seeking an expeditious solution to some of these problems, but I do not think I would want to comment now on the possible avenues for obtaining that solution which may be available to us.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the result of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada this morning means that the issue has not really been decided in any satisfactory way, either from the point of view of the court or from anybody else's point of view, will the minister assure the House that he will try to find some way to place before the courts the merits of the issue for decision?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I and members of the House know that this would be the desire of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and of the government. It will be my job to attempt to lay before the minister courses of action that will lead to that result. I agree with the hon. gentleman that the substantial issue in the case remains to be decided notwithstanding the judgments, and this would certainly be the approach that we would be examining.


RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS OF NORTHERN
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is directed to the Minister of Justice. It is also on the question of aboriginal rights. In light of the fact that the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, has been accepted by the courts as relevant to the present interests of the Indians of northern Quebec, is the minister going to insist that the government of Quebec fully recognize the aboriginal rights of the Indians in the James Bay area, as required by law, before proceeding with the James Bay power project?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware of the limitations placed on ministers in the House when issues are before the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: You are in serious trouble over there.


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members opposite may not respect the tradition in the House of avoiding comment on questions before the courts, but I should like hon. members to know that I do respect that tradition and I do not intend to make any such comment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which I will direct to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government, in light of this decision, is going to present a brief to the interlocutory hearings, and whether the government takes the position that the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 does bind the government of Quebec to reach a mutually

January 31, 1973

agreed position with the Indians in the James Bay area before proceeding with the power project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has commented previously on this question. He indicated to the House that he did not want to act in a paternalistic way toward the Indians but that we would assist them in every way we were obliged to under the law and, indeed, our policy is to assist them.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, if I may change the subject my question is for the Minister of Transport. Because questions were raised on Monday last at the expropriation hearings in Vancouver asking what environmental impact the proposed new runway at Vancouver International Airport will have, will the minister fulfil the statement made to the House by his parliamentary secretary on January 16 to the effect that answers will be given and now give such answers to the House as well as to the objectors and the public attending the said expropriation hearings?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that the public inquiry now being held under the Expropriation Act is very limited, that is to say the commissioner can only receive complaints. He cannot decide on the consequences of the noise or plane exhaust gases on the environment; he merely hears the objections.
We have consulted all specialized government services on the consequences of noise and temperature on the environment; the Department of the Environment is supposed to collate all those reports. I shall be happy to send one to my hon. friend.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. There is a clear commitment here to answer the question that has been raised, that is, what will the environmental impact be? Surely the Minister of Transport must inform the House when he is going to give the answer rather than an explanation of what he is looking at.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday he was quoted as saying there were environmental impact studies carried out respecting the Vancouver airport and that he would release them if they were requested to be released by the Minister of Transport. Has that minister requested these environmental impact findings, and will he release them?
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there have been environmental assessments done. They have been done over the years by the various agencies of government which have been commissioned by the Department of Transport to carry out assessments of airport plans. They are not within one set of covers and are not readily available. I am not referring here to the expropriation of a few homes, the removal of which does not create any environmental hazard whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary question, but hon. members will appreciate that we are quickly reaching the end of the question period and a number of members are still waiting for an opportunity to ask questions.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Minister of the Environment has said the reports are there. Will the Minister of Transport release these findings to the people, so they will know what is going to happen in Vancouver when the airport is expanded and will have a fair chance at the hearings to enter objections in respect of the facts contained in the findings which they cannot get their hands on right now?


Jean Marchand: I think the Minister of Environment is right, Mr. Speaker, because these are two different things. On the one hand it deals with a review of arguments against building the airport and new runways while on the other it bears on specialized reports. I am willing to join them in one single item and publish it if the hon. member wants to get a copy of it.


HARBOURS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of Public Works.
Has the department received representations from the Murray Bay Marine Terminal of Pointe-au-Pic regarding the possibility of developing the natural port of Pointe-au-Pic?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Not
to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I will check and reply later to the hon. member.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ellwood Madill (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and deals with a report that the minister's department plans to conduct an in-depth survey of

January 31, 1973
Oral Questions
Canadian weekly newspapers. Will he say whether such a survey is planned and, if so, will he explain its purpose?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, such a survey is being planned as part of a general survey of the commercial printing industry in Canada. This survey was discussed with representatives of the industry and it has their support. I cannot tell the hon. member when the results will be published but I should think it might be some months away.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of representations that have been made over a period of several years about the payment of overtime to members of the RCMP, will he advise the House whether a survey was made of the force in respect of overtime and, if so, was the survey submitted to the government and has the government turned over moneys to the force for the payment of overtime?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is presently conducting a study into overtime pay but I have not yet received the report. In the meanwhile, however, overtime compensation is being paid to the RCMP in the form of premium payments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Solicitor General whether it is correct that the payments being made to members of the force constitute equal payments to all its members whether or not they actually work overtime.


William Warren Allmand: I would have to inquire about that further, Mr. Speaker.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-DECISION ON STAMP, COIN AND LOTTERY SCHEME PROPOSED BY COMMITTEE AND PROVISION OF FUNDS
Mr. Otto lelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact the main body of the Montreal Olympics Commission left this morning for Lausanne, Switzerland, to make a complete report to the International Olympic Committee, and that the commission feels its ability to cover the costs of the games hinges on government approval of special stamps, lotteries and coins, and in view of the fact the Prime Minister's office announced last week that the final decision had been made by the cabinet regarding this matter, '/ill he now finally tell the House and, indeed, millions of frustrated Canadians what that decision is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the simplest answer is that here was no such announcement made by my office.


George Harris Hees: What is the decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are you one of the thousands of frustrated Canadians?


George Harris Hees: I am frustrated every time I listen to you.


Mr. lelinek:: Mr. Speaker, some of us remember that the Prime Minister made an announcement through his office, but I will ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has had the Olympics budget in his possession since last October, will he tell the House whether he has, due to his obvious non-committal stand on this matter, withdrawn the government support of the games that he made initially in a letter written in 1968?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the hon. member again on his facts. The budget of the commission was only made known to the federal government in late November after I had been pressing COJO and Mayor Drapeau since at least August, in writing, to get that budget.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the facts are wrong, if it is permitted by the House I will correct those facts before attempting to deal with the question.


An hon. Member:: As long as you get to the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have gone beyond the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member might ask a supplementary if he is seeking the floor for that purpose and then we will call orders of the day.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister is evading the question as far as-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair was prepared to recognize the hon. member for the purpose of asking a supplementary question to which the right hon. Prime Minister might have replied. I will recognize the hon. member for that purpose, but I hope we will not get involved in argument.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister made a decision one way or another regarding the request made to him by the Olympics committee back in October?


An hon. Member:: Come on, Pierre.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-MEANS OF FINANCING-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the press conference given by Mr. Drapeau in which he confirmed again that he was not requesting funds from the federal government but approval of the means which the city of Montreal will be taking to finance the Olympic games, can the right hon. Prime Minister inform us if the verbal guarantee of the mayor of Montreal is sufficient or if he is asking for more concrete
January 31, 1973

guarantees before parliament endorse the means of financing those games?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to parliament last week-and the situation is still the same at this time-that we could not introduce in the House an amendment to the legislation before we have more than verbal guarantees that the deficit, if any, should not be assumed by the Canadian taxpayer. This is still the position of the government and it is also the wish of Mr. Drapeau who right from the outset assured Canadian taxpayers that they would not have to pay anything since Montreal benefited in 1967 of millions of dollars for Expo 67 and because of this attitude of both Mr. Drapeau and ourselves we are simply waiting for some valid assurance not only from a political point of view but from a legal point of view that the Canadian taxpayer will not be the backer in the final analysis.
We are still waiting for that assurance and I think the Quebec government and the Montreal administration are presently working on it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will he stop playing games and advise the House how much money he plans to give to the 1976 Olympics?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why are you so tough on Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that his question as asked is somewhat irregular.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will hon. members kindly resume their seats.

I simply want to indicate that we have reached the end of the question period. Obviously, if we are to continue on this interesting subject we will have to do it during the question period tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 30, 1973, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2 25714-531
Capital Punishment
to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, when I called it ten o'clock last evening I was in the midst of listing a number of failures of the government to respond to what the electorate was asking during the past election campaign. My catalogue had not been terminated. We now have before us a bill asking for a moratorium on the death penalty. This, I submit, is in no way an answer to what the electorate asked during the past election campaign. The people were not asking for another moratorium; they certainly were not asking for perpetuation of the situation in which the criminal commits and the cabinet commutes. That is not law and order; it is not respect for the law.
We have heard a lot in this debate about deterrence. I wish to talk about it myself although my case for retention is not based only on deterrence. In this connection I submit that the very need for written law with its penalties and punishment presupposes an imperfect society. These imperfections or readiness to disregard the law are themselves graded in seriousness from jaywalking, through embezzlement and fraud to the commission of the most heinous of all crimes, murder. To each of these acts of lawlessness, be they slight or serious, is attached a progressively stringent punishment. Does it not follow from this-that is, the recognition of graded crimes alongside their appropriately graded punishments-that there is a deterrent relationship between the assigned punishment and the misdemeanour of crime? If it does not, I am seriously puzzled.
Are punishments deterrents? If not, what are they? Is the threat of having your driver's licence removed not a deterrent to exceeding the speed limit or driving while under the influence of alcohol or a drug? If this is a deterrent, why consider that other, more grievous punishments are not? In short, I find it difficult to follow those who are against the death penalty on the ground that it is no deterrent. There may be no statistical evidence to prove that it is a deterrent: those who were deterred from committing murder will not come forward and say so. Our evidence, therefore, is faulty; but that is no excuse for having faulty logic.
Furthermore, some are claiming, basing themselves on recent Canadian experience, that the death penalty has shown itself to be no deterrent. How can we draw any such inference when the death penalty has not been carried out because of cabinet decision since, I think, 1961 and certainly not since the moratorium? It has invariably been commuted. No statistics on the deterrent value of the death penalty for this period are, therefore, available. What do we really know, in such circumstances, about the deterrent effect of the death penalty in Canada.

January 31, 1973
Capital Punishment
We are told the statistics are two years behind in preparation and a clear five-year period is needed before any really reliable conclusions can be drawn. If this is the case, I submit we in this House and our constituents in the country are entitled to ask why the government did not ask in the first place for a seven-year moratorium so as to get five clear years' statistics on hand when the moratorium expired.
Had the government insufficient experience with delay in the presentation of statistics to imagine that the full five years' statistics would be available at the end of that period? If indeed that is the case, is that the reason parliament is being asked to approve this proposal? I submit that is not the case.
I have already suggested one reason which I believe to be the case; the government has got its priorities mixed. Furthermore, I think that the present bill is a compromise, as has been suggested by many previous speakers. It is a compromise between those, on the one hand, in the Liberal party who are split on the issue but are prepared to accept the moratorium to absolve their consciences and those, on the other hand, to my left who are theoretical abolitionists, some of whom are prepared to stand up and say so and some of whom are not prepared to do so.
I have a third reason for suggesting that the reason offered by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is specious. This reason is closely related to the number of convictions for murder under study in Canada. We are told there were 12 murderers in jail when the present moratorium went into effect. Is it the study on those 12 cases that is two years behind? Or was that comment related to the studies being made in other areas of criminality to prove, show or demonstrate that, comparatively speaking, the rise in one sector of criminal behaviour is greater or less than in another since the moratorium was instituted? No, Mr. Speaker, this sort of reasoning does not stand up too well to the searching test of logic or practicality.
This is a compromise bill because the government did not have the gumption to come out on this matter one way or the other to let us stand and be counted, abolitionists or retentionists. This is a bill introduced to cloak the bankruptcy of the government in the area of economic reform directed toward alleviating unemployment, reducing inflation, helping the old age pensioner and relieving taxation. For that reason alone it deserves to be defeated.
It would be tempting to examine other features of the minister's speech in the cold light of logic and to reveal its many inconsistencies. That temptation must be resisted, if only because of the clock. We are, in any event, dealing with a very practical and serious matter; the death penalty, something of concern to all Canadians. Emotions run high, I know; I felt the pressures throughout the election campaign. The wind is still blowing strong. My information, based on a survey regarding which returns are still coming in, is that 85 per cent to 90 per cent of my constituents favour the restoration of the death penalty to the statute books for use, as judge and jury direct, in cases of convictions on the charge of murder. As I say, 85 per cent to 90 per cent are for restoration of the death penalty, with only 2 per cent or so undecided.
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).J
Statisticians, sociologists, psychologists, academics of all sorts have provided us with their views on criminology. They have produced conflicting observations, conclusions and recommendations. Some argue that statistics show that the death penalty is no deterrent, and some that it is. These academics study either cold, inhuman statistics and from that material draw their findings, or they examine case files, interview a sampling of criminals and on that basis reach their conclusions. These conclusions are useful as signposts but they are conflicting; they are no substitute for evidence from those who know even more about criminals than statisticians, sociologists and psychologists.
There is a group of specialists in this field whose views we seem content to ignore, those who have to deal daily with criminals of all sorts. They are Canada's policemen. The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs has submitted a brief that recommends in favour of retention. Why do we turn away from this representation supported, as the police chiefs are, by practical, day to day contact with criminals of all kinds?
There are two or three other considerations I would like to lay before the House before rounding out my contribution to this debate. One of these deals with terminology. I do not quite know why we allowed ourselves to be sidetracked from murder, first degree; murder, second degree and manslaughter, etc., into capital and non-capital murder, and I care not which party produced the change. For myself, I find it hard to get the idea underlying non-capital murder. It is awfully capital for the victim, that is, if my Latin still serves me correctly.
Now we have a set of new terms being introduced- murder punishable by death, and murder punishable by life imprisonment. When, in Canadian law, have we associated a sentence with a charge? What sort of cockeyed logic leads people to dream up such nonsense? First of all, on the charge sheet the indictment would set things out in a way that almost presupposes guilt. Where have our law officers allowed themselves to be led by coming up with such ideas? Not only is this clumsy, in my view, but it is also contrary to the spirit of our justice to cite the maximum penalty along with the alleged offence. Where are we heading?
Next I think we should somehow set the record straight about murder. Some speakers opposite and to my left have charged that for the state to restore the death penalty is tantamount to making the state a murderer. Those who use this argument disregard the definition of "murder". In the Oxford pocket dictionary, "murder" is defined as "the unlawful killing of a person with malice aforethought." The state cannot become guilty of murder, on that definition. If the law exists, the state's action to implement it cannot be unlawful. In executing the sentence there is no malice. There is forethought, certainly, but the state exercises forethought with a view to its self-protection and the protection of its citizens. I reject that form of argument. The state is no murderer.
Finally, I do think it is important in any discussion of the death penalty to distinguish between the principle of requiring the death of the convicted murderer and the manner in which that penalty is executed. We are not here
January 31, 1973

talking about hanging, the electric chair or what you will. We are talking about whether one man should die for having taken the life of another.
Speakers in this debate have devoted almost their entire attention to the fate of convicted criminals, whether they should die by the rope or in the chair. The whole emphasis of this debate has been directed toward the criminal and what might happen to him. Mr. Speaker, our concern should not be for convicted criminals but for law abiding Canadian citizens and the victims of crimes committed by criminals. Perhaps here we should be speaking for the dead, not for those who caused them to die.
Retentionism has been characterized in this debate as a vicious policy, one that caters to viciousness. With all due deference to those who have spoken along these lines, I just will not accept their argumentation. There is nothing vicious in the normal, law abiding Canadian. He is not vindictive nor is he vengeful. I submit that he is a charitable being. The letters I have received from my constituents along with the survey that they have completed are ample testimony to that effect. They have thought seriously about this problem. They are not vengeful. They are seeking other ways. Some shrink from hanging and the gallows; they say, "Find another quicker, less dramatic form of imposing the death penalty, but see that it is imposed."
Some are reluctant retentionists but because they fear the direction society is taking they want discipline back. They want people to know that misdemeanours will be punished and that criminals will pay for their crimes. I gathered this during the election campaign and from the correspondence I am now receiving. Canadians are not vicious, nor vindictive, nor vengeful. They are compassionate people, but they are fearful of the direction in which Canadian society is heading. What they are looking for is national self-protection. It is parliament's job to provide it. Civilized society is an ordered society. Regrettably, more and more people are becoming disturbed by the growing disorderliness of society and are preparing on their own to ensure that as far as they themselves are concerned, there will be order-or else! They are acquiring small arms for their own self-defence.
In these circumstances this parliament has cause to worry. The notion of an orderly society is beginning to erode; and when erosion starts, who knows where it will end? This falling away of society from its reliance on the upholders of law and order must be halted. There must be punishments for crimes and those punishments must be carried out. Society will no longer tolerate subservience to that philosophy which sees all criminality solely in terms of sickness and therefore devotes more attention to its alleviation than to the alleviation of the unrest that that sickness-if that is what it is-is spreading throughout society.
According to the survey that I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, there are 85 to 90 per cent in favour of the retention of capital punishment. These are the people who are either afraid of or have misgivings about where our society is heading. The views that I am receiving from my riding as a result of this survey also indicate that there are some 8 per cent to 10 per cent opposed to any form of
Capital Punishment
capital punishment on the grounds that it is barbaric, medieval and unworthy of civilized persons.
I respect the views of these people: I do not agree with them, but I respect them and I voice their concerns in this House. These too, are compassionate people. Some of them, of course, are opposed to hanging because they feel we should not take life. Some advocate life imprisonment and some, equally compassionate, are undecided. Not wanting to take life, they are none the less fearful that permissiveness, if allowed to go unchecked, can lead to a society where no one is safe and no order can be assured. These views I wish to record, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to borrow from two speeches that have already contributed to this discussion, one by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) and the other by a member whose riding I cannot recall but who spoke about "stepping into another man's moccasins". What the electorate is asking us to do-of this I am convinced, Mr. Speaker-is to provide them with the security and safety in society that they see slipping away from them. We are also being asked to provide a law which will enable judge and jury to step into the moccasins of the victim and in the cold, unemotional light of calm deliberation, determine guilt, award penalty even if that penalty is death for the accused, and see that it is executed. What is not so clear to my constituents, of course, are the confines within which I operate. Can this bill bring back what they want? Can it bring back the death penalty the 85 per cent want?
I should like to record the options as I see them. First, I can agree with the bill as it stands and permit the experimental period to be resumed. This in effect would suspend the death penalty. Second, I can oppose the bill, seeking its defeat in order to secure restoration of the status quo ante-1968; this would ensure the return of the death penalty for murder.
My options are clear. I oppose this bill. This is my inclination; this is what I am directed to do by my constituents; and I appeal to all members of this House who want order to return to our Canadian society to oppose this bill. Laxness and permissiveness have gone far enough; we must tighten up our discipline. I oppose this bill not because it is a government bill but because it represents an abdication of the law and order concept which any self-respecting parliament should uphold.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of parliament, I had been green enough to prepare a sophisticated speech, but it seems very difficult today to deliver it in front of my colleagues, for the main arguments I wanted to underline have already been said.
On the other hand, I would like to rise a matter which seemed to be the main concern of those who intervened, saying that the first purpose was to protect society and still legalize murder. As a matter of fact, maintaining capital punishment would do just that. They also wanted to protect police officers but, in my opinion, the bill now before us brings no solution to this problem. It would just

January 31, 1973
Capital Punishment
be a transition period. Now I suggest that capital punishment should stand trial, not murderers.
I think that it is extremely important-as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said yesterday-to know that this House has no jurisdiction to rule over the life or death of any individual. In my opinion, the authority which seems to be given to us is far beyond our competence. Anyway, we shall never succeed in protecting the public by hanging people who committed murder. And the problem will not be settled by taking the life of anyone even though this person has willingly killed another person.
What is to be considered, I suggest, is the kind of society in which we live and what leads murderers to commit such acts. As a matter of fact, our society should be blamed rather than these people who, thanks to a whole set of circumstances, may have been very badly educated.
I think that we should consider the viewpoint of the right hon. member for Prince Albert about the judgment rendered on June 29, 1972 in the United States, in the Furman case. If I may be permitted to quote from what the right hon. gentleman said:
. .. given by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a long judgment, and was rendered on June 29 last. The case before the Supreme Court involved three men, one who had committed a horrible murder, and two who had committed frightful rape. They appealed and they contended that under the Bill of Rights of the United States the death penalty could no longer be imposed.
As for the eighth amendment in the American Bill of Rights, it can be found word for word in our own Canadian Bill of Rights which denies the right to punish people by taking away their life, certainly a most abominable punishment.
A number of my colleagues have alluded to the electoral spectre and public opinion. I too am aware that public opinion for the most part is in favour of capital punishment.
I believe however that a member should not have to take public opinion into consideration, since the public does not have the necessary background to make a valid judgment on the deterrent effect of capital on criminals.
I now quote from the conclusions of Ceylon's commission on capital punishment:
Even if it were presumed that public opinion is in favour of capital punishment, it is not in itself a conclusive argument for reinstatement. Public opinion can be well informed and use reason, but in the light of our experience, it is not very likely; maybe from the strict political point of view public opinion strongly in favour of capital punishment can be a reason to maintain it, but surely it cannot be a rational justification.
Some will be readily happy to learn that we regard the death penalty as a political problem.
I continue quoting the report of the Ceylan commission: When public opinion is neither informed nor clearly defined, the social justification for a proposed legislative measure should be determined by considerations other than the public's belief in the justification of the said measure.
In my view the bill we are studying justifies all members of the House not to account for public opinion. Some will say that their image before the electorate is tarnished.

In good faith, I believe that a member who has some respect for himself can convince his electors that he has to take this decision according to his own conscience.
Moreover, it would be easy for people to play politics with that problem. It is easy to supply striking examples of offenders having been discharged and having relapsed. It is easy to describe some murders with all relevant details. I think that it amounts to distorting this debate.
A pertinent debate should bear on the following question: Should we or should we not continue killing people legally? This is the question now being put to us.
For me, Mr. Speaker, the situation is the following: my colleague from Matane (Mr. De Bane) and I will introduce an amendment in committee; we will be compelled to vote for second reading of the bill if we want to be in a position to propose an amendment for abolition of capital punishment under any form. If the intention is to add candies or to impose a minimum absolute term of 25 years, we shall agree. We do not mind what people will do. The question is to have the death sentence disappear. The point is to have capital punishment go on trial and not to have vengefulness gratified.
I hope people will understand that I do not pity the offenders. There are places where we can detain offenders in a decent fashion in order to prevent them from harming society.
Today, we should deal strictly with the issue, that is whether or not in this century the death penalty should still be enforced. My opinion Mr. Speaker, is that it should disappear.
Some of my colleagues have expressed another major argument: if the death penalty were abolished for any type of murder, police officers would run greater risks and would be in constant danger.
Mr. Speaker, there is a greater danger for construction crews, miners, farmers and transportation workers than for policemen.
There were 225,000 policemen in the United States in 1960. Between 1961 and 1963, 140 were killed by criminals, 97 died accidentally, which is a total of 237 or an annual average of 3.1 per 10,000 police officers.
I have some other statistics. On comparing with peace officers, the rate of eventual accidental death at work was 11 in the mining industry, 7.7 in the construction industry, 6.5 in agriculture and 4.2 in public services and transportation.
Dont't tell me that police officers are going to be protected. Risks are greater for construction workers, for transport and public service employees than for policemen. I can absolutely not believe that risks are going to be greater for police officers in view of the difference that already exists between construction workers and peace or police officers. In my opinion, this is definitely not a valid reason to justify legalized murder.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude my remarks simply by questioning the right of this House to dispose of the life of an individual. And I remind all my colleagues to read the judgment quoted by the right hon. member for Prince Albert yesterday because they will find it very instructive.
January 31, 1973

I suggest that we shall try in committee to have the death penalty abolished. I think that we shall try first to have the government's proposal rejected, but on third reading we shall have to abstain from voting because we cannot acknowledge-I do not know whether other hon. members will agree with me-the right of people to dispose of the life of convicts. I submit there are other means in 1973 to deal with criminals and prevent them from causing any harm to the public.


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Mr. Speaker, this is a strange age in which we live. The doers of society, those who pay their taxes and do their jobs, those who are members of ratepayers' associations, those who collect for the heart fund and cancer society, those who work in church groups, those who are active in service clubs, those who personally help those in need are increasingly held up to derision and ridicule, while the whiners and social delinquents are presented as the pure gems of society. The lost, the social orphans, the nuts and fruits of society, at least as generally depicted by the movies, newspapers, magazines, radio and television have become the heroes.
The more a man spits on society, the more society coddles him. If someone is lazy, we are to blame, of course. If someone is a thief, society is at fault. If the man of the house spends all his money on booze, then shame on society for driving him to drink. If someone is a rapist and murderer, why, society allowed the terrible environment which produced him. It has got so now that a person who defecates on the floor blames society for not cleaning it up. Sure enough, such characters will be hailed as heroes of the common people in some feature article in the daily press or in some documentary on the CBC.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian MacLachlan Arrol: The indolent, the far-out, the emotional blackmailers are pampered by sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists, many of them as mad as the people they serve. Evil, it seems, no longer exists. Modern educationalists and left-wing groups romanticize the sick and the sorry in our society. If only we understood, they say.
What should be understood is that if there is no evil person in the world, it must follow that there is no good person. If we cannot blame individuals for their conduct, we cannot praise individuals for their achievements. This, of course, is nonsense. The fact of the matter, and it is the basic assumption to which I adhere in my remarks on the need for the reinstitution of capital punishment, is that there are incorrigibles in society. If a man's life has been one of violent, aggressive, anti-social activity, and if his career in crime culminates in the murder of an innocent person in society, that social misfit should be done away with; indeed, for his own benefit as well as that of the society he has rejected.
The majority of people in our nation feel it is our right and duty to go to war against outside aggressors and in the process, perhaps, kill thousands of the innocent as well as those who might be called the guilty in order to preserve the society we defend. Then why, when the enemy is inside the country and is fairly tried and judged
Capital Punishment
to be the guilty one, should not society protect itself from such a one? Even if capital punishment does not act as a general deterrent, capital punishment certainly prevents the person who kills from ever murdering again.
That which is barbaric about capital punishment is not that society feels it has to remove the guilty one but the way in which the guilty one is removed. In this modern scientific age there are alternatives to hanging. If hanging is repugnant, then let us be merciful in the way in which the person is brought to death. Let him not suffer the cruelty of a lifelong sentence, or even 25 years, in prison. Let us close the book of life for the transgressor quickly, cleanly and finally. But let there be no mistake that a society, in order to maintain law and order, must provide both for rewards and punishment.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, on this first occasion upon which I have risen formally to take part in a debate in this House I should like to begin by extending congratulations to Your Honour and to your deputy upon your election to the high offices you now hold.
I rise to take part in this debate, not so much because I believe my contribution will match any of the great speeches we have heard so far but because I feel I have a contribution to make which goes far beyond the question whether capital punishment ought to be imposed or not. I wish to consider the circumstances which lead people into committing capital crimes.
I remember as a child my parents telling me a fable from Aesop about a contest between the sun and the wind to see which could make a man take his coat off first. The wind blew as hard as it could but the only result was to make the man clasp his coat more tightly about him. After the wind had expended its efforts, the man still had his coat on. Then the sun had its turn. It came out in all its glory, and in a very short time the man shed his coat. For too long, as it were, we have tried to use the force of the wind to eliminate crime, rather than turning light on the topic.
I have heard expressed in this House and in my constituency arguments for and against deterrence; I have heard arguments for and against rehabilitation; I have heard arguments on the basis of divine instruction. And, Mr. Speaker, I have even heard arguments based on cost to the taxpayer. But in my view, when we are considering the crime of murder we should become much more curious about the conditions under which such a crime is committed and the nature of the criminals themselves. If we could prevent crime being committed, it seems to me we would be serving a much greater purpose in the long run than we would be by eliminating a criminal by means of a rope or a gas chamber.
In a detailed study of crime in Canada between March 31, 1964, and March 31, 1965, the following figures appear. I picked this particular year because the profile seems to be more complete. In that year, 3,621 offenders were admitted to penitentiaries. Most of them were under 30 years of age and 2,400 of them, or 67 per cent, were unemployed when their crimes were committed. Seventy-five per cent of those who were unemployed, or 1,800, had one or more dependants.

January 31, 1973
Capital Punishment
Something else which I found very interesting in this survey was that 1,600 of the 3,621 prisoners were alcoholics or had a drinking problem. That is a little over 45 per cent. Forty-one of the 3,621 prisoners were convicted of murder and 20 of them had an alcohol problem or, at least, alcohol was involved. Alcoholism and violence seem to go hand in hand. Beside being a factor in almost half the murders, alcohol played a part in 31 of the 47 manslaughters, 46 of the 77 rapes and 31 of the 51 assaults. These two factors, unemployment and alcohol, have not only contributed in a major way to crime in the past but, I believe, continue to do so today. In my opinion, this correlation will continue unless steps are taken to alter the situation.
Capital punishment does not by one iota alleviate the adverse conditions under which too many of our people live. What has the government done to alleviate the conditions which spawn crime? In 1971, the Senate Committee on Poverty concluded there were five million people living in poverty in this country. The committee made ten major recommendations but not one of those recommendations has been acted upon. The government has produced nothing better than band-aid solutions stuck on with glib platitudes and affecting only a very small percentage of the population. As long as large numbers of our people continue to live in poverty and deprivation amidst the great wealth of this country, alienation will thrive and crimes of violence, including murder, will be committed. For too long, those responsible for directing the economic destiny of this country have placed great emphasis on the standard of living. I think we ought to concentrate, now, on quality of living.
I mentioned alcoholism as being a contributing factor to crime. We know it is the most serious drug problem facing Canada today. How effectively involved has the government been in spearheading a program aimed at educating the youth of our society with respect to alcoholism? I tried last Monday to ascertain from the Department of National Health and Welfare how much money had been spent by the government in the past year on combating alcoholism. I was told none had been spent because there was no program. The federal government will spend, in 1972-73, $7,548,000 under the heading "non-medical use of drugs". None of this sum is earmarked for use in the particular area to whichT have brought attention.
The time has come to exercise control over the advertising of alcohol on radio and television. In my own constituency, "Hockey Night in Canada" is probably the most popular program for the young people on Saturday evenings. Yet this program is sponsored by beer companies whose advertising is psychologically directed at the young people. The time has come to take a look at this kind of advertising and the effect it may have on "hooking" the citizens of this country on the most dangerous drug we have today.
On Friday last the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) stated, "There is a genuine fear of death in the mind of every rational person". The operative word in that statement is, of course, "rational". But the murderer is hardly ever a rational person. Between 1966 and 1969 alone, 36 murderers were found to be insane. Moreover, an interesting facet is the relationship between the murderer and the victim. In the 1964-65 period, 47.8 per cent of the total number of murders committed involved members of the same family.
In too many parts of the country there are no family counselling clinics; the family is left to cope with the pressures of an accelerated life style for which they are not mentally or emotionally equipped. The role of the federal government ought to be reviewed, with greater emphasis on community clinics co-ordinated and financed by all levels of government.
Funds for mental health clinics have never been as freely available as funds for improving physical health in this country. The state will spend, in 1972-73, on fitness and amateur sports $8.5 million, yet only $354,404 on mental health. There are far too many areas of this country where mental health clinics are unknown and where school and municipal authorities have no access to qualified help, assistance or educational information in dealing with the emotionally disturbed or the mentally disabled. Often it is done on an ad hoc basis and by well intentioned but untrained or unskilled volunteers. It is fairly obvious that the federal government has abrogated its leadership responsibilities in this field. I hope that at the upcoming conference between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his provincial counterparts the topic of mental health will occupy a position of some prominence on the agenda.
The annual cost of caring for all prisoners in federal penitentiaries is $51,900,000. Every penny intelligently spent on preventing the individual from becoming a prison inmate not only reduces penitentiary costs to the taxpayer but also does more to ensure the ultimate protection of society than does the rope.
Bill C-2 proposes capital punishment for those guilty of killing a policeman or prison guard while on duty. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) says he is an abolitionist. He provides an array of statistical information which indicates that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. My colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) last Friday presented a statistic which indicated that miners had a higher fatality rate-11 per 10,000-than police officers with a rate of 3.1 per 10,000. Coming from a mining district, I suspect that the 11 probably does not include those who die as a result of silicosis contracted after 30 to 40 years in the mines of Inco and Falconbridge.
No one would suggest capital punishment for the boards of directors of Inco and Falconbridge. Indeed, I think a more effective deterrent than the rope for these directors would be nationalization of their companies. The Solicitor General blithely ignores this statistic, which indicates not only inconsistency but also lack of political courage. The state must organize its resources, both human and material, in solving these human problems. Unless the government starts moving in this direction now, we run the dangerous possibility of reducing the human condition to nothing but a society of Clockwork Oranges.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I do not find this a particularly easy speech to make. I have


given a great deal of consideration to how I shall vote on this particular issue, and I must say it is far more difficult for me this time to decide how to vote than it was last time when this matter came up for a vote in the House. At that time I was convinced, after reviewing all the evidence, that the main justification for capital punishment, namely, that it was an effective deterrent, simply did not exist and I therefore voted for complete abolition and then for the partial abolition bill which followed. That bill provided for a five-year trial, both to find out whether or not capital punishment was a deterrent and, secondly, to give the public of Canada some idea how the new system would work or whether in fact it would work at all.
It strikes me that, taking into consideration the way that the public of Canada feels about this issue, the trial period has failed in that it has not convinced either the public of Canada or Canadian police forces that doing away with capital punishment was a good idea.


John Edward Broadbent: What about the documentary evidence?


John Mercer Reid: I want to deal with the question of evidence; the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has correctly raised that point. In reviewing all the evidence that has been put before us by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in terms of documents, in terms of the amount of material put before us by interested citizens and the evidence that members on all sides of the House have used, I think it is fair to say that that which supports the abolition of capital punishment is far more scientific, lucid and reasonable than that evidence which those who are retentionists have placed before the House to convince the House of their arguments.
I do not think that anyone who impartially reads this debate in the House of Commons, or the evidence that we have, can doubt that statement for a moment. Basically, the arguments used by retentionists are emotional. They are valid in terms of the way in which the Canadian public feels about this subject. I think those of us in this House who prefer the position of the abolitionists must be very careful in taking a position on this question, simply because of the way in which the public, which we represent, feels about it.
As I said before, the five-year period has failed to convince the Canadian public that we can have abolition and public safety at the same time. There are a number of reasons, serious reasons, reasons that deserve our attention, for that position. First of all, I think it is fair to say that there has been a growth of violence in our society, not just in British Columbia, Quebec or Ontario but in all of Canada.
This is not a purely Canadian phenomenon: it is equally a phenomenon in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in the European countries and in the underdeveloped world. It is not unique to us. If the figures mean anything at all, they seem to indicate that the growth of violence in Canada on a per capita basis is substantially less than it is in most other countries. On this point alone it seems to me that no one can blame the fact that we do not have capital punishment in this country at the present time for the growth of violence. Nevertheless, the important factor is not so much what the situation is but, rather, what those people who have sent us here believe, and it is
Capital Punishment
in this kind of atmosphere that we must make our decision.
In addition, there has been a growth in what is called permissiveness which has been tied to the growth of violence in our society. There has been tremendous experimentation with a variety of drugs in our society, particularly with alcohol which has shown the largest increase in consumption of any drug even though some others have received most of the publicity.
There has been a decline in the power of legally constituted authority; people no longer accept authority blindly-parental authority, judicial authority, school authority, any kind of authority you wish to mention. That authority no longer has the high status it had. That breakdown of authority, coupled with permissiveness, drugs and an increase in violence preys very heavily on the emotions of Canadian people.
I think we are dealing with a gap between those who have studied the matter and the way in which an ordinary Canadian citizen perceives how the abolition of capital punishment will affect him. The ordinary Canadian citizen seems to believe that the prison system has collapsed, that there is no punishment adequate for the crimes that are committed, and that in particular when dealing with capital murder there is no guarantee that people who are legitimately convicted will suffer punishment for the heinous acts in which they have indulged.
I think it fair to say that the Canadian prison system has not been given much attention by governments. It has been allowed to wither on the vine. Governments have taken the attitude that this is part of the shadowy side of Canadian society. Society has put people away and has not cared about their rehabilitation or what happens to them when they are in these institutions. Consequently, our institutions of penal reform have become, not places of punishment and rehabilitation but, rather, graduate schools in the development of advanced criminals. I think that factor, coupled with the abject failure of the parole board over the last five years, has given the Canadian people a tremendous sense of uncertainty about the efficiency of our penal system.
I believe this is at the root of the brief which the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs has filed with all members of the House of Commons. They do their work in catching criminals, and once their work is done the courts sentence; but the penal system does not work and people are getting off with ridiculously light sentences and there is often no concept of punishment, let alone attempt at rehabilitation.
I believe the previous government from 1968 to 1972 made significant strides in the parole system, but these were not coupled with a proper system of penal reform which I believe we must have before we can develop an effective parole system. It seems to me that what is on trial here is not the question of capital punishment but, rather, the whole concept of the role of law, punishment and rehabilitation in a system of the just society. It strikes me that we have failed to reform the penal system to make it effective. The Canadian people are looking for some sense of security, so that people who have been
838

Capital Punishment
convicted of crime are given proper punishment and then an opportunity to work their way back into society. At the present time the Canadian people feel there is no attempt at punishment, or that any attempt at punishment is a facade because people who are convicted of crime go to jail, learn more about crime and then are released upon an unsuspecting public.
Concerning the work of the parole board, some time ago a gentleman from my constituency was convicted of manslaughter, I believe. He served part of his sentence and was released on parole. As he went down to get the policeman who had carried out the investigation, he stopped off in another community and killed a person whom he had never met before. It is incidents of that kind, repeated all over Canada, which really lead the Canadian people to a sense of uncertainty as to whether or not we should continue the abolition of capital punishment. In other words, I would suggest that the parole board has caused a great deal of doubt in Canada as to whether or not capital punishment should be abolished.
I have a suggestion for the Solicitor General. The next time paroles are made and the person paroled goes wrong, those people who approved the parole should then go to jail and serve the rest of the sentence without any possibility of parole. That might make them think a little more carefully about what they are doing. Then we might have a system of parole in which the ordinary Canadian citizen could have some confidence. Unfortunately, that does not now exist.
The other problem I want to deal with involves the question of the police and the fear which people have. The police are our front line troops in terms of protecting society. Of all the jobs which we have people do in our society, it is the police who in many ways have the most difficult one. They are the ones who deal with what I think can be classified as the underside of Canadian society. They are the ones who try to keep the peace and protect law abiding citizens with the rules we in this chamber create. They often do not get the support they require and deserve from people in this House and outside.
When the police see the results of their work thrown away by our penal system, thrown away by the parole board or thrown away by the courts, they have cause to be worried. They are the ones on the firing line, the ones who are most in danger of being shot without warning, of being murdered in cold blood. Consequently, while I may not agree with the arguments they have proposed, I do understand fully the emotion which powers their request. This is an emotion which they share with the bulk of the Canadian people and it is an emotion which I believe we in this House ignore at our peril and at the expense of avoiding our proper responsibilities. That fear is there.
One of the tragedies in attempting to deal with the issue of capital punishment is that under our laws there are few people who have committed first degree murder who have come up for trial on a charge of first degree murder, an act that is premeditated and then executed. I have been told that there might be a maximum of 25, and perhaps a minimum of ten per year in these circumstances.
We are not dealing with murders that are committed under great surges of emotion or by accident. We are

dealing with a very small number of murders which offend public opinion and frighten the public. These are exactly the kind of murders that do not call for capital punishment. It is those murderers, the public cries, who should have to face capital punishment; yet under the system as it is this does not in fact happen. It is unfortunate that the debate does not involve that central problem, because what the Canadian public has argued for in the sense of capital punishment does not in fact affect 95 per cent of the murders committed in Canada.
The difficulty I have in trying to explain this to my constituents is the gap between the knowledge we have been given and the perception of that knowledge by the people in our constituencies. We have so far not found any way of bridging that gap. It bothers me to be placed in a position of voting on capital punishment when there is such a gap between what the public wants and what the facts are as I perceive them and as a significant number of members here perceive them. The emotion and fear of the Canadian public and the reality of these facts as we understand them, in terms of who has committed murder and who is likely to commit murder, is so wide it almost seems impossible to be bridged.
If the Canadian people want a return to capital punishment, we as legislators have a fearsome responsibility thrust upon us, no matter where we stand on an individual basis or how we feel we should vote according to our conscience. If our constituents and the people of Canada argue strongly that they require capital punishment to protect them, and we in this House deny them by voting for abolition or for another five-year trial period, there is ample evidence to indicate that we are not in fact obeying the obvious declaration of the will of the Canadian people. This is a dilemma which should happen to no man, no party and no government. It is a question, not of whether I obey my conscience or my party but how I, as an individual Member of Parliament, relate to my constituents. I have an obligation to do what I think best with the facts at my disposal. If the facts at our disposal contradict or are in opposition to the way in which our constituents perceive the problem, this then puts the Member of Parliament in a position that is well nigh impossible. I find this to be an extremely difficult position to be in.
I regret that at this time I have not been able to come to any final conclusion as to how I will vote on this particular bill. Quite frankly, I am an abolitionist. From the evidence I have seen, I am convinced that capital punishment does not do the very thing that its proponents argue for it, that is, it does not act as an effective deterrent.


An hon. Member:: Would it deter you?


John Mercer Reid: I do not think so. If I really wanted to get you, for example, I would go after you. According to all the evidence and statistics that have been developed in this debate, capital punishment does not do what it is claimed to do. Consequently, I cannot accept that I should vote for a bill which may affect somebody else's life in the future on the basis of somebody's feelings.
We want to take our position in this House, particularly on an issue where we have a free vote, on our reading of
January 31, 1973

the facts as they are presented. The facts as they are presented indicate quite clearly that in no jurisdiction in the world, where there is an opportunity to compare, is capital punishment a deterrent. Therefore, as an individual I am in an embarrassing situation. I am now going to indicate how I hope to extricate myself from this position.


An hon. Member:: What did Burke say?


John Mercer Reid: I want to deal with Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. This, of course, is the argument which all Members of Parliament memorize as soon as they become members, that is, the Member of Parliament is not a delegate with specific instructions to do this or that. The Member of Parliament is elected to exercise leadership and judgment. He is here to interpose, by definition, his interpretation of the common good above those who have elected him. I accept that definition. I accepted that definition when I voted for the abolition of capital punishment the last time and for the partial ban which has just ended.
I understand there have been changes in the rules of the House of Commons in that second reading is no longer the approval in principle that it was before the rules were changed. The motion to commit a bill to committee for further study does not commit one to the principle of the bill. The real debate, or real conflict of opinion should come when the bill is returned from committee for third reading. I believe that any reasonable interpretation of the existing Standing Orders will bear out that interpretation. In any event, my credential for making that statement is that I was a member of the committee which made the recommendation to the House of Commons which was subsequently accepted. That was our interpretation.
I intend to vote for the bill at second reading. I want to say to the House that I shall not vote for the bill when it comes down at third reading unless there are provisions to provide for those individuals convicted of murder and sentenced to prison with no possibility of parole for at least three-quarters of the sentence. For the other one-quarter of the sentence attempts should be made by the parole board to integrate these people back into the society in which they will have to live. I do not say whether that period should be 25 years, 22 years or 20 years, but it must be for a significant portion of a person's lifespan. I also believe that it is a useless experiment if we do not also provide some means for the rehabilitation and re-education of that man and, since we have women's lib, that woman back into the mainstream of society. If that is not done it is likely that the person will end up committing another murder or some other crime within a short period of time.
I take a philosophical position on capital punishment and the question of abortion which I developed only after being elected to this House of Commons when both these issues were brought forward for decision. I have taken what can be termed a conservative position on both these issues. I only wish the Conservative party would follow my logic and accept it as well. My position, basically, is that human life is far too precious to be wasted. I am an optimist about the way in which human nature can improve itself and develop. Accordingly, I am opposed to
Capital Punishment
abortion of any kind on the ground that once conception has taken place there is a potential human being who has every right to grow and develop.
I am opposed to capital punishment by the same logic. Anybody who has made a mistake, however heinous it may be in the way of murder, there is a possibility for something useful to come from that person. I hold this position very carefully, Mr. Speaker. I do not mention it to the House lightly. I wish those people who are retention-ists would take that argument to heart and follow it through.
It has always been a matter of some shock and even surprise to me that those people who are in favour of abortion on demand are also in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, a position with a logic in which I can find no sense at all. The logical position is that one is either in favour of abortion on demand and capital punishment, or one takes the position which I have enunciated, that one is opposed to abortion on demand and also to capital punishment.
I have made my decision, Mr. Speaker. I had not made it before I began to speak. I will support this bill at second reading. I will support it at third reading only if it is suitably amended to provide for long sentences without parole until the end. Otherwise, I am inclined at this time to submit my judgment to my constituents and the people of Canada. They are looking for some sign or symbol that their interests are going to be considered. They must feel that even though it may not be effective, we in this House have moved to protect society from the criminal element.


Mr. Knight:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member entertain a question?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that some members of this House had the good sense not to become either lawyers or professors, would the hon. member inform us what he means by a mandatory sentence of at least three-quarters of the period?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was my idea that if the proposal of long-term imprisonment without parole, which will be moved in committee by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming), were accepted by the committee and reported back to the House as an integral part of the bill, one might consider taking 20 of the 25-year period in which there would be no parole and five years to integrate the person back into society. That is my position.
But I do insist that for a significant part of this time in prison he would not be let out. If you have taken somebody out of society for a significant period of time, you must also provide him with some way of returning to society, of coming to grips with a society which he will not know, having spent 25 years away from it. It is senseless to put somebody away for 20 years or 25 years and then suddenly release him back into a society and environment of which he has no knowledge and over which he has no control.
25714'-54a

January 31, 1973
Capital Punishment


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I followed the hon. member's address with considerable interest and I wonder if he would be kind enough to answer one more related question. Did his decision regarding three-quarters of the term result from his reaction to what he senses to be the public mood in Canada, or was it in response to what he thinks expert penologists would recommend?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a combination of both. It is in response to the need for security which the public feels, in terms of a long period in jail. It is also in response to the opinions of penologists with respect to the means of rehabilitating people into society after they have been away from it for so long.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) I have to rule that in neither case was there a point of order; it was simply asking for amplification of the hon. member's remarks.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, it is with some concern that I rise to speak on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, for many Canadians are today wrestling with their consciences over the complex question of capital punishment. They are asking themselves: does one man have the right to kill another even if that man is carrying out that act on the orders of the state?
Obviously, there are times when a man finds himself in a situation where it is necessary to kill or be killed. Here I am referring to a soldier who in defence of his country or in defence of his own life is justified in taking the life of another. It is also acceptable to society if one man kills another in defence of his family whose safety is threatened or endangered. The law in most countries provides that anyone in fear of his life during an attack may kill another in self-defence. There are, therefore, occasions when a sound case can be made for killing another human being. However, in the bill before us we are concerned with the right of the state to take the life of a condemned murderer or to commute his sentence by cabinet decree.
The purpose of this bill is to reinstate the five-year ban on hanging which expired on December 29, 1972, and to extend it for another five-year period to December 31, 1977. It would also eliminate the terms "capital murder" in relation to murder punishable by death and "non-capital murder" in relation to murder punishable by life imprisonment.
No matter how we vote in this House on this issue, it is my firm conviction that we shall never again see a man hanged in Canada or put to death by any other means. I say this in light of the facts, for the federal cabinet has exercised its so-called executive prerogative of mercy more than 60 times during the past ten years by commuting all death sentences meted out by the courts.
In 1968, parliament approved the present trial ban on capital punishment in all cases except the murder of a policeman or prison guard. The House will recall that this was approved by a vote of 105 to 70. But hon. members know the result: since January 4, 1968, there were 17 death sentences commuted to life imprisonment, and of
these 12 were persons sentenced to death for the murder of policemen or prison guards. It is therefore obvious that the present law was not upheld. Those who murdered policemen are still living and, under present laws, may one day be allowed out on parole. It therefore seems that we have not as yet given proper thought to this problem, and neither this government nor this bill will enable us find a solution that is generally acceptable to the majority of Canadians.
The abolitionists declare that capital punishment is not a deterrent and they point out that in a murder trial there is always the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, followed by the execution of an innocent man. The retention-ists claim that the death penalty is a deterrent and that when it is imposed it prevents repetition of the offence by the executed criminal. On this ground there can be no argument. But the question still arises in the public's mind: does the death penalty deter others from committing murder? I submit that to this question there is no factual or final answer. In my opinion, the real question is not, alone, capital punishment but the alternatives to capital punishment and unfortunately this bill fails to deal with any death penalty alternatives. I think that the alternative to the death penalty seems to be the real crux of the problem.
Many of my constituents have implied to me that they do not want to see condemned murderers hanged by the neck until they are dead. They also state that they do not want to see them walking down the street, coming toward them, some ten years after they have committed a brutal murder. Obviously, our parole system is in need of major revision. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) who spoke immediately prior to me dealt quite adequately with this problem. I hope that members of the cabinet who are in the House and heard his speech will take cognizance of his remarks and comments, for they are in line with my thinking on this matter.
There has obviously been neglect of duty by the parole board. Obviously they have been too lenient in dealing with convicted murderers and this leniency has caused unrest, concern, frustration and alarm among many many thousands of Canadians.
In many countries that have abolished the death penalty imprisonment for natural life has become the alternative. In all my more than 15 years in this House I have been a firm believer in capital punishment and I have so voted whenever the issue has come before parliament. However, I would personally be willing to support the abolition of capital punishment on one condition, namely, that the alternative punishment be natural life imprisonment: the expression "natural life imprisonment" is only one of several titles for the same idea-imprisonment until death.
I believe that a convicted murderer by his own act has shown he can no longer be trusted and that he is no longer fit to live in our modern society. I believe he must be punished for his crime. It has been said that capital punishment in a humane manner is far less cruel than spending one's natural life in prison. Mr. Speaker, if we are looking for a deterrent to murder, I believe that the sentence of natural life imprisonment is a less compassionate sentence than the sentence of death. The key words in my

January 31, 1973

proposal-I would emphasize them-are natural life imprisonment.
I also believe that we need this type of deterrent as protection for society. All too often we hear that the rights of the murderer as an individual must be protected. I ask this House, is it not away past the time when we should begin considering the rights of the victims?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When a man blows up an aeroplane in order to kill his wife and collect her insurance, I ask myself what respect he had for human life. When a man hijacks an aeroplane and shoots two or three, or more, of its passengers and then directs the pilot to some unknown destination, when he takes over a whole planeload of people, I ask myself what respect he has for the life of others or even for his own. Society, Mr. Speaker, is crying out for protection against this type of outrageous action, against this type of murderer.
When I am speaking about natural life imprisonment for convicted murderers I do not mean that they should spend the rest of their lives in a cell. Meaningful employment could be found behind prison walls which would enable the convicted man to earn his keep. This afternoon the cost to society of keeping a man in prison was mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the cost would be almost the same whether the prison was full or empty. The guards would still be there, the cost of heating and maintaining the institution would be the same, so under my proposal the convicted murderer would help earn his keep.
Within the limits of certain principles there is no reason why a prisoner for life should not be treated decently. He could be allowed opportunities for education and for responsibilities within prison society. However, he should not be given even the hope of freedom except as he can manage to find it within himself. As a result of his own actions he would be permanently excluded from ordinary society.
The criticisms of this proposal are quite straightforward, Mr. Speaker. One of the main arguments is that a man condemned to prison for the rest of his natural life has precious little to lose. He may in desperation try to escape and he may kill anyone who stands in his way. In answer to this I can only suggest the prolonged use of solitary confinement or the retention of capital punishment for those who commit murder a second time. In this way, the various grades of reward and punishment would be maintained. Since there appears to be no hope of change in the murderer's attitude and he will be a continuing menace to society, it seems to me that a maximum security institution is the answer since capital punishment is obviously no longer acceptable to this government and I question whether it will be acceptable to any government in the future.
I have checked the Criminal Code and find that in order to bring about the changes I have proposed it would be necessary to change the present law. The sentence of natural life imprisonment would apply to those crimes which under the present law carry the sentence of death.
Capital Punishment
Since December 29, 1972, at which time the 1967 amendment to the Criminal Code lapsed, capital crimes have included all acts of premeditated murder as outlined in the 1961 amendment to the Criminal Code. No change in the definition of capital murder is required by my proposal. For example, section 218(1) of the Criminal Code specifies the punishment for capital murder: it reads as follows:
Every one who commits capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death.
This clause could be changed to read:
Every one who commits capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to natural life imprisonment.
What I am trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to make the law acceptable or equal to the actions of the government. Other changes in the law would also be required, but I believe natural life imprisonment is an alternative to capital punishment. While its implementation would not be a simple matter, it obviously would provide Canadians with the alternative they require for their over-all protection.
The case for my proposal is quite clear and straightforward. If society should say, and if members of this House should decide that capital punishment is barbaric, then it must be prepared to employ that alternative which both justice and security demand. It is a requirement of justice that there be a reasonable relationship between the seriousness of crime and punishment. In my opinion, excluding death there is only one punishment which approaches the seriousness of murder, and that is permanent loss of freedom.
There are many who believe, and their belief is firmly based on the record of past experience, that the man who has murdered may murder again. An example was given to the House this afternoon by the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River. Even if the risk of this happening is slight, I believe society should be relieved of the obligation to accept that risk. The cabinet has the power of granting mercy or clemency, but in my opinion it has abused that power by automatically commuting every death sentence to life imprisonment, which in some cases means serving ten years or less. The cabinet is undermining our legal processes and the power of this parliament. This practice in effect removes any deterrent effect associated with the death penalty and makes a sham of the whole judicial process.
How can we expect society to have respect for the law when those who are supposed to uphold it make a mockery of its own rules and regulations? This can no longer be tolerated. We must set an example for the entire country if parliament is to remain supreme. In my opinion clemency, which is the prerogative of the Crown, should be granted only when mercy has been recommended at the trial or in the case of an established error in conviction. Until a suitable alternative to capital punishment is proposed as a protection for society, I feel that the government has left me no choice but to vote against this bill.


Mr. Antonio Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to

January 31, 1973
Capital Punishment
voice my opinion and to show that I am not unwilling to speak. You will agree with me that if we all did as some members who like to make speeches at every turn for the obvious purpose of being in the limelight and afterwards making the headlines in our newspapers, our proceedings would be interminable and the Canadian people would be waiting still longer for the beneficial legislation which the government would like to pass. Moreover, I am unhappy to have to deal with the same matter, that is the death penalty, for a third time in this House. I will not repeat my previous speeches.
On the previous occasions, I will frankly admit that I had been disturbed, not on account of a difference of opinions with a few colleagues but on account of my love for my fellow-being and my duty as a legislator which is to protect society and which drives me into a corner. It is like the surgeon who must decide to remove an organ or not to operate and run the risk of finding out later on that the disease will cause the death of his patient.
It is somewhat the same in society. The legislator must make decisions likely to please most people. In this case, it seems that the majority is in favour of retaining capital punishment. Why? Maybe through lack of information-I did not say "formation".
The population at large would appreciate a little more security. A citizen would find comfort in knowing that his dear ones or himself will be not be attacked, beaten up, raped and killed. What happened since 1967, notwithstanding the provision to the effect that the murderer of a policeman or prison guard would be sentenced to the death penalty? I say, how many of these murderers have received this penalty? None so far. What can the abolitionists answer to this? Have they gone down in the street to inform the people, to explain their view concerning the reasons which have motivated the 1967 decision? Have they gone down in the street to listen to the opinion of the people? Certainly not.
In the course of the five years following the provisional abolition of the death penalty, statistics have kept on showing an upward trend concerning murders, even killings of policemen. Perhaps they will play on words saying that the population having increased, it is therefore normal that orime should increase. Let us be frank, let us consider percentages. People in favour of the abolition of the death penalty having lost their cause in 1966 came back in 1967 and won their point: the abolition of the death penalty would be in force for a trial period of five years, except in the case of killing a policeman or prison guard. That is a lot of bunk, in my view.
So why not apply the death penalty for a similar period of five years? Such an experience would allow us subsequently to make comparisons and it would then be seen what best serves the interest of public security. Besides, the public would understand better.
Mr. Speaker, concerning premeditated murder, we lawmakers must assume a heavy responsibility. The fact that society is deemed guilty is no reason to leave the same society in insecurity. It is therefore our duty to protect it, and what are we doing to this end? Should we increase policemen's salaries? Will that make them better detectives? Will an increase in salaries of judges increase their ability to make objective decisions? Would increasing

salaries of ministers and members of Parliament make them better legislators? Money certainly does not endow us with the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost and make each of us better in his sphere.
When a child is observed to be hot-tempered or shows symptoms of a bad disposition, that is when parents should strive to correct him and they should not wait until he has grown to be an adolescent, a young man or even an adult.
A tree should be straightened while growing and not when it has achieved full growth. So, all this, Mr. Speaker, boils down to say that since 1966 and 1967 I have not succeeded in convincing myself that I was wrong. So I examined the problem and I realized that there is a cause for every ill.
During the Middle Ages and the following centuries, there were fewer murders because the authorities used to judge instantly and on the public square even those who were charged with simple theft. With the passage of times and everything it entails, we now realize that because of our tolerance and Christian charity we are now faced with an undeniable fact, which is that proportionately, the criminal is judged less severely than the poor guy who has committed a simple theft; the latter begins his tribulations and learning of hatred of his equal and the established authorities.
Why? I think it is because we did not have then a "more human" rehabilitation mechanism, and I emphasize the words "more human".
Ask former inmates how they were treated in prison. I understand better today why they have become revolted, worn out and, in some cases, social discards. Indeed, they were not offered a helpful hand, treated like human beings. Is it more likely that a criminal will be brought to realize his mistake through bad treatment, or through good reasoning? This is what we have got.
Had we had 25 years ago the rehabilitation system that we are developing today, perhaps we would not have to discuss this serious problem. I think it is due to a bad investment of the interest accrued since, that is mistakes and errors, that we are now faced with this dilemma.
However, since it is never too late to mend, I offer my small contribution to our proceedings by making a few suggestions which might prompt us to make acceptable amendments, thus putting us in a better position.
Let us begin with judges, lawyers and future judges. Why not ask them to review the Criminal Code and to propose amendments to the section dealing with the heavy onus of proof.
Furthermore, paroles should only be granted after consultation and discussion with all those concerned with the supervision, the behaviour or the mental state of the prisoner. I mean the classification officer, the correctional officer, the psychologist, the psychiatrist and even the governor of the institution. On the strength of a report signed by all those people and not only one of them, the parole officer would make the necessary recommendations to the parole board which would make a decision on the basis of complete instead of partial reports.
January 31, 1973

Mr. Speaker, I remember that on November 16, 1967, on the occasion of my speech on capital punishment, I criticized the abolitionists for their lack of concern for the victims of those criminals and we know what followed. We are now paying compensation to the victim's dependents. Unfortunately this does not bring the victim back to life but at least his family is able to survive. Besides, this is the only improvement since December 1967.
I also had another consolation when I was informed that a new program will be implemented in penal institutions to hire correctional agents with a role of contact and discussions with the inmates. They will no longer be simple jail wardens sometimes arrogant and rough not to say sadistic. Formerly, many of them had to be arrogant and rough with the inmates even though, deep down, they disapproved strongly of this attitude. The old rehabilitation philosophy and the manner in which it was implemented by the authorities confined the correctional agents as well as the inmates in an inhuman prison. Today we want the agent to be able to make more use of his human qualities so as to render progressively more responsible the individuals whom life has deprived of their sense of responsibilities toward themselves and toward others.
The Sollicitor General (Mr. Allmand) may rely on my full support as well as on the support of all people inbued with civic and humanitarian spirit. An inmate is not an animal but a human being such as you and me who, it is true, has made a mistake but has been punished for it by losing his freedom, and is in jail for a certain number of years. Losing one's freedom is already quite hard, but how can we hope to rehabilitate the inmate if he is hunted down as an animal, treated as a slave and scoffed at by society. He will revolt against that society at the very first opportunity. Our correctional agents would be happy and proud to participate in the new method instead of being the executioners of the old.
Mr. Speaker, I am not asking that criminals be given the Canada Medal for services rendered but, as I have said before, if we had tried something like that 20 or 25 years ago, I am sure we would not be squabbling today about retaining or abolishing capital punishment.
To my mind, our penal system is at fault, at least partially. However, we must not wait to see if this new starting point will lead us where we want to go; unfortunately, I still do not see how we can help the hardened criminal. On the other hand, I feel we can do something for the young and the adults who are sent for the first time to a penitentiary.
In short, having expressed my opinions, I suggest first of all that our penal system be humanized, along the lines of the existing program. Then, instead of asking that abolition of the death penalty be extended for another five years, I would ask that it be reinstated for the same length of time. It would then apply in cases of premedidat-ed crimes, rape followed by murder, kidnapping followed by murder, armed theft followed by murder as well as hijacking.


Mr. lean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House compels many hon. members to ask themselves whether, in the name of what I might call a
Capital Punishment
pseudo-advanced civilization, they should have capital punishment abolished or make themselves the spokesmen for the people they are supposed to represent.
I for one prefer to make myself the spokesman for the voters of my constituency; most of them consider that this is mainly a law for the protection of murderers and hired killers.
Many arguments have been put forward, including that there are fewer murders in countries where capital punishment was abolished. As far as I am concerned, I consider that we shall not have crime curtailed by setting the offenders free. If one compares this problem to that of road traffic, it can be said for sure that closing the roads to traffic will not enable us to prevent the escape of offenders.
I believe that for the protection of our people, the wisest solution would be to maintain capital punishment and to make the evidence act stricter so that when an accused is sentenced to death the evidence be complete enough to make sure that no error is being made. Otherwise, the same punishment would be applied to armed robbery and murder.
There are two conflicting theories on this matter: one, which might be called "intellectualistic", is that of advanced intellectuals, those who believe that they always speak on behalf of the people, whether they are called psychologists, sociologists or otherwise. Often, frustrated criminal lawyers who have lost cases would like to have the cause of such frustration removed. Moreover, the underworld is against capital punishment, which is understandable, because it interferes with its activities. People who indulge in subversive activities and would like to avoid the penalties they advocate, are called revolutionaries nowadays.
Even if there are few of them in Canada, shyjackers would rather have capital punishment abolished, for it would cramp their style if they thought of what was waiting for them in case of failure.
As for anarchists, who are always against any government legislation, they will probably support this one because their main purpose is to defeat the government.
The other argument, which might be called "realistic", is the one supported by the victims, by those who suffer from murders, namely the wives or close relatives of murdered men who have sometimes to live in poverty and fear as a result of these murders.
Among those who share this consensus, there are some who are exposed to this eventuality in the course of their work. They might be considered as potential victims. Those people are certainly in favour of retaining capital punishment.
According to surveys made in several constituencies, from 80 to 90 per cent of the people are asking for retention of capital punishment because they are afraid for their own security if it is abolished.
Also included are all those citizens respecting law and order, those with a clear conscience who are going about their own little business earning their own living, not that of others, and who are sometimes called the silent majority.

Capital Punishment
There are also police officers who, obviously, have to face criminals and who would like to have more arguments to convince them not to kill.
From another angle, religionwise, I would quote the Bible where it says many times that whomsoever kills a fellow human being be punished likewise.
Mr. Speaker, history has shown that in certain countries there was a rise followed by a fall of civilization. When civilization was on the rise, there was discipline in the schools as well as in other fields. Pride and honour also prevailed. Those are things which tend to disappear today. In ancient times there used to be vigour, a form of virility and devotion to work which made the citizens in their respective fields lead the country toward a higher form of civilization.
History has also witnessed, whether it be in Greece, in Rome, or in France, declines brought about quite often by the thoughtlessness of people.
It was often the great philosophers who misled the people by thrusting their dubious theories on them.
There was also decline after legalization of homosexuality, drugs and sloth. Indeed the latter replaced pride. In addition, the social climate was allowed to deteriorate and anarchy hit society. Certain groups of citizens were allowed to ridicule the laws, policemen and law makers. Finally, murder was allowed to serve as an instrument of power, as was seen in history, power accompanied by violence, fraudulent bankruptcies, exploitation of the worker and the farmer. Pride was also left to be annihilated by overly stringent succession duties and direct taxes which brought about situations like that of Louis XVI which led to the Revolution.
We must set specific objectives. Do we want the country to continue its upward march and protect itself against criminals, or do we want to start going downhill through indifference and lack of concern?


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, many people, including many members of this House, have spoken many words on this most personal of subjects. I rise knowing that few, if any, members are likely to alter their thinking as a result of my remarks or other remarks made during the course of this debate. I also recognize that my views probably do not coincide with a significant number, perhaps even a majority, of the people in my riding.
With respect to the question whether members of this House should vote according to their conscience, according to their own wishes or according to the wishes, the dictates, as expressed-if they are able to be expressed adequately-of the people in their ridings, the argument was perhaps put best by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he spoke in this chamber yesterday. If I might be permitted to quote briefly from his remarks, as reported at page 785 of Hansard he said:
How can you take a stand in your heart in favour of something and then vote the other way? On a free vote everyone should let his conscience be his guide.

A little further on, as reported at page 786 he said:
Each one of you in this House has the conscientious responsibility of voting according to your conscience and for no other reason.
I cannot make the argument any better than that. However, I should like to assure my constituents, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I have read every letter, telegram, brief and petition they have taken the time to send me. I have replied to each one individually. There was no form letter nor evading of the question. I have unequivocally stated my views to them, whether we have agreed or disagreed.
The matter before us is one of primary importance and interest to every Canadian. The question of taking human life, either by the premeditated, cold-blooded act of one person in the name of revenge, passion or greed, or by the equally premeditated, cold-blooded act of all of us in the name of justice, in my judgment is decidedly wrong in each case. I emphasize that I feel it is wrong to eliminate a human life in either of these circumstances. In fact, there is no justification save self-defence for the taking of a human life under any circumstances.
Although I feel it should be incumbent upon those propounding the use of capital punishment to justify its necessity, the onus all too often falls on the abolitionist to justify his stand. So be it, Mr. Speaker, for I feel that the abolitionist stand can be supported.
In this debate we must ask ourselves whether our desire to either retain or abolish the death penalty is based more on objective, empirical reasons or more on emotional, instinctive reactions. No doubt because the matter is of such an emotional nature in which we are all able to see ourselves as victims, as friends or relatives of victims, or even as murderers, it is difficult to view the matter totally objectively. But as lawmakers it is our duty to act reasonably and rationally as far as possible, eliminating decisions based on feeling or basic human instincts.
One of the questions most frequently put to me during this argument asks me to imagine the brutal slaying of a loved one, usually a daughter, by a rapist-murderer. They try to make it as heinous and as gory as possible. They then ask, "How would you feel then"? Under those circumstances I would probably want to see the monster suffer a slow, agonizing death. During the agony, anguish and anger immediately following the event I might well attempt to carry out that slow, agonizing execution myself. But is this a valid argument for capital punishment? Hardly. We all feel revenge, even hatred at times. But these are debasing human emotions. It is unbecoming of us either individually or collectively to experience them, let alone use them as a basis for supporting the argument in favour of taking a human life.
This basic argument, that of need to avenge a death, is put in many forms. We are told that if a man takes a life he gives up the right to his own life. It is put in the form of the "eye for an eye" cliche from the Old Testament. But do these arguments not really beg a further question? The very large-looming query "Why?" still remains unanswered. Why an eye for an eye, and why a life for a life? Is it because the Bible says so, as some would argue? Surely the God and Christ, whose life is portrayed in the Bible as

one of love, of forgiveness and mercy, is not now demanding a life for a life and an eye for an eye.
Then there is the argument that society must be protected from the totally immoral brute without a conscience who would kill anyone near him for any reason. I admit that this argument comes a little closer to a reasonable approach, as opposed to an emotional one, for the retention of capital punishment.
Certainly in accepting the "protection" argument we as a society are admitting defeat. We are admitting our inability to deal with those among us who fail to maintain accepted standards of social behaviour. Imprisonment in solitary confinement, if necessary, is sufficient protection. Such an approach permits the possibility, admittedly remote in most cases, of the rehabilitation of the murderer.
Of course, under a system of total abolition there must be increasing emphasis on the reform aspects of our penal reform system. No one should be granted his freedom until it can be determined that he is no more likely to commit a further serious crime than the average law abiding citizen. Until psychiatric and social analytical methods become sufficiently sophisticated to make such a determination with absolute surety-that is important-a man should remain behind bars.
In addition, there are indications from recent studies that when hanging is the inevitable outcome of conviction for murder, many juries are reluctant to convict. Thus, if protection is the desired result, we see that the opposite effect is sometimes achieved. Perhaps the most persuasive, and certainly the most often employed argument for retention is that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, dissuading others in society who may be inclined to murder someone.
Statistics are freely bandied about on both sides, more often irresponsibly than objectively. Adherents of both views fall into the fallacy of predetermining their position and then goiftg about gathering statistical support for it, usually ignoring unfavourable information. The reverse, the empirical approach, study leading to conclusion, obviously should be employed. We have heard entire speeches dealing with statistics. I have read and analysed as many studies as most members of this House. The important word in that last sentence is "analysed". It is intellectually dishonest to seek support from cold figures without a close analysis of their true meaning.
For example, the Statistics Canada figures for murder, used liberally by retentionists, show that since the partial ban in 1967, Canada has suffered a significant increase in murders. Ergo, some would conclude, the threat of the death penalty prior to 1967 deterred murderers. This is a lot of nonsense when you examine closely the figures in question. An analysis of these increases, which includes the disposition of the cases in the courts and which takes into account that one man often kills many victims at once-as many as 40 in the boarding house arson case in Quebec-indicates that the rise in premeditated murders, which is the only type that could possibly be deterred by the fear of death, is insignificant. The overwhelming statistical evidence, both in Canada and around the world, concludes that murderers pay little attention to the possibly self-harming consequences of their acts. If there does exist some fear of apprehension, it results only in more
Capital Punishment
elaborate planning in order to avoid detection and capture.
The definitive study in this area which has been quoted on many occasions is that carried out by Professor Fattah of McGill University. His study shows that the incidence of crimes for which the penalty has not been changed has increased approximately the same as the murder rate has increased. In fact, the increase in murders is slightly less than the increase in other crimes of violence for which the penalty has remained unchanged.
If the death penalty were an effective deterrent, murders would have increased relatively more than other crimes during any period of abolition, and particularly in the period of partial abolition over the past five years. In many provinces, such as Nova Scotia in 1968, Ontario from 1968 through 1970, Saskatchewan in 1968 and Alberta in 1968-69, homicide rates actually declined after capital punishment was legally suspended. I suggest these facts speak eloquently against a link between the temporary suspension of and the over-all increase in homicide in Canada. It can be argued that the rise in crime generally is related to the total social situation, to an increase in population and to changing moral attitudes but not to the application or non-application of a particular penalty, as studies have clearly indicated.
I have spoken, Mr. Speaker, of the usual reasons for retention and have, I suggest, effectively rebutted them. There are modifications of each of these three or four basic arguments. I have yet to hear an approach of any persuasive value other than those discussed. I spoke at the outset about the onus being on the proponents of the death penalty for establishing its necessity. It should suffice, then, for abolitionists to rebut the retentionists' case and then rest their defence. However, there are very positive arguments for abolition which can be effectively made.
The taking of a human life for any reason, by anyone, is a debasing, despairing reaction which admits of the inability of the killer, including society, to cope with the behaviour of the killer. In dealing with a social deviate, society should aim to protect itself from him and to rehabilitate him, and not to perpetrate further deviation under the guise of legal murder. Obviously, that second objective, rehabilitation, is entirely out of the question if we employ capital punishment. The surest way to ensure genuine respect for human life among Canadians is for the state to respect it. Even though a murderer may have no respect or reverence for human life, if we in turn kill him we exhibit no more reverence than he does. Taking his life does not help his victim or his victim's friends or relatives; it brutalizes them and reduces them and all society to the level of the murderer.
All of what I have said has been more eloquently put by others in this chamber. Suffice it to say that I am unequivocally opposed to the use of the death penalty. Given this position, we abolitionists face the conundrum posed by the government's motion before the House. By voting either for or against it we vote to retain the death penalty, albeit to differing extents.

January 31, 1973
Capital Punishment
What is the answer? The answer is not to abstain from voting. That would be an abdication of our responsibility to our electorate. The answer is to choose the lesser of the evils, to vote for the continuation of the partial ban for a further five years at this stage of the proceedings. In doing so, I urge all hon. members to seriously consider the motion to be put in committee which will totally abolish the death penalty and replace it with a mandatory 25-year jail term. Such a course would surely satisfy those reten-tionists who base their arguments on the requirement to protect society from the murderer.
I would urge all members before voting to approach the question in a reasonable, analytical fashion divorced from emotional considerations as far as possible. When we allow basic human instincts and emotions to cloud our judgment, we make mistakes. On this issue, Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to make a mistake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to take very long in this debate. I did not intend to participate in it until recently, but I thought that I should put some of my views on record to at least indicate how I plan to vote on this serious matter. This is one of the most serious questions we will have to deal with in this parliament. I have been trying to grapple with it in my own mind and conscience. All hon. members are faced with this.
A few speakers who preceded me suggested that this is not really a free vote, that positions are set on this side of the House and on the opposite side and we are being told how to vote. That, Mr. Speaker, is not the case. It is certainly not the case on this side of the House. I have been honestly and sincerely grappling with my conscience as to how I want this situation handled. I have tried to read as much of the literature that has been passed to me by the Solicitor General's department as possible. I have also read literature from other sources.
This is a situation where there are statistics to support both sides. There are statistics to show that abolition is best. Some states have had abolition for many years. The murder rate in those areas is very low. On the other hand, France still has the guillotine which is used to kill people. France has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world. It is necessary to look at the whole picture. Each member must make up his own mind and then decide how he will vote.
My mail is running between 95 per cent and 99 per cent in favour of retaining the death penalty. However, I feel the same way as hon. members such as the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). Yesterday the hon. member for Selkirk made it very plain that even though his constituents are in favour of retention, he is going to make up his own mind. That is what I am going to do.
The hon. member for Sarnia stated that he was very concerned about people being let out on parole. I share his concern. There have been many serious situations in British Columbia. Recently there was the Head case. This case caused a lot of concern among many people with regard to our whole system of parole. I have expressed this view

to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). We have to tighten up in this area. If a man is in prison for a very serious crime such as murder, perhaps there should not be any consideration of parole for 20 or 25 years. We should not go along with granting easy parole where a person convicted of a very serious crime is let out after a few years. I feel very strongly about that, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that when this bill goes to committee for consideration we can come up with a proposal upon which we can all agree to ensure full protection for society. Many people in British Columbia are honestly and very sincerely concerned about the slackness and the latitude allowed with respect to a number of inmates granted parole.
Now I would like to deal with a comment made by my colleague from New Westminster. He referred to the fact that a number of people sentenced to death in the United States tended to be from poverty-stricken categories and said a high proportion of them were Negroes. I tried to look up some statistics on this situation with respect to the native peoples of Canada, but I could not find any. I checked with the Solicitor General's department; apparently it does not keep statistics of that kind. However, from my personal observations over the years and from my own reading I cannot recall that very many native people had to be hanged in Canada. I would like to research this further.
I tend to believe that the proportion of native people who have received the death penalty is low compared with the total population of Canada. However, I am concerned about the number of native people who are in prisons and various other institutions right now. This is something I have discussed with my hon. friend the Solicitor General and I must express my pleasure at the concern he has shown, and the way he has responded to the situation. I hope we can go forward with a much more progressive program so that the number of native people in these institutions will continue to decline.
Over the past ten years the number of native people in detention institutions has gone down, but not far enough. The proportion of native people now in prisons is too high in comparison with that of the rest of the population. We have to do much better. As I say, I am happy with the attitude of the Solicitor General. I know he is working closely with the Department of Indian Affairs and with the various Indian organizations which made representations to him through the Department of Indian Affairs and other agencies of government.
The place to tackle this problem, though, is not in the institutions, although a lot can be done there. The work that has to be done must be done back in the Indian communities, tackling the reasons for and the causes of crime. There has to be much greater emphasis on education and meaningful social programs to help the native people play a much more constructive role in their own communities.
These were a few of the points that I wanted to make in my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I have had a very difficult time grappling with my conscience on this matter. After all the thinking and the reading that I have done, I believe the most sensible course I could follow at
January 31, 1973

this time, on behalf of my constituents, would be to vote for the bill in its present form, with the hope that we can introduce an amendment to tighten up the parole situation so that we will not have a repetition of the mistakes that have been made in the past few years.
We are all concerned about the protection of society. This is our main aim. Perhaps there is something more we can do to assure Canadians that they are getting the best possible protection, from our laws and penal system, against all types of criminals.


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, when this debate on capital punishment concludes in the House of Commons the decision will be taken by a free vote. As I understand it, a free vote is one in which Members of Parliament vote according to the dictates of their own conscience. They are not necessarily guided by the opinions expressed by party caucus. Indeed, the party caucus should not impose direction on its members in this vote even though the subject may be discussed in caucus. Neither should a member necessarily be guided by the volume of mail he receives on the subject from his constituents, although his decision may be affected by the force of reasoning in a particular brief or representation.
The outcome of this vote should be a result of the individual searching of the conscience of each representative in the House of Commons and a result of his conscientious study of the latest material available. The vote is taken across party lines. There will be, as there have been so far, retentionists and abolitionists in all parties. I have every confidence that most members of the House will vote according to their conscience and I believe that anyone who uses the occasion of this debate to garner a few votes would be beneath contempt.
Certainly, a free debate would appear to be the best approach to the subject because the question of capital punishment, as so many have said, is such an emotional one that large numbers of people may tend to be influenced by those same forces that in the past led to such unjust acts as lynching, witch-burning and the like.
I heard it suggested by one speaker that the subject of capital punishment should be decided by a nationwide referendum. In my opinion this type of referendum is little more than an invitation to mob rule. One need only read the hundreds of letters one receives on this subject to realize that many of them are motivated by emotion and lack of logic, just as a nationwide referendum would be motivated by emotion and lack of logic. Imagine such a vote being taken on the day that a particularly brutal and atrocious crime had been perpetrated. This is not to say that one does not receive carefully thought-out and logical letters, but they tend to be in the minority on the subject of capital punishment.
One can hardly blame a citizen who experiences a feeling of almost ungovernable rage when he reads of the brutal murder and rape of a defenceless child, or of other atrocious crimes. We all share the feeling at the time. It is difficult to pit logic against such feelings of anger, yet we must attempt to approach the subject, if not from a logical point of view at least from a philosophic point of view.
For the benefit of my constituents I should like to mention the latest studies and debates that have been pub-
Capital Punishment
lished on the subject of capital punishment. All hon. members are familiar with the two volumes available from the Queen's Printer, one entitled "Capital Punishment, New Material, 1965-1972" and the other "Study of the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment with Special Reference to the Canadian Situation," by Professor Fattah of McGill.
Most members of the House, on the basis of this latest material, are able to construct a logical argument to prove their points either for or against capital punishment. Therefore logic is unlikely to prevail. So, away with logic. Therefore I will not spend time discussing the deterrent effect of capital punishment since it is unlikely that I am going to convince anyone by quoting statistics or by taking that tack.
It is a fact, however, that long before the suspension of capital punishment in Canada a potential killer had over a 90 per cent chance of escaping execution in any case. These figures are based only on known incidents of murder, but many murders are not even detected, so that the probability of escaping execution is even higher than the percentage just mentioned. In a sense, then, the whole question of capital punishment or abolition is an academic one since it is unlikely that anyone is going to be executed in future in Canada.
On the face of it, if any province in Canada has the right to insist on the reinstatement of capital punishment it would probably be British Columbia, since the homicide statistics there are higher than those of any other province. These figures, however, are somewhat deceptive because although British Columbia has the highest average annual homicide rate it has the lowest percentage increase of homicide in Canada. The unfortunate fact is that homicide figures in British Columbia tend to be weighted by the number of homicides which occurred in the year 1962. Following the year 1962, in which there were 11 homicides, the rate of homicides decreased noticeably.
The deterrent effect of capital punishment on the whole is discounted on the evidence of enough studies that one can easily accept the thesis that it makes no great difference whether we have abolition or retention so far as the number of homicides is concerned. We must look, then, for another motive for reinstating capital punishment. Certainly, a civilized society should not employ revenge as a motive since nothing is gained for that society from revenge except perhaps here and there a feeling of wellbeing that one has "got even" in some manner with the criminal.
It is pointless to go into the religious arguments for capital punishment because the retentionists would quote from one point of view and the abolitionists would quote from another point of view so far as the Bible is concerned. Most orthodox churches oppose capital punishment on the ground that the governing Christian spirit should be one of mercy and forbearance.
I do not believe that the people who speak for the retention of capital punishment are motivated by a desire to deter or by a desire for revenge. It seems to me that the governing motive of the people who desire retention of capital punishment is one of frustration in a society which

January 31, 1973
Capital Punishment
they feel is too permissive, a society which they feel has no means of handling those people who are unable to function with their fellow members in that society and, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) pointed out, from the economic and social injustices which rankle so deeply in our private enterprise society.
It seems to me, therefore, that we must resort to examining the question from the philosophical point of view. What is it that distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animals? Not necessarily the ability to reason, because some animals have shown that ability in varying amounts. But the one thing that man can do that other animals cannot do is to store experience.
The wild animal in nature teaches his young or her young by instinct and example and one generation after another learns in exactly the same way. But mankind is able to store his experience in history books, in monuments, through artifacts and the like. We must believe that man, through his ability to store experience and to learn from the past, is rising in the scale of human evolution. Despite this ability to store experience, it seems to us that the beast still lurks just below the sophisticated veneer of modern man. This is hardly surprising since man has been on this earth for a relatively short period of time in comparison with the entire scale of life, the continuum of life on this earth.
To paraphrase an example used by Dr. Miller, I ask you to imagine a rope stretching from Toronto and ending at
the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons. This rope will represent the natural scale of life-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attends him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-127, an act to amend the Pilotage Act-Chapter No. 1.
At 6.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. February 1, 1973