1973-01-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is seeking the consent of the House to return to motions for the purpose of proposing a motion. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The motion arises out of the revelation in an article in the Financial Post of tomorrow's date in which the president of General Motors of Canada asserts that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce made no serious effort to get his company to bring down the prices of their automobiles.
The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, specifically asserted that this year's 7 per cent reduction in corporation tax had better be reflected in lower prices for automobiles. However, the president of General Motors had anticipated that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would appropriately threaten the withdrawal of the tax reduction from the automotive industry, having said, "Hell, that's where the strength was."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. He knows what the rule is. He should indicate what the motion is that he proposes to present to the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will move to the motion. If I may finish the quotation, the president of the company went on to say, "I kept waiting for Mr. Gillespie to bring up tax cuts on the phone, but he never mentioned them." Therefore, in view of the continuing unjustified price differential between North American cars sold in Canada and the United States, I move, seconded, by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this subject be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before putting the hon. member's motion to the House I must again bring to the attention of hon. members my qualms and doubts as to the propriety of including accusations or charges in
motions brought under Standing Order 43. Hon. members know that this Standing Order, as we have interpreted it in recent years, does not make it possible for other members whose conduct may be impugned in the statement made in proposing a motion under Standing Order 43 to be given an opportunity for reply. I would think the kind of statement included in the hon. member's proposed motion is a debate and I very much doubt that it is in order. Normally I would hesitate to accept the motion, but to save time and to avoid becoming involved in a long point of order I will ask whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question in light of the increase of 11 per cent in the wholesale price index in the past 12 months. May I ask the minister whether the government has made any projection as to the effect of an increase in wholesale prices of this magnitude upon the cost of living index and whether, in light of any such projection, the government is taking any special measures to mitigate the effect of this increase in wholesale prices on the cost of living other than establishing a committee of the House to study food prices?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government is following the situation very closely. With respect to questions like this dealing with general trends in the economy, perhaps the Minister of Finance would be the more appropriate minister to whom to direct such questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Minister of Finance for putting him on the spot at the request of his colleague. Can he tell us whether the government has made any projection of the effect of the 11 per cent increase in wholesale prices upon the cost of living index in the country and whether, in light of any such projection, which I assume it is the responsibility of the govern-
678

January 26, 1973
Oral Questions
ment to make, the government is taking any measures to mitigate the consequential increase in the cost of living other than the establishment of a committee of the House on food prices.
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) Mr. Speaker, I will be able to go into that problem in more detail on an appropriate occasion. I have studied these wholesale price rises and also the industrial price index. One has accelerated a bit and the other has decelerated. They are still at higher levels than I would like to see and may well work their way through the retail index. I might say to the hon. gentleman that in the United States the wholesale price index of food rose at an annual rate of 14 per cent despite a price and wage control imposition during the period. This is a problem that needs solution in a number of ways, but I would not want to invite any suggestion in the House that I have in any way changed my mind either as to the inevitability or the appropriateness of price and wage controls to meet that situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the minister said about the United States but we have to accept our own responsibilities. I was not asking about food prices. However, since food prices have been mentioned I would ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether, in view of the 5.1 per cent increase in the wholesale food index last month, the government has met or is meeting with representatives of the food industry in order to devise methods that might be implemented immediately to reduce the impact of this increase upon the retail prices of food, or is the minister simply going to leave this to the committee?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have not as yet contemplated the holding of such meetings. The Prime Minister has already pointed out the work on contingency planning which the government has been undertaking with respect to controls. Hopefully, the committee will begin meetings soon, and this subject can be gone into in depth in that forum.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the extraordinarily complacent attitude of the two ministers toward this problem-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor, of course, for the purpose of asking a question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister whether he has yet had an opportunity to study the studies concerning food prices made by the Prices and Incomes Commission, with which he was not familiar when I asked him a question on the subject last week? May I ask him what studies have been done, and whether this work will be available to the committee of the House of Commons inquiring into the question of food prices?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am not yet in a position to give further information to the Leader of the Opposition on this matter.


An hon. Member:: What a sense of urgency!


Mr. Baldwin:: You had better plan for another
contingency.


INCIDENCE OF TAXATION AS ELEMENT IN INFLATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Finance. In light of the information propounded in the questions of the Leader of the Opposition and the fact that the government does not appear to have taken much notice of the studies referred to by my leader, will he take into account in his budget presentation the principle enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and supported by the Economic Council of Canada, that the very high incidence of taxation in this country is an important element in inflation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I always take very seriously what the Leader of the Opposition says because of the high position he occupies in this House.


Mr. Muir:: You will soon have that same position, John.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POLLUTION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of what is reported to be the largest oil spill yet on the coast of British Columbia, at Haddington Reef, near Alert Bay, involving the bulk carrier Irish Stardust. Would the minister tell us what is the extent of the pollution threat, and inform us of what steps his department is taking to cope with an emergency which appears to be one of disastrous proportions?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport) The accident to which the hon. member has referred is, indeed, truly a serious one, though I am not sure that it is the most serious one to date. We do not yet have all the facts at our disposal; we learned about the occurrence yesterday afternoon at approximately 1.45, if my memory is correct. The Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment are both presently looking into it. The hon. member knows that the ship is now in harbour, in fact, in drydock. The damage has already been done but it is not increasing at the moment. I am waiting for a comprehensive report so I can tell the House exactly what happened and to what extent property and beaches have been damaged.
Mr. Barnett:: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can inform us which elements of the forces at his disposal are assisting officials of the Department of Transport to cope with this situation?
January 26, 1973


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the department is assisting. We have been fully informed of the oil spill but I cannot give the details of the exact number of personnel or the equipment being used.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question relating to the same matter. May I ask either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of the Environment whether they can inform the House as to what measures are being taken to contain this spill, clean up the damage and compensate those who have suffered, and what action is being taken against the offending ship?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it would be a long list. A number of experts from several departments are in the area giving advice. Equipment is on its way or already operating on the beaches around Alert Bay. It is a serious accident and is being treated as such.
*
* *
[TranslationJ


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Since the funds the Department of Manpower and Immigration has been provided with for the implementation of the Local Initiatives Program seem almost depleted, would the minister tell the House if he is willing to make additional credits available to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration so that he could be in a position to accept a larger number of projects in order to alleviate the unemployment problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once again, I am under the impression that this question has been asked almost every day this week. However, if the minister is willing to answer it, I will recognize him.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse is rising on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because the problem is most serious that this matter is so often brought back for consideration. I am very serious when I ask this question and I think the Minister of Finance is quite willing to answer even if it is only to give us a little hope.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair gave the Minister of Finance leave to answer that question a while ago. I do not object to the minister answering it but he himself has not deemed proper to do it. If he is willing to do so now he may have the floor.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am always ready to answer questions asked by my friend the hon. member for Bellechasse and as always I shall very seriously consider his representations.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister tell the House whether, in light of the recent statistics indicating an increase in the wholesale price index, he has had any conversations with the governor of the Bank of Canada with regard to changing the money supply?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir.


James McPhail Gillies: Does the minister intend to have such conversations?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I meet the governor once a week.


James McPhail Gillies: Is it the position of the government that the rate of increase in the money supply has an effect on the rate of inflation in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the rate of increase in the money supply in the early part of the year, as the hon. gentleman knows, was quite high. The recent rate of increase will bring the rate for the year 1972 somewhere between 12 and 14 per cent.
* *
*
[Translation)


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he give the House, as did his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the assurance that a substantial increase will be announced shortly in respect of old age pensions?
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) Mr. Speaker, I always support my colleagues.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe will recognize that the question has already been asked. The Chair objected to it yesterday or the day before because the question anticipates a bill to be presented to the House in due course. In that sense the question is out of order. If the hon. member wishes to put a supplementary, he may do so.
25714-44S

January 26, 1973
Oral Questions


Claude Wagner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister of Finance aware of rumours reported this morning by Mr. Claude Lemelin in the newspaper Le Devoir that there is dissension in the preparation of his budget?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows he cannot ask a minister whether he is aware of a report that may have been published in a newspaper. In those terms the question is out of order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two questions for the Secretary of State for External Affairs having to do with the dispatch of Canadian personnel as part of the international control and supervisory commission under the Viet Nam peace agreement. In view of the fact that Article 18 of the main agreement specifically states that the international commission of control and supervision shall be composed of representatives of four countries and then names them-Canada, Hungary, Indonesia and Poland-and in view of the fact it is rather hard to imagine that those countries would be named in the agreement without their consent, I would ask the minister whether Canada was approached for its consent and, if so, by whom, and was consent given to Canada being named in the main agreement as one of the four countries to participate in the commission?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the House previously, it was intimated to us that we might be called upon to be a member of the commission. We did not at that time give our agreement. We have taken the attitude, which I have explained many times in the House, that whether we were participants would depend upon the terms of the agreement and upon the terms of the protocol under which the supervisory commission would operate. We have received invitations from all four parties to the cease-fire agreement to participate. We have notified each of them of the announcement I made in the House of Commons and of the terms upon which we are prepared to participate.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two brief supplementary questions I should like to ask. Do I understand from the minister that Canada did not agree at the time it had an intimation and that despite Canada's failure to agree the parties to the agreement stated categorically that the commission shall consist of representatives of certain countries, including Canada? Is the minister telling us that the parties to the agreement included Canada despite Canada's failure to agree?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the situation. The parties to the agreement did include Canada notwithstanding the reservations I had expressed on behalf of the government. All four parties, not just the United States,
[Mr. Speaker, j
are apparently very anxious that Canada should be a member. They knew of our reservations and conditions, and I have expressed them in this House and elsewhere and conveyed them to all the parties. Notwithstanding that, Canada was included. We have made a decision subsequently, of course, that if the agreements are signed in their present form we will participate for an initial period of 60 days.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have one more supplementary question which follows clearly on what the minister has just said. The minister has informed the House on a number of occasions that Canada's agreement to be a member of the commission now is for a trial period of 60 days. May I ask him how that can be consonant with the provision in the agreement for the international control and supervisory commission that a member of the international commission may withdraw by giving three months' notice by means of a note to the four parties and I take that from Article 17 of the Agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that that is argument or debate.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may disagree, but this is my opinion. The hon. member wants the minister to explain how one situation can be reconciled with another, how one is consonant with another. That is not seeking information; that is debate.


David Lewis: I appreciate your comment, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might be permitted to rephrase my question? In view of the provision in Article 17 of the protocol dealing with the international commission that a member of the commission can withdraw only by giving three months' notice, has the government an assurance from the parties to the agreement in Viet Nam that they accept our 60 day notice rather than three month's notice?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had no intimation from any of the parties to the agreement or any of the other proposed members of the commission that we would be unacceptable for a period of 60 days. To be quite clear about this, as soon as the agreements are signed in Paris I shall be sending a note confirming this in writing so that there is no possibility of any confusion.


CYPRUS-REPORTED POSSIBILITY OF CIVIL WAR-INSTRUCTIONS TO COMMANDER OF CANADIAN ELEMENT IN PEACEKEEPING FORCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the AP dispatch from Cyprus to the effect that a civil war may break out on that island momentarily, and as Canada has a peacekeeping force on that island of some 600 men, would the minister advise the House what reports he has received from the commander of the Canadian force in Cyprus on that matter and what instructions he has given his commander to be followed in case civil war does actually break out?
January 26, 1973


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we have had reports of some disturbances in Cyprus, but our information is that they are of the order of student demonstrations and are perhaps related to the forthcoming general election. They are not disputes between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. They are disputes between two factions of Greeks. Therefore it is really more a matter for the police in Cyprus and not part of our peacekeeping role.


VIET NAM-CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR CANADIAN ELEMENT IN SUPERVISORY COMMISSION IF CIVIL WAR BREAKS OUT
George Harris Hees: Has the
Canadian government a contingency plan to be followed by the supervisory force which will be leaving shortly for Viet Nam in the eventuality of a civil war in that country breaking out after the cease-fire commences, particularly after American forces have been completely evacuated from Viet Nam? If so, would the minister advise the House what that contingency plan is?
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence)
Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have given very serious consideration to the safety of our personnel, and in the event of hostilities being renewed we have not one but more than one contingency plan which would enable us to evacuate all Canadian personnel from Viet Nam.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North) Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Earlier in the week'I asked him about the commutation of sentences of people who were charged and convicted of the murder of police officers. I have a list of 12 commutations by order in council since January 4, 1968. I should like to ask the Solicitor General-this is a serious question which might affect the length of the debate on capital punishment-whether there is anyone now incarcerated in any institution in Canada for whom all the processes of law have been completed and who stands convicted of capital murder at the present time?
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: There are two cases of people who have killed either a policeman or a prison guard and who have been convicted, but appeals are still open to them and they have not yet approached the Solicitor General or the cabinet for commutation.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I think I know the answer to my question, but I want to make this clear. After all due processes of the law have been completed-when I say "due processes of law" I mean the trial, the court of appeal of the province, the Supreme Court of Canada, or any other proceedings whereby a man might get a new trial-is there anybody now incarcerated in an institution for whom all the procedures have been completed, and
Oral Questions
who is now subject to capital punishment, because this might affect the length of the debate itself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that we are anticipating a debate. The hon. member has said that the answer to this question might have an effect on the length of the debate, but we have not yet reached that stage. I gather that there will be such a debate later today. The question might be asked when the minister has the floor later this morning, but having allowed him to reply to the first question perhaps he might reply to the supplementary.


William Warren Allmand: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there are no people in that category, but I will check it to make sure.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that since January 4, 1968, we have had complete abolition of capital punishment, de facto if not de jure, why is this bill now before the House of Commons and not some other bill affecting the economy of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands) Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the great concern of Canadians and the clearly defined constitutional responsibilities of the federal government, which bind the government to protecting the Indian people, can the Prime Minister tell the House when the government will present a statement to the interlocutory injunction hearings on the James Bay hydro project, outlining the government's position on the rights of Northern Quebec Indians?
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) Mr. Speaker, this has been stated by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I believe that the Minister of Justice has also indicated that we had representatives present at those hearings. I know of no statement to be made by the government.
Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands) Am I to
understand then that it is the policy of the government not to declare any formal position with regard to the rights of the native people affected by the James Bay development project?
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) Mr. Speaker, I think it would not be appropriate in any case for us in this House to comment at this point upon the proceedings which are occurring in a court.
George Harris Hees: What are you going to do?

January 26, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Lang:: We are, in fact, not involved directly in the proceedings. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has, of course, a very close working relationship with the people whose rights are involved, and they know where he stands on that issue.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Is the government aware of the resolution of the National Indian Brotherhood and its member organizations which supports the Indians of Quebec Association in their quest for a clear government statement and, if so, when will the minister be making such a statement in response?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the hon. member to some of the very clear statements the Minister of Indian Affairs has made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Come off it!


Otto Emil Lang: I will be glad, since some of them-


George Harris Hees: Name one.


Otto Emil Lang: -appear in Hansard and were made before the hon. member was elected to the House, to ask the department to send copies of some of them to her.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he assure the House that he is giving full consideration to the importance of this project and that the province of Quebec may be assured of the government's taking into account its rights and its legal capacity to carry on with the project?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, the substance of the statements to which the Minister of Justice has just referred is that we did not want to be paternalistic in that area. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has always assisted the Indians and has never attempted to dictate his own policy. That is still the attitude to which the minister referred. I shall add that our position is the same as concerns Quebec: we do not want to be paternalistic in our relations with this province.
[EnglishJ


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS-REQUEST FOR DECLARATION OF GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since there has been no clearcut statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or anyone else in the government with respect to the aboriginal rights of the Indian people, and having in mind the urgency of the matter and the imminence of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline that has been referred by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, will the government come out now, on the threshold of possible future legal proceedings, and declare in favour of some aboriginal title and land rights for the Indian people of these areas?
[Mr. Hees.1
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) Mr. Speaker, if I might disagree with the premise of the question, there has, of course, been a very clear statement by the government on the question of aboriginal rights. It was made in the House of Commons at the time of the publication of the policy paper on Indian affairs, and it was wholeheartedly supported by the spokesman for the Conservative party and the speaker on behalf of the NDP at the time.
Mr. Nielsen:: Rubbish.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member looks it up in Hansard he will see that the rubbish is all in his own mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries but we will soon be running short of time. Unless we go to another subject we will again find ourselves covering only four or five subjects during the whole question period, and again those who suffer will be our hon. friends in the fourth and fifth rows to my left. I wish we could agree to give them a chance occasionally.
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford) Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a very brief supplementary to the Minister of Transport. In view of the minister's responsibilities under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, can he tell us how many licences have been issued under that act for the construction of bridges and other projects in relation to the James Bay development?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question such as this one should be placed on the order paper.


JAMES BAY HYDRO DEVELOPMENT-COMPLIANCE BY QUEBEC WITH TERMS OF AGREEMENT TRANSFERRING TERRITORY TO PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni) Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question either to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice which neither the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development nor any other minister has answered in previous sessions. Has the government of Canada asked the government of Quebec to comply with the terms of the agreement under which these territories were transferred to the jurisdiction of that province?
Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice. I have been pulling a number of the ends together on this whole question in the last few days. I had a meeting with some of the Indian people from the James Bay area and members of the Quebec Indian Association a few days ago. I agree with the hon. member that is a very serious question. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, although he is now in hospital recuperating, is giving this matter his most serious attention.
January 26, 1973

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi) Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
May I ask the minister whether studies have been or are being made with a view to developing the natural gas deposits that were found last year on Melville and King Christian Islands, and also whether a survey has been made of the route to be followed by the pipeline to bring this natural gas down to the consumer market?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) Mr. Speaker, the companies concerned, Panarctic Oil and Tenneco, are now involved in a study on the viability of such a pipeline from northern to central Canada. At this stage, the government has not commissioned any studies on this matter, but we are looking forward to the results of the studies made by the companies involved.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster) Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I gave him notice sometime ago. Has the minister had a chance to check into equalization of Canadian National rail rates at Halifax compared with Canadian Pacific rates at Saint John in connection with the recent car import contract? Can he say whether there is any government subsidy involved, and also can he say that the rates are compensatory?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport) Mr. Speaker, as far as I can remember the hon. member talked to me or wrote to me about Volkswagen changing its location from Saint John to Halifax. I do not think this has anything to do with the freight rates. I think it has something to do with the space that can be offered to Volkswagen at Saint John. Apparently the National Harbours Board was not in a position to supply the land required by Volkswagen. They signed a two-year contract and I assume that after that they will reconsider their position if the land is available at Saint John.
Mr. Bell:: I appreciate the detailed answer the minister gave. Will he assure the House that the National Harbours Board will continue to play a big part in the port of Saint John and not downgrade the port, because that may now happen in the opinion of many people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.
Oral Questions CANADIAN COASTGUARD


POSSIBILITY OF TRANSFER OF COLLEGE FROM CAPE BRETON TO OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys) Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. May I ask the minister whether officials of his department have been negotiating or are at present negotiating for the purchase of property in Ottawa with the ultimate end in mind of transferring a portion or all of the Canadian Coastguard College operation from Cape Breton to Ottawa? If the minister does not have that information on hand at the moment, will he give the assurance that he will report back to the House as soon as possible in a full and comprehensive way as to the future of the Canadian Coastguard College?
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire into this matter; I will report to the House.


Robert Muir: Since, despite our great efforts, we were unable to get a definitive reply from the minister's predecessor, may I ask him to give this matter priority in order to allay fears that Cape Breton is to lose the Canadian Coastguard College, as so many other institutions have been taken by this government from that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, that is a representation to the minister.
*	* it!


WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1971-72 CROP YEAR
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Can the minister say whether there will be a final payment to farmers on wheat for the 1971-72 crop year? If so, when will this payment be made to the farmers?
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) Yes, Mr. Speaker, there will be a final payment. The Wheat Board has advised me that it expects the payment to be made in the near future.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which has been given to him. May I ask the minister what steps he has taken to ensure adequate search and rescue capabilities off the east coast of Canada in view of the very serious incident that took place recently when it took ten hours to evacuate the crew of a stranded Canadian trawler only a very short distance from the coast of Newfoundland because there were no helicopters based there?
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1973
Oral Questions
James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing search and rescue with my hon. friend and I know his interest in having a maximum presence of search and rescue forces in Newfoundland. This force, of course, is stationed at Sheer-water and Summerside. It is concentrated there for operational reasons and to reduce the cost of the search and rescue operations. We are, however, looking at the possibility of decentralizing it somewhat and increasing our capability in Newfoundland.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. May I ask the minister what he is doing in line with the undertaking he gave in Newfoundland to increase the capability of fisheries patrol vessels and to acquire new vessels to provide that kind of assistance in the event of accidents at sea?
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries) Mr. Speaker, we are building new vessels. We are also exploring the possibility of contracting with fishermen who own vessels of the appropriate kind to help us in our protection activities.


ASSIGNING OF RESPONSIBILITY TO ONE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East) I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to which the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister might respond. Has any consideration been given by the government to assigning the total responsibility for search and rescue to either the Department of Transport or the Department of National Defence? I ask this question because of the difficulty referred to today and difficulties with respect to effective search and rescue operations during the past few years.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter was considered by the government and as a result we decided to establish a co-ordinating body which would ensure that these forces would work together. I understand that this is operating well.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-PORTION OF CAPACITY TO BE USED FOR CANADIAN NEEDS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises out of a statement he made during a panel discussion in Toronto recently to the effect that a national gas pipeline along the Mackenzie River Valley would be essential to meet Canadian needs rather than United States needs. In light of that statement, may I ask the minister what proportion of the initial pipeline capacity will be dedicated to Canadian needs?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to wait until there is an application from the companies to see

that. The intention would be in the early stages to have a substantial portion of the capacity devoted probably to the transit of Alaskan gas through to the central American market. Of course, the reserves available in the Mackenzie Delta would not be available to Canadian markets without the construction of a pipeline. So at the initial stage no doubt Alaskan gas will form a large part of the throughput, but as Canadian demand rises, as we expect it will, to meet the level of the pipeline Canadian gas will form a larger portion. Without such a pipeline Canadian needs in the future cannot be met.
Mr. Douglas:: In view of the statement by W. P. Wilder, chairman of Canadian Arctic Gas Study Company, at the same panel discussion that initially a substantial volume of the gas to be delivered must be dedicated to the American market and that only an excess of capacity would be dedicated to Canadian needs, may I ask the minister whether this means that the main volume of the initial pipeline will be dedicated to American needs and only if the pipeline is twinned will substantial quantities of gas be dedicated to Canadian needs?
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) Mr. Speaker, the applicant may have whatever ambitions he wishes, but as far as the government is concerned the primary purpose of the pipeline will be to provide access to Mackenzie Delta resources for Canadian purposes. As I just said, it is expected that in the early years, since the throughput of the pipeline will exceed by about one billion cubic feet per day current demands of the Canadian market, it will be American gas that will be going through. The requirement will be, however-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Wellington.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington) Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Has he or any member of his department given approval, or have they considered giving approval, to prisoners who have worked on prison buildings or on similar construction being placed under the unemployment insurance scheme?
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General) Mr. Speaker, I have not heard about such a proposal but I will investigate it and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain) Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister indicate what action the government is
January 26, 1973
[Stage Direction]
taking to help prevent the shutdown of coal mining operations at Canmore, Alberta, and the consequent unemployment of Alberta miners there?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in indicating his intention to ask this question. We have sent by Telex today a message to the company requesting them to give us full details of their negotiations with their Japanese customer. This is the problem at the root here. We have also asked for indications of the employment implications of this action. I have also spoken to the Alberta Minister of Mines and Minerals and we have agreed on the necessity of an early meeting. Because of the situation of some of the other Rocky Mountain producers we are contemplating a meeting of the ministers affected and all the producers. We are very concerned about the attitude of the Japanese market toward these contracts.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks a supplementary. We have reached the end of the question period. I was trying, before calling orders of the day, to give an opportunity to some hon. members in the fourth and fifth rows to ask questions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra^ Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question concerning what are known as the Jericho defence lands in Vancouver. Is it a fact that the government is preparing to call for tenders in connection with the disposal of the portion of these lands commonly referred to as the remaining 38 acres north of Fourth Avenue?
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether this question can properly be asked at this time. However, if the minister can reply briefly he may do so, and I will then recognize the hon. member for Leeds.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject that has been before us for several years.


An hon. Member:: Ten.


James Armstrong Richardson: There is an agreement in existence between the government and the city of Vancouver. My predecessor has indicated that if the city wishes to reopen this agreement we would certainly be prepared to do so and to listen to representations.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF RONALD PATRICK LIPPERT IMPRISONED IN CUBA

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In substance it is like a question I put down on the order paper a few weeks ago and which has remained unanswered. I believe it should be asked orally now since the matter was referred to in the course of a CBC television program last night. In view of the fact that Ronald Patrick Lippert, a Canadian citizen of Kitchener, Ontario, has now completed ten years of a 30-year sentence and is now eligible for parole under Cuban law, has the government made representations to Cuba on his behalf, is the minister aware of the state of Mr. Lippert's health, and can we be told when he was last seen by a Canadian government representative?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs and our embassy in Havana are in touch regularly with Mr. Lippert, members of his family and other persons who are interested in him. An officer of our embassy in Havana visited Mr. Lippert early in December and found him well and in good spirits. Another visit was planned for the end of December, and I believe it has taken place.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it arises from an answer he gave in the House last week concerning the government's intention not to seek a reference at this time to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to jurisdiction over environmental matters. Could the minister inform us whether he has consulted with his provincial counterpart on this subject since last week? Could he also inform us specifically what steps will be taken to prevent a vacuum from developing in this very important field?


Otto Emil Lang: The discussion I had with the Attorney General for Ontario took place shortly before I last gave an answer to this question. He has the matter under consideration. I would expect that if he felt we ought to take any further action at this point we would hear from him again on the subject.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps that would be the easiest way out. I will allow the hon. member's supplementary and then call orders of the day. I had hoped to recognize a few more members, but the hon. member may ask a supplementary and I will then call orders of the day.


Henry Perrin Beatty: My
supplementary is to the Minister of the Environment. Can

January 26, 1973
Capital Punishment
the minister inform us whether in his forthcoming meeting with his provincial counterpart in Ontario this subject will be among those on the agenda?


John (Jack) Davis: I am
meeting with the minister of the environment of Ontario this afternoon in my office. If there is any vacuum to be filled, I hope he will have some suggestions as to how the province can fill it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1966 and 1967 when I spoke and voted in this House for the five-year partial ban on capital punishment, I did not for one moment think that five years later I would have the responsibility of introducing the bill that would propose the continuation of that partial ban. I must say that five years ago I found this a most agonizing question, and that feeling has not changed today. It is agonizing because we so much want to protect the public from murder and violence; because we so much appreciate the feelings of those who cry out for a peaceful and just society and who abhor the violent crimes which have taken place. On the other hand, we find the practice of capital punishment just as abhorrent: the deliberate killing of a man by hanging him with a rope. If I could see how capital punishment could in any way give the public the protection it really wants, then I would certainly reconsider my present position. So far, however, I have seen no evidence or heard no argument to convince me of that position and I think we only delude ourselves if we believe we are doing something to protect the public by returning to capital punishment.
To participate in the governing of a country, Mr. Speaker, involves the exercise of human judgment to bring about desired change. All hon. members in this chamber are well aware of the need for prudence when such decisions are made. Even the smallest decision by government can ultimately impose either the greatest hardship or the greatest benefit on the citizens we serve. Therefore our deliberations are necessarily long and our differences sometimes profound. But in all things we share a unity of purpose. As members of parliament we hope to contribute to the development of society in such a way as to reinforce its virtues and diminish its injustices. However, that process is not as easy as it sounds since the calculation of virtue and vice in the short and long term without error defies human judgment. The natural consequence of

human fallibility is experiment, designed to test new circumstances without wholeheartedly committing oneself to that novel direction. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, the past ten years have been experiments with respect to capital punishment. Indeed, we still find ourselves in the trial period which commenced when members of this House began to wonder whether the practice of capital punishment had any continued relevance in our society. We are a party to that debate which commenced when Canada's first recorded execution occurred in the late eighteenth century. At that time a sixteen-year-old girl was hanged for petty theft.
The very purpose of the criminal law stems from a desire to provide a means of protection for the public against the few who do not respect the rights of others. That still remains a fundamental purpose of the law to which this government and the Solicitor General's ministry remains committed. Fortunately, however, the intent of the law can now be fulfilled by diverse means not requiring the ruthless measures of earlier times when mutilation and torture seemed acceptable means of assuring the safety of the public. We have moved more and more from what I would call punitive deterrents to preventive deterrents.
In recent years we have witnessed several legislative and administrative acts which have contributed to the improving security of Canadians. Crime prevention has become as important a concept for modern police work as apprehension. The best deterrent to murder or any other crime is the certainty of detection and conviction. Consequently, effective police surveillance, pursuit and follow-through are paramount.
The RCMP, which is our responsibility, has led the way in prevention-oriented police activities. One of these concepts, called "Prevention-Oriented Policing Services" has been designed to facilitate the optimum distribution of manpower resources with a view to discouraging crime. It specifically recognizes the growing need of the public for a police presence on a constant, rather than a sporadic basis. Such a program accents the vital importance of such crucial police functions as police/community relations, regular police patrols, objective long-range planning and all other related elements generally regarded as being conducive to sound crime prevention strategies. These methods are increasingly effective when linked with improved research into the causes of crime in society.
The Solicitor General's ministry is taking a more active role in linking together the operational aspects of police work with basic research and broadly-based analysis. To this end, the security planning and research group in the Solicitor General's department has now broadened its responsibilities to include the analysis of criminal activities and criminal trends in Canadian society and has been renamed the "Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group". In recent years, the RCMP has also devoted considerable time and energies to improving communications with all other police forces in Canada, and has continued to contribute to the success of Interpol.
January 26, 1973

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP, through its constantly improving crime detection and crime prevention programs, has set standards for police work which seek for the public the protection it so rightly deserves. This House has passed a variety of legislation in recent years which has also provided the public with a great measure of personal security. The omnibus justice bill of 1968 provided for increased gun control, which according to the Police Chiefs Association of Canada rendered their work easier. New programs have come into effect since January 1 which will provide compensation to victims of violent crime. Two agreements have been signed by my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang, with the provinces of British Columbia and New Brunswick to this end.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice has been active in negotiating legal aid schemes with the provinces which will help to assure that all citizens have access to legal assistance. Protection of the public, therefore, is a multidimensional concept involving police activities designed to deter and detect crime; analysis of new trends in crime; determination of the law's responsiveness to new forms of crime; assurance that the public can be compensated for injury as a result of criminal activity; and the availability of legal assistance when a citizen is confronted with legal proceedings.
I have referred to these matters because some have charged that our only concern is with the criminal. Some say we have no concern for the protection of the public or the victims of the crime. This is not so. As I have pointed out, our principal concern is with the protection of the public. That is the principal purpose of the criminal law. I also pointed out that we are continually improving the criminal law, our police forces, the prosecution of the law and we have programs to reimburse the victims of crime.
In recent years we have had three very distinct laws relating to the use of capital punishment. Prior to 1961, all murder was considered as capital, and the only penalty for that crime was capital punishment. During that period of time, many countries were re-assessing the usefulness and humanity of executions, and indeed there were many nations which were in the process of finally abolishing the death penalty. The same debate was taking place in Canada. Although the special committee of the House on capital punishment, which met between 1954 and 1956, did not recommend the abolition of the death penalty, the committee heard a wide variety of conflicting evidence which represented the divided opinion of the public and parliamentarians.
In 1961, the law was further amended to provide for capital and non-capital murder, and the punishment for non-capital murder was life in prison. This legislation provided that murder was to be considered capital if it was planned and deliberate on the part of the murderer and was committed by the murderer's own act. Additionally, the murder of a police or prison official was also considered a capital offence, and the penalty was death.
As a result of further debate in the country and in parliament in 1966 and 1967, a five-year period was established during which capital murder was limited to cases involving the death of police and prison officials. This trial period, which expired on December 29, 1972, was, in
Capital Punishment
effect, an experiment which was agreed to by the House. It was hoped at that time that adequate materials could be gathered during the five-year period to assist in some final resolution with respect to the use of capital punishment.
Bill C-2, which is now before the House, most closely resembles the 1967 bill in that the death penalty is still only applicable in cases where a police or prison official is murdered. However, the terms "capital" and "non-capital" murder have been dropped, and new terms, "murder punishable by death" and "murder punishable by life in prison," have replaced them. This change has been made for purposes of clarity and precision. The proposed duration of this bill is five years. I shall return to a specific argument in favour of this bill in a short while, but first I would like to address my remarks to several issues which are in some way related to the House's deliberations.
In some quarters we have heard that a plebiscite or a referendum should be held on the issue of capital punishment so as to ascertain the public's feelings on the subject. Often the example of California is cited, where a referendum did take place and the public indicated that capital punishment should be returned. To argue in favour of a plebiscite or a referendum on the basis of the United States practice is to ignore the fundamental differences between our forms of government. Referendums such as those used in the United States have the force of law because they are a constitutional feature of several states. No such provision exists in Canada. Although there have been plebiscites in jurisdictions under the British parliamentary system, they have not had the force of law but simply represent the popular expression on simple, clear-cut issues.
I think all members of the House appreciate that the complexities of the capital punishment question should be dealt with by the House of Commons. We have been sent to this House to deliberate, to weigh the force of argument. When we perform this function we stand ready to be held responsible for our votes in subsequent elections. If we were to accept a plebiscite on the issue of capital punishment we would open the way for plebiscites on all controversial legislation of a similar nature presented to the House.
This does not mean that we do not have a duty to consult with and listen to our constituents. We do have that duty and we should take it seriously. But this means that we listen openly and honestly to their arguments, the reasons for their opinions, and if they are convincing we adopt them. It does not mean that we should be swayed by protests, volume of voice, shrillness, or mere numbers. Under the British parliamentary system the constituency votes are counted on election day. When we are sent to the House of Commons we are supposed to study the merits of each issue as it affects the public interest, and in doing this we listen to people.
We are not blind, however, to the unique moral questions which are contained in any bill relating to the imposition of the death penalty. A free vote was held in 1967 when the last legislation was passed; the same free vote will prevail for this bill. I am certain that such a free vote will be exercised by all members of the House on the basis

January 26, 1973
Capital Punishment
of cogent arguments and not on the basis of irrational prejudices.
The purpose of the original trial period in 1967 was to allow for a period during which those crimes punishable by death would be severely restricted. This five-year experiment would be a time of intense study and analysis, the results of which were to guide the House's deliberations after December 29, 1972. We are beyond the termination date of that five-year period but, unfortunately, we do not have the full data for the entire five years on which to base studies and, hence, legislative recommendations. Statistics are some two years behind, and therefore at the moment we are only in possession of full data covering the first three years of the trial period.
We are just receiving the statistics for 1971. It seems to me that we must see the process, commenced in 1967, through to its logical conclusion. That further necessitates making no substantial change in the law until such time as we are in a position to fully understand the impact of the partial abolition. Bill C-2 will allow us to complete this evaluation. If the House agrees to the provisions of Bill C-2 we will be able to compare three periods of approximately six years when three distinct and different laws concerning the death penalty prevailed. If we are properly to acquit ourselves of our responsibilities to the public, Mr. Speaker, we must be prepared to grant the time necessary to study the effects of the three laws so that decisions can be made on sound ground.
In conjunction with the discussion of this bill, it appears necessary to dispel some erroneous information with respect to two other matters, that is commutation and parole. Contrary to some suggestions, there has been no policy of routine commutation exercised by the government since 1968.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is rubbish. You can't believe that; you are joking. Whoever wrote that speech does not know the situation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, since 1968 there were four convictions for capital murder and each of these four cases resulted in commutation. On each occasion these cases were the subject of long and detailed examination by the cabinet. The procedure for reviewing capital cases by the governor in council is premised on the need for the fullest particulars in respect of the case at hand. Transcripts of trial proceedings are gathered along with detailed police reports and additional information relating to the condemned person's character and mental state. Representations from the defence counsel are made to the Solicitor General who then takes the question of commutation to his cabinet colleagues, each of whom has been supplied with a copy of all the relevant material.
At this point the case is discussed exhaustively and when a decision is taken an order in council is issued either commuting sentence or instructing that the execution should be carried out. Particular attention is given to any recommendation of mercy from the judge or the jury, and of the four cases since 1968 there were recommendations for mercy in three.

Notwithstanding the fact that no execution has taken place since 1968-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I know that the minister is a gentleman and I do not think he has done this deliberately. Somebody within the department has supplied this material. My question of privilege is this. I can count them up; I received this information from the department, there have been 12 commutations since January 4, 1962, yet the minister is dealing with a figure of four.


An hon. Member:: He said since 1968.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, January 4, 1968.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member is asking a question of the minister, but that cannot be considered a question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention 12 cases during the question period and I was somewhat surprised, because I was given statistics indicating there were four cases of commutation since the new law went into effect at the beginning of 1968.
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West}: There were four in Alberta alone.


William Warren Allmand: I rechecked that after I heard the hon. member put the question, and the information I have here is that there were four cases, but I will check it again.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Oh, gracious!


An hon. Member:: He said 1962.


William Warren Allmand: The information I have is that there were four cases since 1968.
Notwithstanding the fact that no execution has taken place since 1968, and I want to emphasize again that there has been no automatic commutation, that each case has indeed been examined in detail before a decision has been made, I should think that some hon. members on the other side who were members of the Cabinet before 1963 know that serious consideration is given to these matters.
There are some misunderstandings concerning parole regulations governing the release of individuals who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. The regulations stipulate that such a person shall serve the entire term of the sentence in prison unless, and upon recommendation of the parole board, the Governor in Council directs otherwise. However, the parole board may not recommend parole in such a case until at least 10 years of the term of life imprisonment has been served. I think it important to note that there are significant safeguards to ensure that such persons do not return to society unless the Governor in Council so provides. Furthermore, the National Parole Board must be convinced that rehabilitation has taken place before it would recommend such a release. Since 1867 only one person convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment has killed a second time while on parole.
January 26, 1973

I am very concerned about the problem relating to parole and temporary absence, not only for murderers but for all persons sentenced to penitentiary. For this reason, the government announced in the throne speech that we would reform the penal and parole systems. Last year my predecessor established a task force, under Justice James K. Hugessen of Montreal, to review our parole and temporary absence systems. That report was received just before Christmas and an examination of it is now underway. I expect to make some comment on it later in the session. In the meanwhile, we have taken certain administrative steps to correct deficiencies in the parole and temporary absence systems, to improve rehabilitation and to better protect the public.
It is my conviction that Bill C-2 represents the most prudent course open to us, not simply for the arguments I have already advanced concerning the need for a complete study of data. The alternatives to this bill would appear at this time to be impossible or undesirable for one important reason or another.
In a survey commissioned by the Solicitor General's department, which included questions designed to provide a profile of public attitudes in respect of the death penalty, it was shown that those in favour of capital punishment in all instances and those opposed to capital punishment in all instances balanced each other off with 19.1 per cent and 20.9 per cent respectively. Fifty-nine per cent favoured the retention of capital punishment in limited cases. While those limitations are not set out in detail, this legislation represents this kind of limited approach! Although the House may otherwise direct, it would appear that to move to either extreme; to move either toward total abolition or toward total retention at this time is neither possible nor desirable under prevailing circumstances.
My views on capital punishment are on the record. I have, in the course of my career in the House, been an abolitionist. In 1966 and 1967, I voted for complete abolition of capital punishment. However, I am now here as a member of cabinet and the legislation which we are examining is the result of the collective consideration of that body. Although, I personally, remain opposed to capital punishment, I believe that this bill represents the best possible proposal at this time. Because a free vote will ultimately decide the final form of Bill C-2, and because there may be amendments offered by hon. members, I would be most concerned if there were any tendency toward a more punitive law. Consequently, I would like to offer a brief argument against those who would want to expand the categories for which the death penalty is applicable.
My moral objections to capital punishment have not changed since 1966 when I argued that it is wrong to kill and wrong to take a human life whether it is taken by the individual or by the state. Execution does not erase the crime of murder, it simply repeats it, and in repeating that act it runs contrary to the Judeo-Christian moral principle "Thou shalt not kill". I cannot see how states are exempt from that clear statement that declares the sanctity of human life.
Killing is certainly reprehensible at all times, Mr. Speaker, but when the state sets out on a most deliberate path to
Capital Punishment
destroy human life, then perhaps that is one of the most heinous acts of all. When the state indulges in murder, the result is a weakening of the moral fabric of that society. By such a low-minded act of cruelty and revenge, the state contributes to the brutalization of society as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: If the state demands that its citizens act with moderation and tolerance, it cannot sanction the deliberate destruction of life. The state must set the example, the clear example of respect for human life, through the tolerant and patient application of law which looks to other more effective means of protecting society and discouraging crime, even murder. It is my belief that we are only justified in taking another life when it is the last resort in self-defence. It is clear that capital punishment is not the last resort in self-defence.
Each time the state-society executes a man, it admits failure-a failure of its family life, a failure of its education system, a failure of its social and economic environment, a failure of its moral and religious institutions, and, above all, a failure to cope humanely and optimistically with anti-social behaviours. An execution is an act of despair toward the value of the human person.
Mr. Speaker, I would point to the positions taken by several of the churches, including the United Church, the Anglican Church, the Unitarian Church and others. In the December issue of the United Church Observer there appeared an editorial supporting the abolition of capital punishment on the grounds that capital punishment is:
. . . unchristian, immoral and as a deterrent or protection of society, ineffective.
It appears to me that capital punishment does not fall within the acceptable limits of any of the moral or religious codes that exist now or have existed in our country.
During the last five years, the Solicitor General's department has been watching very closely the statistics related to the incidence of murder in Canada. In 1971, the then solicitor general authorized a research project to be conducted by Dr. Ezzar A. Fattah, Associate Professor of Criminology at the University of Montreal which would:
. . . provide a critical analysis of research that has been done, and of factual data that exists in connection with the death penalty as a judicial punishment, with special reference to the deterrent effect and discrimination.
1 want to underline the terms of reference for Professor Fattah's research in view of the fact that there have been suggestions made that Professor Fattah's assignment was to prove a predisposition of the Solicitor General's ministry. The department felt that it was important to get an impartial evaluation of the statistics available before the House of Commons considered the matter again. The basic data of the Fattah study only included three years of official Statistics Canada material and one year of data compiled by Professor Fattah himself. In addition to the Fattah report, another document was prepared which contained updated material relating to capital punishment, covering the period 1965-1972. I hope that all members take the opportunity to read these important contri-
January 26, 1973

Capital Punishment
butions to the study of capital punishment during the course of this debate.
While the Fattah study does not have the benefit of the full statistics for the five year period, it does represent the definitive study of the deterrent effect of capital punishment within the context of the Canadian experience. When the study focuses on the deterrent effects of capital punishment, it cuts to the vital centre of the retentionist argument, for if murder is not deterred by the impending threat of execution, then the value of the rope disappears completely.
The burden of proof has always resided with those who argue that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder, for if we are going to kill, we must establish beyond all doubt the justification for the killing. Now that we are in possession of Professor Fattah's study, the onus of proof is heavier than ever, for while many people use raw data to show that the absolute number of incidents of murder may or may not have occurred, they must successfully demonstrate that an increase in the number of murders is related to a lack of the death penalty.
Professor Fattah concluded that:
... homicide rates .. . are conditioned by factors other than the death penalty. They suggest that the cause of homicide and murder cannot be found in any single factor but in a total social situation in which a special law or a particular punishment can have little or no effect.
He goes on to say that:
Nothing emerges from the study of trends of violent crimes in Canada that would support or even suggest the proposition that the suspension of capital punishment has caused an increase in the homicide rate. Although the data shows that there has been a slight increase in the homicide rate in recent years, it indicates at the same time that this increase cannot be attributed to any one cause. In fact, on the basis of the data and, for reasons explained above, it can be safely claimed that the suspension is unlikely to have played a part in this increase.
Professor Fattah offers a much more complete set of conclusions which I believe should be part of the record of this debate. I shall, therefore, quote from them in part.
When the author of the report poses the question of whether the slight increase in homicide and murder over the eight years of studies can be attributed to the suspension of capital punishment, he answers "No". The arguments supporting his conclusion are as follows and I quote from his report:
(l)lf the increase in homicide were solely due to the suspension of capital punishment then it should be limited to this offence. Other offences of violence for which there has not been a change in punishment should show no increase or at least a lower increase than that in criminal homicide. Our data amply show that this is not true. Actually the increase in criminal homicide is the lowest among all crimes of violence studied, a fact which indicates that such increase can neither be attributed nor related to the suspension of capital punishment.
Another statement that he put on the record is that:
If the increase in criminal homicide were due to the suspension of capital punishment then it should show a clear and consistent trend by starting to rise when the administrative suspension became known and by continuing to rise at a quicker pace when the legal suspension came into effect. Our data show that this is not true.

He also said:
The years during which capital punishment was administratively suspended (with the exception of 1967) did not witness an increase in criminal homicide over 1962. Furthermore, in many Canadian provinces the first year of legal suspension did not mark an increase in criminal homicide rate over the previous year, it either marked a decline in the rate or at least the rate remained unchanged.
In many provinces such as Nova Scotia (1968), Ontario (1968, 1969 and 1970) Saskatchewan (1968; and Alberta (1968,1969) homicide rates actually declined after capital punishment was legally suspended. This speaks eloquently against a link between this suspension and the over-all increase in homicide ...
If the suspension or the abolition of capital punishment leads to an increase in criminal homicide, this would necessarily have been reflected in the homicide rate in the most populated, most urbanized and most industrialized province in Canada: Ontario.
But, as I said, the homicide rate declined in Ontario in the three years following the abolition of capital punishment.
In this debate we should try to place the Canadian situation with respect to capital punishment into a global context and attempt to determine the relative experience of retentionist and abolitionist nations. That can be accomplished in many ways. Let us first examine the respective use of capital punishment in two similar jurisdictions operating under differing laws. The adjacent jurisdictions of Maine and New Brunswick are similar geographic, economic and cultural entities. Maine has been an abolitionist state since 1887 while New Brunswick, as part of Canada, was retentionist until 1967. While the deterrent argument would insist that Maine should have a higher murder rate than New Brunswick, this is not the case. The murder rates are, for all intents and purposes, the same. Within the United States there are other comparisons to be made between contiguous, abolitionist and retentionist states.
When examined with respect to murder, aggravated assault and major crimes of violence, Oregon, an abolitionist state, and Washington, a retentionist state have had remarkably similar rates of crime in all three categories. Minnesota, an abolitionist state, has had a lower incidence of murder than neighbouring retentionist South Dakota. The same can be said in the case of West Virginia over Virginia and Iowa over Nebraska. Certainly, there are cases where the reverse is true also, that is where a state retaining capital punishment had a lower rate of murder than a nearby abolitionist state. But the very point is that there does not seem to be any direct cause and effect relationship between the existence of the death penalty and a lower rate of murder.
One must therefore pose the question, "If there is no consistent demonstrable relationship between executions and deterrence, what is the use of retaining such a penalty which has so many other inherent shortcomings"? Those arguing for the general use of the death penalty must answer that question. From the eleventh century when William the Conqueror first abolished in part the use of capital punishment, there has been a world-wide trend towards the ultimate banishing of this kind of punishment.


George Harris Hees: You can go further back than that.
January 26, 1973


William Warren Allmand: Probably I could.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about how Caesar handled it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the western European states which have led the way in ceasing to use the death penalty as a punitive feature of their legal systems, witness fewer executions each year. At the moment only France, Spain and Eire continue to execute those found guilty of murder. France uses the guillotine and Spain the garrot. All other western European nations have either de jure or de facto abolition. What is perhaps most interesting to note is that the murder rates in those countries are uniformly low, while France continues to suffer from a high rate of murder. Clearly, in the case of France, even a death so horrible as the use of the guillotine has not acted as an effective deterrent to the potential murderer.
The conclusions which must be drawn from the western European experience are inescapable. In the first place the absence of capital punishment has not meant that the abolitionist states of Europe have become overrun with murderers. Quite the contrary is true; murder rates there are amongst the lowest in the world. Secondly, it is obvious that these nations have found other methods of deterring murder, such as stricter gun control, better police forces to assure detection of crimes, and generally a citizenry that is content and law-abiding. Surely, we should share similar goals.
The criminologist is not the only professional acquainted with crime and punishment who disputes the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Lewis E. Hawes, a former warden of Sing Sing penitentiary in the United States, has recounted his conversations with condemned men awaiting execution, in his book Meet the Murderer.
Before Morris Wasser's execution, when I told him that the governor had refused him a last minute respite, he said bitterly: 'All right, warden, it doesn't make much difference what I say now about this here system of burning a guy, but I want to set you straight on something'.
'What's that' I asked.
'Well, this electrocution business is the bunk. It don't do no good,
I tell you, and I know, because I never thought of the chair when I plugged that old guy, and I'd probably do it again if he had me on the wrong end of the rod'
You mean, I said, 'that you don't feel you've done wrong in taking another man's life'?
'No, warden, it ain't that', he said, impatiently. 'I mean that you just don't think of the hot seat when you plug a guy. Somethin' inside you just makes you kill, 'cause you know if you don't shut him it's curtains for you'.
'I see. Then you never even thought of what would happen to you at the time'.
'Hell, no. And lots of other guys in here, Harry and Brick and Luke, all says the same thing. I tell you the hot seat will never stop a guy from pullin' a trigger'. That was Wasser's theory, and I've heard it echoed many times since'.
There are many other reports of people, convicted and executed for murder, who said much the same thing.


George Harris Hees: You don't expect them to like it, do you?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, those who strongly argue that capital punishment is a deterrent probably presume that all others look on murder and capital punishment as they do. This is not the case. Capital punishment may very well be a deterrent for some people but these are ones
Capital Punishment
who would probably not commit murder anyway. These are usually balanced, cautious, humane, law-abiding people. But those who commit murder are not. They are adventurers, desperate, suicidal, masochistic, martyr-prone, and even idealists in some situations, and so on.
Despite the suspension of capital punishment, many criminals risk death time and time again while carrying out crimes, yet they are not deterred. Since 1968 many criminals were shot by police or others while carrying out their crimes. This possibility is known to criminals, yet they carry on, nevertheless. There are many other examples where certain types of individuals will risk their lives, careless drivers, auto racers, skydivers, soldiers of fortune. We had many Canadians who volunteered to fight in Viet Nam. The risk of death does not deter these people. They have a psychology different from those people who feel that capital punishment is a deterrent.
The certainty of committing errors in executing those found guilty of murder is always a sobering thought to those who promote capital punishment. I use the word certainty because it is inevitable that the law will make mistakes and that the innocent will suffer. We accept that as a natural consequence of human law, but when that error cannot be corrected, as in the case of capital punishment, can anyone rest easily when they know that the state will sooner or later execute the wrong man?
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) has described to the House on another occasion how the very fallibility of the law did cost an innocent man his right to life. Both the British and the Americans have had their own spectacular cases in which the wrong individual was executed, and no one would suggest that Canadian law is any less capable of making mistakes. In a study of murders in the first 50 years of this century conducted by the University of Minnesota, researchers conclude that as many as 12 per cent of all those executed were eventually absolved of the crime for which thev died.
Those who believe in deterrence often argue that if the death penalty deters one act of murder, then it is worthy of use. However, they must balance such an assertion against the certainty of eventually executing at least one innocent man. This is compounded by the inequality of legal defences available to the rich and the poor. Often a gangster involved in organized crime is able to hire the best lawyers available, while a poor man has to use whatever lawyer he can find, with the result that the rich man is often acquitted while the poor man often is executed. Maybe this is not as prevalent today, but it still applies in many types of criminal prosecution and leaves the way open for execution by mistake or error.
One must also recognize the statistical fact that murder is often the unique incident of criminality in a man's life. Most murders, according to a University of Toronto study on murder, are crimes of passion and not premeditation. Approximately two out of three murders are committed against family or acquaintances. The uniqueness of murder is further borne out by the facts that the recidivism rates are amongst the lowest for any form of criminal activity, and that in the history of Canada only one man has been convicted of murdering a second time. So what do we accomplish by capital punishment? We don't
January 26, 1973

Capital Punishment
effectively deter. We don't help the victim. We risk killing innocent men. We escalate brutality and we betray our highest ideals.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a word or two to the discussion of the means of execution. There has been much debate over the years as to the "cleanest" and "quickest" method for the state to employ in killing a condemned person. It would appear that, as in all things, there is a margin for error in the conduct of executions. Time Magazine has written:
Even the cleanest execution, and an appalling number are not, is so revolting to see that witnesses commonly vomit and faint. Electrocution is relatively swift, though the victims flesh sometimes burns while his eyes strain out of their sockets. With cyanide and the rope, it sometimes takes five minutes for the dying man to fall totally unconscious, and usually fifteen minutes before he is pronounced dead.
Many people seek to avoid the terrible reality of an execution by concentrating on the supposed swiftness or painlessness of the process. I am very much afraid that the history of executions in Canada, as in all other countries, is filled with grisly tales of botched hangings which have led to decapitation, and a ghastly host of other suffering inflicted upon the condemned. One should not try to gloss over this fundamental reality, no matter how distasteful it is. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one either believes in rehabilitation or one does not, and since that is a belief based on an assessment of one's fellow man, it is an inviolate principle. If, indeed, one has faith in the rehabilitative process, then execution is out of the question, since it precludes any chance of altering behaviour patterns. Rehabilitation is fortunately firmly embedded in our legal system and I believe that it should be.
Today we are at an important juncture in the development of our legal system and our society's morals. The relationship between what we decide when we vote on this bill and how our citizenry will live their lives is direct and immediate. This House has established a course which we should see to the end. When, in 1967 it was determined that there would be a trial ban on capital punishment, the Canadian people could see that it was the intention of their elected officials to finally resolve the issue on the rational grounds of trial and analysis. This process is not yet complete and I hope that hon. members of this House would see good reason to grant sufficient time to conduct the kinds of studies which are necessary to arrive at a final solution to the problem of capital punishment in Canada.
I will return, Mr. Speaker, to what I said at the beginning. We must deter murders; we must protect the public-but let us not delude ourselves into thinking that this can be done by a return to capital punishment. If we are serious about reducing violent crime, let us vigorously attack the causes and strengthen our preventive deterrents.


Mr.   Homer@Crowfoot: Yes, send them to Spain on their honeymoon.


William Warren Allmand: Let us stop the murder from taking place instead of relying on an execution after the deed is done.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Calgary North wishes to ask a question before the minister resumes his seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I listened carefully to the minister's arguments and, as I see it, he takes the position that capital punishment is immoral and wrong and that there should be no exceptions. That being so, let me ask a question about section 214 of the Criminal Code. If capital punishment is wrong basically, as the minister contended in his whole argument, why is that section still included in the code and why is that not wrong? Why is it not wrong to believe in capital punishment for those who murder policemen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. I must remind him that he ought to address the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, through you, why that section is included in the code? Why is it not wrong to execute a man who is found guilty of killing a police officer? Why is the principle right in one case and wrong in another?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I trust I answered that question in my remarks. I said carefully, I think, that this is the best law we can devise at present, but I should like to move forward towards total abolition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: J should hate to move backwards. I feel that the present law at least maintains a partial ban.
If I may answer a question asked earlier, I now have some statistics. It seems that under the law which went into effect in 1967, there have been only four commutations. However, there were eight cases which were left over from the earlier period which were commuted as a matter of course because the law at that time changed. Those sentences were based on the law in effect between 1961 and 1967. Since the new law has come into effect four murderers have had their sentences commuted.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think, if the minister checks the records and trends, he will see how many were convicted under the new law. I suggest since January 4, 1964, there have been 12 such cases. I think the situation is clear and I thank the minister for his answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members may ask questions of the minister only if the minister wishes to reply. The minister has to indicate that he is prepared to reply to an hon. member's question; otherwise we shall call on the next speaker.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister through you because, as we continue in this debate, it would be helpful if my point could be made clear. I understood the minister to say that no convicted murderer is subject to parole until after ten years of his sentence has been served. Can the minister advise the House what is the practice with regard to so-called weekend leaves. I am talking of leaves for a convicted murder-
January 26, 1973

er. Are they permitted before ten years of the sentence has been served?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, temporary absences are authorized under the Penitentiaries Act for three days. Section 26 of the Penitentiaries Act which authorizes temporary absences for humanitarian, medical or rehabilitation purposes permits absences for three days, and up to 15 days. Those absences may be with or without escort. Yes, they have been authorized prior to the conclusion of the ten-year period, but that matter is under review right now.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the government has now chosen to introduce capital punishment as a subject for debate. This is a matter of extreme importance for all Canadians. I feel, however, that its introduction at this point is not related to its importance but is, rather, related to the government's embarrassment over Bill C-125 which it hustled out of the way as soon as the NDP indicated that it would not support it. So, in the guise of seeming to be active and in the hope of prolonging its life, aided and abetted by those on my left-


David Lewis: If the hon. member keeps on talking like that I will become a retentionist.


Erik Nielsen: It seems to me the hon. member and his party are already the best retentionists in the business.


Gerald William Baldwin: They are retaining the government in power.


Erik Nielsen: The government's embarrassment is most evident. After the capital punishment debate with what other urgent matter has the government to deal? There is the bill on pilotage, yet we still have masses of unemployed, still have the highest inflation rate, the highest cost of living, and no old age pension bill has been brought forward. Nevertheless, the government has brought forward this matter for debate at this time. This is the time when this House should be dealing with urgent legislation, to get the country back to work. The government's concern ought to be directed to curing inflation and getting the economy going again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


An hon. Member:: The debate is on capital punishment.


Erik Nielsen: If hon. members in the back rows wish to rise and make their comments, I will yield to them. They should not attempt to smuggle their remarks on to the record or retain the safety of obscurity in the back rows. It is my view that the government is playing politics with this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: And this is not the kind of issue which should be the subject of a political game. Hon. members over there are going to debate this bill for a day or two. They have control over the business of the House. Then, they will take it out of circulation to bring in the pilotage legislation. Then, they will bring it back again, only to
Capital Punishment
drop it after a while when they wish some other measure to be considered. So it will go on. The bill will be used as a means by the government to avoid any embarrassment or any impending defeat. In this, hon. members opposite obviously have the support of those who sit to my left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I wish to say something about one point the minister specifically mentioned. He referred to the special planning and research group, and indicated there had been a change in name and indicated that the name of this group had been changed to "Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group". I believe this is the first time any mention has been made of such a change, either in this chamber or outside the House. I was surprised and, indeed, somewhat alarmed to hear the minister mention this change within his department, because when the special planning and research group was set up the House was assured that the group would have nothing to do with police work, that it would not be an operational group. This name change makes me highly suspicious that the group is now involved in police work and that it is entering into the sphere of RCMP responsibility. Obviously, it has gone beyond planning and research and become operational.


William Warren Allmand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member and the House that the group is merely doing research and planning on criminal activities. It is not an operational group.


Erik Nielsen: I must accept the minister's statement, but I shall certainly reserve my right to exercise my own judgment with respect to the functions of this group. My suspicion is that the functions of this group are not now what we were assured they would be when it was set up. The name change implies-that the group is now operational. Otherwise, why would the word "Police" appear in the new name? Anyway, I can deal with that matter again at another time.
The minister mentioned the RCMP. The RCMP, he told us, were leading the way in crime prevention. Mr. Speaker, this is about the only area in the minister's speech with which I can agree. The RCMP is probably the most accomplished and the most sophisticated police force in the world.


An hon. Member:: Was.


Erik Nielsen: And it still is, not "was". The force is being hampered by many factors, some of which I shall discuss a little later. I can inform the minister that morale is not good. That is putting it mildly. Traditional symbols within the force are being eroded, symbols with tremendous traditions behind them. No further effort should be made to undermine the solid basis of tradition upon which the force has been built. There are other factors disturbing the morale of the force. There is the provision made for the temporary leave of absence of prisoners; there is the way in which parole is granted; there is the failure of the bail reform provisions which the government introduced. With respect to statistics-if I might have the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) for a moment-


An hon. Member:: He is listening.

January 26, 1973
Capital Punishment


Erik Nielsen: If I might have the attention of the minister for a moment-
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the suggestion of the hon. member that we call it one o'clock? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At 12.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, just before the luncheon adjournment I was dealing with the need for this bill to be before us at all at this time. Over the noon adjournment I went to my files in order to get a press release that was issued by the leader of the New Democratic Party, and I contrast that press release with the stand that that party is taking today. In their press release last November, they said the election had made it clear that Canadians want action without delay in a number of areas, and that parliament should meet as soon as possible to deal with them. Thereafter, they listed in order of priority the matter of jobs to cure unemployment, cost of living, fair taxes, and they called for an immediate substantial increase in the basic old age pension. They also raised the question of family farms, native peoples, Canadian independence and electoral reform.
Apparently all that has now gone by the board in this new marriage between the government and the NDP. I reiterate that, instead of having this matter before parliament at this time, we should be dealing with these more urgent requirements of the country. In my own personal view, it would be much more appropriate for this bill to be debated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. But that is not going to be the course followed, by arrangement between my hon. friends to my left and government members.
Obviously, hon. gentlemen opposite were frightened when the NDP indicated that they were not going to support Bill C-125, and there had to be a change of approach. What has happened now has been that Bill C-125 has been withdrawn and the NDP and the government will be putting their heads together. The NDP will be telling the government what they want in Bill C-125, and then the bill will be brought back to the House. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what is going to happen. The tail to my left is going to wag this big brute of a dog that is opposite.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Does the hon. member want Bill C-125?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly, and we want it as soon as possible. We should have it now, instead of this bill. When the bill is brought before us we will certainly make our position on it known. We want action taken on these pressing

matters that the hon. member's party on November 15 declared in their press release were so important to them at that time, even though the importance now seems to have been lost in this marriage of convenience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We made our position on Bill C-125 clear, which is more than you have done.


Erik Nielsen: We shall do so. We say that it should be here now. But regardless whether or not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) denies it, I know what is going to happen. There is going to be hanky-panky between the two parties. Those to my left are going to be telling the government what they require in the bill before it comes back to this House, and there is going to be a lot of haggling in the meantime.
If this bill were examined in committee, it could be studied in detail and expert witnesses could be summoned, if the committee so wished. This House could then proceed with other business in the interim. We should be debating these urgent matters to which I have referred. Debate in committee would let this emotion-charged issue have a thorough and objective examination.
In his opening remarks the minister dealt with the question of deterrence. The abolitionists say that the retention-ists-and the minister put the onus on the retentionists- cannot produce any figures to show that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. I put it to the minister and hon. members that nobody can produce any statistics in this regard, for those who are deterred from committing crime do not volunteer that information to anyone. So to say that the death penalty is no deterrent is to say that men do not fear death, and I find that to be a rather incredible assertion.
Fear of death, Sir, in my view is an instinctive reaction, and to conquer or subdue that fear is a feat of which some people are not capable. In wartime fear of death operates thousands of miles from the battlefield, one mile away and on the battlefield itself. No one who has seen death in its many forms can say, and be believed, that fear of death is not a powerful factor in determining any course of action. That is not to say that many criminals are not completely wreckless and fearless, but there must be many others criminally inclined who shrink from risking their lives.
The minister has quoted statistics, and he has quoted the Fauteux report. He has referred to a slight increase in rates. That reference, in my view, is a gross distortion, based, as it is, on inaccurate statistics. The only statistics that can be quoted in a debate of this nature are statistics compiled by the courts referring to convicted murderers. These statistics say nothing about the hundreds of cases that are reduced from charges of murder to manslaughter or to mere assault, and nothing about the cases of attempted murder, and only those that go to trial. So the use of statistics does not prove anything on either side of this argument for or against, or for expansion.
The minister quotes statistics as between Maine and New Brunswick. I could quote just as many statistics on the other side of the fence to show just how useless
January 26, 1973

statistics are. While we are on the question of statistics, and having regard to the exchange between the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)and the minister, the four cases to which the minister referred in which commutations had been made since the last ban was in effect, all referred to police officers and prison guards.
Then, the minister speaks of giving an opportunity to those concerned in order to make further studies. Of what earthly use could they be? Surely, the main reason for the passage of this legislation five years ago was to determine the deterrent effect the ban would have, or the lack of it, on the basis of the changes that were made. If the power of commutation is exercised on a universal basis throughout the five year period, with that knowledge in the minds of those who have the propensity to commit crimes of violence and murder, what is the point? They know the Cabinet is going to commute any sentence of death they might get.
The minister also said that in Canada only one man has been convicted of murder a second time, but he made no mention of the Head case in British Columbia, and he made no mention of the Cully case, which is a more recent one. My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, raised this matter, too, that notwithstanding the fact that the law says parole will not be considered for ten years after conviction, these prisoners still get temporary leave of absence and that is exactly what Cully got. He was in jail for killing a five year old child.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the House. Mr. Cully escaped from custody when he committed the acts he is accused of committing, he was not on temporary absence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Tell us about the Geoffroy case?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that may be a point of discussion, but not a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I believe that is a point of debate. No one is denying that Mr. Cully escaped, but the fact is he was out, very recently after having been incarcerated for the murder of a five year old child, on temporary absence attending a Christmas party. It was as a result of that which gave rise to the charge of attempted murder of a ten year old boy. I will get into the bail reform provisions and other matters relevant thereto in a moment.
I have suggested already that the fear of death operates within many of those people who are trained to kill, like the thousands of Canadians in World War II and the Korean war. Those people were trained to kill, as I was, and I have regard to my own reaction when I took part in those activities. I know how I feared death and how my comrades in the service in which I served and in other services feared death. There was a genuine fear and there is a genuine fear of death in the mind of every rational per son. It is upon that basis that my own convictions are held.
I am going to retain an open mind on the matter, and if this bill does go to the committee I am going to listen to the updated evidence. If what is adduced before that committee alters the beliefs I now hold, that is fine. I am
Capital Punishment
open to the alternatives but at the moment my conviction is that the fear of death is a deterrent. That is a personal conviction I express.
I have spoken about statistics and of the complete unreliability of statistics. Part of the explanation for the lack of a significant deterrent effect of the ban on capital punishment is the fact that the terms of the 1967 bill have not been fully carried out. The Cabinet, Which has the prerogative of mercy, has invariably commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment. Not one execution has occurred since December 11, 1962.
This has had two main effects relevant to the extension the minister, on behalf of the government, is asking for at the moment. It has invalidated the experiment it was supposed to be, since a true assessment of the effect of the partial ban cannot be made, and it has contributed to the problems of police officers in carrying out their duties. Oh, how it has contributed to those problems. It has almost completely destroyed the morale of certain segments of law enforcement agencies and police organizations in this country. This is very serious because it makes the task of police officers fraught with even more difficulty.
Not only have all death sentences been commuted to life imprisonment, the parole board has established the practice of granting parole after only ten years of a sentence of life imprisonment. No comprehensive survey of public opinion has been made on this question, but a Gallup poll conducted in the spring of last year found that 63 per cent of Canadians believed violence had increased in their communities over the last five years.
There is an even more significant poll that was published recently by the Weekend magazine. Let me quote from the November 25, 1972 issue where this statement is set forth:
If a government plebiscite were held now, would Canadians vote to retain or reject capital punishment?
Nobody knows, of course, but an unofficial Weekend Magazine poll of readers in urban and rural areas from coast to coast has turned up some 30,139 people who think retention is necessary.
Some 3,383 others think capital punishment should be abolished.
Another 100 people sent in unmarked ballots, suggesting probably that they were undecided. There is no way of estimating how many readers were undecided, however, since many doubtful ones probably just did not bother sending in ballots.
That is a ratio of ten to one on that poll of almost 32,000 people polled, and that is the feeling in the country.
There was another recent article in the Toronto Star of January 18, 1973, and it winds up with the following comment:
When parliament debates the question let them not confuse us by suggesting that common sense, ordinary justice, or the Bible are at issue. What is to be settled is whether murderers are guilty and deserve to die, or whether they are unfortunates who need 20 years of conditioning, psychologizing, and further opportunities in our society. On that simple question I have a feeling that ordinary citizens would vote overwhelmingly in favour of traditional justice.
And let not our Members of Parliament assume that the ideology of an elite group of experts is more important than the free choice of a democracy. That lesson should have been learned in the last election.

Capital Punishment
The minister mentioned churches. He gives great weight to the number of executives in the church organizations who have come down in favour of abolition. Let me suggest to him that those church organizations do not represent every individual member in the congregation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They do, in fact, represent a minority in terms of the over-all church organizations in this country. In my view, public safety and adequate law enforcement must be assured. The existence or non-existence of a death penalty is of little effect if the population is not properly protected. It is the manner of carrying out whatever law parliament passes that will achieve public safety. This opens up the whole area of government policy which has brought about the rising up of the majority of Canadians in protest against the permissiveness of the policies that have been followed by this government.
Before I get into that field, I want to say a thing or two about the minister's repeated assertions in the House and outside that there is going to be a free vote. The importance of this debate is quite obvious. The decisions taken by the members of this House of Commons will have far-reaching and long standing results. Since this is an issue of such grave importance and since it is a highly emotional matter, we in this party believe that it should be decided by each member according to his conscience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: A free vote is necessary to permit this, and a free expression of opinion, in order to explain the vote of each individual member is necessary to accomplish this. This was the case which the minister tried to put before us in 1966 and 1967. We believe that this is the only sensible way to treat a matter of such seriousness. I was here in 1967 when that other so-called free vote was held, and it was so far from being a free vote on that side of the House as to have been a ridiculous charade. They were regimented, marshalled and told that this was a cabinet bill, a government bill, and they voted for it solidly. The only place where a free vote was exercised was on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member on a point of order.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the statement the hon. member has just made. I am a member of the Liberal party and in 1966-67 I voted to keep the death penalty, and nobody twisted my arm.


Erik Nielsen: That is hardly a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and if it were-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -to be deemed such, then every individual member over there would have to rise and make a declaration as did the hon. member who has just spoken, whom I respect and whose statement I accept.


Mr. Comtois:: There are many others.


Erik Nielsen: If those hon. members would only have the courage to stand and make their interjections, I would gladly sit down, but let us not have these squeaks from the back seats.
The fact remains that there must be on that side of the House those who do not favour the abolition of capital punishment. There must be retentionists there, and it would be very interesting to see whether they follow the dictum of their party set down in 1967 and vote en masse for either this bill or this manufactured attempt to get them behind the Fleming-Prud'homme amendment. As to the New Democratic Party, I predict that there is not one of them who will vote against this measure. They will vote as a party for the bill which this cabinet is presenting or for the amendment that is being manufactured at the moment under the blessing of the minister. So I expect that the matter will go to committee.
Having said that, knowing the way the NDP will vote, knowing the way the government members will vote, we can expect the matter to pass because there are abolitionists in this party who will support the measure. So if the bill will be passed, I ask members: why waste time? Why do we not vote on it, send it to committee where we can obtain the updated information? The reason is obvious- delay to avoid embarrassment, delay to hang on to power, delay so that they will not have to face the embarrassing legislation which they must bring in dealing with the more serious and urgent economic ills which assault the country today and which are of their creation.
I want to say a word about the decision that must be made. The abolition or retention of capital punishment is in part a highly personal decision. The effects of this decision must be taken into account. No decision will be relevant unless it can be enforced. Enforcement implies carrying out the law, but both the law and current practices need to be clarified before an intelligent decision can be made about capital punishment. Three areas in particular must be considered. The government must be asked to outline its intentions in the matter of sentencing policy. I regret that the Solicitor General is not listening, but perhaps he will be able to read my comments in Hansard and will deign to advise the House on these matters which I am raising for his benefit. They must declare to the House their sentencing policy, their parole policy, the remission practices and the exercise of mercy by the cabinet.
With respect to the sentencing practices, the major issue here is the definition of the term "life imprisonment". At present, as I have said, an inmate serving life imprisonment is eligible for parole after ten years. But even that imposition of the law is being by-passed by present practices in the Department of the Solicitor General, as I have shown. This practice of the department is objected to by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who insist that there must be a genuine life imprisonment, who say that only if life imprisonment actually means something
January 26, 1973

can it be effective. The Fattah study states that the certainty of punishment is one of the most important factors associated with deterrence, and so it is.
The Solicitor General, in an interview on January 15, 1973, appeared receptive to the Fleming-Prud'homme proposal to abolish capital punishment and to impose instead a mandatory minimum of 25 years sentence for convicted murderers. I do not go along with that proposed amendment because all it does is place a definite price tag on murder. Someone in his youthful years may well be planning premeditated murder and may say, "Well, I don't have to face the death penalty. All I have to face is 25 years. I am 20 years old now and I will be out when I am 45, so why not." In my personal view that is no solution. Only if life imprisonment means something, and is adhered to, can any such a policy be effective.
Before dealing with parole practices, let me say that I know the Chairman of the Parole Board and have known him for many years. I think that he and those who work with him are very dedicated people. They take their jobs very seriously. They have some very awesome decisions to make. They make them as their consciences dictate, and after the utmost possible consideration given to each case. I am not criticizing the individuals in the parole system, but I am criticizing the system itself. It, after all, is the product of government policy.
The present parole system has been frequently used as a quasi-judicial body and a court of appeal, rather than as a parole board whose main function is determining when inmates are eligible for parole. In respect of temporary absences the Parole Board has no jurisdiction whatsoever. That jurisdiction is exercised by prison officials. Section 6 of the Parole Act states that, "the board has exclusive jurisdiction and absolute discretion to grant, refuse to grant, or revoke parole." The Chairman of the board has defended the system as one that "compares favourably with any in the world." After recent events in Canada, I do not think anyone can have any quarrel with that.
It is my submission that reform of the parole system is necessary to make it fair to both the inmate and the public. The Solicitor General has his values reversed, as did his predecessor, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau] and the whole cabinet, because they are placing more emphasis on the paramountcy of concern for the inmate rather than for society in general. They are so obsessed with the idea of rehabilitation-


William Warren Allmand: That isn't true.


Erik Nielsen: -and a less harsh treatment of inmates that they have forgotten about the paramount concern which is the protection of society. That is why public safety has taken a back seat in the policies of the government. That is why in recent months in this country we have experienced some of the most tragic events besetting our citizens. I need only mention the Lothian case, the Head case and the Kully case. It is all a result of the permissive direction which the government is taking with respect to parole practices, bail reform and the like.
Capital Punishment
Another suggestion I have to make is that the approval of the Governor in Council should be mandatory before any release for persons sentenced to life imprisonment.
A third area which I suggest needs a positive declaration of the government's intentions concerns the exercise of clemency. I have alluded to this earlier in my remarks. Since 1962 no one has been hanged in Canada. There have been four convictions for the murder of police officers since 1968, and the government has commuted the sentence of all of them. The cabinet has the power of granting mercy or clemency. It is argued that the present practice of invariably commuting every death penalty to life imprisonment is undermining both the legal process and the power of parliament. That is my conviction. What is the point of us wasting time in a debate like this, which merely extends the five year ban on capital punishment except in the case of the murder of a prison officer or a police officer, if we know full well that the cabinet will commute such a sentence anyway? What earthly sanity is connected with that? Whether we pass this legislation or not, we know that the cabinet will continue to commute such sentences.


Mr. Harding:: What would you do if the Conservatives were in power?


Erik Nielsen: Just before lunch I said that the government is playing politics with this measure. Now the hon. member, who has so inanely interjected while remaining seated, is doing the same thing.
This practice of invariable commutation in my view removes any deterrent effect that the death penalty could have. No conclusions can therefore be drawn about the validity of the partial ban experiment in the last five years. Commutation prevents the legal process. The Canadian Police Chiefs argue that by removing any element of deterrence, this discourages them in their work. Just remember the Lothian case. Why on earth should a police officer in a large centre like metropolitan Toronto risk his life by getting out of his patrol car, which incidentally he occupies alone, when he knows he may get shot, stabbed or by other means killed? For what purpose?
Commutation undermines the authority of parliament since it breaks and frustrates the parliamentary process. I do not think any logical argument can be advanced against that. This exercise that we are going through today, and probably on Monday and Tuesday, is an exercise in complete frustration because we know that if the police officers and prison guards are murdered those convicted of crimes will have their sentences commuted in any event.
In my view clemency, the prerogative of the Crown, should only be granted where, in the first instance, mercy has been recommended at the trial stage and, second, in the case of established error in conviction. It is my suggestion that this House has several options, but they are predicated on the Solicitor General declaring certain intentions. I believe that once the government announces its intention regarding sentencing practices, once it announces its intention of defining life imprisonment, once it announces its intention of defining its parole policy and the exercise of clemency, then this House can consider various options.

January 26, 1973
Capital Punishment
First we can consider, I hope as open-minded individuals, total abolition of the death penalty, and I refer again to the Fleming-Prud'homme amendment. I cannot overemphasize the fact that, even if that amendment were advanced and accepted, absolute adherence to the sentencing practices would have to prevail. At present we have no knowledge of what the government proposes with respect to those practices.
The second option is to make no change from the 1967 amendment. This means another extension of the ban on the death penalty for a period of five years. Incidentally, the Canadian Association of Criminality and Corrections has suggested a two-year ban to permit further studies.
The third option is the appointment of a royal commission with responsibility for correlating the needed factual information and conducting public hearings. There is a need for further studies and for assessment of public opinion and representations by citizens groups and individuals.
Finally, there is the matter that was dealt with by the minister, a national referendum. A national referendum was suggested by the Canadian Police Association. The minister's brief reply and rejection of that course was, in effect, a paraphrasing of Edmond Burke, to the effect that it is the responsibility of this House to make that decision. However, because of widespread public concern over this matter, because of the growing public opinion that I am sure is being expressed not only throughout the media of the country but also in members' mail that there should be a referendum, that suggestion should receive serious consideration in this House. The California precedent cited by the minister was an extremely weak argument. He dismissed the referendum that was held recently in that state on the basis that, as our constitutional and governmental practices are different inasmuch as a referendum once passed in California immediately becomes law whereas that is not the practice here, a referendum should not be held here. If the written media is an indication and if my mail and that of other members who have spoken to me is, there is rising support for a referendum. It is an alternative that should be considered.
Those are my personal views. Others from my party will participate in this debate. It has been indicated to me that several speakers from the party to my right and from the government side will participate. However, it is my personal view still that this debate is a waste of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What party is on your right?


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I meant the party to my left, if I may exaggerate to the extent of calling those hon. members on my left a party. Instead of this measure, we ought to be debating much more urgent legislation. However, if it is .the intention of government and NDP members to prolong this debate, we will participate in it; we will not abdicate our responsibilities. We will make our contribution. But I hope it will be remembered that the members of my party who will contribute will do so on the basis that they are genuinely expressing a free
[Mr. Nielsen.)
opinion and, when they vote, they will be casting a genuinely free vote.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first opportunity I have had of rising to speak in this House, I think it is traditional to congratulate you on your election as Speaker, and to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his election. I also wish to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for looking after the new members of this House. He has looked after us very well in a very fine way and I think I speak for all new members when I say we very much appreciate what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has done and for the very kind assistance that he has rendered to those of us who are shaky newcomers in this awesome place, the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Awful.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Awful, all right. The thrust of my remarks will be that no news is good news. As this is my maiden speech, this is a painful process-I suppose that is why they call it a maiden speech. I do not know. In any event, to direct my remarks to the point, I agree with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that there is a great deal of public concern over this question. Certainly, my mail has conveyed it, as has the mail of a great many hon. members. There is reason for that concern. I agree that some statistics for the past five years indicate a rising crime rate. Those statistics I will refer to later. But there are, in addition, other reasons for this concern. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this question has been sensationalized in the media to the extent that an unnecessary climate of fear has been generated in the public mind.
It is easier to sell newspapers when you sensationalize murder. I know that there is a great deal of public concern, but a great deal of that is not related to the facts as explained to us today by the minister. Another factor exaggerating that concern is the portrayal of murder on the entertainment media. The way that murders are usually committed on television encourages a climate of fear, a climate of panic. Let us also consider the movies. Why do most of the provinces of this country not restrict in some way or classify gory or violent movies? It seems passing strange to me that children can go on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and watch, without restriction, movies involving the worst kind of gore and violence. They see things which bring out our worst instincts. I submit that what the news media and entertainment media show has exacerbated this problem.
If I were to assess the public mind correctly, and nobody can, I would not doubt that a great majority of the people favour retention of capital punishment, and the reason for that is clear. People fear for their own safety. Therefore, we must surely direct our attention to whether abolition promotes public safety and the public good. Of course, the reason most often put forward in favour of the death penalty is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. I will not give many statistics; the minister referred to them in detail. On the surface, the deterrent argument is not logical, because a murderer is not a logical person. He is rarely a person with a rational mind. He commits murder when he is not rational, when he is not logical, when his tendencies are suicidal or psychotic.
January 26, 1973

Most of the media portray the murder as being planned and carefully executed with great skill by the criminal. This is not the case. Murders are usually committed in fits of passion by people of limited education and, most often, by people from deprived and underprivileged groups. Last but not least, they are often committed by other members of a family.
The United States experience is interesting and the minister referred to it. The murder rate in the U.S. is the highest in the world. In the abolitionist states of the United States the murder rate is 4.65 per 100,000 of population. In the retentionist states it is 7.65 per 100,000 of population. Incidentally, if we are concerned about the safety of police officers and prison guards, as we ought to be, it is interesting to note that those who carry on their profession in the abolitionist states of the U.S. are safer than those who carry out their duties in those states which retain capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the police.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will come to the police in a moment. If one looks at the world scene and examines the rate for the democratic socialist states of western Europe-and let me say that I am proud to be a member of my party-one will see that they enjoy the lowest murder rates in the world.


Mr. Yewchuk:: But the highest suicide rates.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Paul Yewchuk: That is right; look at the statistics.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The bill before us now places police officers and prison guards in a special category. I welcome the ministers indication that the government is continuing along the road to abolition and that the reason a measure proposing total abolition is not before us is that further information and statistics are awaited. I know I speak for many other members of this party who favour total abolition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is interesting to note that it was the police in Austria who were instrumental, a long time ago, in persuading that country to abolish capital punishment. They did so because the absence of a death penalty reduced the risk attached to bringing in criminals. After all, if a man had committed a murder and had nothing to lose he could be expected to be a much more dangerous culprit for police to tackle. Then again, consider a murderer with a suicide wish. Here, the death penalty might not only fail to work as a deterrent, it might work in reverse.
No one will deny that the occupations of police officers and prison guards are hazardous. But let us be realistic. In terms of death hazard, the rate for construction workers is 7.7 per 10,000; in mining it is 11 per 10,000; in agriculture, 6.5 per 10,000. The rate for police officers is 3.1. Theirs is not the most risky occupation in this country, despite what one might expect from reading the front pages of every newspaper.
Capital Punishment
Another cogent reason for not enforcing a death penalty is the increased public protection afforded against offenders who might be released after trial because of a jury's hesitation to convict. After all, when a jury is faced with the awesome responsibility of deciding whether life should be taken or not, it errs on the side of freedom for the possible offender. So there is the chance that a guilty man will go free, possibly to prey once more on the public. A considerable body of argument shows that the death penalty fails as a deterrent but that it increases the hazard to the public.
It is, of course, a cliche to say that the death penalty is discriminatory. But it is. It is a penalty most often imposed on the poor, on the homeless and on ethnic and racial minorities. A study of United States statistics indicates that since 1930, 3,859 people have been executed in that country. Mr. Speaker, 53 per cent of those executed were black. Incidentally, I have tried to get government statistics in terms of our native Indian population in Canada, and I am sorry to say the minister does not keep statistics on this basis. I am surprised. I suspect it is because an unduly large proportion of the population of the penal institutions of this country consists of native Indians-that their numbers are quite out of proportion with their share of the total population.
In terms of this debate, I think that what is taking place is a dialogue on death. Most people here already have their minds firmly made up and I do not believe there will be many changes as a result of the wind which will blow across the chamber on the subject. But let me ask you this, Mr. Speaker. How can proponents of the death penalty answer those who say: How is it possible to correct an error? In my view, one mistake is too high when the price is measured in terms of human life.
The issue of the death penalty is a red herring to the extent that it avoids the real concern of the public with its own safety. As I admitted earlier in my remarks, statistics do show that there is a rising crime rate. Over the past five years, murders increased by 53 per cent, the assault rate by 52 per cent, the robbery rate by 83 per cent, the rape rate by 42 per cent and narcotics by an incredible 1,724 per cent. It is also a fact that the age group whose members most often commit crimes increased abnormally by comparison with the rest of the population. But, Mr. Speaker, the streets of this country are still safe, unlike those of our neighbour to the south. And there is a better way of protecting the public than by enforcing a death penalty.
No one has mentioned during this debate the fact that there are six million guns in the hands of the public of this country. Half the murders committed are committed by means of guns, and half of those are by means of rifles. Yet a rifle is something one can buy without restriction in any department store. Persons of unsound mind, persons with serious criminal records, have ready access to weapons. If you want to reduce the risk of harm to the public, stop the distribution of guns throughout this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Death is only a quarter of an inch away and when the means are at hand, deaths will occur.

January 26, 1973
Capital Punishment
I am sympathetic with those who suggest that a review of the parole legislation and its administration are long overdue. I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on this subject. Consideration should also be given to mandatory sentences without access to parole or temporary release. The problem is to identify the psychotic offender who is incapable of rehabilitation. This is the direction we should be taking in order to protect the public adequately. I agree with the hon. member for Yukon that there should be a review of sentencing policy. The important thing is to get at the true causes of crime-social alienation, poverty, slums-spawned by the free enterprise system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Horner:: Spawned by the welfare system.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is every man for himself under the free enterprise system, and if that does not encourage a climate of violence I do not know what does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: When this bill is referred to the committee, I hope the committee will deal with the issues raised by the hon. member for Yukon and I hope it will deal with the question of guns held in this country. I hope real protection will be afforded to the public. But all the capital punishment legislation in the world will not protect anybody. The hon. member for Yukon says the statistics available can be used by either side. But if they can be used to support one argument or the other, surely he should be supporting those of us who seek abolition. The onus, surely, should lie with those who wish to take life.
As I say, many of us in this quarter favour total abolition rather than the bill before us, but I am not proposing an amendment at this time. I am heartened by what the minister said in his address, that we should move toward total abolition-I think I quote him correctly. This is a position I have no difficulty in supporting.
I should like to end with a quote from Kamsay Clark, former Attorney General of the United States. In dealing with this subject, he said that society pays a heavy price for the penalty of death that it imposes. Our executionists may cry vengeance in the wake of a horrible crime, but reason and experience tell us that killing the criminal will not undo the crime, prevent other crimes or bring justice to the victim, the criminal or society.
Mr. Speaker, executions cheapen life and we must, above all, cherish life. In a humane and compassionate society, which surely we all seek, the death penalty has no place whatsoever and I urge ultimately total abolition.
[TranslationJ


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise for the first time at the beginning of this session to congratulate those who have been appointed to guide the debates of the House.
Bill C-2 is one of the most controversial legislation ever discussed in this House. The years 1966-67 are still alive in my mind. At that time we waged a strong fight against
[Mr. Leggatt.)
abolition of capital punishment. Since then we have grown older and so has the government. It is said that with age comes wisdom and I hope that this year our debates will have a different tone because, as the government said themselves, this legislation is back in the House after five years of peace but this time under not so lively conditions.
It seems that arrogance is not so prevalent and that members will enjoy more personnal responsibility.
I want to congratulate the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) for saying that this vote will be absolutely free. Therefore, each one of us will be able to vote according to his conscience. Thus our discussions will not be so impassioned and more reasonable. So, before stating my opinion on some clauses of the bill, I will make a few general remarks on the principles behind my final decision on the thorny topic of capital punishment.
Just as a man must safeguard his own life and protect it, so it is his duty to respect the life of others. This is why homicide or murder is prohibited by moral law as well as by civil law which must reflect what is found in natural law.
The civil authority must protect the individuals through legislation and it has the right to pass and enforce the legislation required for the common welfare and to protect the life and assets of the people.
Since it is the duty of civil authority to uphold order in society, consequently it is entitled to impose penalties and seek redress from those who violate order and law. It is the sanction which perfects and completes the law. However, does that power of civil authority include the death penalty?
The political authority has the right to impose the death penalty to murderers.
The civil authority has the right to take all necessary means to serve justice and ensure the security of citizens; capital punishment is necessary to ensure justice and the security of Canadian citizens. So, civil authorities have the right to impose capital punishment.
Punitive or vindicative justice requires that the punishment of a crime be as equal as possible to the crime committed. For certain crimes such as homicide, for example, there is no other punishment than capital punishment to establish this equality between punishment and crime. So, for justice to be served, capital punishment is sometimes necessary.
It is practically impossible to ensure the security of the citizens against the acts of certain individuals without applying the strongest restriction available against criminals. And the strongest restriction available is capital punishment. Life imprisonment, as some suggest as a sanction, is not a strong enough deterrent to stop potential murderers. Indeed, murderers can sometimes escape and thus not serve their punishment. On the other hand, the horrible crime of taking away the life of another individual is not punished adequately by life imprisonment. Capital punishment is a more effective way of preventing it. 'Death is the deprivation of life, the greatest possession, and capital punishment has to be imposed upon those who take this possession away from others.
January 26, 1973

It is being said that life imprisonment ensures public security. To that I reply that life imprisonment ensures security in a certain way but is it effective enough? It can be sometimes, but not in all cases.
Another objection is that homicide is forbidden by natural law. Now capital punishment is an homicide, therefore capital punishment should be forbidden.
The word "homicide" should be clearly defined. In fact, natural law does not forbid all homicides. It is against unjust homicide only and it is not true that capital punishment is an unjust homicide.
There is another objection. Some hold that innocent people may sometimes be executed and that a miscarriage of justice can never be repaired.
It is true that capital punishment may be imposed upon an innocent person by error, but the fact that accidents may occur should not be reason to abolish capital punishment, not any more than we should stop manufacturing automobiles or aircraft because they sometimes cause accidents. That miscarriages of justice, which are very scarce, can happen is not reason to depart from a general principle.
On the other hand, I say to the supporters of the absolute right to live that the murderers themselves do not recognize such right in others. That right is not absolute for if it were a soldier killing an enemy in war would be considered as a criminal. That right may be taken from those who do not respect it in other people. As a matter of fact, the murderer taking the life of somebody else cannot claim an absolute right to life to escape the punishment fitting his crime.
Mr. Speaker, those principles having been established, the main objections proved wrong, let us return now to the bill itself.
When we read this bill, we find the following explanatory note:
The purposes of this Bill are, by amendments to the Criminal Code, to provide for
(a)	the reinstatement of the law relating to capital punishment that existed prior to December 30th, 1972, for a period terminating on December 31st, 1977, and
(b)	the elimination of the use of the terms "capital murder", in relation to murder that is punishable by death, and "non-capital murder", in relation to murder that is punishable by life imprisonment.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I am pleased to note that the government, in this bill, approves the principle of capital punishment. However, it changes its mind, it agrees in principle but does not do anything or allows the legislation to be defective.
I have always maintained that the main quality of a national legislation was universality and, as soon as this is taken away, the legislation becomes discriminatory and out of date, like Bill C-2. The bill now before us is selective in that it only protects a very small part of our society. I quote from the bill:
Murder is punishable by death, in respect of any person, where such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of
Capital Punishment
(a a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties, or
(b. a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties.
We could have added: a prime minister, a minister, a judge and so on, in order to have a legislation of wide scope. Honestly, I do not see any difference between a police officer, a deputy police chief or a prison guard and a prime minister. Nowadays, more prime ministers are killed than prison guards. I do not see any difference, even less from a sentimental point of view, for I suggest that the life of my wife or of my children is just as important as that of all the people I have listed. I say: "just as important"! This is the opinion of most people. Then, why is such a restrictive legislation introduced in the House, after accepting the principle of capital punishment. The principle is accepted and it is intended to apply it to a small specific group. This is wrong.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I do not support all the provisions of this bill. I suggest that this measure should have the most essential quality of any legislation, namely, universality. Only then will it be possible to talk about justice.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want a selective justice, either for myself or for anyone else. I want the same justice for all, throughout this country. This is the kind of legislation we want.
It is claimed that something is changed, where I suggest there is only a change in wording from the phrase "capital murder" to "murder that is punishable by death". Mr. Speaker I do not see much difference.
I have often said that we are in favour of the death penalty in the case of capital murder. That is why we are supporting the same cause today.
Some of my colleagues will speak on the famous parole system. Several members had the opportunity of hearing the opinion of experts, great Canadian jurists who were definitely against parole. I believe that this bill is only the continuation of a former bill that was already submitted and against which we voted. We hope that a free vote will be held and that the members, aware of their responsibilities and of the protection that they owe the public, will vote as sincerely as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a few quotations for the benefit of the various parties in the House. If I may, I will read remarks made by a former member, a jurist named Remi Paul who wrote the following in 1964:


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT SOCIETY.
[Stage Direction]
The commutation of Georges Marcotte's sentence, the announcement of a debate on capital punishment and of a free vote on this matter have brought once more the subject to the fore in parliamentary circles.
We asked a member who is a lawyer, who previously objected to the abolition of hanging and who recently pleaded in the House in favour pf Marcotte, to express his current opinion on this problem.
702
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1973
Capital Punishment
The reference is to Mr. Remi Paul, a former Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament. I shall read one or two excerpts to call the attention of Progressive Conservative members to the opinions of their former colleague,
I continue quoting:
Mr. Remi Paul, Progressive Conservative member for Berthier-Maskinonge-De Lanaudiere is still in favour of the death penalty. The reason for his intervention in favour of Marcotte was the special treatment given by judicial authorities to Jean-Paul Four-nel, who informed on the alleged Santa Claus murderer.
Everyone, remembers the celebrated trial of the alleged Santa Claus murderer.
I shall now quote from an article in the March 7, 1966 issue of the Journal de Montreal',

[Stage Direction]
Over two thirds of the young Conservatives who met in Ottawa for a conference have just declared themselves in favour of maintaining the death penalty in Canada.
Some Progressive Conservatives may vote for keeping capital punishment and maybe some will object to it, but I just want to give these two examples to the Progressive Conservatives to say that not only senior citizens, but even the young also want retention of capital punishment.
As for the New Democrats, it is always pleasant to hear them for they express such contradictory views. For as long as I have known them, they have been for the protection of murderers just as they are for abortion on request and all other human depravities. As soon as there is a murderer to defend, they are there to do so. But they agree wholeheartedly with this slaughter of innocents- abortion on request-and this after having fought for murderers. How pitiful! Look at Paul Rose who is in jail. He complains that he is not well fed because he does not get dessert three times a day. But what did he do to Mr. Laporte? That is what we often forget. We shed tears over the plight of those poor murderers, but we allow to be killed thousands of innocents, helpless children who want to be born. This is why I call them innocents. And the New Democratic Party advocates abortion on demand. As late as last year, I heard some of those members plead for the protection of animals and ask that legislation be passed to that effect. But the protection of human beings, is that of secondary importance?
Why are we here? Above all, to establish justice, inasmuch as it is possible and to protect society. One must not consider, Mr. Speaker, the punishment in the light of the murderer himself, but from the point of view of the community as a whole which demands the most complete protection against those individuals. If punishment is to be proportionate to the offence, it must be above all a deterrent in order to protect society. Laws are made above all for the individual and society, not for the criminals.
So I soon realized that that was the reason why thousands of people took the time to answer the survey I made in my riding, because when I speak here, I speak on behalf of 90 per cent of my constituents who are in favour of capital punishment. Indeed, as I said, out of 2,000 answers I received, 90 per cent were in favour of retaining capital punishment. And this result can be explained by

the many murders of all kinds committed in our country in recent years, for instance those vicious murders by Dion and others, and this same Dion after being released killed four innocents, four young children, and finally, as the State did not impose justice, a fellow inmate did for him a service that society was refusing him.
Taking into account murder, arson, fraudulent bankruptcies, healthy people are terrified by the fact that all death sentences are being commuted to life imprisonment. Resurgence of murder and organized crime should prompt the government to reinstate capital punishment without deliberation. Often we hear the common saying: Vox populi, vox Dei, or else that in true democracy the opinion of the majority should be law.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I should find it difficult to decide against the will of 90 per cent of the Roberval constituents. Therefore, I shall continue to support those who favour retention of capital punishment. And as a last argument, I should like to quote from an editorial that was broadcast by CJMS on November 21, 1972.
The death penalty imposed on Real Chartrand for the capital murder of officer Labelle forces us again to question the usefulness of capital punishment.
People know that it is through a decision of the House of Commons that the death penalty has been retained for a few years now in our Criminal Code, and this exclusively in the case of deliberate murder of a police officer or a prison guard, and also that after 1962 there has indeed been no hanging in Canada.
Again in the forthcoming months the members of the House of Commons will have to study this question. First of all, even for those in favour of capital punishment, such a sentence is totally inadequate.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is inadequate because selective. And now I resume the quotation:
In fact, there is absolutely no difference between the well-planned murder of a police officer and that of a bank manager .. .
-or of any other person in Canada, for that matter.
Again I resume my quotation:
... In our case, we must carry the debate further.
Is the death penalty really useful as a deterrent against crime? It would seem, from the comparative scientific studies carried out where it exists and where it does not, that it serves no such purpose. Therefore we sincerely feel that the despicable individuals who have lost all respect for human beings should be given life terms, and that hanging or killing them would bring nothing more to society.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes left, I believe, and should like to quote from a speech Mr. Wagner delivered in 1965-when he was Minister of Justice in Quebec- inviting people to write to the federal government and tell them that the death penalty should not be abolished. When he gave this speech Mr. Wagner surely never expected that one day he would be elected to the House of Commons and would become the leading progressive conservative member in the province of Quebec,if not the only one. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagnerj is a man I respect, and a great jurist. This is what he said:
The Minister of Justice, Claude Wagner . ..
An hon. Member:: There are other opinions.
January 26, 1973


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Someone has said that there are other opinions. I agree, but you cannot rob anyone of his opinions. This is my opinion and I have the right to express it.


An hon. Member:: Indeed you have!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: On December 30, 1965, 1'Action of Quebec City printed the following, and I quote:
The Minister of Justice, Mr. Claude Wagner, who recently said that he would suggest to the federal government to hold a national referendum to abolish capital punishment, was not surprised to learn that Mr. Pearson did not favour such a referendum. He says that Mr. Pearson is entitled to his views and opinions.
But, the minister added, if the government does not want to go to the people, the people will go to the government.-
I don't know if he expected that during the last election campaign, but this year the people went to the government. The people have elected a government for themselves. And I continue to quote from that newspaper:
And the minister is inviting everyone to write to the federal government to say that in the present circumstances, it would not be advisable to abolish capital punishment in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I see that I have taken just about all my time and that I cannot read from that letter any longer. However, I would like to quote the following statement from the Civil Service Association of Canada.
As a Member of Parliament, you will be requested, during this Parliament, to take a stand on the matter of abolishing the death penalty in Canada. Due to its very nature, the Civil Service Association would not usually interfere in such a controversial issue involving public policy. We would think that our members would rather express their own opinion on this matter as the government seemingly intends to do so in Parliament, leaving to everyone the opportunity to make up one's own mind.
It so happens however that, in this particular case, our Association has a major interest to uphold concerning a particular aspect of the problem.
The association is opposed to the principle of selective law which would protect police agents only and not all its members and I wholeheartedly support them just as I hope that, by the end of this debate, a truly national and universal law will be adopted. It is then only that we will begin having justice for all.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in this House and I should like to congratulate you and your confreres upon the election to your posts. You, Sir, go about your duties in such a way that you have my unbounded admiration. I do not want to revert to the Speech from the Throne but I must mention my two fellow freshmen who moved and seconded the address in reply. I think they added a great deal of distinction to the first days of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Samuel Victor Railton: During the last few months we have all received many letters from our constituents, many of whom favour the retention of capital punishment for the killing of prison guards and policemen. In essence, this is the program the government supported five years ago and which the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is asking us to support now. I believe we all realize that half a loaf is
Capital Punishment
better than none. A few people have written me saying that capital punishment, right across board for all degrees of murder, should be instituted. On the other hand, many people are asking for complete abolition of the death penalty. So it is extremely difficult to attempt to assess a true picture of the wishes of the electorate.
Many kinds of polls have been taken, but these cannot give the complete public viewpoint. Aside from that, they are almost always untrustworthy. It is unrealistic to attempt to hold a referendum on the subject. Just think of the recent national referendum in England, which later entered the common market and ignored the results of the referendum which did not favour that move. This took courage-but it took a majority government, Mr. Speaker.
For all these reasons, though where possible we should try to respond to the wishes of the electorate, we as responsible Members of Parliament must vote according to our consciences on the question of capital punishment. We must stand up for our personal principles, no matter how they may be received by the electorate. Fortunately, we will have a free vote in the House on this question, and I do not think Members of Parliament should vote in any way except for that in which they believe. It is hardly possible to be a good Member of Parliament and act only according to the expressed wishes of the electorate alone, because sometimes the great mass of our people are not reached by educative media. So frequently if we follow opinion blindly, we are bowing to the will of the vocal few.
Unfortunately, there has been a great lack of public education on the subject of capital punishment. However, we as members have had access to a lot of information from parliamentary sources, the press and research bureaux as well as from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). Thus, we have been able to do a great deal of reading and I think by now must have developed our attitudes fairly definitely. In my view no one should take part in this vote unless he has undertaken considerable study, had acquainted himself with the different facets of the problem and, finally, has struggled with his conscience.
It is unfortunate that the public of Canada has not in turn been able to read more impartial literature. A great many pamphlets and material from organizations, broadcasts and the press tend to strike emotional attitudes. These, in turn, really have the effect of clouding the real facts. If we look at the evidence impartially, most of us will agree that the state has the right to put to death anyone who has committed a crime against the state. The person who is trying to overthrow the state by violent means is a traitor. Indeed, when the War Measures Act was invoked, if things had come to the worst and there had been a real revolution, I think the state would have properly discharged its duty by putting people to death for committing treason. It would have been for the courts to decide at that time what treason really meant and to stand by the decision.
In considering the present question, as we are a civilized country all available evidence pertaining to murder should be pondered deeply. The subject has been studied from the standpoint of the value of capital punishment as

January 26, 1973
Capital Punishment
a deterrent to the potential murderer. There are other considerations as well. For instance, is the death penalty required for its deterrent effect? Does not killing a culprit give a poor image as to the value of a human life and the dignity of the human being? Has life imprisonment, without an attempt at rehabilitation and parole, any place in modern society? Finally, is it true that there is only a small percentage of recidivism in respect of murderers?
Also, is it true that anyone who murders should be considered in a narrow sense to be insane? In my opinion, we can prove that all murderers have a unique personality defect. These varying areas of the subject under discussion have been covered in the literature which is available and I think there is no need to dwell on the minor points but only on the question of a unique personality defect.
As to the prevention of murder, we can accept the fact as proven beyond doubt that capital punishment of itself has no deterrent effect: this should be emphasized. This point can be discussed further from the standpoint that the murderer, whether he has committed an atrocious, ghastly, premeditated murder, whether he has killed with cold-blooded reasoning or whether he has killed in an agitated and emotional state, is so obsessed with the accomplishment of the end he desires that he will kill at any cost, even at the risk of losing his life. He does not think that the penalty is likely to apply to him or, if he does think so, he considers this only a faint possibility.
I would like to put some new evidence before this House. Dr. Robert McKie, within the last two years, wrote a thesis for his PhD at Michigan State University. He and other psychologists were studying at Jackson state prison which contains one of the largest number of murderers in the world. The subjects of the study were 20 murderers and 20 other prisoners who were serving long sentences. The findings showed conclusively that the murderer is a strange individual who has a definite personality defect. It is the opinion of this study that we have many potential murderers in the population, and the group is larger than one would think.
The unique inheritance and early development of these people is such that when confronted by a certain set of circumstances, whether the act is sudden or planned in detail the action usually takes a violent course. In an emotional, sudden murder the criminal does it unthinkingly because it is the only way in which he can find a solution to the dilemma in which he finds himself. In addition, in a premeditated murder the criminal possesses such a decided personality defect that the taking of a life means nothing in the accomplishment of his goal. At the same time, in the case of sex slayings, whether of a grown woman or a child, the murderer views the sexual partner with immediate revulsion and his solution to that emotion is to kill. Although sometimes we say that hanging is too good for him, we still must be influenced by the fact that capital punishment has no deterrent effect on his actions. That is my first argument. My second will not take long.
Murderers, we know, can be model types of prisoners, as good as any Sunday school boy. Apparently they often exhibit shame and they can be guilt ridden. Frequently they will carry out religious and moral rituals or atonements. However, this apparent reformation should not be

taken at face value. For the very reason that a murderer is this type of person it must be stated that when he is released on parole or is enabled to rejoin society, even on a short pass, or whenever a set of circumstances, even in prison, presents itself which remotely resembles the original crime, because he wants his freedom his reaction to the set of circumstances will be the same as it was originally.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling that we must make two decisions. Firstly, we must abolish capital punishment as a modern approach to punishment for murder and also as a deterrent to potential murderers. Secondly, we must imprison these people for life-and I mean life. We must as a society recognize that murderers are not capable of responding to any attempt at rehabilitation. So, Mr. Speaker, on this one important point it is my opinion that murderers need to be treated with humanity but they must be locked up for ever.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in the short time remaining I wish to put on record a few comments with regard to the question of capital punishment and what I think about this bill. In 1966 there was a free vote in the House. The House voted 143 to 112 to retain capital punishment. The government, in assessing the situation and wanting to push through an abolition bill, agreed to a compromise. It eventually compromised with its own retentionists who wanted capital punishment for the murderers of prison guards and policemen. The government agreed to compromise and induced the retentionists to allow passage of a bill for a five-year trial ban of the death penalty. That bill passed by a vote of 105 to 70.
Was the five-year trial period long enough? That is the question concerning us in this debate. The minister in his speech said it was not a question of the period being long enough; he is for the abolition of capital punishment. Thinking that the House would not pass an absolute abolition bill, he is putting forward this lame-duck bill that will extend the five-year trial period. He wanted complete abolition.
Anybody who votes for this bill is voting for abolition. The government said it would accept the obligation entailed in its compromise of 1967. It was obligated to permit the execution of criminals in cases where prison guards or policemen had been insolvent. The government did not live up to its end of the bargain. Do hon. members think it will live up to it in the next five years? I suggest it will not, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) are abolitionists. In facts, practically all the front bench except the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) are abolitionists. In 1966 the Minister of Finance voted for the retention of capital punishment, but in 1967 he was one of those who was sucked into the compromise. Will he hold the government to its bargain? I doubt it. He will endorse this additional five-year trial proposal because he is a senior member of the cabinet, and the cabinet will accept this legislation. Here and there, maybe, there will be the odd member who will be allowed to show his independence by voting against the bill, but basically this is not a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!
January 26, 1973


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Virtually all the cabinet will vote in favour of this bill. Virtually all the backbenchers over there will support it. The only parties which will allow a free vote are the Conservative party and the Creditistes, perhaps.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not a free vote and it was never intended to be one. The situation with regard to the rate of increase in premeditated murders is that in the last five years there has been an increase of 39 per cent- greater than the increase in population during that period. The most effective means of dealing with these circumstances is the legislation which was passed in 1961 setting out areas in which capital punishment or non-capital punishment were applicable. That was a good piece of legislation if the government had only carried it out.
Some members have argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but, Mr. Speaker, no punishment is a deterrent unless it is used. Capital punishment has not been applied for the last 12 or 15 years in Canada and it has therefore simply lost all its deterrent value. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) can say that capital punishment will be imposed in cases involving the murder of prison guards and policemen, but everyone in Canada knows he and his cabinet colleagues will not do that. So no deterrent at all is involved.
After all, if a hydro company threatens to cut off power to a customer who does not pay his bill, but fails to do so even though the bill remains unpaid, it is not likely it will ever be paid. On the other hand, if power is cut off as a matter of policy in all such cases, the effectiveness of the deterrent is apparent. Many deterrents are used in our system of law and order. The breathalyzer test is a good example. If it were not used, no one would pay any attention to us. But since everyone knows it is used, it has tremendous deterrent value.
I am not one who necessarily believes that hanging is the method of execution which ought to be used. But the threat to take a man's life certainly has a deterrent value if people are convinced there is an intention to carry it out. How can the government convince anyone that the law will be carried out when they are all abolitionists?
Many socialist members on either side of the House believe we must rehabilitate criminals in our penitentiaries and jails, yet there is talk of the Solicitor General bringing in an amendment which would impose 25-year, life imprisonment in place of capital punishment. Well, 25 years would probably amount to life for a lot of people because when you reach 50 you have only another 25 years to go.


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. member would not wish to mislead the House, but I made no suggestion that I would introduce an amendment to provide for a minimum 25-year period of detention.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was stated in the newspapers that the minister would look favourably upon such an amendment. If he denies it, his reaction will be noted in the days and weeks ahead when this issue is debated. He
Capital Punishment
will have plenty of opportunity to vote against such an amendment, one which I am told a couple of his henchmen intend to move. A long term of imprisonment is not a solution. To my mind, to lock a man away in a cell for 25 years, with no chance of rehabilitation, is far more cruel than capital punishment.
The whole country is concerned with this issue. Many people are concerned about their safety on the streets of our cities. They are worried lest this country go the same way, in some respects, as our neighbour to the south. Will women and children feel free to walk the streets after the sun goes down? The idea that if there were not public access to guns there would be no more murders, or far fewer murders, is false; a person intending to commit a crime will obtain a gun anyway. The Santa Claus murderer, for example, used a machine gun. It is illegal to buy machine guns; nevertheless he had one and he used it.
Consider the case of the policeman killed recently in Toronto. When the police found out where the young fellows were hiding, they went in with 75 well-armed men, all of them sharpshooters. The criminals knew they had no chance of getting out so they took their own lives. Unless this parliament takes firm action to bring about a balance in the situation, people will begin to use guns in order to protect themselves and we shall slip back into a lawless society rather than strengthen one which tends toward the preservation of law and order.
It is a most difficult thing for men to police one another. It is difficult to arrest one's brother, to put a person in jail, to administer capital punishment. But someone has to do these things, and the responsibility rests upon the government. They have failed to live up to it in the last five years and I do not believe they will do so in the next five years. Therefore I urge the House to vote against this bill.
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being 4 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motion and private bills.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the acting House leader or someone in authority on the other side if he will confirm whether on Monday we shall be pursuing debate on this particular bill.


Otto Emil Lang: That is the present intention, Mr. Speaker.

January 26, 1973
Abolition of Senate



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-10, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a week ago last night there was a vote in this House of 128 to 102 in favour of excluding the members of the other place from an important committee. The purpose of this bill is to finish the job so far as the Senate is concerned, and I am encouraged by that vote of a week ago last night to believe that if this bill could come to a vote today there would be enough consistency around here to carry it.
As the House is aware, this is not the first time that I have proposed the abolition of the Senate. I suppose I have to say that I have lost count of the number of times I have tried to do it in various ways. However, since this is a day when we seem to be talking abolition from morning until night, perhaps my proposal will be more effective. I said to one of my colleagues a while ago that perhaps I should take a cue from the bill we have been discussing thus far this day and tell the House that if hon. members are not prepared to go for a total abolition of the Senate, maybe they would go for a five-year abolition. At the end of five years I am sure we would not bring the Senate back.


An hon. Member:: What would we do with the old boys?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The five years will take care of most of them. Perhaps I could dispose quickly of one or two minor arguments in favour of my bill. It does cost over $6 million a year to maintain and operate the Senate. While that is not a large sum of money as federal expenditures go, I can think of a good many more useful ways to spend $6 million a year. Another argument that I am sure will appeal to many members of this House is that if we were to abolish the Senate we could make very good use of their office space in this centre block.
The main and most serious reason for my proposing that the other place be abolished is my belief, and that of my colleagues, in the principle of democracy. We believe that the laws of the land should be enacted by persons who are chosen by the people of this country, by persons who are responsible to the people. That is the case with the members of the House of Commons. We can make mistakes, but when the next election comes along, if the people back home do not like the mistakes we have made they can get rid of us. In the Senate we have a body of men and women, fine and able persons though they may be, who are not chosen by the people of this country and who, once they are in their places as Senators, are literally responsible to no one. They are not even responsible to the prime minister who recommended their appointment to that other place.

It may be that 106 years ago when the constitution of this country was drawn, it was the accepted belief that democracy had not sufficiently matured to be trusted completely. It was the accepted belief that there was a place for a body of elder statesmen, a body of individuals divorced from politics to give sober second thought to, and to check on, what was done by the elected representatives. I think that is no longer true; I believe democracy has reached the point where we should believe in it and trust it. I believe that there is no place in the Parliament of Canada for a group of persons with the power which Senators have, considering the fact that they are not elected by, nor are they responsible to the people of Canada. Therefore, I express very strongly the view that we should do away with the other place.
I referred in passing to the powers of the members of the other house. Their powers are very great. The fact that they do not exercise them does not detract from the fact that they have those powers. They have a veto over what we can pass in this House. That is not just a veto for one session, two sessions or three sessions; they could go on for a thousand years, if they lasted that long, vetoing any legislation that this House might pass. I think that in principle, in theory, this is wrong and that very serious consideration should be given by the members of this House to my proposal that the Senate be abolished.
Let me come back to the allusion that I made a moment ago to sober second thought. I think that is a cliche that does not have any real meaning. There are many second thoughts given in this House of Commons. When legislation goes through from first to second reading, then to committee and to report stage and then to third reading, a great deal of thought is given to it. In fact, that is one of the reasons our rules are structured in the way they are, so that we can give proper thought to the legislation we are considering, keeping in mind the reactions and the views that we get from our constituents while the legislation is going through. If there is to be a rethinking of legislation, the place for that rethinking is here. It should be done by members responsible to the people of Canada, not by a group in another place who are responsible to no one.
It is argued sometimes that the reason for the Senate is to protect the minorities in this country. Because it has been said that that is the reason for the Senate, some people seem to labour under the illusion that minorities are protected, that minority rights are secured because there is a Senate the composition of which is different in number from that of the House of Commons. I submit members will have a hard job to find in our history many cases, if any, where minority rights were protected by Their Honours in the other place. We protect those rights in this House by our representation, based on our responsibility to our constituents. The other place where minority rights are protected is in the courts of the land. So I see no reason for having a Senate on the basis of that argument.
The fact that Quebec and Ontario do not have the overpowering number of members in the Senate that they have in the House of Commons-in other words, that representation is on a fixed basis rather than on a representation by population basis-is nice window-dress-
January 26, 1973

ing but it does not really give protection. Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are no better protected by the Senate of Canada because the number of Senators is, proportionately, not as low as is the number of Members of Parliament. Therefore, I suggest that that argument, which has been bandied about for 100 years, really has no merit.
Another argument that is sometimes used in defence of the Senate is that they do great work in committees. That is an argument that is made in this place too. In fact, it used to be said, when members were less active on the floor of the House of Commons than is the case today, that the member who did not say much on the floor of the House was a great man in committees. I have in mind, of course, the days before we had the sound amplification system, when that was true. I recall that fewer members did take part in debates on the floor then, compared with the case today. I think it is a happy development that many more members are now taking part. But the argument that Senators do great work in committees is, I suggest, hardly an excuse for maintaining, at a cost of over $6 million a year, 102 potential committee members. If we want a special job done, whether regarding poverty, land use or what have you, there are plenty of people in academic, business, labour or farm circles who can be engaged to do that particular piece of work.
In fact, the vote I referred to that took place in this House a week ago last night has dealt a serious blow to the argument about the value of the other place for committee work, because we decided in this House, by a majority vote, that we did not want them on the important food prices committee which has been established. So I submit that maintaining, at over $6 million a year, a group of potential committee members-and very few of them actually take on the work of committees; just a handful- is an argument that does not carry any weight.
It is sometimes said that those of us who want to abolish the Senate go too far: why do we not advocate its reform? Some will say in reply to my argument that what is wrong with the Senate is that its members are not elected, therefore are not responsible to the people and that the answer to the problem is to provide for the election of members of the Senate. I think that would be a ridiculous course for us to take. We already have enough struggles, conflict and confrontation in the governing of this land. We have the conflict between the executive arm of government and the House of Commons. We have the issues that obtain between the federal government and the provincial governments. If we had an elected Senate which had the legal and moral authority to stand on its own feet, as it does not now do, we would just have another incidence of confrontation which would slow down the decision-making process and the governing of this country.
Just as some countries have got rid of their upper chambers, and just as we have done it in this country in our provinces, I think we should do it in respect of our upper house. There was a time when we had an upper chamber in Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Quebec, but the day came when those provinces-if not the others-realized that there was no real value to their chambers. By the same token, I think the day will come when we will realize that,
Abolition of Senate
so far as our upper house or other place is concerned there is no real value.
Some hon. members, if they read Bill C-10 carefully, will see that it is designed to abolish the Senate, but they may also see a number of things in it that puzzle them. May I point out that the only purpose of Bill C-10 is to abolish the Senate by cutting out the provision for it in the British North America Act. Obviously, if one cuts out of the British North America Act any reference to the Senate, one has to amend quite a few other sections in a consequential way so that the provisions of the fact that we based on the fact of the Senate have some other base. It means, for example, that it is necessary to re-enact clauses about the use of the French and English languages, leaving out references to the Senate.
I hope hon. members will not feel that because those clauses are being re-enacted in their present form, that is taking any decision in respect of the language question or any of the other questions. Indeed, in drafting my bill to abolish the Senate I knew that if I had tried to solve some other problems as well, I would have had trouble getting my bill passed in one hour this afternoon. The point I wish to make is that much of the language in Bill C-10 is consequential; it is simply a question of necessarily changing other sections of the British North America Act in order for the Senate itself to be abolished.
Some hon. members may say, "Supposing we do pass this bill in this House this afternoon; does it not have to be passed by the Senate, and is there not some slight doubt that their Honours would do that?"


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) I quite agree, despite the confidence of my seconder, that at first blush the Senate would not like it. I believe that if the representatives of the people elected to this House took the decision that the Senate ought to be abolished, after an election or two with the members in this House taking that stand the members of the other place would realize that is what the people of this country wanted. If we cannot do it any other way, we could let the efflux of time take care of them. There would be persons appointed to the other place who would know the will of this House and the will of the country and would act accordingly. Certainly there are problems. But we have the right to do it, and if in this country there is the opinion that we ought really to be a democracy, governed by persons who are responsible to the electorate, we can solve the technical and constitutional problems.
Therefore, I present this bill once again, hoping that the members of the House will give it the consideration it deserves. By five o'clock, if we have not passed the motion for second reading so that the bill can go to the committee for study, at least we will be a little farther down the road of trying to make this parliament one that is truly democratic, one that will have in it only those persons who are elected by and responsible to the people of Canada.

Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert) Mr. Speaker, may I pay my respects to you on the occasion of my first speech in the House.

January 26, 1973
Abolition of Senate

Rightly or wrongly, Mr. Speaker, the Senate of Canada seems to have the worst reputation of any legislative body in the world.

In 1942, Senator Grattan O'Leary, then a reporter, wrote and I quote:
A Senate appointment is not employment and the Senate is not a place where they are supposed to work.
And he was appointed senator in 1962!
When Jean-Luc Pepin was an hon. member as well as a cabinet minister, he called the Senate a political house of refuge, a house for the dead, the most exclusive pensioner's club in the world and a tourist attraction. In short, he saw it as being the only flaw in the British North America Act of 1867.
What must we think of these views, Mr. Speaker? [English]
That is especially so now that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has presented a bill to abolish the Senate. Is the Senate such an outdated institution that it should be abolished, or should it be reformed?

Why should we abolish a chamber which Sir John A. Macdonald called:

"The sober second thought in legislation".

Mr. Speaker, in a federative country like ours, the Upper House has a very important part to play. For instance, in the United States, each of the fifty states, whatever their size and population, is represented by two members in the Senate.
In Australia, each of the six states sends to the Senate ten senators.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are very few countries in the world without an upper house. They may vary in composition, but the reasons for their existence are always the same. The authors of the constitutions of England, France, Germany, the United States, Italy, and even Spain have considered it wise to provide their countries with the safeguard of an upper house.
However, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why our Senate should be abolished? Why not reform it? The Senate is an Upper House similar to the House of Lords in England but, contrary to widespread popular opinion, it does not have such restricted powers as the British House. Our Senate is not a representative house, that is true, and its members are not elected directly by the people, that is also true, but it is a House of the people as much as the House of Commons. Its members do not come from any particular class or caste. They come from all walks of life.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a basic difference between the two legislative assemblies of Canada. The

House of Commons is and should be a deliberating assembly. It is a place where holders of opposite opinions meet, come to grips and decide on the fate of legislation before them. The Senate, on the other hand, the upper House, is and should be a workshop and not a theatre. Its function is to review legislation brought forward by the House, a task which should be carried out perfectly and boldly.
What are now the powers of the Senate? The Senate of Canada has all the powers vested in the House of Commons, except that no bill can be initiated there which involves a tax or a disbursement. The Senate can review legislation brought forward by the House of Commons, bring thereto such amendments as it deems necessary or useful, accept or refuse to pass the legislation and debate-this is essential-at any time, freely and in detail, matters related to the government's official policy.

Mr. Speaker, if bills are inadequately prepared and insufficiently thought out, it is the duty of the upper house to delay their adoption.

The Fathers of Confederation wanted it to be the duty of the Upper House to give willingly sympathetic opinions to the government, and to postpone, modify or even reject government measures according to its own judgment, and without political prejudice.
A second Chamber that would merely rubber stamp the decrees of the Lower House would have no value. The Senate must be independent and be able to act freely. It is, so to speak, the regulator who can prevent hurried or ill-conceived legislation from being passed.

In fact, Sir John A. Macdonald was of the opinion that an upper house would be of no use if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing, of amending, of postponing the legislation of the lower house.

Of course, there are times when the two Houses oppose each other; they have obviously done so repeatedly in the past. That is doubtless why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants it abolished. For instance, during the 1961 session, when the progressive conservative government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was in power, there was a test of strength between the two Houses. The Senate rejected Bill C-114 which declared vacant the post of governor of the Bank of Canada and removed Mr. James E. Coyne from office. Was it wrong? The Senate's move allowed Mr. Coyne to be heard and clear up a complex matter.
Please allow me now, Mr. Speaker, to speak of a few Senate committees which accomplish serious work. The senators on those committees, whether they sat alone or with Members of Parliament, made serious inquiries. [English]
I would like to speak particularly of some special committees of the upper house and the influence they have had on subsequent legislation.
January 26, 1973



For example, the Land Use Committee established in 1957, a committee which made the inventory of Canadian lands, conducted soil studies and research on agriculture, water pollution, drainage, erosion, land financing and farm credit. Its report resulted in ARDA in 1961 and in at least seven other important pieces of farm legislation.
The Public Service Committee sat in 1966 and 1967 and before it appeared several representatives of the Civil Service, industry and various government agencies. Its most important recommendation was to grant to civil servants the right to collective bargaining.

The special committee on manpower and unemployment established in 1960 made a complete study of this question. The results of this study led to the formation of the Department of Industry in 1963, to the creation of the Economic Council, to the creation of the Atlantic Development Council and to the creation of the regional economic expansion program. The Senate Committee on Aging contributed greatly to the establishment of the guaranteed income program for persons over 65. The same committee recommended the training and retraining of workers. The Senate Committee on Science Policy was formed in 1967. It provided a national forum for the assessment of our country's efforts to date in scientific research. The recommendations of this committee led to the creation of the ministry of state for science and technology and a minister was appointed to head it. Then the Senate Special Committee on Mass Media was formed in 1969.


An hon. Member:: That was a waste of money.


Mrs. Morin:: For several months it studied the question of the ownership and influence of the mass media in Canada. The Senate Committee on Poverty visited all the provinces and held many hearings. The main recommendation in its report suggested the establishment of a guaranteed minimum income system to replace the existing social security plans.
[Translation)
The Divorce Committee was established in 1966. Its recommendations brought about drastic changes in the Divorce Act.
Now, in Quebec and in the other provinces, divorce cases are dealt with by provincial courts.
The Committee on Consumption and Corporations was established in 1966. The most important recommendation of this Committee resulted in the establishment of a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1967.
I only mentioned a few of those committees, Mr. Speaker, made up of men of wide experience. They bring to committee work a degree of experience and stability which is sometime lacking in the Commons.
Thanks to the work of those committees, the Senate debates contain a great deal of information and considerations ignored by this House.
The members of the C.C.F. party, and later the NDP members, have always asked for the abolition of Senate. Whay not talk then of reforming the Senate?
Abolition of Senate

Governments have often boasted of improving the Senate by the quality of those they appointed to it. Occasionally they have been concerned with choosing people with great reputations. However, so long as there is discretion in the choice of Senators there will be no real reform. Thus, there has often been talk of having each province designate a certain number of Senators who could be appointed for a five or ten-year term. This system would have the advantage of conforming to the requirements of federalism and, in particular, it would open the Senate to representatives of parties which have never succeeded in forming a government in Ottawa but which have held power in the provinces.

If for a quarter of a century such a system had been applied, there would not be in the Senate so many Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. Alberta and British Columbia would have sent some Socreds there, Saskatchewan some Socialists, and Quebec, Liberals and Progressive Conservatives with an autonomist tendency.
Again, as regards reforms, Mr. Speaker, a very important one has been introduced in the Seante these past few years when the retirement age was set at 75. Perhaps it would be possible to make it compulsory for all at age 65. And, speaking of reforms, since the retirement age is normally 65, should we not consider applying this also to the Senate?
Still in the field of reforms, why could more bills not originate from the Senate? This would relieve the workload of the House of Commons and enable it to consider more thoroughly some other legislation.
Some have advocated an elective Senate. This would make the other house simply another House of Commons, divided along party lines and holding debates characterized by the expression of party points of view, like those occurring in this House. The Senate is a storehouse of many talents and abilities and its members are ready and waiting for opportunities to serve the Canadian people. For example, the inquiries conducted by royal commissions could be handled by the existing Senate committees, thus saving the country several millions of dollars.
The Senate has always attempted to act as a sort of ombudsman to safeguard the supremacy of parliament and to ensure that the rights of individuals and minorities are respected. Through the many amendments made to certain bills the Senate has demonstrated that, when necessary, it is also capable of placing limits on the ambitions or demands of an all-powerful executive. It is for these reasons that I think the Senate should not be abolished; but maybe we should think of reforms for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech on Bill C-10 I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) who has just spoken. She made a very good speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
710

January 26, 1973
Abolition of Senate


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I enjoyed listening to her, although I would not agree with all she has said. I am interested in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A year ago some Liberals offered to put me there, I think in order to convert me. But I am interested in the Senate mainly because I have had a rather long association with it. I have witnessed it at work a little more closely than many other hon. members, and I have listened to discussions about the reform or abolition of the Senate a little more often than possibly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The Senate was devised to give sober second thought to legislation passed by this House. I do not think it is now working very well, although it has conducted some good studies and some bad ones. Why is it not working well? That is the matter we should try to analyse. Last year it passed a mammoth tax bill consisting of 739 pages-and there were an additional 70 amendments which must have brought it close to 800 pages-in about a day and a half. Senators could not possibly have read it in the time allowed them to pass it. Why did they pass it in such a short time? Was that exercising sober second thought? No. They passed it because political influence was brought to bear. Hon. members may recall Bill C-176 which took a year and a half to get through this House. The Senate took about four days to pass it. That bill was not given sober second thought with respect to the regions of the country that were going to be affected by it.
Another reason for the establishment of the Senate was that it would protect regions of Canada, which did not have large populations, to be well represented in the House of Commons. I repeat that the Senate did not give sober second thought to Bill C-176 and the way it would affect certain regions. Here, again, we saw politics at work in a group of people appointed to work for the good of the country and not for the good of the political party which appointed them to the Senate.
Senators have forgotten the main purpose of the other place. I do not favour complete abolition of the Senate. There should be a body to give sober second thought to our legislation. I am willing to give the Senate a second chance. The Senate should be a non-political body once its members are appointed. No Senators should be allowed in the caucus of any political party. But look at the position of the Liberal party. Where do we find the president of that party? In the Senate, Mr. Speaker. Where do we find the former president of the Liberal party? In the Senate, Mr. Speaker. Where do we find the vice-president of the Liberal party? In the Senate, Mr. Speaker.
They have not given the Senate a chance to work in a non-partisan, non-political manner. They have not given it a chance to work for the good of the country. They do not deserve a second chance. But being of the generous nature that I am, I would give them that second chance. However, I would change the Senate to make certain that it did work for the good of the country and not for the good of a political party.
We need some legislative body to protect the various regions of Canada which do not have large populations.
[Mr. Horner (Crowfoot)}
This House is dominated by elected representatives who come from the two most densely populated regions of Canada. The politics demonstrated in this place influence politics in the Senate, thus completely destroying the protection of the 24-24-24 system devised when the Senate was first established.
Over the years, we in this chamber have had difficulty finding a neutral enough person to act as Speaker of the House of Commons; but no such attempt is made in the Senate. The government appoints the Speaker over there, and he takes over. In the present case it is a she: she takes over and runs it in a partisan manner. I believe a chairman should be chosen who is not a senator to preside over debates in the other place. Further, Senators should not sit in the other chamber in political bodies to the left and to the right of the Speaker. Perhaps they should sit according to the 24-24, and seven for Newfoundland, system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is another 24 in there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mustn't forget western Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Did you think I would? Now I wish to deal with the question of conflict of interest. We still appoint Senators whose main concern is the directorship of companies: they are shareholders in one company or another. It may be wrong or it may be right, but I have heard the story that when Washington imposed the 10 per cent surtax on Canadian goods, the first thing Canadian Senators wanted to find out from Washington was whether that surtax applied to the companies of which they were directors. That is an evil thing. When people accept appointments to the Senate they should pledge themselves to work for their country, not for a political party or for a company in which they hold shares.
They should completely divorce themselves from political parties, from directorships of companies and from holding shares in any company in Canada. They should use their knowledge in a fair-minded way for the good of the country. Many things that a political party must do are sometimes unpopular in the country. The Senate in that way is unique. It is an appointed body and can recommend to this house or to the country measures which may not be popular. Senators need not worry about what the country thinks. They need only worry about what is good for the country and whether the measure will serve the country. This they are not doing today.
I point out that the president of the Liberal party is a Senator, and the vice-president of the Liberal party is a Senator. They are concerned with upholding the Liberal party in a favourable position in this country. I think that is wrong. I sometimes think we play too many party political games in this House. There is too much partisan debate for the sake of partisanship, and not enough attention is paid to the subject matter being discussed. That should never happen in the other place, but it will contin-
January 26, 1973

ue as long as we allow Senators to play a political role. All the same, they have a role to play.
It is perhaps sometimes overlooked that in an election the best man does not always win. I am sure hon. members will agree with me. Often small, but important segments of our society are not able to elect members to this place. That is why I think it is a good idea to appoint representatives provided those in the other place in a non-partisan and non-political manner.
The former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) appointed the first Indian to the Senate, which I think was commendable. That provided representation for people in our society who had not been able to elect one of their own to this house. Since then two men of Indian extraction have been elected. I think such appointment to the Senate is very worth while. Another worth-while appointment to the Senate was that of a railroader. The Senate should be composed of representatives of a cross-section of the industries and peoples of Canada. That is the beauty and benefit of a non-elected body as part of our legislative process.
To conclude my remarks, I suggest the Senate is certainly worth keeping but it needs serious overhaul. Senators should be brought down to earth, shaken up and told they are here to work for the good of the country and not necessarily for the good of the party which appointed them. Certainly, they should keep out of politics completely.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all express my surprise at the fact that a member with the experience of the honourable member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) could say that he wishes that the Senate not become a political forum. One must go far in order to be able to state that politics has no relation to a Chamber of Parliament. If this is all the seriousness that can be contributed to a debate such as this one, I do not think that what has been said by the honourable member for Crowfoot should be considered with much interest. May I however say to him that I agree with one of the points he made.
The Senate needs reform. I would suggest one dealing with membership and appointments.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate has lost part of its powers because, when it was first established, the intent was to grant it powers equal to those of the British House of Lords which obviously has not been the case.
At the time the Senate was being instituted, during negotiations concerning the Confederation Act, Sir John A. Macdonald made the following remarks concerning the Senate:
In order to protect local interests in each province, we have deemed it necessary to give the three broad divisions of British North America equal representation in the Upper House, since the interest of each division will be different. Therefore, the Legislative Council, whose task it will be to temper and regulate the legislative process . . . will be made up of an equal number of 24 representatives for each division.
Of what use would the Upper House be if it were not to exercise, as and when required, its right to oppose legislation proposed by the Lower House, to alter or postpone such legislation. The Senate
Abolition of Senate
should not be merely an office for the recording of Lower House decrees.
That is the whole mistake. In order to protect regional interests, it was sought to vest in the Upper House actual legislative powers.
And as early as 1868, the year following the creation of the Canadian Confederation, a study was already launched to determine why the Senate was not functioning properly.
Of course it did not work because it had been given legislative powers while its members could not be elected by the nation.

I think the Prime Minister of that time indicated, as suggested by Mr. Dafoe in the Winnipeg Free Press in 1943, that without the Senate and without the arrangements which have been made there would not have been confederation. At the time the problems facing the Fathers of Confederation made it essential that those regional jealousies be protected. At that time this question was very important. Of course, we have seen its importance diminish. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he suggests that there has been regional protection. When the Senate was created we worked under a two-party system. Now we have more than two parties; there are fragmentary parties in the House. Historically, these smaller groups have protected and represented regional interests.
There has been no difficulty about the protection of regions because of that development and also because of the phenomenon of the Privy Council of England having given to the provinces power greater than that which was intended under the British North America Act. However, the Senate foresaw the situation which we are now facing, inasmuch as within our own demographic design there are minorities. Reading the latest census report, I see that there was in Canada in 1971 a population of 21,568,315. Of this number, those who indicated their mother tongue as English numbered 12,973,810; those who indicated French as their mother tongue numbered 5,793,000; those whose tongue was German numbered 561,000; Indian and Eskimo, 179,000; Italian 538,000, and there were 144,000 whose mother tongue was Dutch.
Here are further figures: Polish, 134,000; Ukrainian, 309,855; other nationalities, including Japanese and Chinese, 932,000. And these nationalities are spread all across the country. These people will tell you it is impossible to receive effective representation by population in the case of a small minority distinguished because of racial origin. We have in this country espoused a policy which recognizes and, indeed, encourages multiculturalism. This is as it should be because we are a new country.

And we must invite all the citizens of the world to come and settle here. On the one hand, we can't invite them or encourage them to keep their traditions and, on the other hand, fail to give them at least some indication that they will be involved in the government of the country. To declare today that the Senate is expendable is to deprive, those people of the opportunity of being appointed to a
25714-46}

January 26, 1973
Abolition of Senate
Canadian legislature where they could be urged to take part in our democratic process.
This is the situation as it exists today. It is all the more serious that according to the last census, Canada had a birth rate of 16.8 per cent per 1,000 inhabitants. In the province of Quebec, it is 14.8 per cent. Although 1968 statistics show that the death rate in the province of Quebec was 14.8 per cent.
Therefore, our population is in a static position in that the birth rate is equal to the death rate. There will be no increase in the birth rate in our country if present tendencies persist. Moreover, I should like to point out that we create 200,000 new jobs every year in Canada for those born in 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, when the birth rate was 30 per 1000 inhabitants.
But while huge institutions are set up to accommodate all those people, what is being done? The populations's natural growth is checked through birth control. When the people who are working now are gone, who will replace them in those huge institutions we are setting up? We must promote immigration; it is the only solution. We have birth control, but foreigners-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order please. I think the hon. member should get back to Bill C-10, for he seems to have wandered away from the subject of the bill.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for reminding me that I might have been drifting away from the subject. We have reached a point where we will have to encourage immigration. Then, we will have more new Canadians who are neither of French, English nor Italian origin. They will then ask for the right to be represented. That is when we will see the need for keeping the Senate.
You wanted to know what I was leading up to: well, there you have it.
Mr. Speaker, when one sees far into the future one is at times hard to understand. In any event-

What I wish to stress is that to go as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests would be to deprive Canada of that camera-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That camera?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -of that camera within which we can achieve such representation. I agree with the hon. member with reference to the removal of the section respecting the qualifications of Senators. I was aghast when I read section 23 of the British North America Act to see that only landed gentry are permitted access to the Senate. I cannot believe that an act for which I have such great respect would permit the continuance of a distinction whereby only a man who has equity of $4,000 clear and free of indebtedness would be entitled to a seat in the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether he has ability or not doesn't matter.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would agree to the complete removal of that provision were it possible. However, the other clauses of the hon. member's bill are most repugnant to me, though I do not quarrel with his sincerity. When I addressed myself to the subject, I did so with some trepidation because it is a serious one. I do not intend to begin a tradition of opposing the hon. member's bill every year. I would appreciate it if the information contained in these debates were conveyed to the public so that the views expressed could receive the attention they deserve. There could be a question of public interest here: a constitutional amendment is proposed.
Reverting to the discussion in the House a while ago, society has a hard time getting somebody else to push the button which will take away an individual's life. Imagine the difficulty we would experience in getting a murderer to hang himself by his own hand. I take it the hon. member's bill would need to be accepted by both Houses expressing themselves as in favour of such an amendment. I confess I find it difficult to imagine such a situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, January 29, 1973