1976-06-14

Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion that I am certain will receive unanimous consent from both sides of the House.
It was my privilege to witness the graduation ceremony this past Friday for the first native student to graduate from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario. It may interest the House to know that Dr. Irwin Nobert Antone is from the Muncey Reserve and will be serving his internship at Victoria Hospital in London. My son informs me Dr. Antone and he will commence their internship this coming Monday on Obstetrical-Gynecological Service and it is Dr. Antone's intention to establish a practice on his reserve at the completion of his training.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House recognize this milestone in native education and through you, Sir, send the appropriate letter of congratulation on behalf of all members of the House to Dr. Irwin Antone.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required to put the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the seriousness of the problem facing the Quebec industrial milk producers and the difficulties experienced in working out a satisfactory dairy policy, and since it is urgent to remedy that situation, in order to protect our farm producers and thus stabilize an important sphere of activity for the economy of our country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House immediately consider the six alternatives to a dairy policy set forth by the Food Prices Review Board in its report of February last, so as to bring out their main lines with a view to establishing a balanced and economic dairy policy and thus contribute to a positive settlement of the present conflict.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the so far unrevealed number of 6,437,907 cheques issued in Ontario in the last year by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the 538 isolated individuals, all outside the commission, who were actually prosecuted for fraud during that period of time. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the Minister of Manpower make a statement giving all reasons the Unemployment Insurance Commission's special investigation division was disbanded on 24 hours' notice, whether or not it was investigating at the time the possibility that up to 5 per cent of cheques issued in Ontario for 1975 could be fraudulent, and whether or not it had uncovered evidence that certain unemployment insurance officials in metro Toronto were aware of forged record of employment forms being sold to newly arrived immigrants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

June 14, 1976
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask, with the unanimous consent of the House, for permission to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the crippling effect our inflation rate has on Canadians by reason of the fact that it erodes their real purchasing power, and the fact that most economists including John Kenneth Galbraith, philosopher-king to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognize that excessive government spending is a major cause of inflation, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House instruct the government to introduce legislation to make government deficit spending illegal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the conflicting answers given in this House concerning who was in the know concerning the verbal agreement between the Department of National Defence and Lockheed for Lockheed to provide interim financing for the LRPA purchase, would the President of the Treasury Board inform this House, did he or did he not know on December 2 that the agreement for Lockheed to provide financing was only verbal?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the statements made last week by the Prime Minister on this matter.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-DATE OF TREASURY BOARD APPROVAL OF SIGNING OF CONTRACT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister last week contradicted his own statement of the previous week, so I was asking for clarification as to whether the President of the Treasury Board knew what was going on at that time, since the Prime Minister did not. Did Treasury Board give its approval to the signing on March 31 of the contract between Lockheed and Canada, which called for payments of up to $16 million to Lockheed in case Canada did not exercise its option?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the exact date. We authorized the signing of a contract and then asked the minister to put it in escrow until the financial problems were solved by Lockheed.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services? The signed contract between Lockheed and Canada dated March 31, 1976 indicated that Canada would pay to Lockheed $6 million on April 1, 1976 and $4 million on April 30, 1976, plus a possible $808,000 for milestone payments, plus other payments. Can the minister advise the House if any or all of these payments have been made and if not, what is the present status of these liabilities?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give a detailed reply to the hon. member, but those figures are accurate; there is a direct incurred cost of $10,808,000. We are now in the process of estimating with Lockheed the additional costs which we will have to disburse to reach a maximum of $16 million, taking into account contract agreements that Lockheed had engaged in with possible Canadian subcontractors. All this is obviously subject to verification by my department.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I may have lost something in the translation. Could the Minister of Supply and Services assure us that no money so far has been paid to Lockheed under that contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, I could not give the hon. member this assurance. All I know is that we definitely have direct costs to incur, amounting to $10.8 million. As for the balance it must be determined and checked by government officials.
June 14, 1976


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Aside from the Canadian public which has lost $16 million as a result of this contract, a public servant to whom the President of the Treasury Board owes a special responsibility has had his reputation lost or at least damaged by statements by the Minister of Supply and Services. That civil servant cannot now save his reputation except through remedies which are really meaningless through the ordinary course of things. As the minister in government responsible for the public service of this country, will the President of the Treasury Board intervene with his colleagues to have this matter referred to the appropriate standing committee of this House so that Mr. Stopforth, the Minister of Supply and Services, the deputy minister and the Minister of National Defence can appear? Members of this House could then examine this matter in order that the relationship between Mr. Stopforth and the government can be clarified. I ask this in view of maintaining the principle of ministerial responsibility.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what was said in the House on this subject last week. Moreover, I think the official in question has decided to take legal action, therefore I do not intend to interfere in a dispute between citizens and the courts.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the official involved has decided to go to the courts because the government had determined not to give him any help as they have something to hide with respect to this matter. Mr. Stopforth said publicly that he gave accurate and complete information to his superiors in the Department of Supply and Services in respect of this matter. I ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether he received reports from his deputy minister and the extent of those reports with respect to what that deputy was told by Mr. Stopforth?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this question on June 1 in a very comprehensive manner. I think that if the hon. member takes time to look at my statement, he will see that it is very precise. It was fully backed by my deputy minister who took action because he has the prime responsibility for dealing with these matters.
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS


ACTION OF DOME PETROLEUM TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO REPRESENTATIVES OF COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Beginning today, the Can-Mar Corporation, a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum, is providing representatives of the communities affected by drilling in the Beaufort Sea with the financial capacity to send representatives from each community to view their drilling equipment in Victoria. I understand that in addition to paying their expenses, they are providing $100 a day spending money. How does the minister view this action? Does he see it as an innocent public relations gesture or as a possible attempt to diffuse or buy off criticism of the project from these communities?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Basically I see it for what it is, Mr. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: Sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. I see it as an attempt to help inform these communities. They will also, I understand, be represented on the drill ships when they get into position so that the process can be watched and reported back to their communities. I think it is really an informational or an educational process.


John Edward Broadbent: I know the minister is accustomed to saying yes to the Prime Minister, but in view of the fact that it cannot be expected that these community representatives, any more than members of parliament, can possess any degree of expertise in this field at all-


Mr. Paproski:: Speak for yourself.


John Edward Broadbent: -would the minister consider requesting the Dome Corporation to open their facilities to the same community representatives accompanied by neutral experts in the field?


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


J. Judd Buchanan: I will be happy to convey that suggestion to the appropriate quarter. I think it may well have some merit.


POSSIBILITY OF DELAY IN MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE PENDING DECISIONS OF BERGER COMMISSION AND ENERGY BOARD
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary on the Mackenzie Valley project itself. Is it still the intention of the government to await the result of the hearings being conducted by the National Energy Board and Mr. Justice Berger before granting a pipeline permit? Will the government permit these hearings to consider possible routes for a pipeline via the Alcan High-

June 14, 1976
Oral Questions
way as currently under consideration in Washington and by the Polar Gas group?


J. Judd Buchanan: I believe they have made an application in connection with the Northwest project; they are in the process of putting together a proposal to submit to the National Energy Board.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the Berger Commission look into that as well?


J. Judd Buchanan: As the hon. member knows the Foothills application, to the extent that it differs from the Mackenzie Valley or the Canadian Arctic Gas application, was referred to Mr. Justice Berger for inquiry. We have to take the other question under advisement.
*	He *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a year and a half has elapsed since the announcement of the subsidiary DREE agreement on agriculture between Nova Scotia and the federal government, would the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion inform the House when the agreement will be signed, because considerable disruption is being caused to farmers planning to expand or consolidate their operations in the province?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed now over a year that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the government of Nova Scotia have been holding discussions to come to an agreement which would permit the development of agriculture in that province. We have received representations from our colleagues on this side of the House in particular and I have personally received some from Nova Scotia people but I can inform the hon. member and the House that this project is entering the final stage and that within a few weeks we shall be able to announce that the two governments have come to a conclusion and signed the agreement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It arises from the hon. gentleman's call last week during the Habitat Conference for immediate check into the possible existence of a black market in plutonium. Since the Prime Minister indicated last Thursday in the House that he expected the Minister of Justice to pursue his own initiative in this matter, would the hon. gentleman tell us

what kind of investigation he has launched into this very serious question?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked the association making the allegation that there was a black market in the sale of plutonium to provide me with material and they have subsequently provided me with an affidavit which really does not indicate very much. However, I am forwarding it to the proper authorities within the government in the hope that the matter will be pursued.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since the implications of the possibility that plutonium is no longer within the complete control of government go far beyond the legal aspect and relate to the whole question of hazards and safeguards concerning the nuclear industry, would the minister undertake to have this matter referred to a parliamentary committee for full discussion and examination?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Whether it is referred to a committee or not is really not a matter for myself. I am in agreement with the hon. member that the matter is obviously a serious one; I said so in Vancouver and that is why I asked for particulars. The matter goes clearly beyond a purely police affair and it was not referred to me in my capacity as Minister of Justice. Since it involves safeguards in international affairs, I am in the process of referring the material to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the minister-responsible for the Atomic Energy Commission.


POSITION OF HABITAT CONFERENCE ON DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR POWER-CANADIAN RESPONSE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice as head of the Canadian delegation at Habitat and concerned directly with the number of issues raised there, including the one just referred to. Since the Vancouver symposium took a strong position on the moratorium on further export and development of nuclear power and the development of alternate sources, and since there was considerable representation made to the Canadian delegation at Habitat in respect of public hearings and the future development of nuclear power, I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the House what was the Canadian delegation's response and what follow up there may be on behalf of the government of Canada with respect to the considerable public concern registered.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the government has been stated a number of times by the Prime Minister, including in Vancouver.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He said "live dangerously".


Stanley Ronald Basford: The question of public hearings was referred to in Vancouver, and I indicated that I would refer that matter to the Prime Minister and my colleagues when
June 14, 1976

I returned to Ottawa, which I will do. The Prime Minister is, of course, today at the first ministers' conference.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General perhaps the President of the Treasury Board would care to respond to my question. I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board would comment on the fact that in British Columbia banks are presently charging 7 per cent tax on the gold coins, which I understand are coins of the realm. Is this practice approved by the government, what is the government's position in regard to it, and are any other provinces charging a sales tax on Olympic coins?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will seek information about it because I do not have an immediate answer. I do not know whether it is a provincial or a federal tax. I will, however, take the necessary action to inform the hon. member.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. For purposes of clarification, I can assure the President of the Treasury Board that the 7 per cent tax is indeed a provincial tax and is indeed being levied. Constituents in British Columbia are forwarding their money orders here to Ottawa, or even to Alberta, in order to purchase these coins.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on behalf of the provincial government of British Columbia which has decided to tax this product which is sold across that province.



DIVORCE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to welcome the Minister of Justice back from his "love-in" in Vancouver, though since he has had his "love-in" he has had something to say about divorce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If we are going to have a divorce law in Canada, it should be realistic, workable, less costly and less embarrassing. In view of this fact, is the Minister of Justice when he meets with the attorneys general of the various provinces, going to put on the agenda and discuss no fault divorce on the ground of marriage breakdown with the object of obtaining from the provinces their views on this matter-which is not a new thought; the committee
Oral Questions
discussed it in 1968-and also is he going to endeavour to obtain from the provinces uniform law as to maintenance and support, particularly for children, that will be enforceable by any jurisdiction in Canada, even if the order is made in a province where the parties affected are not residing at the time of the order?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I got the agreement of the provincial attorneys general at our meeting last October that at our June meeting, which will be next week, we would devote a day to discussing the report of the Law Reform Commission, as it relates, not only to the subject of divorce reform but family law reform generally. This is what we will in fact be doing.
The hon. member will apreciate, having undoubtedly read the report of the Law Reform Commission, that a number of issues of federal-provincial interest are raised therein, this is the report we will be discussing. Any action to be taken by the federal government or any measures to be introduced to the federal parliament will depend on the nature of those consultations and discussions. However, when the Law Reform Commission report was published, I indicated that I thought it was an excellent report. I hope that the question asked by my hon. friend from Calgary, whose welcome back I appreciate, is an indication that he and his party also support the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, because of the two articles, the one on Saturday in the Globe and Mail under the headline, "Proposal for no-fault divorce approved by federal Cabinet", and the other which I found when I picked up my morning paper denying that fact, I should like to ask the minister whether he had the approval of his colleagues in discussing this matter, and does he approve the kind of law that would cover "no-fault divorce" meaning, of course, the breakdown of marriage?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board knows, the Globe and Mail is not always accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How about the minister?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As the hon. member knows, I do not discuss any matters with anyone without the leave of my colleagues, and I indicated some time ago that we would be discussing the Law Reform Commission Report with the Attorneys General.



FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and has to do with a matter which has been referred to him by his colleague, the Minister of State (Fisheries), regarding the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which is obviously in contra-

June 14, 1976
Oral Questions
vention of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, 1968-69. Would the Solicitor General indicate what action he has taken in that matter?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the detailed answer to that question. I will have to get the information and provide it to the hon. member.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer just given by the Solicitor General, I wonder whether the Minister of State (Fisheries) could indicate what if anything, and I find it incredible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Could the minister indicate what, if anything, he has done in this matter?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted the legal advisers of the Fisheries and Marine Service, and their answer leads me to believe that the hon. member is either misinformed or is trying to distort the function of the corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of State (Fisheries) whether he can report to the House on the outcome of the recent ICNAF meeting in Montreal and, more specifically, whether he can tell the House what new role was discussed for Canada through its membership in ICNAF after our unilateral declaration comes into effect on January 1?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been briefed in detail on the latest development as I have just returned to Ottawa within the last half-hour. The discussions which were going on last week were very much about the role of ICNAF in light of the extension of jurisdiction by ourselves and the United States. We made it very clear that we saw a continuing role for ICNAF outside the 200-mile economic zone since the ICNAF area does cover a number of fisheries outside that zone, and we are interested in the orderly management of that zone in order to avoid any adverse effect on the economic zone itself. I think it is a little early to indicate to the hon. member and to the House how the discussions are going, but they were quite positive in the report I received last week.



MEASURES FOR SURVEILLANCE OF 200-MILE FISHING ZONE

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he can enlarge upon the comments he made in Montreal regarding Canada's capability in respect of surveillance of the new 200-mile zone. Can he give the House some kind of timetable in respect of

the acquisition of new equipment, and the new role proposed for the armed forces in this regard?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I said in Montreal, and I say here, that we are doubling the level of boardings and inspections this year, which will mean about 1,200. This will be done with the assistance of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport in those areas where they can be of assistance, air identification and especially vessels used as platforms for fisheries officers. I also tried to make clear, and obviously this has not come across yet, that the jurisdiction of the zone will give us a very different management regime from what we have now, under which violations are reported to the state which penalizes its nationals. In the case of extended jurisdiction, ships violating the regulations within the Canadian zone will possibly see their permits lifted and see themselves taken to Canadian ports and subjected to Canadian law.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and concerns pollution from the tar sands. It rises from a report the minister tabled in the House on Thursday. In view of the fact that the Alberta government has been ignoring for some time the arguments from its own officials, as well as federal officials, that the environmental controls over development of the tar sands are inadequate, and in light of the authority which the minister admitted he has to enforce water quality standards, can the minister assure this House that, since a report from his department has concluded there is a danger to water quality in the area from developments in the tar sands, he will use his authority to enforce reasonable water quality standards?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can do, and this is what I have done, is get in touch with the government of Alberta, talk and discuss the matter with Mr. Russell. I think he has agreed that the level of pollution should come down, and he is taking steps to have the company agree on that. The company has agreed to do better than it is doing now, and that is all I can do for the time being.



SYNCRUDE PROJECT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE LEVEL OF EMISSION OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE

Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister does have authority under the Canada Water Act to take more stringent action, I should also like to ask, in light of assurances already given to the House by the minister that he regards the projected emissions from the Syncrude plant of 287 long-tons of sulphur dioxide a day as too high, and that he would be pressing for a reduction in the emission levels from the Syncrude plant, can the minister assure this House that if he is unable through negotiations and co-
June 14, 1976

operation with the Alberta government to reduce this level of emission he will use his authority to enforce what his department regards as appropriate environmental standards?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that at Syncrude we can, of course, do much better than we could with the old plant which is there, but this will require a lot of investment. As far as Syncrude is concerned, however, I think there is a good chance the standards will be met.



SYNCRUDE PROJECT-INQUIRY IF FEDERAL STANDARDS WILL BE APPLIED TO EMISSIONS OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE

Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the answer just given to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. Does the minister regard the Syncrude project as a federal project and, if so, is there any hesitancy on his part to take action to see that federal standards are applied? Forget what Alberta is doing. He has a federal responsibility if he regards this as a federal project. Is he saying that the federal standards shall apply as contained in the act?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows very well what the nature of the Syncrude company is.


William Herbert Jarvis: I think I do.


Jean Marchand: It is a joint organization and a joint venture, not the sole responsibility of the federal government. Even if it were a federal government plant or company it would be subject to the criteria established as standards by the province. It would be on exactly the same footing as the others.



SYNCRUDE PROJECT-POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL AID IN PURCHASING NEW EQUIPMENT TO CONTROL EMISSION OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is known that better equipment is available to control pollution in the atmosphere than that which is being installed at the Syncrude site. I think the minister knows that part of the reason for installing the inferior equipment relates to cost. Would the federal government be willing to participate in a greater way in supporting the increased cost to put in the different kind of equipment which would result in less pollution to the atmosphere?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, all I can do as the Minister of the Environment is insist, in co-operation with the provincial government, that the standards are met, and this is what I have done as far as we are concerned.


An hon. Member:: I am asking you about federal funding.


Jean Marchand: I am not the one who gives federal funds, and you know that.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION



REJECTION OF REFUGEE STATUS FOR TWO URUGUAYAN FAMILIES-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, in view of the present political upset in Uruguay will the minister now be looking at the case of two Uruguayan refugees and their families who, up to now, have been denied refugee status? Will the minister not agree that their civil rights would be in serious jeopardy should they be returned to Uruguay, and, if the minister cannot use his usual humanity, will he advise these people of their rights under the Immigration Appeal Act?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the case has just come to my attention. Their plea for refugee status has been reviewed by the interdepartmental committee. They have made appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board and to the Federal Court of appeals. In every case their claim has been dismissed and the appeal rejected.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that the stability of the democracy in Uruguay is such that these two persons can return without any question about their safety.


Robert Knight Andras: 

MANPOWER


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In his speech on the budget the minister stated:
I expect to be able to recommend to my colleagues an employment strategy for the year ahead.
Now we know that the details of the strategy will not be given until the fall. Is the minister stating that this strategy will not be placed before his cabinet colleagues until the fall,-I hope this is not the case-and if I am wrong when does the minister think this important matter will be placed before his colleagues for their consideration and approval?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as sometimes happens the hon. member is wrong. I will be placing this before my colleagues much in advance of the fall, but in so far as the actual details of the program are concerned and the public announcement about it, that will be in the fall just as I said in my speech.

June 14, 1976
Oral Questions



PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY-POSSIBILITY OF CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister has cleared that up. It was not clear before. Is there a role for the private sector in this strategy and is consultation with it and the provinces required before the many complexities of design can be worked out as referred to by the minister in answer to a question by the hon. member for Halifax.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be consulting most certainly with the provinces and to a large degree the private sector through the advisory committees available to me and any other contacts I can make.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Since the Quebec premier declared during the weekend that he intends to instruct a parliamentary committee after the 1976 Olympic Games to consider the causes of the rising costs, could the President of the Treasury Board advise this House whether he would be prepared to communicate with the Quebec Minister of Finance to ask him that, in accordance with section 81 of the Quebec financial administration legislation, the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Quebec Treasury Board ask the provincial auditor to investigate and report to the National Assembly so that the parliamentary committee which will consider the matter have all necessary information available to perform such a study?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be improper to try to explain to the Quebec Minister of Finance what are the requirements of the Quebec financial administration legislation, but I imagine that he must be informed. I will convey him the hon. member's question, but I am pleased to learn that it has been publicly stated that a public investigation will be held, as I mentioned before the committee last week.



OIL-SUGGESTION DEALS MADE WITH IMPORTING COMPANIES BY PRODUCING COUNTRIES-POSSIBILITY OF IMPORTERS OPENING BOOKS

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that it has now been revealed that for the past two years OPEC nations have been dis-

counting with under-the-table deals the price of their oil from that stated to be the price and allowing the companies that deal in the products to speak of one price and pay a different price? If the Acting Prime Minister is so aware would he indicate what precautions have been taken in respect of government compensation payments to the international refiners and other persons who import crude oil and petroleum products into Canada to ensure that rip-offs at the expense of the people of Canada have not occurred.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's question, but I would point out to him that the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, which will soon become a group within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, runs a careful check on all imports into Canada to make sure that this sort of rip off does not occur. However, I will bring it to their attention.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since in his answer he referred to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could indicate if the government or that board has been successful in any way in having international companies open their world-wide books so that an examination may be made to make sure no one has benefitted from Canada's compensation payments while receiving an undisclosed discount from one of their suppliers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: No, Mr. Speaker. They have to do a careful audit of all the companies importing oil into Canada or the compensation is not paid.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary.



PROPOSED REFERENCE OF ALLEGED DEALS WITH IMPORTING COMPANIES TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I now return to the Acting Prime Minister. As the possibility of these rinky-dinky deals was discussed at length when the energy supply bill was before the committee, and as the 1977 estimates covering this item will be deemed to have been passed by Tuesday, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if a reference could be made to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that this specific matter can be dealt with bearing in mind that $1.4 billion in compensation is planned to be paid this year alone?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the board are well aware of the possibility of pricing actions of the kind the hon. gentleman has referred to. They are always looking to be sure that the Canadian treasury is protected against any unwarranted payments. If the hon. gentleman has some specific information I would be very happy to pass it on.
June 14, 1976



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Were the Canadian delegates to the UN Habitat Conference expressing this government's policy when they were voting on ratification of documents presented to the conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Acting Prime Minister for his answer. On Wednesday June 9 agreement on the document entitled "Recommendations for National Action" was unanimously approved. This document urges among other things public ownership of agricultural land. Does this government support the policy of public ownership of agricultural land as the Acting Prime Minister just stated.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer for the Acting Prime Minister in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think the question represents a gross over-simplification of the statement which, however, in my view represents the first time we have had in Canada a comprehensive statement of principles as to the use of land which certainly makes it very clear that land is held or should be subject to public control.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fraser:: What are you talking about?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am delighted that my friends over there see the point I am trying to make, that land is and should be subject to public control which the hon. gentleman who asked the question did not seem to agree with. It indicated that one method of proper land planning was the acquisition by public authorities of land, farm land or otherwise, as a means of proper urban planning and as a means of preventing urban sprawl.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to either the Minister of Justice or the Acting Prime Minister. They have hesitated to answer whether the government does or does not support the policy of public ownership of land.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question was directed to me. I re-directed it to the Minister of Justice who was the head of Canada's delegation at the Habitat Conference and who is in a position to answer with a great deal more competence on the specific question. The question which has been put was answered by the minister. The hon. gentleman is now putting another question which has nothing to do with Habitat.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister advise the House whether there is any agreement now in effect between the government and Mr. Morris of the CLC settling the specific matters which will be discussed at the meeting later this week?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can advise the hon. member that there have been meetings with Mr. Morris. I talked to him last week in Geneva. We discussed the general tenor of how we hope the meeting will go. We will certainly be talking about policies involving the post controls period, and we will be endeavouring to respond positively to labour's desire to have greater input in the consultation process which will lead to any government policies during that period.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise specifically whether the CLC is prepared to withdraw the threat of a national strike in return for any commitments from the government, and if so, what might those government commitments be?


John Carr Munro: At this stage I think it would be presumptuous for me to state what may or may not be in the minds or the planning of the members of the CLC. I can only say what my hope would be, and my hope would be that the meetings will be of such a successful nature that the CLC may find that such action is no longer necessary.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the same matter which was raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. I would like to get the Department of External Affairs into this because it seems to me that the question of refugees concerns an international convention, the United Nations convention on refugees.
Someone in the Department of External Affairs apparently has said that the present regime in Uruguay tolerates peaceful dissent, and one of the representatives who is represented to be looking after Uruguayan issues exclusively said she did not know very much about what is going on in Uruguay. I would like to ask the parliamentary

June 14, 1976
Oral Questions
secretary whether she would discuss with her own minister-or if he is not available, with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-at least the postponement of the carrying out of deportation orders until the true situation in Uruguay can be determined, instead of having the matter dealt with by people who apparently know nothing of what they are speaking.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to draw this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since the Minister of Labour and Immigration is ultimately responsible for decisions made in this connection. I feel he gave a very frank and very favourable answer to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
I might add, however, and I do so without any hesitation, that the role of external affairs through its representative on the interdepartmental committee is to ensure whether the international political situation, as we are aware of it, is favourable or adverse to refugees, according to the file and evidence they themselves present to the various courts involved. I have never seen any external affairs member give interviews by telephone in this manner, and the department is well known for its humanitarian sense which has always been evidenced in favour of refugees coming to Canada.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON ALTERNATIVES IF LEGISLATION RULED ULTRA VIRES

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can the hon. gentleman advise whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to discuss with the first ministers the question of emergency or standby powers, such as the constitutionally accepted method of delegating authority, for either the continuation of or the orderly dismantling of the antiinflation program in the event that the legislation before the Supreme Court is struck down as being unconstitutional?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seems to assume that it is going to be struck down.


An hon. Member:: He is just asking.


Mitchell William Sharp: That seems to be the purport of the question. I hope that is not a case of the wish being the father to the thought, because I think it would be a very serious matter if that were to happen. The Prime Minister and the government, of course, cannot help but consider the possibility, but no consultations are taking place at the present time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising from the abolition of the special investigation division of the Unemployment Insurance Commission within the last year, at a time when the need for such a division seemed to be clearly demonstrated. Will the minister tell the House why the special investigation division of the UIC was abolished and the reasons some of its members were then sent to far distant points in the UIC system after abolition took place?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I most certainly will. The special investigation division existed, and it was found that there was a very considerable overlap between its function and the function of the benefit control operation. After considerable analysis and discussion, including some discussions with me, we decided to make the change.
The special investigation division was also very centralized here in Ottawa, and the cases to which we wanted attention paid were obviously very often in the regions. It was a very logical organizational decision made in March of 1975 to integrate the SID into the regional benefit control operation.
On the second part of the hon. member's question, I would have to check the details, but I presume that since we did want to decentralize and get the investigation where the action is, as it were, some people were transferred in order to make it more efficient.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Having been forewarned that the minister would use decentralization as the reason, I will ask him this: Specifically will the minister agree to make public all matters which the special investigation division had under scrutiny at the time of its abolition, and if he will not agree, why will he not agree?


Robert Knight Andras: The reason should be apparent to everyone. This is an investigation into potential or alleged fraud or misdemeanours or that sort of thing. Often the case being investigated proves to be nothing, but it is very close to being a criminal investigation in many cases, and when a prima facie case develops, we call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to proceed. So, I think it would be utterly unwise to disclose all the details of what they have or have not investigated.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Pretty weak.



INCOME TAX


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Can he tell the House how the government knows that Canadians who
June 14, 1976

own property off-shore and who are paying interest on mortgages to an off-shore lending company or agency have declared this obligation to the Canadian government.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that situation. I will have to check it out.



SUGGESTED PUBLICATION OF STATEMENT OUTLINING LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. A few weeks ago I asked the minister whether any pressure had been brought to bear by his department to cancel the proposed demonstration on behalf of religious dissenters in the U.S.S.R., and at that time his department indicated that it was giving information to these organizations to the effect that they were getting involved in quasi political activities. Despite the fact that CPRI has now had its charitable status returned to it, has the minister prepared and distributed written statements of clarification for organizations which have a charitable tax status in which the department has defined what is considered legitimate activities of those organizations and what is regarded as political?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there are some 30,000 organizations which have that particular status in Canada, and those involved in this particular activity at any time or those which are concerned about it have had this brought to their attention. We have been able to work it out without any problem. I think the fact that there has not been one appeal launched speaks well for the equitable way in which they have been treated. There was in fact no pressure brought to bear. I might say that I read a speech given in the other place by Senator Forsey with some concern. I intend to have a meeting with him to get his views on the subject because it is a matter of some concern.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If requests for written statements as to the definition of legitimate activity for organizations of that type are made, are they made available to officials of those organizations?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think to attempt to codify something of this nature would create more problems than it would solve.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the minister now clearly and simply state when he learned that Lockheed was to provide bridge financing to the government of Canada? Would he also simply and clearly
Oral Questions
state when he found that the arrangement was purely a verbal arrangement?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have fully answered those questions.
I think the hon. member should perhaps make the effort of referring to the House of Commons debates.


Peter Colwell Bawden: A supplementary question. Will the minister say if the reason he will not come clean is that if the true facts even known he would be forced to resign?


Mr. Schumacher:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns the dress of members of the House. I was going to raise the question about the neckwear worn by a particular member, but I see he has left the chamber so I shall not. In this connection, I was wondering if members of the House in general could have some direction from Your Honour, because I have noticed more and more of the leisure-suit type of apparel and I do not think this is a place for leisure. There is also the question of leather jackets which I, personally, do not think are in order. There has just been a general deterioration in the mode of dress. I think it might be pertinent if a memo were issued in regard to the standard of dress that should be adhered to.


An hon. Member:: Where is your motorcycle, Warren?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will, of course, take under advisement the very strong representations of the hon. member for Palliser.


Mr. Muir:: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this matter, for the simple reason that on another occasion the Chair drew attention to the hon. member for Joliette. On another occasion I remember attention was drawn to the hon. member for Mount Royal in the House. Certainly, we all got here in the same way, and I do not think someone should be allowed to dress as he wants and just quietly be told to ease out. I think the matter should be brought to his attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I may say that the particular matter which I believe was the subject of remarks today has been already brought to the attention of that hon. member by the Chair. The reason for the lack of formal dress was one of medical treatment, and the hon. member left the chamber until the matter was rectified. The matter did not go without notice, nor did it go without notice in being brought to the attention of the hon. member.

June 14, 1976
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to revert to the item of tabling documents. I should like to table copies, in both official languages, of the federal proposal regarding the major shared-cost programs in the field of health and postsecondary education which the Prime Minister presented at the first ministers' conference this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House agreed to revert to tabling of documents for the purpose requested by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,963, 5,367, 5,525 and 5,652.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): For each of the past ten years, what sums has the government (a) accorded tobacco growers or cigarette manufacturers in the form of (i) loans (ii) grants (iii) subsidies (b) expended in advertising to discourage members of the public from smoking?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed as follows: Agriculture Canada: (a) (i) nil; (ii) 1967-68-$141,864.77 to tobacco growers; (iii) nil. (b) nil. Health and Welfare Canada: (a) nil; (b) 1975-76, $359,333; 1974-75, 203,968; 1973-74, 395,600; 1972-73, 385,000; 197172, 381,271; 1970-71, 163,619; 1969-70, 260,436; 1968-69, 239,649; 1967-68, 200,281; 1966-67, 161,843. The above figures are for printing, design and art work, for posters and information materials, and production of films and T.V. clips for use by private and public organizations. Industry, Trade and Commerce: (a) For each of the past ten years, the government has accorded tobacco growers or cigarette manufacturers grants to the extent of: 1965-nil; 1966-nil; 1967- nil; 1968-$190,000; 1969-$158,000; 1970-$93,000; 1971- $199,000; 1972-$99,000; 1973-$136,000; 1974-$262,000. Figures of grants for 1975 are not yet available. No loans or subsidies have been made. These grants relate to the development or improvement of tobacco and cigarettes with emphasis on lowering tar and nicotine levels through cultivation and production techniques. A portion of the grants supports the updating of research facilities, (b) nil. Regional Economic Expansion: (a) Under the Regional Development Incentives Program there are four net

accepted offers outstanding to tobacco processors and none to cigarette manufacturers as of January 31, 1976. (i) nil; (ii) $68,582 (estimated); (iii) nil. (b) Nil.
Note: Under the earlier Area Development Incentives Program statistics were not maintained in a way that permits the question to be answered.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the name and country of residence of the male who plays the Swede in the Participaction ads on television?
2.	(a) How many Fit Kits were produced (b) what was the cost of each (c) what are the government sales projections for 1976?
3.	Does the government have any explanation or information that could suggest for what reason Canada has won more medals in the Winter Olympics than Sweden, if the Swedes are in much better shape than Canadians?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The information requested should be sought directly from Sport Participation Canada (Participaction). This is an independent organization which receives annual contributions for operational purposes from the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. (It encourages financial support from the private sector to subsidize media messages with fitness themes).
2.	(a) See answer to Parliamentary Enquiry No. 4,950 tabled May 19, 1976. (b) Projected unit cost is $2.66. (c) 75,000 kits for the first nine months of 1976; 25,000 kits for the following six month period.
3.	Sweden, which has a reputation of being a physically fit nation, achieves this image as a result of it's people's active participation in outdoor recreation. In previous years, cross-country skiing has been one of the few sports where Swedes have excelled at the international level, although that dominance is decreasing. Currently, a few individual Swedish athletes (diving, men's alpine skiing, swimming, canoeing) have achieved international success. At Innsbruck, their best performance was a bronze medal in the men's alpine skiing slalom event. Canada by contrast had 3 Olympic medalists.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Is the National Capital Commission responsible for the roadway to the airport and, if so, from what point?
2.	Does the Commission consider the highway to be in acceptable condition and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Who was the contractor for the highway and what was the contract price?
4.	Were there any over-runs and, if so, by what amount?
5.	Does the Commission plan repairs for this road, and, if so, what are the projected costs?
6.	Are there any plans to convert this road to a four-lane highway with beautified surroundings?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Acting Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. Yes, from Heron Road to the Airport.
June 14, 1976

2.	No. Frost penetration has caused uneven settlement of the roadway surface.
3.	Dibblee Construction, $1,968,993; Francon Limited, $2,056,467; McKay-Cocker, $1,558,000.
4.	Yes, by the following amounts: Dibblee Construction, $149,170; Francon Limited, $73,474; McKay-Cocker, $5,782.
5.	Yes. Projected cost of inital repairs is $25,000.
6.	The roadway was originally designed and constructed to permit the addition of two more lanes thereby creating a four-lane, median separated roadway. Construction drawings and specifications have been completed and the roadway will be built as funds are available and as the need arises. Site development work will be continued on a seasonal basis.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What government involvement, if any, was there in the construction of the Ottawa Airport Parkway?
2.	Did any other jurisdictions contribute towards the cost of construction and, if so, to what extent?
3.	What has been the total cost to date?
4.	(a) When was the Parkway last paved (b) what was the cost of the paving?
5.	At the time the Parkway was built or last repaved, was it anticipated that driving conditions on it would have deteriorated so badly by this date?
6.	Is the government aware of any accidents or injuries resulting from the present, dangerous state of disrepair of the Parkway and, if so, how many?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. The Ottawa Airport Parkway was constructed by the National Capital Commission.
2.	No.
3.	Capital cost to date: $9,213,561.
4.	(a) Early summer of 1973; (b) $308,452.
5.	No.
6.	No.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,327 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From 1970 to date, how many scholarships has the government granted through the Canadian International Development Agency or any other agency, to foreign students studying in Canadian colleges and universities?
Capital Punishment
2.	For each year (a) how much has the government spent on such scholarships (b) how many students received scholarships and what were their countries of origin?
3.	For each year, what were the colleges and universities attended by the students and what was the distribution of the students in each case?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. P. B. Ryrtard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, at one o'clock, I was speaking about the O'Donnell case in Toronto where a man had killed a young school teacher, going across the Don in Toronto, by hitting her with a stone, raping her and then dragging her out of the Don Valley. A few days later he was picked up by the police for the murder he had committed on a defenceless young school teacher who had no chance of saying a word to defend herself or to prepare for the next world.
There was also the case of a young sex offender who was released from penitientiary because the psychiatrist said he was unlikely to kill again, but within two years he had killed five young men in Quebec City. Just a couple of years ago, a 26-year old female was taken by an intruder who had entered her locked apartment by using a master key. She and her husband had been awakened by the noise, and in their night-clothes had gone to see what was happening.
The husband was warned not to call the police or his wife would die. The wife was taken by the intruder at knife point. He drove her around Toronto for nearly five hours, then raped her, subjected her to all types of sexual aberrations, and when she was not complying, the ever-ready knife was poised. The criminal in this case was a 19-year old youth who had been in psychiatric care from the age of five. He had recently been released from the hospital for the criminally insane at Penetanguishene, Ontario. This young woman is still not working. She cannot work. She is still suffering from the ravages of that night and the indelible imprint the tragedy made on her. She will probably go through life suffering, as a result.


Mr. Peters:: They should hang the psychiatrist.


Philip Bernard Rynard: You have an idea. At least you are in favour of capital punishment. These are the responsibilities, Mr. Speaker. Then there is the little girl of ten years of age who just a couple of weeks ago was raped and had her

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
skull blown to pieces. That little, innocent girl never had her day in court or a chance to repent.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that these are our responsibilities to keep law and order in society. That is why we have police forces. That is why social workers and all our levels of courts are needed, to try to see that justice is carried out on this earth. I have tried to point out that in no way can I watch prisoners sentenced to 15 years or longer walk up those corridors day after day, with bars on the windows and doors bolted. It is dying daily, inch by inch. The chance of rehabilitation goes out the door as the never-ending days pass. Is this what we really want-the torture, the wasting of the mind, the cruelty of long years of suffering?
I have heard people say they are abolitionist because they want to make the criminal live and, day after day, relive and suffer through a long prison sentence. Over and over again I have heard the relatives of a critically ill patient say it was nice to see him, or her, die so quickly and not suffer through a long, agonizing and lingering illness. What is one's philosophy as an abolitionist? The ultimate in cruelty is not the humane way. You can let a man leave this world quietly and peacefully. A judge in Barrie said recently, according to a report, that he had a prisoner before him who had spent more than half his years in prison. Because of the long years spent in prison, this man was unable to communicate with the court. He could not communicate, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the many years he had spent in prison. Do we want long prison terms to do this to people? If there is to be hope for us, society must have a better understanding of how to prevent crime. Second, we must provide an effective deterrent by imposing the shortest possible sentence in the circumstances. Unfortunately, what the shortest possible sentence is has not been discovered. We do not know how to prevent crime.
I cannot support the idea of long prison sentences taking the place of capital punishment. The cruelty of the long sentence is not in keeping with my philosophy, nor that of my riding of Simcoe North.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will intervene briefly in this debate. It has been a long debate and I know hon. members are trying to keep their speeches short. I intervene to indicate that, as Minister of Justice, I support the statement made by my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), in this House when he began the debate on May 3, as reported on page 13088 of Hansard. In introducing the bill, he gave a long and thorough exposition of the reasons why it is being introduced and why at this time we feel capital punishment should be eliminated from the law.
Capital punishment has been debated in this House four times in the last ten years. It seems to me, with all due respect to what many have said in the four debates, that the real issue facing parliament and the country is not the issue of capital punishment: the real issue is how best the criminal justice system can be made most effectively and adequately to protect society. The issue is not whether we shall execute one, two or three prisoners a year: the issue is how the whole criminal justice system, the Criminal Code,

the administration of that code in our courts, the legal system, police enforcement and prevention systems of the country can best be made to work and protect our society and its values.
Quite apart from my personal opposition to capital punishment, I am convinced, beyond any shadow of doubt, that even if all murderers convicted of capital offences in the past ten years had been hanged, this would have done nothing to prevent the increase in violent crime which we have experienced in this country in the last few years. During the past 14 years, Mr. Speaker, in 70 per cent of all murders the suspect and victim were related or had some kind of social relationship. In my view, the prospect of hanging in no way influenced whether or not a capital offence in those cases was to be committed. Another 10 per cent of murders were committed during the commission of some other crime such as robbery, arson or sexual assault.
The execution of a few murderers will not deter crimes of passion, murder by sexual perverts, or gangland killings involving hired "hit-men." It will not stop violence. In my view, the very fact that there is on the law books a provision calling for the hanging, every year, of one, two, three or more people for the offence of capital murder gives our society a false sense of security and diverts us from what ought to be the real issues concerning the criminal justice system. To support my view, I wish to quote briefly, as my colleague the Solicitor General did, the words of Sir Robert Mark, the 38-year veteran of police work in Britain and current commissioner of the London metropolitan police, better known as Scotland Yard. Addressing the Canadian association of chiefs of police in Canada last summer, he said:
I am therefore opposed to the death penalty and so are most of my senior and most experienced colleagues, simply because its continuance prevents the reforms necessary to increase the effectiveness of criminal justice.
That is my position. It seems to me that the best and most effective deterrent to any crime, murder included, is the certainty of apprehension and the certainty of conviction. To bring about that certainty requires, under our system, better methods of crime prevention, crime detection, apprehension of criminals, and reforms of procedures in our criminal courts so that the determination of guilt and innocence is carried out more effectively and without the prolonged delays which so often are the case now. It seems to me that significant improvements must be made to our criminal justice system if that system is to serve its central purpose, the protection of society. That is why the government last July introduced the bail reform bill to which I introduced further amendments in October which became effective on April 26.
We introduced amendments specifically designed to make the bail laws of this country more effective, to protect society against those charged with murder, to protect society against repeaters within the criminal system, and against those who traffick or conspire to traffic in narcotics and who are responsible for up to 70 per cent of all crimes in our centres of population, including the crime of murder. And that is why the government introduced Bill C-83 which is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
June 14, 1976

That bill contains measures concerning gun control. There are to be greater penalties for the misuse of firearms, greater abilities for the police to deal with criminal elements using or possessing firearms, improved measures to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them. Also, we included in that legislation-which I hope will be reported back from the committee shortly- measures to allow for the isolation from society of those deemed, by the legal process, to be dangerous offenders. They are to be separated from society for long periods. Bill C-83 also provides for the tightening of rules relating to the temporary release of criminals from prison. It provides for a more effective parole system, by which I mean that there is to be a more effective way of keeping within our penitentiaries those whom it is considered unsafe to release.
There is to be more effective examination of prisoners seeking release in order that we may release those who may safely be let out and participate in society. Included in that measure are controversial proposed changes with regard to electronic surveillance, or wiretapping, by police authorities after appropriate judicial authorization has been obtained. They are designed to strengthen the ability of police forces in this country to wage a more effective offensive against the bosses of organized crime who hire others to kill and often are instrumental in bringing people into the criminal system.
Later this week, as I said in the question period, I shall discuss with the attorneys general of the provinces other measures which will further improve the administration of our criminal justice system. The changes in the penalties for murder contained in Bill C-84 are related to the earlier measures I mentioned. The very stiff, no-pardon provisions will protect society by ensuring the prolonged incarceration of the convicted murderer. As I have indicated, the central purpose of our criminal law and administration of justice is the protection of society. Society has a right to be protected. It has a right to perceive that the criminal justice system is protecting it. That is why the long prison term provisions are there. They are, in fact, to protect society, to give society what it must have out of the legal system-that is, a perception or feeling that the system is serving to protect them, their communities and their values.
That is why the central issue in this debate is not whether we in this country hang one or two criminals; the central issue is whether we can build a more effective criminal justice system which, without hanging, protects society. It is my view that we can. The fact that we have a law relating to capital punishment gives our society a false sense of security, a sense of security that is undeserved. We should be addressing ourselves instead to how we can improve our criminal justice.
During previous debates on the capital punishment question, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) has made very distinguished and important contributions. It disturbed me to read his speech of the other day in which he indicated that he is reversing his position in order to ensure that capital punishment remains for treason. The incidence of treason in this country is extremely
Capital Punishment
low. In fact, Louis Riel was the last person hanged for treason-and that was in 1885.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert has had a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, as a member of this House, as prime minister and as an avowed supporter of the abolition of capital punishment. I hate to think that on the current bill he will be voting against sending it to committee. If he feels so strongly on the particular point that he has raised, because of his long-standing support of the abolition of capital punishment and his long-standing belief against hanging-which I have always taken to be a sincere and deeply-held belief-his proper course of action, knowing his long work in this area, would be to ensure that this bill is referred to committee. If he then wanted to suggest in the committee that there be some change in the bill, that would be the proper parliamentary course of action for someone who feels so strongly about the question of abolition as the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: There are others in this House who are thinking of making amendments, and some who still have some doubts on the issue. I hope they will see the logic of my persuasion and will vote for the bill on second reading in order to put it into committee where their amendments can be considered or their doubts resolved through debate. I suggest, with the greatest deference, that would be the proper parliamentary course.
As I mentioned earlier, as Minister of Justice my chief concern must be the protection of society. It should be the concern of all members when they consider the measures now before the House. I am satisfied that the sentencing provisions contained in Bill C-84, together with the other initiatives we have taken and are taking through the measures introduced by the Solicitor General and I in Bill C-83, changes in the Bail Act and discussions we are having with the attorneys general as to improvements in the criminal justice system, are an adequate response to the need to make the criminal justice system work better for us and for its central purpose, the protection of society. That is the central issue in this debate.
We are not going to protect society by giving it a false sense of security by hanging one, two or three people a year. We are not going to make our criminal justice system more effective by all the debate, energy and thought that for so many years have gone into the issue of hanging. We should devote that same time, energy and thought to reforming our criminal justice system, to providing better methods of crime prevention and detection. The only effective deterrent there is to crime is the certainty of apprehension and conviction. That is the central issue in this debate and the debate on Bill C-83. It is the job of myself, this parliament, the provincial attorneys general and those responsible for the administration of justice to address themselves to that issue, rather than the capital punishment issue. They should address themselves to how we can develop better methods of crime prevention, detection, certainty of apprehension, and conviction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would accept a question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) if, in the new process and plans for the apprehension of criminals-if capital punishment is abolished-we will have a type of capital punishment carried out by law officers. I think this has happened in a good many cases recently, where the number of bullet holes in people in the process of being apprehended by the police suggests much more than is necessary or accidental in carrying out a duty. It is a form of capital punishment by law officers.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I understand the question, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not agree with it. Obviously, police officers get into situations where they have to act to protect their lives or the lives of others. That is their duty under the law. In that way, pursuant to the law, they have the right to take life. I do not think there is evidence that the police forces of this country are abusing their rights under the law in that regard.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, while I did have some notes and remarks to make on Bill C-84, I consider it fortunate that I follow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in order to respond to some of the shallow arguments he has presented and, indeed, some of the deception he has inflicted upon us. I wonder whether the minister has even read Bill C-84. He said that hanging would have done nothing to prevent murder. The minister stated that 70 per cent of recent murders in Canada were those of a domestic nature, crimes of passion. However, what he patently failed to say was that those same crimes of murder within that context of 70 per cent are the very crimes that will not be included in this bill under supposed capital punishment, or first-degree murder. In other words, those who are responsible for crimes of passion involving murder are not the ones who would pay the supreme penalty.
By failing to state this, the minister tries to delude Canadians. He indicates that 10 per cent of other crimes resulting in murder would, similarly, not be affected. He says capital punishment would do nothing to stop violence. I have one reassuring comment to make: the murderer who pays the supreme penalty will certainly no longer resort to violence. The minister says Canadians feel a false sense of security when they talk about capital punishment. I do not think this is true at all. I think they believe that for too long the government has failed to recognize its responsibilities in this area. Canadians do not feel a false sense of security. On the other hand, they want to see the law enforced; they want capital punishment and it is in this area that the action of the government has been open to criticism. I ask the Minister of Justice why, today, so suddenly, would he express concern over the escalating crime rate in Canada? Why did it take him so long to address himself to the responsibilities of his ministry?
He speaks of improved methods of apprehension and improved methods of conviction. They certainly have not

been demonstrated to date, and I see nothing in the legislation before us which is likely to change that situation. The minister spoke of Bill C-83 and the marvellous effect it would have in removing guns from the hands of criminals. Surely he is aware that this measure dealing with gun control has been a total disaster. Refer me to any other bill in the memory of the House which has been the occasion of the introduction, at committee stage, of 43 amendments!


Walter David Baker: By the government.


Robert Hylton Brisco: By the government, to its own legislation. Thirty-one of them dealt with gun control alone. Who does the minister think he will delude? Who does he think will turn in their guns according to the provisions of Bill C-83? Surely the criminals will not do so. Guns will be just as readily available to the criminal element as they are now.
The minister talks about the need for an effective system of criminal justice. I could not agree more, but I suggest this is the responsibility of the government, one whose exercise is long overdue. The law with regard to capital punishment has not been enforced. The hon. gentleman says the idea of capital punishment gives Canadians a false sense of security. Then he tells us this is not the issue. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were debating Bill C-84, a bill which deals with capital punishment. If that is not the issue, I wonder what the issue is.
The minister complains about the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He expresses disappointment. He says, "Here is a man who for years has opposed capital punishment, and now he is in favour of it because of one clause, the clause dealing with treason." The minister reminds us there has not been a case of treason since Louis Riel. Mr. Speaker, the way this government is going, and the way the quasi-governments of some of the smaller nations today are going, it will not be long in my view, before we shall have cause for concern about treason.
In my view, my right hon. friend expresses a very valid concern. Moreover, his concern about the effectiveness of the committee in dealing with such a clause is well founded. I can easily understand what would happen at the committee stage. I have sat through all the proceedings in connection with Bill C-83 for many weeks dealing with the clauses of the so-called peace and security package. I have seen amendments introduced by the Conservatives and by the New Democrats, amendments which were well reasoned and unobjectionable. But on grounds of policy, because the idea of resistance has been engraved on the brains of Liberal backbenchers, these amendments were voted down en masse. What else could one expect?
The view of some abolitionists is that if parliamentarians support capital punishment, they will have on their hands the blood of the people who are destined to pay the supreme penalty, be it by hanging or in some other way. I wonder whether these abolitionists take the same attitude with regard to the victims. I wonder whether they feel they have the blood of the victims on their hands. If I had to make a value judgment on that point, I certainly would not opt for having the blood of the victims on my hands.
A government, of necessity, legalizes war. It is kill or be killed. A government may, of necessity legalize, approve, adopt or implement capital punishment. I accept absolute-
June 14, 1976

ly no responsibility. I have no conscience or concern about having blood on my hands when some murderer faces the supreme penalty. I do not agonize over this bill. My mind has been made up. I was convinced of the position I have to take prior to my coming to the House of Commons. I do, however, agonize for those true abolitionists who for one reason or another are sincerely concerned about the reintroduction of capital punishment.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). We have heard comments from physicians on both sides of the argument in the course of the present debate. I cannot but feel that those of us who have, in one form or another, worked in the healing arts for many years and who have inherited or developed a special degree of compassion or concern for their patients, must reflect on the important question of whether this same degree of compassion and concern can be expressed with reference to a murderer. Doubtless there are physicians who may not have been able to transfer their compassion from their professional background to the House of Commons. And there may be physicians-in fact, there are-who have been able to sever that particular connection of compassion in reference to the bill before us. I agonize for those who most genuinely and sincerely, perhaps by virtue of a deep-seated sense of compassion, feel that capital punishment is the wrong road. But I do not apologize to these people.
I was concerned, when reading the addresses of other members, to note that some of them failed to make a distinction clear between first and second-degree murder. Just recently I was reading the address made to the House by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). It was obvious in the arguments that he was putting forward in favour of abolition that he was not prepared to define the difference between crimes of passion and the "contract" murder. I object most strenuously to the attempts to brainwash the Canadian people that have been made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). I think it is basically dishonest. I liken-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) rising on a point of order?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I do not have any objection to the hon. member, or to any other hon. member, disagreeing with what I have said from time to time, but to declare openly in this House of Commons that what I have said or done is dishonest should be ruled out of order, or the remark withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Brisco) West that he is skating a very thin line, that he should get back to the subject and withdraw that last remark.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to withdraw the remark provided the minister would give me a chance to complete what I was saying.
Capital Punishment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. Once again, I suggest to the hon. member that he is skating a very thin line, that he should be careful in what he says.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I will be careful, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to complete my statement. There is a basic dishonesty in informing the public of one side of the argument and not informing the public of the other side of the argument. That is where the basic dishonesty lies. To present members of parliament with the report of Ezzat Fattah from Simon Fraser University and with arguments very persuasive of the minister's cause is one thing, but is it not more honest to present both sides of the argument in a similarly persuasive fashion? This is what the minister has failed to do, and that is where I see the dishonesty. I am not alluding to the minister's integrity itself, far from it. I have every regard for the minister as an honest member of parliament. It is the policy that I consider to be dishonest. Having made that clear, I wonder whether the minister would care to comment.


William Warren Allmand: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is suggesting is something that I have never heard suggested in the House of Commons in the whole history of this place. Presumably, when a minister or member of parliament puts forward a policy, he puts forward arguments to support that policy. He does not put forward arguments to support the other side of the question. I would not expect that from the hon. member who supports the retention of capital punishment, so I do not see why he should expect me to put forward arguments in favour of retention. We all strongly argue our points of view and put forward arguments in favour of them, but I do not think that is dishonest. We put forward what we think is right, and we argue our point of view. We do not argue the other point of view. I have never seen this done by the government, by the opposition or any member of parliament.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I should not say "the same point of order", because I do not think the matter raised by the Solicitor General is a point of order. I would think it is rather a point for debate, though I think I understand what he is driving at.
If I could look into the minds of some members of the House with respect to this matter, I think this is a little different from an ordinary party position on a matter, or at least I have always understood it to be. This matter is subject to a free vote by members exercising their discretion based on all the information available. If I understand him correctly, the hon. member was indicating, in this rather unusual kind of situation, that there might be a duty on the part of the government to put forward both sides of the question. I think that is what he had in mind. In any event, I do not think this is a point or order in accordance with the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is raising a point for debate. It is government policy, and has been for many years, to introduce government measures. If the other side object and put forward their side of the argument, there is then debate. I would suggest to the hon. member for Koote-

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
nay West that he had better get back to the subject of Bill C-84.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Bill C-84 is one of those rarities of the parliamentary process in which we have a free vote, or a so-called free vote, in which we have a mutual sharing of thinking on both sides of the House in regard to both sides of the coin, I consider it incumbent upon me to present to my constituents both sides of the question. However, when my constituents are made aware of the fact that the Solicitor General handed out a contract to the research and systems development branch of his department-although he says that the views of the author do not necessarily represent his own views-and when I see in the report that the author, Mr. Ezzat A. Fattah of Simon Fraser University, an institution of cynics and socialists, tells the Canadian people that it seems that the better educated tend to be more tolerant in their attitudes toward punishment and more opposed to the death penalty than the less educated, and when he goes on to indicate that those who are in poor financial circumstances are more apt to be in favour of capital punishment than the well-to-do, then I am inclined to turn that around.
It is very simple to turn that around, Mr. Speaker, and to ask this question. Is Mr. Fattah suggesting, since the people of Kootenay West, on the basis of the poll that I conducted, support capital punishment by the astonishing figure of 92 per cent, that this is a reflection on their intelligence? Is this, then, a reflection on their income? Is this, then, a reflection on the fact that they are uneducated? Is that what this gentleman is implying? Indeed, the same expression could be applied to every riding in Canada. To extend the argument a little further, those areas of the country that show a high degree of support for capital punishment are, according to this report, those sections of Canada where there are large numbers of unemployed and uneducated people.
I have a great deal more regard for the intelligence of my constituents, the hard working and industrious people of my riding, than apparently this report or this fellow from Simon Fraser University has. He goes on to indicate that there is a very strong pattern in favour of the death penalty associated with income and religious belief. He concludes that the few studies which have attempted to examine some psychological determinants of attitudes to the death penalty tend to show that people who approve the death penalty are people who are insecure, who were severely brought up and who are socially maladjusted. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this professor, so-called, has said. What a condemnation of the Canadian people! How can the minister possibly accept the thrust of this man's report when he makes a statement like that?


William Warren Allmand: Let us hear the quotation verbatim.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I just gave it to you. He says that the few studies which have attempted to examine some psychological determinants of attitudes to the death penalty tend to show that people who approve of the death penalty are people who are insecure, who were severely brought up and who are maladjusted socially.


William Warren Allmand: Read the rest.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


Robert Hylton Brisco: People who are opposed to it are people who feel secure, who were brought up by mild disciplinary methods and who are pleased with life.
Is that a statement that the minister can accept? Is it a statement that this House accepts? Is that the position of this government?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Solicitor General rises on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My department has financed many studies, including one by Professor Bibby of the University of Lethbridge, and Professor Grenier, and so on. These many studies have presented many views, some of which I think would support the hon. member's position. I just want to make clear that these studies are done from time to time and they do not express the views of the department, as the hon. member said at the beginning. Even in that regard, I don't think he was being fair because he quoted at random from the report. He could also quote from other reports financed by our department which give the opposite view, such as those expressed by Professor Bibby and Professor Grenier.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond to the minister. He has indicated that his department has produced other reports which apparently deal with the other side of the coin. That is the very point I was making a few minutes ago in respect of which the minister challenged me.


William Warren Allmand: Because you were wrong.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I was wrong; you just finished telling the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the Solicitor General and the hon. member that they are getting into a debate. I suggest that the hon. member get back to Bill C-84.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It would seem that the Solicitor General is overly concerned about my remarks.


An hon. Member:: He is a bit touchy.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, he is a little touchy today. If the minister wishes, I am quite prepared to read into the record all the opening statements by this individual, and if he cares to trot over some books and reference papers in support of capital punishment, I would be pleased to read those into the record also.


William Warren Allmand: You were giving just one side of the story, and there are two sides.


An hon. Member:: You never circulated the other.


William Warren Allmand: Oh, yes.


An hon. Member:: But not widely.
June 14, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West has the floor, and I suggest that we listen to him.


An hon. Member:: Tell the minister to be quiet.


Robert Hylton Brisco: It is unfortunate that I am getting all this heckling from the Solicitor General. Quite frankly, I do not mind it too much because I do not find it difficult to respond to.


William Warren Allmand: I didn't start it.


Robert Hylton Brisco: One of the most strange parts of this capital punishment matter and the hanging of murderers is the absence of concern and alarm by the public when a convicted child murderer or rapist pays the supreme penalty in a prison at the hands of other inmates. In that case do we see agonizing in the press, and do we see many letters to the editor?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Do we then hear the expression of concern in the House, or elsewhere?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, very often.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The minister knows, as does everyone here, that the degree of concern expressed in respect of justice taken into the hands of inmates in this type of case is very minimal compared with the type of press and concern reflected in the House and outside when such an event takes place as the one in Saskatchewan last year when a murderer took the life of two small children. We know that according to the testimony of the murderer, one small child asked him, after witnessing the death of the other, "Are you going to kill me, too?" When I think of that kind of response from a child, when I think of the brutalizing of children, and when I think about our concern for the victim-which so rarely seems to be expressed-I think it is time people of that ilk started to pay the supreme penalty. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that society simply does not need these mad dogs. Society knows full well that these people are beyond the pale, and 25 years in jail is not going to contribute anything to their recovery.
Today, in cities such as New York we see apartments and office buildings under security, with armed guards and wire fences. The same situation exists in Philadelphia and Chicago. How far are we away from this situation in Canada? How long will it be before we see this kind of security escalate in Vancouver and Montreal? How long will it be before we see security escalate in the House of Commons? In my view, we are progressively moving into jungle warfare, with criminals having declared an open season on innocent victims. The question is: Should we stand idly by, or should we begin to fight? Are we going to allow this guerrilla warfare to overwhelm us, and turn the other cheek?
Some abolitionists, in their arguments, tell us how horrible and barbaric it is to hang a murderer and what a terrible thing hanging is to witness. Perhaps we could appeal to the public conscience and cause nationwide revulsion for capital punishment if we televised the event.
Capital Punishment
Let me suggest that if we are going to televise that event, it should be preceded with a few pictures of the victims, particularly the children. Let us precede that with pictures of drug pushers who have run afoul of their bosses, with their hands wired behind their backs, shoved into bathtubs and machine-gunned. Before the coverage of the hanging, let us fill the television screens with pictures of the brutality inflicted by contract murderers.
Contract murder is a lucrative business, the hours are short and the responsibility is nil. This House and this country would condone that kind of thing: we would put these people away for 25 years. Perhaps it is mercenary to refer to the cost of putting these people away. Perhaps that is an unfair part of the argument. Perhaps it is distasteful to suggest that in terms of dollars and cents it is very expensive to the state to incarcerate these people. If I am not mistaken, it costs the taxpayers of Canada, at the present time, $17,000 a year to keep a criminal in jail. The Solicitor General would be more conversant with these figures.


William Warren Allmand: That is the per capita cost, not the incremental cost.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you. If we work that out over 25 years, and allow a rate for inflationary escalation, it would not be too hard to extrapolate that figure to a quarter of a million dollars for a contract murderer, a murderer of a child, or a rapist. I wonder if the taxpayers of Canada feel comfortable with that thought? Murder in British Columbia is no different from murder in Quebec. It is just as horrible, revolting, and just as final. I wonder what the circumstances are now in respect of the parole date for the murderer who ran wild in the Christian Valley between Rock Creek and Fauquier. He went on a rampage, shooting and killing several people and wounding many others. He cut up some of his victims and conveniently surrendered in such a fashion that he would save his own hide, because he knew that his hide was on the barrel. He knew full well- indeed, he spoke of it-that if he did not think of the manner in which he was to give himself up, he could very well end up dead like his victims. Is this the type of man society wants to protect?
Then there was the murderer in the Creston area who slew a woman and some children some three or four years ago. He did not kill just one, but three or four. He was on a real shopping trip. We talk about capital punishment as a deterrent! Not too long ago-and the Solicitor General will be more conversant with the case then I am, because all I had was a one-shot version on television-a criminal in Quebec, along with another criminal, had taken a hostage. He was being interviewed on television. He was asked whether or not be would have killed the hostage. He indicated that he was fully in accord with the actions of his partner and, if it became necessary, yes. He was then asked if he had killed anyone else. He did not say yes, but he did not say no. Because of the manner of his answer, the television audience at least was left with the strong impression that this man in fact was not new to the game of murder. Certainly, there are many persons in the criminal element in Montreal who are not at all unfamiliar with the game of murder.
14466

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
That is the deterrent factor. Would this man have been in a position to take a hostage if he had been apprehended and convicted in the manner suggested by the Minister of Justice today? Quite frankly, I cannot see some panacea or some sweeping effect this legislation will have on Canadians and on crime. I fail to see an indication in Bill C-83 or in Bill C-84 that all of a sudden, overnight, we will change the system of conviction. We will have a lot more, and we will have a lot more apprehensions. In my view this is simply a red herring and has nothing to do with this particular bill.
Because of the type of legislation this government has been introducing, I would not be surprised if before long it also decided to certify the unions that are being talked about in prisons. I really do not think that the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice would accept that, but it certainly gives many people cause for concern. I wonder what the government's response is to that question, in its peace and security package.
Let us talk for a moment about the clause in the bill dealing with treason. Truly this is the treason season. This is the time of the year when Canada, by drafting this piece of legislation, is saying to the terrorist such as the PLO or any other ilk of the same nature, "Come on over fellows. There is no death penalty here. We do not even cut off your hands. Come on over and murder." One of the most shocking comments I ever heard with reference to the PLO question at the last Olympic Games was an endorsement of their action and their conduct by one of the leading members of the labour movement in Quebec, a man who subsequently to my utter consternation was endorsed-not in the same context; I would not want to delude the House in that way, because it was in respect of another matter-by a former leader of the New Democratic Party, David Lewis. I must say I was shocked that David Lewis would lend any kind of support to Mr. Chartrand after he had supported the actions of the PLO and felt that they were doing the right thing. Are we to be witnesses to the same tragedy this time around? Hopefully, not.
Because the treason season is here, because this is the terrorism time of year and the government has decided there shall not be capital punishment, we are inviting these people over here, at enormous cost to the taxpayers in respect of security, a cost which is escalating daily. The other day a soldier told me he was being discharged from the army. He told me that he had been asked to stick around until after the Olympics. He refused. I do not blame him. In dealing with this legislation, the government is in my view swatting at gnats while swallowing camels.
Many speeches have been made in which the Bible has been quoted. It has been asserted, and I think rightfully so, that indeed one could argue in this way on both sides. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) suggested that prostitution, arson and any other crimes could be argued on both sides of the question in biblical context. Although I shall not quote from the Bible, I will repeat that the government is swatting at gnats while swallowing camels.
Let me say to the minister and to the House that I accept the mandate of the people of Kootenay West that capital punishment should be retained. I respond to my own feelings and to the feelings of the people of Kootenay West

who by 90 per cent plus are in favour of the retention of capital punishment. That, Mr. Speaker, is the way I shall cast my vote.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House on such an important matter as Bill C-84 which among other things deals with the abolition of the death penalty in Canada.
In connection with the decision of any hon. member on this matter, it seems to me that in our system we are not delegates to Parliament but members elected to Parliament. If we want to establish a system aimed at sending delegates to Parliament, to a democratic assembly, then those individuals would have to vote, according to the specific mandate given to them, this is another thing. But under the present system, a member must obviously listen to his own electors, his fellow citizens, even try to find their position and understand them, but having done that he ought to take the decision.
If the issue involved changing the system, I would oppose it because, in my opinion, a member of Parliament must have a political conscience, a social conscience, and he must be concerned especially by those issues. That is why he must take a decision after listening to the various points of view and having made an effort to understand them.
Mr. Speaker, this leads me to a remark made by my predecessor while concluding his speech. He said, and I heard him clearly, that 90 per cent of his voters were in favour of the retention of capital punishment. I would ask him how can he come to such a conclusion. How can anyone tell at any moment what really is the opinion of the general public, what really is the opinion of Canadians on capital punishment or on any other issue? Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to reach such a conclusion. What these members should say is that they made a survey, an analysis, scientific or otherwise, and give the number of replies they received. But one cannot reach a conclusion until such a survey, scientific or otherwise has been made, then one cannot say in all fairness that Canadians think this or that on capital punishment or on any other issue.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member would accept a question on the point he just raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is not a point of order. I believe the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is to be the next speaker, and I suggest that if he has time left the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) may accept a question.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I would have been ready to accept the question now, but I will abide by your ruling.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I ask the question Mr. Speaker? The hon. member raised a very interesting point. I wonder if he would be prepared to recommend to the House that we have a referendum in Canada on the very important issue
June 14, 1976

of capital punishment in order to determine the will of the Canadian public on this issue.


Herb Breau: I probably would have come to that point. I am happy that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is so interested in my speech that he anticipated what I was going to say. I think we live under a system in which issues like this one should not have to be decided by a referendum.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why?


Herb Breau: A short while ago I was speaking about the social and political conscience of members of parliament in our system. In my view we are elected to consider these questions, to study them, to listen to the Canadian people-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And ignore them!


Herb Breau: -and to search for their views, but once we know those views we should have the courage to decide what we think is right or wrong and we should have the courage to make up our own minds on this question.

I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that under our system a member of Parliament is not a delegate to Parliament, but he is elected, and when the constituents in his riding elect him, they are sure he will listen to them, he will try to understand them and he will truly represent them in the House.
I have listened seriously and very attentively to all the arguments coming from my constituency. I have even tried to understand more fully the position opposed to mine, I mean the position advocated by those in favour of the retention of the death penalty since I support this bill and may be described as a total abolitionist. Yet I have tried to understand the position of those opposed to this legislation.
In my opinion, the views I have heard fall into three categories. First, there are those who, as a matter of conscience, are in favour of capital punishment, those for whom it is a matter of morality, of religion, a spiriual matter, a matter of conscience and who are proclaiming: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I am referring to those who believe that society should, in revenge or otherwise, take the life of those convicted of having taken someone else's life, the circumstances being taken account of, and the circumstances in their position, of course, can vary depending on whether the murder is qualified or not. To that group I must say that I have the duty, not only as a member of this House but also as a citizen, to accept and respect their point of view, and I respect it. I never tried to convince someone who tells me that he believes in conscience that capital punishment is not only a solution, but is acceptable in Canada or elsewhere. I respect that point of view.
As for the second and third groups, however, after discussion I found that their position is less based on conviction than on their intepretation of the facts, the law or the penalties. The second group is composed of those who believe that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to murder or crime. It seems to me that these people ought to
Capital Punishment
prove their point clearly before deciding in favour of capital punishment, because when you decide that the state must remove somebody's life, you have to make sure beforehand that the decision is fair. Nowhere in all the studies I have seen-I probably did not see them all but I did look into several of them-nor in all the arguments I have heard have I found anything indicating clearly that the death penalty is an efficient deterrent. Nothing indicates that clearly. Some studies seem to indicate that it is not an efficient deterrent. Opinions vary in this regard.
To my mind, it behoves those who claim capital punishment is a deterrent to prove their point, more so than those who claim the contrary. Until such time as an international scientific study is made, since all men are very much alike, until such time as I have seen such a study indicating clearly that capital punishment can be a deterrent, I must tell those people that they may be wrong.
A while ago I said that three groups want to retain the death penalty. The third is made up of those who are concerned about crime in our modern society, who are concerned about the fact that society does not seem to be protected well enough. Those people favour capital punishment but, very often, what they really want, is better protection.
They are told that in many cases, these are administrative matters, these are judgments made by civil servants, law officers of other groups. They are told that it is possible to amend some laws and to modify administrative procedures to ensure that those who are guilty of murder, individuals who are really sick from the social and human viewpoint, who have no control over themselves, are kept away from society.
And it is important to remind the House, and those people from the third group, of the change brought in for example by clause 21 of the bill. Clause 21 redefines the process through which first degree and second degree murderers will be eligible for parole. And I do not want to take the time of the House to read clause 21 entirely but I think we can sum up by saying that there is a fundamental and important principle to be considered in redefining first degree and second degree murder. And one of the important elements is that life imprisonment represents 25 years, for first degree murder and up to 25 years as well for second degree murder, depending on the judge.
About first degree murder, which is the planned or contract murder, there is an important change in the process of parole: the National Parole Board itself will no longer be able to realease anybody convicted of first degree murder, planned or contract murder before 25 years. That person will be released only through a commission of judges of the same court where he or she was found guilty and the comission will review his or her case after 15 years. Then and only them, after 15 years, will the judges be allowed to consider the eligibility for parole of the prisoner or the convicted person.
It is a major change because right now releases on parole are determined by a simple body such as the Parole Board which is made up of civil servants and full time commissioners and it is possible that this board, at least many think so, may not be so sensitive to the situation as are those whose responsibility it is to consider the eligibility of prisoners. If society undergoes a change, those persons
95 S70-15*72

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
may be isolated and as a result their judgment would not be reliable for other members of society.
The fact that judges are brought into the picture, that a panel of judges will decide on the eligibility of a prisoner beore the board considers his case is, I think, a fundamental change. Even if we did not have this 15 year minimum before judges may consider one's eligibility for parole, the judgment will remain very important.
Therefore I tell them that there are ways to protect society against dangerous criminals which might be released without being completely rehabilitated. Of course, there are other changes such as those in Bill C-83. Although we cannot hope to cover all cases, we are trying through firearms control to reduce at least the accessibility of dangerous persons to firearms and ammunitions.
I would like to point out another matter in this debate, which has often been discussed by jurists or legal experts because it is normal that the public, facing such a question, turn towards the legislators and ask them to find a solution. It is normal that the public exert pressures on politicians and say: We want you to solve this problem, we want you to try to fight crime in Canada and perhaps you may do so by reinstating capital punishment and particularly maintaining it.
It is normal because we have to be elected, we are known to people, they know that we sit in the House and it is thus normal that pressures be exerted on us. Consequently, it is normal that people require this from us. But one must not believe that all decisions concerning murders or any crime in any circumstances, in any region of the country, in any of the various sub-societies of all countries or in any of the various sub-cultures of our country, one must not believe that the House can pass whatever legislation which could, once and for all, ensure a balanced justice and fight crime or murder or make sure that murderers will never live out in society.
That is impossible to do. Why? Because by its very nature the system is in a way fragile, flexible, sensitive. For instance, the guilt of a person accused of murder is not determined by the law-makers, nor even by a judge. There is the question of the Crown attorney. How competent can he be? What kind of morality does he want to follow? What is his background and what kind of culture does he have? What are the views of the Crown attorney and of the defence attorney?
Many people know that the jury system can be influenced by the level of qualification or competence of the defence attorney. An emotional plea, for instance, by a defence attorney who is a better orator than an another attorney. It has often been heard that a poor person had been found guilty because he or she did not have the best lawyer. Some will say that we now have a judicial aid system and that no one will appear before a Canadian court without judicial help. That is true. However with the kind of society we are living in we will never be able to provide individuals without the necessary financial means with the best legal defence possible, we will never be sure that a judicial assistance system could assure them the best lawyer or the best legal defence possible.
There is, of course, the jury. It is an essential factor, sometime more important than any others. We want to 
have a supposedly sociological, political and social representation of the community to assume the judgement. Consequently, we are not the ones, as legislators, who have something to say but we bear however, the public pressures. We are not the ones who decide those issues. It will be the jury and the judge and it is, to a large extent, what gives its strength to our society, its flexibility but in some cases it can bring about a lack of unformity in sentences. The competence of the Crown or the defence attorney can decide the issue of a trial. Consequently, those factors will decide whether or not a person charged with murder or any other crime is guilty or not.
Mr. Speaker, I only want to answer those who stress before us the illness of our modern society, its weaknesses which make some individuals choose to commit criminal acts, to harm others, to attack them and even take their life. Faced with that problem, although we, as members of Parliament, are subject to public pressure because we are in the public eye, having been elected, society must not, nor must we believe that that problem can be solved, because even if Bill C-84 is defeated, even if all those people convicted of crimes, whether it be love tragedies, deliberate crimes or contract crimes, there is nothing that says that those who are charged with murder will actually be convicted of murder, precisely because of the jury system, because of the system of legal defence. I said earlier that nothing really proved that by applying the death penalty, even if it were applied to all people convicted of murder, first or second degree, or only even first degree, we can actually make sure that all people guilty of murder would be brought before the courts and convicted.
So I think, Mr. Speaker, that a factor in my decision is the fact that a mistake is always possible when it comes to judgments. I said earlier that there could be degrees of competence, that there can be an influence due to the environment, culture or history which may be quite different in Newfoundland and British Columbia because this is a diverse country. We live in a pluralistic society, so it is quite normal to have different points of view in different areas of this country. One must also take into account the degree of competence, the quality of the defence, the quality of the prosecution and the element of error. It is possible to have a better police force in one area of this country than elsewhere. It is possible for certain police elements to be more aggressive in one area of this country at a certain time in certain circumstances than elsewhere. The police in certain areas could be prejudiced against certain groups in society, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the major reasons why I cannot accept that capital punishment be acceptable to our society.
I do not see much difference between murder and capital punishment. I think the individual who takes away someone's life is a sick person, a person with something wrong. But I cannot accept that the state cold-bloodedly, after consideration, after legal defence procedure, after action by the police, action by the experts, the Crown attorneys, after all that, probably six months, one year and maybe two or three after the crime, society, the state can coolly decide to take someone's life. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this penalty is not useful, that it will not necessarily protect society, because the number of murders in Canada
June 14, 1976

is perhaps 10 or 20 times higher than the number of people who are found guilty by the courts. How can we say that the death penalty can really protect society efficiently?
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say I am sorry that in this whole matter, in the House and elsewhere, we forget an important factor of criminality, we forget that there still are human, social and community conditions which result from human, cultural and often deep problems which contribute to violence. In poor urban or rural environments, young people of 14, 15 or 16 have known only bootlegging, drug trafficking, broken families, crime or other unpleasant things. If someone starts on the road to crime at 14, 15 or 16, I wonder if he should be the one to be punished.
I would hope that society, instead of emphasizing punishment, would try to show him that there may be some people who love him, that society is not limited to the environment he has lived in. I find there is within society as a whole a lack of understanding, delicacy, common sense, kindness and love for teenagers who are living in some environments. If we had not known something else, we would most probably do the same.
Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I urge the House to pass this bill because it is in my view a humane measure, one which says that the state cannot coldly take someone's life, and which, when considered against other government administrative measures or legislation, says that whenever there are sick elements within our society, it should do everything in its power to find a humane, non-violent solution, designed to rehabilitate these people or at least their environment when their own rehabilitation is impossible.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have lost count of the number of times I have taken part, since 1957, in debates on this important subject. I can honestly say that this is not the most inspiring, nor the greatest of debates in which I have participated. I thought the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford)-because I am his friend, I think he will not mind my saying this-was less than inspired and less than inspiring when he attempted today to defend the bill. It is not for me to read another man's mind; but, I wonder if he has lost the confidence in this measure which some of his predecessors in earlier days displayed. I remember well, when we discussed amending the Criminal Code to provide for a five-year partial ban, thinking I would not be so narrow-minded as not to give the five-year conditional ban a chance. But we have not been given that five years and in that regard the government has made an egregious error.
I think, too, that many members of this House and many citizens of this country are troubled by the way this matter has been orchestrated, are troubled by the coupling of Bill C-84 to C-83 and the confession of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that, in order to get as much as he could under the one bill, he had to include as much as he could in the other. This kind of calculated quid pro quo is hardly conducive to a high-level, inspirational debate on a matter of conscience. The fact that the minister found it necessary to make the confession is not helpful. I am convinced that
Capital Punishment
no matter how I decide to vote on this bill-and I have not yet decided-my vote will bring me no great feeling of pride or satisfaction, because the bill contains many things which it ought not to contain and the existing legislation contains many provisions which in my judgment are reprehensible.
I have always opposed the sort of idea central to legislation we passed last time. In most sections thereof we subscribe to the idea that capital punishment is not a deterrent, yet when it comes to dealing with murderers of policemen and prison wardens we say that it is a deterrent. In all logic, if the imposition of capital punishment is a deterrent, let it be applied. But let it be applied in the case of the little girl who was raped and murdered, of the old gentleman in the corner store who was robbed and killed, and in the case of the Canadian citizen who was the victim of violent assault leading to death. Logically, capital punishment is either a deterrent or it is not.
Clause 5 of the present bill disturbs me. It provides:
Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
I am neither jurist nor lawyer; yet, surely, if we have learned anything from the advance of criminology, it is this: there is a vast difference between first and second-degree murder. I do not like this little extra provision thrown in for the so-called hardshells in order to make the bill more palatable for them. I wish, sir, I could be in that easy position of some of my colleagues and stand up and say, "I am against the taking of life on moral grounds and for moral reasons, and the taking of life by the state is a sin." I do not believe that. If I were convinced that the taking of life by the state would make society safer and the lives of citizens more sacred, I would subscribe to no moral code which would prohibit my allowing that to take place.
Nor am I in that other happy category of those who say, "Hang them all, the short and the tall; that is the way to make society better." It would be easy to say it, but I don't believe it. Nor am I in that other category of those who say, "My constituents say, do thus and so; therefore I must do thus and so." I agree with the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) that in the final analysis we have to make our own judgment and we have to live or die politically by the exercise of that judgment.
I want to say how very much I was moved by the speech of my seatmate, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Kynard), one of the great medical practitioners of this country. I was much moved by his thoughful considerations respecting the whole matter of life expectancy of those who are under duress of state action. I was much moved by the eloquent address of my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), one of the articulate and sincere members of the party who in my judgment has a great contribution to make to Canadian public life. However, as is well known, we in this party enhance our reputation one with the other and our regard one for the other by the candour of our remarks, and I would disagree with him on one matter. I refer to the suggestion that the Palestinians, or PLO, are terrorists or that the PLO is

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
responsible for the dreadful and heinous activities at Munich.
While I could be critical of the Solicitor General, I will not suggest that anything he is doing in his advancement and manoeuvrings in respect of this measure is in any way connected with making it easier for terrorists. In fact, I sometimes criticize him, through his department, for making life a little too difficult for a lot of innocent Arab people who, with good intent in mind, want to come to this country.
We have to try, with this measure, to make a clear, conscience-based judgment. I regret the bill makes that difficult. I would be happier-and I have never been a starry-eyed abolitionist-had the government come forward without coupling gun control, without throwing in the tough penalty for second-degree murder and all these extraneous things and asked us to make a judgment. I think it would have been a more meaningful and a more intellectual exercise.
Underlying the whole aspect is that no matter how we talked in the last decade and a half, it really did not matter. The government, through its executive clemency, made this a de facto abolitionist country no matter what hon. members said or thought. This has entered into the whole discussion an object of resentful unreality, if I may call it that.
The Solicitor General this afternoon indicated what I have said for a long time. While technically we are engaged upon a free vote, it is in fact something less than a free vote. He suggested that, naturally, he could not produce argumentation on the other side of the question. If this were a free vote, a mere testing of parliament, why would he not? I sat in this House when we discussed this measure when it was a private member's bill. That is the way it should be today if it is truly to be a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have said many times, and I say it with endearment to my beloved whip, there are too many votes on which the whip is on. This parliament should express itself on many, many issues without the whip being put on. Naturally, I exclude the budget speech and the Speech from the Throne. However, when you have a measure brought in by an individual minister, knowing full well the whole cabinet is going to abide by the law of cabinet solidarity, which the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) may forget occasionally, but not for long, you do not have a 100 per cent free vote. It is not right to suggest to the Canadian people that that is what is taking place.
Generally, this debate has been on a high level. However, I do not think this issue has been helped much by rumours that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Solicitor General would resign if it did not go through. That makes it too close, not only to being a government measure but a political measure. If I were not holding my conscience in very close check, I would be tempted to vote against the measure for these reasons. However, I think that would be wrong. They have no right to say on the left hand, the weaker hand, that it is a free vote, and on the right hand that they will resign if it does not go through and have cabinet solidarity laid down.

The debate generally has been on a high level but there are two aspects which I have resented all the way through. I do not appreciate retentionists telling me that because I do not support the return of the noose 100 per cent, in some way I am supposedly helping the criminals, that I do not believe in law and order and that I like all these rotten stinkers who make society a hell for decent people. On the other hand, I do not like to have it suggested to me that all civilized, sophisticated people are abolitionists. I do not think that is the case. This is an exercise through which we must move our way carefully and intellectually, guided by the fullest possible information available and by our own feelings as citizens who want the safest, freest society for our people.
I would be quite prepared to stand up and call for the reinvocation of the death penalty if I could be convinced that by that means society would be safeguarded and the rights of the individual would be more secure. I have been looking for many years for that evidence. It is that evidence that I find great difficulty in obtaining. I do not know whether the findings of Mr. Justice Branca have been put on the record. If they have, I will say that I agree with them and support the hon. member who put them down before. In a very brilliant speech to the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, in British Columbia not long ago, he gave a little catalogue of countries which were abolitionist and countries which were retentionist. He gaVe the murder rate as follows. In 1965 it was 2.8 in abolitionist countries and 4.95 in retentionist countries; in 1966, 3.45 in abolitionist countries and 5.9 in retentionist countries; in 1969, 4.0 in abolitionist countries and 7.0 in retentionist countries; in 1970, the latest figures available, 4.65 in abolitionist countries and 7.65 in retentionist countries.
Noting the dreary and dreadful indication that it is increasing terribly in most countries, I cannot draw the conclusion that the retention of the final penalty has in fact curtailed, limited or diminished the murder rate. This is a significant, stirring and saddening statistic. When I relate that as best I can with the anomalies and contradictions in the bill, I will try to make up my mind fully how I shall cast my vote on this very important subject.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Immigration-Medical examination of immigrants-Government action to ensure adequacy; the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-Industry-Proposed closing of RCA Laboratories in Montreal-Government action to prevent; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Fries-en)-Publications-Possibility of action to control distribution of magazines-Government position.
June 14, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-84, the legislation currently before this House which, if passed by parliament, will introduce a new and significant phase into the criminal justice system of this country. This has been an extremely difficult decision for me to make, and I want to assure the constituents of my riding that I have reached it only pursuant to a great deal of discussion, research and careful thought.
There is no question that the preponderance of the voters of Scarborough West will disagree with the position I am taking in connection with this controversial aspect of social legislation. As a parliamentarian, I have no choice but to live with the knowledge that, having in the final analysis made up my mind against the justification of continuing with capital punishment legislation as a legitimate form of penalty, I am casting my ballot on this issue in a direction which flies in the face of the current trend of thinking, not only in the riding of Scarborough West but, quite clearly, across this great nation that we are all so proud to call our homes and native land.
All I can say to those I represent during this thirtieth parliament is that I have indeed considered very carefully each and every representation which has been made to me, whether in writing, in the course of the six public meetings held in Scarborough West in recent months on peace and security issues, or in numerous and often heated private discussions.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that I have also considered it part of my mandate and my specific responsibility, as an elected member of our nation's parliament, to conduct private research on the issue through those many facilities available to me and, as well, to listen carefully to those Canadians, including members of parliament, who have definite and well developed views on the opposite side of the issue. This research and these latter discussions, based as they were on circumstances in some ways uniquely available to me as a member of parliament, have led me through an agonizing period of indecision to one clear conclusion.
The conclusion I have reached is that the onus must fall on the supporters of capital punishment as a legitimate form of penalty in today's society to prove their point that the advantages to Canadian society to be gained from this brutal and violent form of punishment, one which is really nothing more nor less than a legalized form of state murder, be it by way of hanging or whatever other method might be evolved, outweigh the disadvantages that become
Capital Punishment
so obvious when the state is empowered through legislation to execute some of its members. Thus, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, in spite of the feelings of my constituents on the question, that logic dictates I really have no alternative other than to support a Criminal Code in Canada which, in attempting to both make the punishment fit the crime and at the same time ensuring adequate protection to Canadian society from those who would do its members harm, moves away from the last vestige of state-sanctioned physical violence that still includes murder, killing, hanging, or call it what you will, as a desirable method of handling some of the more heinous crimes which may be committed from time to time. Surely we must not permit our governing authorities in this day and age to engage in this form of legal violence unless the benefits outstrip the detriments accompanying such action.
Let us examine what is really being proposed in the legislation. Whether we like it or not, there has been a de facto absence of capital punishment as a form of penalty in Canada since 1962. A similar situation has existed in Belgium since 1863, and in such countries as Germany, Finland, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden and Great Britain of more recent date. None of these countries has completely legislated the death penalty off their books; they simply refuse to implement it through various legal means available to them under their respective laws. That has been the situation in Canada. Our criminal Code provides that the Governor General has the authority to commute death sentences. The fact of the matter is that the cabinet must review the record of evidence and recommendations from a judge who orders the sentence of death.
On the basis of this review it becomes a responsibility of the cabinet to recommend to the Governor General whether or not the death sentence should be carried out. What has been of some concern is that all such reviews have resulted in deferral of dates of execution or outright commutation of the death sentence. What I believe is less understood and less appreciated is that there have been only six commutations since 1967, half of which concerns cases which came to cabinet with the jury's recommendation for mercy.
Mr. Speaker, one must ask why all these automatic checkpoints are built into the legal system. They are not there in the case of any other sentences. Are we afraid, as a society, to make an error? If so, why are we less afraid in the case of other penalties? Why have we in years past carried out the death sentence in such secrecy, with as few witnesses present as possible? Have we been ashamed of our actions? Why have the cabinet and governors general of this country not authorized any executions since 1962? Surely the answer is obvious. Those in positions of authority and responsibility in Canada-and, I might add, in most other western countries-have had a nagging and horrendous feeling that the process was brutally wrong. Therefore, they have simply avoided the responsibility by exercising those safeguards provided in the law to the fullest extent possible.
I have no particular sympathy for the man or woman who takes the life of a fellow citizen in cold blood, regardless of the degree of provocation save complete selfdefence. I really have no idea whether such persons can ever be completely rehabilitated or restored to society as

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
normal human beings. There may be some who will respond to treatment, but I fear a large number will not. On the other hand, I am concerned about the families of the victims and earnestly believe that our criminal justice system should direct far more attention to their needs. I intend personally to work toward seeking improvements in this area in the name of a just and honourable society. The point remains, however, that my concerns for the victim and his or her near and dear ones, plus my lack of any particular sympathy for the guilty man or woman, do not in themselves lead me to accept that, even if such persons may have lost their right to live in society in the normal way, the state somehow inherits the right to take away all possible vestige of life itself through the brutal and final act of hanging them until they are dead.
Mr. Speaker, the state can be empowered by its citizens to be the weapon or the instrument-depending on how you look at it-for any deed we may consider to be desirable and within the means of the state to perform. On this basis, the reinstatement of capital punishment could be argued to be acceptable even if it meant restoring physical structures for that purpose in some provinces where they have long since been destroyed, for the provinces are called upon to administer the hanging procedure; even if it meant reverting to condoning a violent form of punishment by the state at a time when society is supposedly searching for every available means to reduce the amount of violence in society; even if it meant going it alone, as it were, as a nation when most countries of the industrialized west have long since abandoned this form of punishment.
Yes, the state can be given this power and this authority, but the question before us today is whether or not it should be given such power when for nearly 15 years we have indeed limited the authority to such an extent as to almost encourage the governing bodies of the state to choose not to exercise the brutal legislation at all. We seem to have done everything we can over the years to support what might be referred to as almost a weasling-out attitude on the part of authorities so that they might virtually ensure a discontinuance of this act of execution. We have done everything, that is, with the exception of removing the penalty itself from the statute books.
I have stated my position on the issue and have indicated some of the rationale leading me to the conclusion that, in the context of Canadian society in the latter half of the 1970s, it is my view that the proponents of the death penalty must be prepared to support their case against the increasingly forceful arguments that prevail on the other side. I have mentioned, among the latter, the situation prevailing in other western nations, the de facto experience, as it were, in our own country over the past 15 years and the obvious reluctance of governing authorities actually to implement the death sentence for whatever purpose or reason.
I would like to move, now, to the argument as to why the death penalty is inappropriate. If we are to give the state the power to take the life of a citizen by legal means- whether or not they implement it is almost beside the point-then this authority must, as mentioned earlier, be based on the argument that the existence of such power will surely act as a deterrent against future crimes of a like

nature and/or that the carrying out of such a sentence is a suitable and appropriate form of retribution-that is "the punishment fits the crime" philosophy.
Let us look, first, at the deterrence aspect. A careful review of all available statistics reveals that at best there is an extremely marginal case to be made for the death penalty as a deterrent; and on the other side of the coin there is indication of a reducing rate of first-degree murders where capital punishment has long since been abandoned as a legitimate punitive measure. Looking back a few centuries, we see that during the 38-year period of the reign of Henry VIII in England, from 1509 to 1547, there were 72,000 executions in that country, or an average of about five every two days. Bear in mind the relatively small population of the country at that time. Obviously, these executions were having little or no effect on the number of crimes committed for which the death penalty was considered an appropriate punishment to fit the crimes of the day.
By the year 1810, some 300 years later, England had moved to the position where some 300 different offences were punishable by capital punishment. Forty of these offences related to the area of forgery alone. It was only through the intervention of the banking fraternity itself- with some 1,000 bankers presenting a petition to the House of Commons at the time of Sir Robert Peel-that most of the forgery offences were deleted from the list of offences punishable by execution.
The simple reason for the reluctance to move was the concern that the absence of the authority of the state to take the life of the offender would indeed lead to an increase in the number of crimes relating to forgery. It never happened, Mr. Speaker. After 150 years of debate, England ultimately passed an act of abolition in 1965. This was followed by a continuing decrease in the number of murders per 100,000 of population in each of the next six years, with the exception of one. A recent move to reinstate the death penalty, owing largely to the terrorism rampant in some parts of the country, was turned aside by the British House of Commons. At the time the Home Secretary argued simply that to bring back the death penalty would be wrong and counterproductive in the fight against violent crime and terrorist murders. So much for the deterrence argument. In my view it contains little or no substance.
I want to move now to the argument whether the reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada, bearing in mind its de facto absence over a 15-year period, would be just and appropriate as a form of penalty best designed to fit the crime of first-degree murder. Here we are referring to the retribution argument. In speaking to this aspect, Mr. Speaker, let me make one viewpoint quite clear-one that my six public meetings in the riding confirmed as being largely in tune with the thinking of the electorate-and that is the clear intent that capital punishment, if continued as a legitimate form of penalty in Canada, should be made applicable to all those convicted of first-degree murder and not simply restricted to the murder of prison guards and police officers. It is my understanding that the police officers themselves would share this viewpoint, and so would many constituents who were abhorred over the cold-blooded murder of a Scarborough taxi driver a year or
June 14, 1976

so ago. Thus, we are talking about the legitimacy of the death penalty for first-degree murders, period, with no restriction as to its limited application over a designated sector society.
It seems to me that the retribution argument must in itself be viewed from at least three aspects, Mr. Speaker. First, there is the age-old argument of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Surely this went out long ago. Philosophically, we might compare the teachings of the New Testament to this Old Testament concept. That, alone, is some 2,000 years ago. In the intervening period we have seen the disappearance of most sadistic and torturous forms of punishment imposed by various states in their endeavour, presumably, to relate the punishment more closely to the nature of the crime. Some people argued, at my public meetings, for a return of some of these crime-related punishments. However, by and large the most convinced retentionist does not argue in this vein.
Accepting this, why should we accept capital punishment as an appropriate form of penalty for the crime of murder? If we refuse to accept a violent form of state-instituted bodily harm, such as stretching, dismemberment, or, indeed, the cat-o'-nine tails in today's society as a fitting retribution for heinous crimes by the guilty person on the body of the victim, why continue to accept the violence of breaking a person's neck in two for a crime of murder? I have received no satisfactory answer to that question.
The second aspect of the retribution issue is the expressed desire to ensure an adequately severe form of punishment for what is undoubtedly the most brutal of all forms of crime-taking the life of another person. In my view, imprisonment for life may result in an even more severe form of punishment in many aspects than the relatively simple and "once and for all" aspect of hanging. There has been one recent and well publicized example of this, where a lifer being interviewed on television stated unequivocally that he would rather hang than linger on indefinitely behind bars with little hope of any form of normal life in the distant future. It seems to me that is a most forceful argument in favour of life imprisonment in that the guilty person himself looks upon it as a more severe penalty than the single and yet final act of execution.
The third aspect of the retribution argument relates to life itself and who should have the power or authority to take it away. The state grants each one of us the freedom under which we live, but it by no means is the instrument through which we were granted life. I would thus argue that the state is quite entitled to remove our individual freedom at any time we indicate an inability to use this freedom in a responsible manner, as in the case of the commission of a crime against another member of society.
However, this entitlement does not extend, in my view, to the taking away of life. That is a matter that should be more appropriately left in the hands of those responsible for giving it in the first place. Thus, I can readily accept the argument of a murderer having lost his right to freedom and a normal life in society. What I cannot accept is this argument being extended to the point where society
Capital Punishment
commissions the state as the appropriate authority, not only to ensure that the loss of freedom aspect is respected through the means of imprisonment but, further, that the state be empowered to take the violent step of dispossessing the guilty individual of life itself.
I have attempted to present my argument in a rational and logical manner, eliminating as much as possible the emotional aspect. Yet I know and respect the emotions that are generated among Canadians today, both in Scarborough West and elsewhere in the country, when they witness an increase in the area of violent crime in general and a seeming disinclination on the part of the courts and the justice system to act in a speedy and definite manner to apprehend and punish the offender in a suitable way. I share this concern and, in addition to prodding the government to give more careful consideration to the needs of the victim and his or her close family, I also intend to press for more concerned action in the area of speedy apprehension and trial of persons charged with crimes against other members of our society.
I also intend to watch carefully over provisions relating to the early release of those charged with more serious offences. Many of these aspects are covered in the legislation accompanying this bill, and I believe it is essential that both Bills C-83 and C-84 receive the approval of this thirtieth parliament as quickly as possible. This will enable Canadian society to take a major step toward securing a reduction in the extent of violent crime in our country.
While my stance today indicates my objections to capital punishment both as a deterrent and as an appropriate form of retribution in the context of today's society, I do not condone an overly lax or inattentive attitude to the frustrations of society and its law officers to the problems relating to inadequacies in the administration of our justice system.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon there was an exchange in the House between the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the member who was speaking at the time in which I was involved in the form of a point of order. There was a question raised as to how the government ought to have proceeded in respect of the dissemination of material setting forth both sides of this issue. At that time I advanced the argument that this was a free vote-at least, in terms of our party it is to be absolutely and completely free-and that perhaps in those circumstances there was a duty on the government to advance the arguments, statistics and learned writings on both sides of the case.
I found later on that there was in fact a precedent for that point of view during the time of the late Hon. Guy Favreau when he was minister of justice and there was prepared a guide for parliamentarians in respect of the legislation put forward at that time. I regret very much that that kind of attitude was not taken and that that kind of material has not been made available to hon. members of the House at this time.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out to the hon. member that the material he has referred to which was put out under Hon. Guy Favreau was brought up to date in 1973 and put out again. This was
14474

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
the Grenier report to which I referred in answer to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). I pointed out there were other reports that covered both sides as well. The one the hon. member referred to originally was put out under Mr. Favreau and was brought up to date by my department in 1973 for the debate then. Recent statistics put out have brought that up to date again.


Walter David Baker: It seems to me, though, Mr. Speaker-and this is the reason I raised it-that this debate has taken upon itself something less than a free vote-something less than it ought to be. I am, quite frankly, very much concerned by the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated, in terms of the Liberal party, that this is a matter of solidarity at least in so far as the position of the cabinet is concerned.


An hon. Member:: He never said that.


Walter David Baker: We can debate that point, and there will be other speakers follow me who will refer to it. This is a government bill in so far as the cabinet is concerned. I am very much concerned about this matter in terms of the freedom of the vote.
The other thing which worries me is the attempt by the government and those who would ask us to support the bill to suggest there is some form of onus on those who would oppose the bill to justify the position they have taken or will take when they vote. We heard that this afternoon, and we heard it pretty well every day during the course of the debate. I am not questioning the good faith of those who argue for this bill but, quite frankly, I think that aspect of our affairs is completely reversed.
I recall in 1973, when we last dealt with this bill and when I came into the House for the first time, listening carefully to the speeches made at the time, listening carefully to the solicitor general of the day put forward the bill, and listening to those who supported him by indicating it was a reasonable and proper proposition at the time to ask this House to support a bill which continued the experiment of abolition of the death penalty which had gone on five years before. Those who supported the measure at that time also said there was a good case for continuing the retention of the death penalty for the murderers of policemen and prison guards who were murdered in the course of performing their duty.
That proposition was put to us on the basis of the evidence that existed at the time. I supported the bill at that time. But the question I must ask myself today, as a member of parliament considering this legislation and who must stand by himself to vote and decide, is whether the circumstances of our society to which this bill applies in terms of the death penalty are better or worse today, and whether in view of those circumstances I can in the exercising of my right to vote in this place change the position I took in 1973.
Quite frankly, I have thought and I have worried about it because I do not take any vote lightly. I have come to the conclusion that the circumstances are such that I cannot support the proposal by the government which would abolish the death penalty for the killers of policemen, prison 
guards and other people in authority acting in the course of their duty.
The interesting thing about this bill is that it does not make a different individual out of a policeman or prison guard as a person, but only relates to that person in the course of his duty. We ask something of prison guards, of policemen, of constables, of custodial officers, of wardens, of jailers, of keepers, of guards and of permanent employees of prisons, to use the words of the statute, that we do not ask of ourselves-that is, we ask them to enter into circumstances for our protection. If there is an argument to be advanced, or if there is a statistic to be advanced which would indicate that the position taken by the government in 1973 ought to be different in 1976, then I would like to hear it. Until I hear it, and until I can be satisfied that that position is changed for the better, then I think I am bound to be consistent with what I stood for in 1973.
Given the very limited circumstances in which we speak of retention as opposed to abolition, the other question that has arisen in the course of this debate is the whole matter of deterrence. What has happened in the course of this debate, and even this afternoon out of the mouth of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), is that we have heard arguments both for and against capital punishment as if we were talking today about a law which said that all murderers were to be hanged. But we have gone far beyond that. I say, with respect and with some deference, that it is coming quite close to intellectual dishonesty to use the arguments that would have applied in the day when we were discussing the first movement away from the death penalty, at a period of time when we are now discussing the death penalty as it applies to a very narrow class. That is the first point.
I have looked for, and I have not found, one statistic which advances or supports the limited position. We are asked to accept the argument that in no case is the death penalty a deterrent. I cannot believe that is so. I cannot bring myself to accept the position that in every case involving the death of persons in the cases I have described, which are set forth in section 214 of the Criminal Code, where there has been an opportunity, in a way perhaps of husband and wife, or businessmen dealing one with another, do not have the opportunity to premeditate and think in advance, the death penalty is not a deterrent.
It is my fate, I suppose, as best I can, with my training and background in the law as a defence counsel, and as a Crown attorney-and I am very proud to have served in both capacities-to have to put my feet in the shoes of the accused and ask myself, if this were me, would I be deterred by the knowledge of the penalty?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: If this were "I".


Walter David Baker: I stand corrected. If this were I, and I had a certain knowledge of the consequences, namely, the imposition of the death penalty, would I be deterred from committing a crime that would lead to that even? Looking at it personally, I have to say that I cannot conceive of a situation, given a level of understanding or given a level of sanity, in which I would not be so deterred and in which other people would not be deterred. So I believe it is a false argument to say that the
June 14, 1976

death penalty is not a deterrent, because I think there are cases where it is. If there are cases where it is, as I believe we can find, I think it is incumbent upon us to ask ourselves what we are asking of those who, as the Minister of Justice said, are acting in the protection of society. We should ask ourselves what they are undertaking, with the setting aside of the death penalty.
So far as the statistics are concerned, when we are dealing with a matter of this nature with respect to the number of murders that have taken place, it is my respectful submission that there is no statistic available anywhere to indicate the number of murders that have not taken place as a result of the consideration of the penalty. Surely, if lesser penalties are regarded as deterrents for lesser crimes, then the supreme penalty must be regarded as a deterrent for the supreme crime, the taking of human life. So, sir, I do not intend to support this bill.
Another matter which has come up in this House is the whole question of conscience. I refuse to accept that in one way or another votes taken by members of parliament on an issue of this nature are matters of conscience and that other votes are not matters of conscience. I think that in one way or another all votes taken by members of parliament are matters of conscience. While I would want to retain the independence of my own conscience, in terms of any vote I take, whether on capital punishment or otherwise, I cannot condemn, and I would not condemn, members of parliament who have decided that as a matter of conscience they wish to represent, in their vote, what they feel are the wishes of their constituents.
Surely, if a member wishes to represent the 100,000 or so people who sent him or her here, this is a matter for the conscience of that member of parliament. We are sent here to make judgments. We cannot confer on every issue with our constituents. We have to decide how we will vote, we have to decide on what basis we will vote, and we have to decide what will motivate us with respect to voting. I have not taken a poll in my constituency. I do not think I have to do that. I think I know my constituents well enough to know that in terms of their feelings about this piece of legislation and the issue of capital punishment they feel as strongly as any other group of Canadians.
However, with that feeling which I know exists, as a member of parliament I have to make a decision on the legislation which is put before me, on the debate I have heard and on the consequences, as I see them, if this bill passes in terms of the custodial people I have described. I believe we will be doing them and, indirectly, society a disservice if we do not make the proper decision. I do not accept the argument that the retention of the death penalty for the limited number of people it would affect in any way is exclusive to the whole issue of improving conditions in society. Nor do I accept that there is no place in our system of justice for the proper use of the royal prerogative of mercy. The emphasis has to be on the words "proper use".
I recognize too that there can be difficulties in terms of the trial of an accused. Mistakes can be made in the course of trials. Those mistakes can be made no matter what crime or accused is being tried. We might consider the
Capital Punishment
offence a lesser offence or a greater offence, but those are the vicissitudes which have to be faced in any human institution. The system of justice which we use in this country as it is incorporated in the Criminal Code in terms of criminal law and the appellate process is perhaps the best in the world, and if those aspects of the legal machinery should fail there is a place for the proper use of the royal prerogative of mercy. I think that if there is any doubt in terms of whether an accused was properly identified, whether evidence was admitted which ought not have been admitted, whether there was some question of the mental balance of the accused, or a host of other matters which might arise in a capital case, then no one who is reasonable in this country could condemn a cabinet for exercising that royal prerogative of mercy.
I know that generally cabinets in the past-and I assume cabinets of the future will do so-perhaps took more time with respect to commutation matters than other matters which might have come before them. The cabinet decision has a profound effect on the life of a human being, and that is as it should be. However, the responsibility to administer the law and to act in accordance with the law is an important one. What has happened, unfortunately, in the operation of our system is that there has been a suspicion abroad that government decisions have been based more on how ministers feel-although perhaps honestly and strongly-than on administering the law. I hope that that is not so because I do not believe we should be subject to the rule of man but rather we should be subject to the rule of law.
This is not a very easy speech for me to make, and it will not be an easy vote for me. I am not a violent person, but I believe that there is a case to be made for the retention now in the law on the basis of the deterrent effects the death penalty can have on those who have an opportunity to think about what they are doing, and having had that opportunity, go ahead and act anyway. It is because of that very important aspect of premeditation that the present law ought to stand and that this bill should be defeated.
I respect the opinions of those who differ with me. I am sure that those who differ with me feel as strongly as I do. I believe that this House should come to a decision fairly quickly with respect to this matter, subject to the right of each hon. member who wants to speak on the principle of the bill to do so.
I had not intended to speak at all in the course of this debate, but after I read and listened, I felt that I had to rise and put my position as honestly, fairly, succinctly and as briefly as I could, and I want to thank the House for its respectful attention to what I have had to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, this has to be one of the longest debates I have seen in the House of Commons since I became a member of parliament back in 1968. I think this is one of the issues upon which hon. members have really had to dig down deep and put their thoughts, minds, hearts, and souls on the line because it is an issue which deals with life and death. These life and death issues are not always easy to deal with.
I am not going to speak very long in this debate. Many of the arguments have been made, and made well, by speak-
95570-16%

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
ers on both sides of the issue. This will be a free vote for all of us, despite what some hon. members opposite might try to say. It will be a free vote for the cabinet.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Oh, no.


Len Marchand: It will be a free vote for the cabinet despite what some hon. members opposite might think or say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: I know each
member in our caucus, and with all honesty and from my own knowledge of each of them I can say that they will truly be voting according to their consciences and according to what they believe. In my own case, I have wrestled back and forth. There was a time in my life when I was a retentionist, absolutely. I was concerned about some of the rather heinous crimes, the rather rotten crimes that were foisted upon us by criminals, such as the killing of young children, young men or young women. But after I surveyed the issue and looked at it very carefully I came to the conclusion that there is no place in the law books of our country, a civilized country like ours, for the death penalty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am going to support Bill C-84 and vote in favour of abolishing the death penalty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: The chief motivation I have for voting for the bill is my respect for human life. There is a lot of opinion on this side of the issue and I think some of it is best expounded by the various churches. I think the largest group of public opinion that makes the point on this side of the issue comes from the churches, and I should like to read some brief statements by the churches that back up my statement. Bishop G. Emmett Carter, President of the Canadian Catholic Conference, states:
Parliament should abolish the death penalty and "bring about the reforms which are necessary in our penitentiary system and in all areas of justice.
A society which really respects life cannot use the death penalty to protect itself and at the same time create an atmosphere wherein other human rights will be respected. Moreover, violence engenders violence and the death penalty is a violent act. The spirit of the gospel is one which leads us to favour mercy and clemency."
The seventeenth General Council of the United Church of Canada states:
We affirm our belief that capital punishment is contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ.
The statement of the Anglican Church, written by Dr. Leonard Hatfield, is equally profound:
Surely the taking of life is not conducive to the recognition of the worth of the individual and the consequent protection of society.
There can be no question about the unfortunate influence of an execution upon many other persons. For instance, prisoners often identify themselves with the condemned person. They see in his death the

ultimate rejection of those who through life have been rejected by society, so they hate society the more.
There are just some of the statements. I could go on. There has been a lot of debate about whether capital punishment is a deterrent. I think if people read with an open mind and and open heart all the information that is available they should be convinced, as I am, that no case can be made for taking a man's or woman's life as a deterrent to murder. It just is not so. You can look at the statistics and consider the body of opinion and you will see fluctuations and changes from year to year all around the world.
Countries that have been abolitionist have shown fluctuations, and countries that still use the death penalty have shown wide fluctuations in their views. One year the statistics would be very high and another year they would be very low. If you look at the so-called murder graph, if you want to put it that way, in terms of countries that are retentionist versus countries that are abolitionist, it comes out very clearly on the side of those countries that are abolitionist.
In 1975 the murder rate in abolitionist countries was 2.8 per 100,000 population; in the retentionist countries it was 4.95 per 100,000 of population. In 1966 the figures were 3.45 abolitionist, 5.9 retentionist; in 1967, 3.25 abolitionist, 6.35 retentionist; 1968, 3.9 abolitionist, 6.7 retentionist; in 1969, 4.0 abolitionist, 7.0 retentionist, and in 1970 they were 4.65 abolitionist and 7.65 retentionist. I think these figures show very clearly that taking a human life is not a deterrent to murder.
One of the fears that many of my constituents have is that people get out on easy parole terms and I must say I have been somewhat concerned about that as well. I am glad to see that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has taken steps to change the law so that there is really no such thing as easy parole.
I am also pleased to see a clause in Bill C-83 that would deal with the habitual criminal. Criminologists and others who deal with the penal system know very well that there are some people who can be described as an accident looking for a place to happen. These people will no longer be turned out into society if it can be shown that they really are in the category of an accident looking for a place to happen. They just will not ever get out again. I think that is fine, because society must be protected. That is what Bill C-83 and Bill C-84 are all about-the protection of society. We must be concerned with it, and we must find the best way possible to protect society against violent crimes.
From 1920 to 1974 182 persons were granted parole often a death sentence. Only 14 had their parole revoked for misbehaviour, and only nine of these had again committed an indictable offence.
Between 1867 and 1975, in the entire history of our country, only one who had his death sentence commuted committed a second murder. These are pretty substantial bits of evidence that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
I said in the beginning that I was not going to speak very long, and I shall not, as I think there are other members who wish to speak. I just wish to reaffirm my position that I shall vote in favour of Bill C-84. I do not think there is
June 14, 1976

any place in a civilized society for the death penalty, and it should be abolished.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I for one was not going to enter this debate until I saw some of the tactics being used by the government to manipulate the House into an early passage of Bill C-84. As a result I have reviewed the situation, and tonight I should like to say a few words touching first of all on the whole question of urgency. Why does the government seem to feel it is so urgent that this legislation be passed quickly without, I would suggest, due committee review, and before the House recesses?
I say that because the last time we dealt with this general question was in the last parliament. It was only in December, 1973, that we passed Bill C-2. It provided the limited continuation of the death penalty, until December 31, 1977. You will recall that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) almost pleaded for the bill to be accepted; he said he needed extra time in which to gather statistics in order to make a meaningful review. He was concerned about an 18-year review, and specifically about figures relating to the periods 1956-62, 1962-68, and 1968-74. He made a good argument at that time.
Having read the minister's most uninformative statement as reported in Hansard, and the 55-page statement which was not reported in Hansard but which was delivered outside the House on the same day, I conclude that the minister glossed over certain statistics; which were allegedly, the very reason for his wanting an extension of the provisions of Bill C-2 to which I have already referred.
The minister indicated that the murder rate per 100,000 of population rose from 1.2 in 1962 to 2.4 in 1974. He included these facts in the statement, made in this House and outside. But he did not point out that in the previous six years the murder rate had remained static at about 1 per 100,000 for the period ended 1962. In those previous six years it hovered at approximately one per year, and the significant increase in the murder rate occurred in the last 12 years.
I believe, as does my party's House leader, that if the government was serious about allowing a free vote on the bill the Solicitor General would have presented as ably as possible all statistics bearing on those three six-year review periods to which I previously referred. Therefore the first point with which I wished to deal this evening was the question of urgency. There is no urgency.
Second, I wish to touch briefly on the 55-page ministerial statement to which I alluded earlier. I shall quote certain parts of that statement to show that it contains conflicting positions. Before I do so, I wish to deal with this general proposition: is capital punishment a deterrent? I shall review the experience of other countries.
Contrary to what the Liberals and socialists like to think, there is no stampede on the part of the world's nations in the abolitionist direction. States are not stampeding to become abolitionist. Certainly United Nations records make that clear, records prepared by United Nations officials who themselves, obviously, are abolitionists, show capital punishment is increasing. They
Capital Punishment
state, in despair, that the nations of the world are increasingly imposing the death penalty, that such imposition is on the increase, not on the decrease. I point out that the Communist states of the world are uniform in retaining the death penalty. Not one has done away with the death penalty; yet those in this House who espouse the virtues of some of those states say we should be abolitionists.


Mr. Gilbert:: I didn't know you were a Communist.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Such hon. members are selective when referring to their Communist friends in other countries. They like to quote them when it suits their purpose and to ignore them if it is embarrrassing.
I should like to review specifically the provisions of the bill itself. Some hon. members including those on the government side, have spoken about so-called tough parole provisions. I wish to refer hon. members to certain specific clauses to which, for some reason, the minister did not refer, either in his lengthy statement made outside the House or in the statement he put on the Hansard record. For example, there is this provision: even though a man may be imprisoned for life, he may leave jail if he has an escort. Mr. Speaker, I have checked this. The bill would give a person who has been jailed, presumably for life, the privilege of absenting himself from jail, provided he has an escort. How can you call that being harsh with the criminal, being harsh with the convicted murderer?
I am sorry the minister did not deal specifically, clause by clause, with some of these provisions on which I wish to touch later this evening.


William Warren Allmand: This is second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member cannot do that at this time. He should discuss the clauses of the bill in committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member on my left says I cannot do that at this time and that I should leave the discussion of such matters until the bill is in committee. Are we not to comment on certain provisions in the bill, which the minister introduced, which are unduly lax? When the hon. member speaks of the committee review I ask, what sort of committee review will take place with regard to this bill? The guillotine is to be used. The chairman of the committee is an abolitionist; he has sat in the House, pounding his desk to applaud every abolitionist speech made in the House. But still we are told that there is to be meaningful review in the committee, a committee dominated by government members without the courage to accept this bill as a straightforward, government bill, and without the courage to ask the nation to endorse, or otherwise, their actions. We are told that the vote on the bill is to be a so-called free vote; but the cabinet is required to vote en bloc.
If I had time before six o'clock I would quote the minister's words, words which suggest that this is a government bill and that, contrary to the suggestions of certain ministers, the vote, as far as the cabinet is concerned, is not to be a free vote.


William Warren Allmand: How can you sleep at night?


John Gilbert: He doesn't.

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I say this because some in this House wish to act in a manner against the will of the Canadian public. To me, if democracy is to flourish, it must continue to evolve. This House must facilitate the expression of the public will and provide for the implementation of that will. I suggest that our system has developed certain rigidities which allow the few, in this case the abolitionists, to impose their view on the majority in this country. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, before the six o'clock adjournment I was touching on various matters coming under Bill C-84. I felt I should set the record straight this evening concerning the question of a so-called free vote with respect to Bill C-84. When this matter was before us in October, 1973, in the last parliament, the question of the free vote was dealt with, and at that time the Solicitor General was relatively free in his comments. I draw the attention of the House to Hansard for October 18, 1973, page 7015. At that time, referring to Bill C-2, the Solicitor General stated:
This is a government bill. For the members of our party and all other parties, as far as we are concerned it is a free vote, but not for the government, meaning the cabinet.
I refer to that because as far as I know-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is quite correct that I did say that. However, within a few days I was corrected by both the House leader and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said, contrary to what I said, that it was a free vote for the cabinet and all those on the government side. I was, therefore, corrected in that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the Solicitor General is correct with regard to my reference in 1973, perhaps he will be rising on a further question of privilege in a few moments because, on February 12, 1976, dealing with Bill C-84, the bill before us, there is a long exchange between my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and the Solicitor General, at which time my colleague was trying to get this identified. He asked whether in fact the Prime Minister said he would resign if this abolitionist legislation did not go through. There was some fencing that went on, and finally my colleague from Calgary North asked the Solicitor General, and I quote:
-I should like to ask him pointblank if he can assure the House on behalf of the government, and particularly members of cabinet, that there will be a free vote in this House on capital punishment when the bill is presented?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, it will be similar to the last occasion when we dealt with this. There will be a government bill to which the government will be

committed, but members of this House who are not with the government will be free to vote on it as they see fit.
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) then said:
You have said it all now-no free vote.


William Warren Allmand: I was again corrected after that. Maybe I tried to give expression to my wishes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Solicitor General keeps commenting that he has been correcting statements made on earlier occasions in this House. I think it is fair to ask him when do we believe him and when do we not. On two separate occasions dealing with two separate bills, C-2 and C-84, he categorically stated it was a free vote for everybody but the cabinet. Then he says that on two separate occasions he corrected the record after discussion with two members of the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: He was corrected. He did not correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has the floor and I suggest he be given the chance to make his point.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: One or two members on the government side are obviously feeling very touchy about this item. They ask, "What has it got to do with the bill before us?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I suggest it has everything to do with it. This is a government bill and the fact is that there will not be a free vote. The government does not have the courage to tell the Canadian people that it is trying to inflict abolition on the nation against its will.
Before the House rose for dinner I mentioned that in my view for democracy to flourish it should continually evolve. I believe it essential that public opinion should be allowed to express itself. I said our system had developed certain rigidities, a situation which is presently allowing a minority, in this case a minority of abolitionists, to assert its will over the majority of Canadians. The parliamentary system is allowing this because there has been so little change in that system over the past century.
Governments have learned that by catering to minorities they can secure re-election and deal harshly with certain sections of public opinion. They have learned that they can frustrate the will of the majority-it is just the question of choosing the right time. In the view of the administration, this is an opportune moment, about two years away from the next election, to inflict abolition on the state. That is one of the issues I intend to deal with tonight.
Few electors in this country can comprehend the degree of power held by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today, though many senior officials in the public service and his intimate advisers do. Oscar Wilde's quip, made some 80 years ago, that democracy meant simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people might well be an apt description of the government's approach to this legislation. It appears that between elections there is little need to court public opinion. After an election date is decided upon, the wooing process begins. New programs are offered with
June 14, 1976

particular appeal to vocal minorities. Regional interests are championed. Stress is laid on proposed new handouts with little mention of their eventual cost to the public at large.
Once re-elected the government is subjected to little restraint or discipline. With a majority in parliament, it is supreme. This situation has arisen here and elsewhere after 30 years of Liberal-socialistic rule in western democracies. Those who once were reformers, who indeed sought democracy, have become unresponsive to the wishes of today's majority and impatient with the democratic process itself. They now use our parliamentary institution as a device to impose their minority views on the majority. They are confident the next election will turn little on today's issues and more on personalities and the floss of the day. Examples of this attitude are numerous.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), leading spokesman on this bill for the NDP contingent in parliament, speaking in favour of the government's bill to abolish capital punishment, sums up his thinking when he says, as reported at page 13096 of Hansard for May 3, 1976:
I regret that so many people in our society misunderstand and think that they have the right, because they believe they have a majority, to decide how we should vote.
I hope all members noted the odd terminology used by the hon. member for Greenwood while, in effect, seconding the passage of this bill on behalf of the Solicitor General.


Mr. Abbott:: You hate democracy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is right. The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) said "They hate democracy." The hon. member put it very well. If he reads what the hon. member for Greenwood said a little later on he will find he elaborated on this question of how parliamentarians should relate their votes to the wishes of their constituents.
I would draw attention to the fact that the Solicitor General took the same tone with respect to this bill as did the hon. member for Greenwood, saying-as can be confirmed by reference to page 44 of the prepared text of his speech-that somehow or other members should sit in this House and vote according to their own consciences or according to their own convictions, in spite of evidence that the public will would have them do otherwise. Both those hon. members referred to Edmund Burke, a Conservative, to justify their stand on this issue. Mr. Speaker, Edmund Burke is a well-known authority, but surely for two members, the minister and the hon. member for Greenwood, to suggest we should be bound by the views of a Conservative politician 202 years ago is absolutely ridiculous. I question whether either of them troubled to check out the situation in England at the time the speech to which they were referring was made to the electors of Bristol in 1774.
At that time, when Burke spoke of his role as a member of parliament, the total number of people who were actually able to vote in England was less than 100,000. Members were in fact elected through "pocket boroughs" and other cozy arrangements; the age of widespread enfranchisement in England had not yet been reached. When Burke spoke, the population of England was some seven million. Means of communication were sketchy. There was, of course, no radio, no telephone network, no television. There was no
Capital Punishment
way in which the public at large could be rapidly informed concerning the issues of the day.
What I find interesting is that when members opposed to abolition quote from the Bible or from other religious sources concerning capital punishment, the response from the other side is always, "Do not take those statements out of context." Yet this is exactly what those very members have done with respect to Edmund Burke's comments. What he was saying was merely this: he was asking the voters of Bristol to realize that when he went to Westminster they should not expect him to vote only in the interests of the electors of Bristol but, rather, that they should expect him to vote in the interests of the nation as a whole.
Put in a different context, he was saying that when a member is elected from Toronto he should not be expected to go to parliament and become a protagonist for the interests of Toronto as against, for example, the interests of Montreal or some other city. Edmund Burke was suggesting that we should sit here to consider the interests of the nation, not local issues. If I may quote him directly, he said:
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one purpose, that of the whole;-
I hear the House leader applauding that.
-where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.
I was hoping that the Solicitor General and the House leader as well as others on the government side would applaud that as they did, since they do not seem to know in subsequent years Edmund Burke said something entirely different. For example, in his speech in 1780 on the economical report Edmund Burke had this to say, and I would draw it to the attention of the Solicitor General he said that the people are the masters.


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course; the people can throw them out.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The House leader says that the people can throw them out. I can assure you that the people will throw you out if you give them half a chance. Call an election on this issue before us today and just see what happens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. Would the hon. member please address the Chair.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Edmund Burke, in his tract on the property laws, also said this:
In all forms of government the people is the true legislator.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Read it all. Tell us what he went on to say next.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is the quote that is relevant. If the hon. member wishes to quote Edmund Burke he can get up a little later and do so. Let me give the House another quotation from Edmund Burke, since this has been intro-

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
duced by abolitionists in an attempt to make members of this House feel a little better when they vote against the wishes of their constituents and on the basis of their own convictions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has the floor.


John Gilbert: I thought Edmund Burke had it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The whip on the government side was asking for some additional quotations from Edmund Burke. In his letter to the sheriffs at Bristol, Edmund Burke had this to say:
If any ask me what a free government is, I answer, that for any practical purpose, it is what the people think so.
The point I want to make is that in a democratic society it is wrong for any government to be imposing the abolition of capital punishment on the people without at least asking for their views by way of a referendum, so as to guide the government. The people want retention. So do I. That is why I oppose this bill.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Why does you leader support it? Tell us about Joe Clark.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would ask the government why it has consistently refused to hold a referendum. As we all know, in California five million people, some 67 per cent of those who voted on the plebiscite or referendum in that state, voted for capital punishment, and the California state legislature in 1974 re-enacted capital punishment in response to the referendum. Why does this government wish to duck out of the issue and not consult the public on this important question?


William Warren Allmand: That provision is in their constitution.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Why don't you become an American?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I find the comments from hon. members opposite typical of an arrogant government that is ready to fall. In fact one of their members was telling me just before the break that he was hoping to get on tonight with his abolitionist speech because he was wavering and may have to speak for capital punishment tomorrow, he was so undecided.


William Warren Allmand: That shows how free the vote is.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Solicitor General keeps raising this question of a free vote. Perhaps he could clarify this. Does he anticipate that any member of the Cabinet is going to vote against his bill?


William Warren Allmand: Are you asking me a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps in due course you can answer that. I said before the break that I intended to review the situation with respect to capital punishment in other countries. As I was saying, some kind of aura has been put around this to try to show that Canada is out of step with

other countries of the world, that we are one of the last retentionist countries, or will be if this bill should not pass. That, Mr. Speaker, is just not true.
I refer hon. members to various publications of the United Nations, including one that was published on February 23, 1973. In that publication there is a review of the state of the death penalty around the world, and paragraph 73 on page 21 of the report reads as follows:
Since the intention of the General Assembly embodied in resolution 3011 is to promote abolition, it would seem that there is still much more to be done. Opinion polls made in abolitionist countries as well as retentionist countries show a majority of people favouring capital punishment. It is also evident that on a world scale, Governments are inclined to favour the maintenance of this penalty.


William Warren Allmand: How many are democratic countries?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Paragraph 74:
The death penalty is always used when a particular problem seems to grow out of proportion and frightens public opinion or when a political opposition has to be crushed.
The report then states that all communist countries have the death penalty-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -and it makes the point that many countries have made no progress at all towards abolition of the death penalty. Indeed, in some cases it has been used more widely, and harsher methods have been used to put the condemned to death.
As I say, that report was published in 1973. Then on February 12, 1975, an updated report was published which is really more startling. At page 6 of the report it is pointed out that only nine member states were abolitionist by law; that is, that the law does not provide for the death penalty. Since this report was published one more country has been added, making a total of 10. In other words, we would be the eleventh abolitionist nation if we approved this bill as proposed by the government.


William Warren Allmand: How many have de facto?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Some 101 countries retain capital punishment for ordinary offences, the report points out. If the Solicitor General has not read this report I would recommend that he do so because it gives the number of executions carried out in Japan, for example.


William Warren Allmand: Carried out where?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Japan. Would you like to know the number?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Solicitor General wants to know how many. In the period under review, 71 persons-69 men and two women-were executed in Japan. Does that satisfy you, Mr. Solicitor General?


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At page 9 of this updated report of the United Nations, Item No. 48 states:
June 14, 1976

It remains extremely doubtful whether there is any progression towards the restriction of the use of the death penalty. Periods of abolition or non-use may be succeeded by widespread executions in a highly unstable political situation or by a sudden return to the death penalty as a sanction where a State feels insecure. Moreover, in a few States where serious forms of terror and violence have been experienced, the death penalty has been used increasingly as counterterror, or deterrence.
That is an interesting new conclusion in that report, and I invite hon. members to read both reports because I believe, unlike the Solicitor General's presentation, this report is a fair presentation of the state of the death penalty at this time around the world, written incidentally by abolitionists, in the sense that the United Nations has hoped for more abolition than there is presently in the world.
I mentioned earlier that I would like to touch upon certain provisions in the legislation. I was rather surprised that the Solicitor General did not give some type of overview of the various provisions, but I realize he should not be referring to them clause by clause. I would point out to hon. members that general impression has been created, that somehow when we adopt abolition there will be tougher parole laws and tougher treatment of those people adjudged guilty, but that is not in accordance with the facts as you will see if you read this bill. There are provisions dealing, for example, with time spent in custody. Before I read the bill carefully I did not realize that the minister contemplated that when he had written in the reference to a firm 15 years or 25 years, he meant it to be clear that the time started running from the time an individual was charged and not from when he was convicted.
Let me point out that there are three individuals awaiting execution on July 15, 1976. One was first charged in October 1971, the second was first charged in February, 1973, and the third was charged in June, 1973. I would think it reasonable to anticipate that a person could spend five years, perhaps, and certainly three, going through the various judicial procedures prior to final conviction, and that that time apparently would be included as part of the time to be served in prison.
There are two provisions I find particularly interesting. The first is a provision which allows the parliament of Canada to enact, by express reference to the act we contemplate passing, a new act freeing a man who has been duly convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. This is something I do not think the public fully understands. This bill does not just contemplate doing away with the death penalty by requiring a person to be imprisoned for life. Nobody need be imprisoned for life under this bill if he can get this parliament or a subsequent parliament to take up his case and enact a special act to spring him. For those who say that somehow or other a life imprisonment is worse even than hanging, let me point out that no one, even if he is sentenced to life, need despair because he can take up his case with the government or any member of this House who can try to secure his freedom through the passage of another act, making reference to the part I referred to in Bill C-84.
There is another clause in this bill which I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members. It states that:
Capital Punishment
Notwithstanding the Penitentiary Act and the Parole Act, in the case of any person sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole for a specified number of years pursuant to this Act, no absence without escort may be authorized under the Penitentiary Act and no day parole may be granted under the Parole Act-
That made me very curious. I wanted to know what was meant by "no absence without escort". Here we have a convicted murderer imprisoned supposedly for life, and yet he may absent himself from prison as long as he is escorted. I checked the Penitentiary Act and I found there were two people who could let any criminal out. First, the commissioner can let such a criminal out for an unlimited period for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding 15 days for humanitarian reasons, or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate. In addition, the officer in charge can allow a prisoner out for a period not exceeding 15 days for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding three days for humanitarian reasons, or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate. Mr. Speaker even if you are not a retentionist, how can this House support such soft treatment for a convicted murderer? I believe it is important-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the hon. member would be given unanimous consent to continue.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Why did you say no?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair heard somebody say "no", so the hon. member for Peace River has the floor.


Gerald William Baldwin: I accept the keenness of your hearing, Mr. Speaker. I would not disagree with the Chair's right to hear, as that is one of the few benefits that accrue to distinguished people like yourself who occupy that office.
Before I begin some of my comments I want to touch for a minute on some of the things said by other hon. members, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Before doing that I want to say simply and categorically that I intend to vote for the bill. I say that immediately to make it easier for those who do not want to stay and listen to my reasons, but who may wish to depart.
Having regard to the very valid suggestion by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), I believe we should consider very seriously the necessity of assuring that this bill receives second reading. Apart from some of the major issues in respect of which we may differ, the

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
parliamentary practice at the present time leads us to the conclusion that third reading is the stage at which we can best deal with a bill of this kind, that is, when we see it in its finished form.
There are those who feel some improvements ought to be made, and there are those who feel, as did the Minister of Justice, that if the people come to the conclusion that capital punishment is a suitable penalty for certain types of offences, they should have the right to attempt to obtain the approval of their colleagues in this House during the free vote, and that hon. members should have the right to move the kind of amendments that are available under our rules in an attempt to reach a consensus.
I say it once that I will vote for the bill as it stands. I like the bill as it stands, and I have been a constant opponent of capital punishment for well over 40 years. I would prefer to see the bill passed in its present from. However, if it were the will of this House, expressed by a majority that there be some exclusions, and I were driven very hard to it, I would sorrowfully and regretfully vote for such an amended bill. I hope it will not come to that. I hope we will have the chance to hear all of the proposals which might lead to amendments, deal with them in this House and in the committee, as we should, with the net result that the bill will come back in its present form for third reading.
On the question of a referendum I would refer hon. members to a very considerable speech made in the 1973 debate by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who dealt very extensively with this issue. He made quite plain in his speech that members of this House had a duty which was not consistent with a system of referenda. I will come to this again.
If we are to abdicate our responsibility I can see a situation in which we would watch carefully the statistics which come out from Statistics Canada. Members of this House would set their sights at objectives which Statistics Canada, or the polls taken by an institute of polling, would suggest indicated the course of conduct which at that particular time the peoplei of Canada would prefer the government to adopt. What kind of consistency of approach in respect of government would we have under those circumstances? My experience, Sir, over a very long period of time as a practitioner of law, as a soldier, and as a member of this House is that people do change their approach to a number of the problems they face.
Twenty-five or 30 years ago, I think a majority of the people in this country were opposed to capital punishment, for reasons with which I will deal briefly. The pendulum has swung since then. Now I think the majority of people for certain reasons favour the return of capital punishment. But there is nothing to suggest that 25 or 30 years from now the pendulum will not swing the other way. From my experience and my knowledge I suspect very strongly that this will be the case. Therefore while it is essential that any member of parliament or any person elected to office should have a very serious responsibility to consult with his constituents, to make shift and to understand their thinking, and to speak to and to listen to them-any elected member who does not recognize that responsibility is a fool and does not deserve to hold elected

office-I do not think this should mean that such a man may not exercise his judgment and discretion or be free to yield readily from time to time to the changing ideas, trends, and whims of a number of people in his constituency, or in the country.
I think in our approach to this issue we should be very careful. I made a speech in favour of the abolition of capital punishment well over 40 years ago in a church basement in a small community, where there were members from many denominations. I spoke in favour of abolition in a speech which was accepted. I never wavered in my support for the abolition of capital punishment. I have spoken on numerous occasions both in this country and elsewhere. Although it has not been a major issue in elections, certainly during the course of the 1972 election and the 1974 election I was asked on a number of platforms what was my stand with regard to capital punishment. I was able to reply simply that I stand where I have stood before, that is, that I am opposed to capital punishment. I told them I believe in abolition and if they elected me they would be electing me with that point of view. I was elected with a substantial majority in 1972 and in 1974. I feel, as I think any other member sitting in this House will feel who was asked the question and took the stand I did, that I came into this House with this format and can vote as I indicated my position at the time of the election.
Like on the other occasions on which we have discussed this momentus issue, this has been a marathon debate. I do not say this disparagingly, although I had hoped we could take a quick decision as was the case in the United Kingdom during the course of the last two debates they had. However, this is a matter of great concern. While it affects only a comparatively few people it goes to the wellsprings of our civilization, our society, our culture, and our religious beliefs. It certainly is an issue on which no one should be denied the right to speak. I have listened to some of the speeches made during the debate. I have read others.
I take my mind back to some of the debates in this House in the last 18 or 19 years by some of the great members and leaders. I spoke of the right hon. member for Prince Albert and his speech. I have heard the present and former leaders of our party make very excellent contributions, great speeches, in which they expressed their views on the subject. I have heard the leader of the New Democratic Party and its two preceding leaders on the issue. I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the previous Prime Minister, the late Lester Pearson, speak on this issue.
I think one of the greatest speeches was one made by Arthur Maloney, now the Ontario ombudsman, who sat at that time in what was the rump of our party when we overflowed in those glorious days on to both sides of the House, a position which we are again rapidly approaching at the present time. He rose to his feet on a private members' bill, I think one introduced by the Hon. Frank McGee, and made one of the greatest and most eloquent and articulate speeches on this particular issue. Paul Martin, who was sitting in the House, told me that his opinion it was one of the greatest speeches he had heard on this issue. It convinced people. It is interesting to note that just a few weeks ago right in this House Mr. Maloney, with Bishop Carter, chairman of the Catholic Congress of Bishops, and other eminent people in this country who had
June 14, 1976

come here for a seminar, showed that he had lost none of his eloquence or his conviction that capital punishment must be abolished, and abolished permanently.
I have noted with interest that members on both sides of this House and on both sides of this House and on both sides of this issue have quoted from Scripture. I think it comes out even. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote from the Bible. This has been done by members on both side of the issue.
As I suppose have other members, I have received a number of letters containing quotations from the Bible. I have also received submissions from members of the public which dealt with different methods of execution. Some have recommended easy and painless methods. This, I think, would be quite difficult. In any event if it should be the wish of this parliament to have state executions become part of our social system, then it would be inconsistent with this wish to attempt to soften the effect by searching diligently for nicer, neater or tidier ways of killing that would be more acceptable to the condemned person.
I have pointed out before that I, as well as other members of this House, have appeared on behalf of a number of people, well over a score, who have been charged with murder. At various times during the course of briefing myself I took it upon myself to talk to them, previous to preparation for trial, to know their motivation, to know their purpose, to know what happened and how it happened. I think it is very essential to anyone who accepts the responsibility of defending a man or a woman charged with an offence which is punishable by capital punishment to do that. To that extent I suppose I have had a little better opportunity than quite a few people to make some clinical examination of the question of motivation.
People who spoke to me under those conditions in prison cells had no motive to conceal from me the true facts, and no reason to try to exaggerate their feelings, their viewpoints, and their attitudes, and I say to hon. members in this House that in not one instance of all those more than a score of people I talked to did it develop that the question of what might happen if they were caught, if they were convicted and if they were executed, enter their minds at all. That does not mean that it might not with regard to some people, but my observation of the people I spoke to, the people I had to consult with professionally, and the people whom I was charged with defending in a court of law, led me to the irresistable conclusion that the question of deterrence was not an issue which was in their minds at or immediately prior to the time their offences were committed. That is the clinical study which persuades me that there has been an exaggerated attitude and an exaggerated importance given to the question of deterrence.
The question of deterrence has been raised in a number of ways. For example, I noticed in a news report some months ago that those who were in favour of retention were able to given some prominence to statements made by two convicted murderers who said that, in their opinion, 25 years was a much harsher sentence than death, and that they would prefer to be executed rather than to sit out 20 or 25 years in jail. If that is the case, surely that gives the
Capital Punishment
lie to those who suggest that the death penalty is an adequate deterrent, because if in the minds of those two people, who are intimately concerned about this issue, 25 years is a greater deterrent-and 25 years is the penalty suggested in this legislation-then it speaks to me quite plainly. It says to me quite plainly that, if there is a deterrent, the deterrent is in the harsh prison sentence and not in execution by hanging.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Now I will refer to some of the comments made in the very excellent paper-I do not agree with the paper, but it was well put together-which was the submission of the police chiefs. As I read these submissions I came to the opinion that buried, but still quite apparent, in these various submissions was the attitude that these police people and those who presented briefs for them did not really believe philosophically that, in a general way, capital punishment was a deterrent. What they said about deterrence was very simple. If a man commits murder and if he is captured, tried, and executed, that is a deterrent in the sense that that man cannot commit another offence. That is the point they made from their observations, and I think they veered well away from the issue of deterrence generally. They were submissions which were full of candour, they were brief-mercifully brief-and well put together. As I say, they represented a point of view with which I very heartily disagree, but they expressed honestly and candidly the other side of the argument. I think the only conclusion one can draw from examining what they said and wrote is that capital punishment is not a deterrent generally in a philosophical sense.
Finally, Mr. Woodburn Thompson, who was engaged by the police chiefs, and whose brief was the last one to appear in their submissions, said that in his opinion, as a result of his examination, to use capital punishment as a deterrent was barbaric. That was contained in the submissions put forward by the police associations of Canada.
Now we come to another group of people, those who are generally abolitionists by nature, thought, and attitude, but who feel that it might be better to keep the punishment of hanging with respect to one or two certain specified offences. Personally I find it very difficult to follow such logic. If the fear of death is not considered to be an adequate deterrent to prevent potential murderers from committing one kind of murder, how can it be said that it would constitute a deterrent in respect of another kind of murder?
Are we to assume that human nature can be so compartmentalized that a person planning a murder for revenge, or a cold blooded killing for some monetary consideration, would not be deterred by the fear that he might ultimately be placed on a scaffold and hanged, but that a person considering killing a policeman or a prison guard, or committing treason, will stop, reflect, and tell himself, "I had better not commit this crime because, if I do, I will face the ultimate penalty"?
I just fail to reconcile the kind of logic which suggests that while I like to feel I am an abolitionist, and while I am generally opposed to the state taking life, yet it may well be necessary to leave open the right for the state to hang people for one certain type of offence. How can that be

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
reconciled with the belief such a person must hold that capital punishment is not a deterrent? And that person generally takes the tolerant and proper attitude that it is no more right for the state to take life than it is the right of any person to take life. I fail to follow that kind of argument. For this reason I hope that this bill will receive at least second reading, so that if there is an argument to be made by such people it will be made and presented in the normal course of events in the committee, and come back into this House so we will have the opportunity of considering it sensibly and logically.
Therefore I think this brings us down to the real nature of the argument, that is, the true character of capital punishment. Once inflicted, it has the clear and simple effect of preventing the person who will have been executed from committing another crime. There is no doubt that many people who are in favour of capital punishment are in favour of it for that reason. In my opinion it is a simple form of institutionalized state vengeance.
Let us be honest and face the fact that this sort of thing has always represented a very strong element in our social structure. I do not agree with it, I do not like it, but we have to be realistic and remember that it was only several hundred years ago when inanimate objects which accidentally brought about injury and death to people were dealt with almost as if they were criminals themselves. Those inanimate objects might have been sticks, stones or weapons. If a person met his death or injury because of some accident involving inanimate objects, these objects were put on trial. Later we had trial by ordeal, and the fact that the crime of treason was punishable by the convicted person being hanged, drawn, and quartered.
Five hundred years ago is a long time to us, even to some hon. members who have been in this House for some time, but it is a heartbeat in the life of a society, in the history of mankind, and the characteristics of those earlier days are not easily eliminated. Particularly is this so at the present time when we live in a state of frustration felt in a society which is badly fractured, which is fearful and annoyed by the apparent toleration and encouragement of permissiveness, by government which moves against rather than with the grain of human nature.
I feel very strongly that it is this fear, this anxiety, this frustration, this anger which in many cases constitutes the compelling reason behind what appears to be the bloodthirsty mood of the normally mild, reasonable, and moderate Canadian people. Many of the views and much of the opinion of those who favour capital punishment seem to me to be part of this anger and this frustration, and the noose has become a symbol rather than a remedy.
I think people who stand up and talk about hanging do so not because many of them want to hang people or put their hand on the hand of the hangman as he springs the trap which sends condemned people down to choke to death, but because they feel this frustration. They want the right for their families to walk the streets, they want security and stability in society, and the noose has been picked as the symbol which suggests to them some way of restoring the things they seek.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot do anything but vote for this bill on the basis of such arguments as this. There has been a sort of mythology grow up that those who are in favour of capital punishment are strong, tough, he-men, and those who are opposed to it are weak and unable to deal with the true question of human nature; that they are squeamish and soft. I disagree with that. I fought in a war; I saw death, bloodshed, carnage, savagery-all completely regrettable but which probably resulted in the winning of a war which, hopefully, permitted us to make improvements in our society. It also, of course, permitted us to make some regrettable mistakes.
I consider too that death is part of life, part of that long road of life that leads to the ultimate gate through which we all must pass. I think it is in that sense that we can approach this issue. It is not because we are adverse to the fact that people must be punished; not at all.
It seems to me that the return of capital punishment would be a retrograde step. It would have some effect in brutalizing segments of our society. I do not think there are compensatory factors which would make up for that.
On this issue as well as on others, what lies before us is the gigantic scale of decision. I suggest that if we place the weight of abolition on one side and all the evidence which we can glean from study, from speeches, and listening to other people, and if we can place on the other side the weight of those people who believe in the infliction of capital punishment, the scales would balance. If that be the case then it is not good enough for those who have come to that conclusion to simply say, "The general trend of opinion is moving toward hanging; the world is disturbed; there is more violence and, in spite of my doubt, I will go along with those who want the return of capital punishment." I believe that is wrong.
If the scales are evenly balanced it is essential to pour into the pan of abolition the invisible but heavy weight which says that society does not improve by deliberately killing anybody, and the onus must lie on those who say that one killing deserves another.
With all our sense of tragedy and sorrow for those who have been murdered, I doubt very much if they are standing in the next world demanding that we who are left here to organize our society are bound to dispatch their murderers by dropping them through a scaffold.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for his remarks, many of which I subscribe to.
Even before we began our debate on this bill it was apparent to all of us that this is an issue that arouses a highly emotional response, by the members of this House and by those people whom we represent. Therefore I think it is especially important that we approach this issue with as dispassionate and rational an outlook as possible-without, however, ignoring the dictates of our conscience.
Those in favour of retaining the death penalty, or extending its application, argue that to abolish capital punishment is to show weakness toward the criminal element, to somehow reduce the protection of society, and
June 14, 1976

encourage the commission of crimes. I do not believe there is any justification for this view whatsoever.
First, it should be emphasized that there has been no proposal to remove the penal sanctions for the crime of murder, as some opponents of the bill have implied. The proposal in the bill is to replace capital punishment with a mandatory 25-year prison term, with severe restrictions on parole; this "life sentence" would in fact be the mandatory punishment for a greater number of crimes than are now punishable by death. I do not think this can be properly construed as a softening of attitude toward crime.
I think it can be shown conclusively that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder, and that to view it as a solution to the problem of crime is extremely simplistic.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let us see the figures.


William Kenneth Robinson: Of all the offences, murder is most often committed in times of extreme emotional stress-during domestic quarrels, or in moments of panic during the commission of another crime. The deterrent effect of any punishment in such circumstances is negligible. This limitation of the deterrent theory of capital punishment was stated in a 1966 study done by the John Howard Association in Chicago. It said:
The kind of rationality assumed by the deterrent theory of capital punishment may be present in the minds of legislators at the time of their deliberations about crime and punishment and may even be present in the minds of most persons in their reflective moments. To attribute the qualitative thinking of a deliberative body to the participants in an emotional situation that leds to murder, however, is gross over-simplification of the psychological forces involved in homicides.
There is no more reason to assume the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to the planned and deliberate murder. These crimes are most often committed by people with psychological abnormalities, who may not, however, fall within the legal definition of insanity. This type of personality is not deterred by the threat of remote punishment, no matter how severe, for some higher risks incurred by their behaviour may even increase the attraction to the crime being considered.
This is also true of the professional criminal, who merely accepts the risk of arrest and the prospect of punishment as part of the job. He is more likely to develop sophisticated techniques to avoid detection, that to be inhibited in his criminal conduct.
Experience in a number of countries bears out the theory of the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. In the United States, for example, during the 15 year period from 1951 to 1966, the number of executions actually carried out in a year declined from 105 to one. During that period there was not significant change in the murder rate. When Denmark abolished the death penalty in 1933, the number of murders actually declined in the next few years.
Studies which compare American states retaining capital punishment with abolitionist states reveal that homicide rates follow the same trends in both groups; there is no difference in the number of killings that can be attributed to either the presence or the absence of the death penalty. Similarly, in states where the death penalty was reintroduced after a period of abolition, there was no significant
Capital Punishment
decrease in the number of murders. As Professor Sellin states:
If any conclusion can be drawn from all the above data, it is that there is no evidence that the abolition of the death penalty generally causes an increase in criminal homicides or that its reintroduction is followed by a decline. The explanation of changes in homicide rates must be sought elsewhere.
The death penalty has been shown, in numerous studies, to be no more effective than long prison terms in deterring crime; and if it is not an effective restraint then its retention cannot be justified.
It is essential that the state use no more force than is absolutely necessary to accomplish its appointed task when acting to protect the community from the commission of future crimes; when taking measures to rehabilitate criminals; or when inflicting punishment on those who have broken the law. This principle is inherent in our system of criminal justice; to depart from this principle and allow the legal system to administer excessively severe punishment is to undermine the values that the system is attempting to uphold. This view is supported by the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers in a brief submitted to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). In calling for the total abolition of capital punishment the Association notes the failure of the death penalty to deter crime; it is, moreover, a weakening influence on our ethical and moral code since it reinforces the concept of the worthlessness of human life by an officially sanctioned violent act.
I might add that 15 years ago, at the University of Toronto School of Social Work I and Arthur Martin, who then was one of the most eminent counsel in Canada and now has been elevated to the Ontario Court of Appeal, participated in a debate on capital punishment. I spoke as an abolitionist. Two eminent counsel opposed us. I have never changed my mind.
A special commission established in Massachusetts to investigate the question of capital punishment reached the same conclusion, namely:
The existence of capital punishment tends to cheapen human life. It tends to encourage both children and adults to believe that physical violence, the ultimate form of which is putting an individual to death, is a proper method of solving social and personal conflict... The only moral ground on which the state could conceivably possess the right to destroy human life would be if this were indispensable for the protection or preservation of other lives. This places the burden of proof on those who believe that capital punishment exercises a deterrent effect on the potential criminal. Unless they can establish that the death penalty does, in fact, protect other lives, at the expense of one, there is no moral justification for the state to 'take life'.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the death penalty can be shown as protecting lives; I do not believe that its retention can be morally justified. We have a duty to protect society from the criminal; we must punish, and we must use all the methods within our competence to rehabilitate. But we must not seek revenge for an act already committed; revenge neither restores the victim nor expiates the crime.
Opposition to the abolition of capital punishment has been expressed by some of our police forces. While they have a legitimate concern for their own safety, I do not think the death penalty would reduce the hazards of their

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
job. It not only fails to deter, but also creates an added risk. The criminal facing certain execution has nothing to lose by taking advantage of any means possible either to avoid detention or escape from custody. Prison guards and police officers would therefore be in even greater danger during the inevitable lapse of time before the death penalty could be carried out. The task of law enforcement can be made less dangerous only by reducing the level of violence in our society, and imposing capital punishment has precisely the opposite effect.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the emphasis that has been placed in the course of debate on this bill on the increasing crime rate, particularly the rapid rise in recent years in the number of murders. Certainly we must not ignore the social context in which this bill has been introduced. It is imperative that the government proceed with a co-ordinated and comprehensive program to attempt to reverse this trend of increasing lawlessness. We have had an undertaking by the minister that prison facilities will be made more secure. Revisions of the Criminal Code and the abolition of all unearned remissions of sentence have already been proposed to the House. This type of effort, combined with thorough study and extensive social programs that attack the root causes of crime are, in the long run, the only means of ensuring the safety of our law-abiding citizens. The hanging of a handful of criminals will do nothing to further the attainment of that goal of security.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, this debate has shown how thick is the skin of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) when an abolitionist speaks and how thin it is when a retention-ist speaks.


An hon. Member:: Here we go again!


William Warren Allmand: Hon. members are making personal arguments. Discuss the issue, not the man.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in many instances we rely on the information which is made available by a minister responsible for a bill. Although the minister spoke of engaging people who have looked into the matter of retention, to the best of my knowledge none of that literature has been delivered to my desk. I checked again today. Therefore if the minister's skin is somewhat thin, he has himself to blame.
I have a great deal of respect for the opinions of some individuals and am disappointed at not being able to support the position of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), for whom I have the greatest respect. As a man, he is most persuasive.


An hon. Member:: And very sensible.


Fred Alward McCain: That is a matter of measurement. The hon. member may have prejudged, instead of keeping an open mind.


William Arnold Peters: He adopted an enlightened position.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, no member takes lightly his responsibility for voting on this bill. Each member will vote only after he has given the matter a great deal of

thought and consideration. After all, each one of us must decide, as democratically elected members of this House, how best we can preserve the safety of the individual in society, how best to preserve law and order so that people feel safe. If any hon. member is of the opinion that the interests of law and order are better served with the retention of capital punishment, then, no matter what his conscience may tell him in some respect, he is obligated to opt for capital punishment. That is the situation we face.
I agree that in many instances capital punishment probably will not deter a person from taking the life of a fellow citizen. For instance, I am convinced that it will not normally deter the individual who quarrels at a party or quarrels at home, and is irritated to the point of reacting in such a fashion that he takes the life of an individual. No, there is no way by which a law of man can deter such an act on the part of a fellow man. But I am convinced that we must bring law to the land.
As long as I knew I would probably get a concurrent sentence, as has been given in our courts too often, in the course of a robbery I would probably be quite prepared to take a life if it meant I could escape undetected and free. Any individual may be prepared to rob a bank and brandish a gun, but is he prepared to face capital punishment as a consequence of that act? At that point in time it has to deter the individual from a course of action which might bring him a consecutive sentence rather than a concurrent sentence, or which might give him capital punishment as a reward.
When an individual is incarcerated for an extended period of time, he probably has little if anything to lose if he is going to get a concurrent sentence for a further crime within the institution in which he is confined. However, I doubt very much if he will put his life on the line by taking the life of another individual while in that institution. In that instance he would at least have cause for thought, and it probably would be a deterrent to that individual.
We have come through a cycle in which law and order were preached, taught, respected and understood. The periods of time which have been cited as examples for the reason why we should abolish capital punishment are in an era in the thirties, and come forward to the forties and fifties. Let us briefly go back to that period of time and look at the type of law and order which we had.
The Queen of England and her husband visited Canada in 1939. She rode in an open touring car or convertible, with the top down when the weather would permit. When the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister of this country, as well as when Mr. Pearson and Mr. St. Laurent were Prime Minister, they rode in ordinary cars bought on the street which they purchased themselves. They did not have bullet proof glass or armour plate.


An hon. Member:: They had it for the Queen.


Fred Alward McCain: They did not have it for the Queen on either of the two visits I mentioned. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has two automobiles, both of which are armour-plated and both of which have bullet proof glass. That is very symbolic of the level to which law
June 14, 1976

and order have sunk. It is time we began to appraise when a man has lost his right to live in the society of his fellowmen. We have to think of that in terms of the good of all society.
I could not possibly vote for this bill for the same reason that the right hon. member for Prince Albert could not vote for it. In an act of treason, an individual or group of individuals who commit that act are not necessarily acting against the life of an individual. They are acting against a multitude, which is the state, and they are prepared to endanger that multitude regardless of what may be the consequence to the perpetrator of the deed. That is a heinous crime indeed. It should and must remain on the statutes of Canada.
Let us move to other types of crime. What about the individual who was putting bombs in mail boxes, mailing bombs through the mail, placing bombs in public places, endangering, and in some cases succeeding in taking the lives of innocent people? That man, representing his own personal position which is not the position of society as a whole, has sacrificed his right to live in society. Society will only be safe when he is no longer among us. We are responsible to society to make decisions which may be hard to come by in our consciences but which are in the best interests of the total good.
What about the individual who, for personal or philosophical reasons, chooses to try to hijack an airplane and endangers the lives of scores of people? Should that man or woman be given the right to continue life among us? I submit that society is looking for the punishment which may deter the act of such an individual. That is what society is at least hoping for.
What about the contract killer? He is present among us whether we like it or not. Whether the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice dismiss this man in any way, shape or form, he is among us in Canada. He is for hire, for the objective of the individual who hires him at a varying price which is reputed in some cases to be quite low indeed for the removal of an insignificant individual. Yet that man may have made his living for quite some time by removing people from among our numbers. A perpetrator of a deed like that who is willing to do the same deed again has sacrificed his right to live in society.
I am not one who wishes to dangle the noose nor do I associate capital punishment with the noose. I believe we can at least extend a more civilized means of extermination. I am sorry there is no better word to use. However, I do not associate it with the noose nor would I want to see the noose used if we do have capital punishment.
We have reports from those working in the psychiatric field. None of those people are prepared to give at any point in time a qualified yes or no as to whether an individual has been rehabilitated. It does not mean that because an individual has been in jail under the best of instruction, guidance, and treatment for up to 25 years, he will change his way of life. Nor does it mean that his psychology has reached the norm which can be expected and respected by the psychiatric profession.
We are dealing with something to which statistics do not apply. We are dealing with the erratic behaviour of an individual who is not normal or he would never have
Capital Punishment
committed the crime about which we are talking. That is the individual over whom we have no control, or any measurement or capability of predicting his future.
I am concerned about one thing. I would appreciate it if at some point in time the Solicitor General would give us the date and the name of the individual who corrected the position he outlined in this House in respect of this bill. I am not arguing with him, but I would like to have the reference. If the government were to disrespect one last tradition, and it has disrespected many that relate to democracy as we know it, and had tradition been the guideline of government, there are cabinet ministers who would not be holding that position today. They disrespect tradition. But the Solicitor General advises us that the cabinet will have to vote with the government because the bill was introduced by a cabinet minister and is a government bill.
I submit that regardless of the rank or position of anyone in this party, there has been absolutely no pressure to vote any way as far as any Conservative has been concerned since I have been associated with this bill. The same cannot be said of those to your right, Mr. Speaker. It might be traditional that when a government bill is introduced all cabinet members vote for it, but on the basis of the past behaviour of the government this tradition should not be any problem in connection with the bill before us. I hope the vote will be free.


Mr. Blais:: What are you speaking for, then?


Fred Alward McCain: Would the hon. member who is chirping over there speak up? I cannot hear him.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, so that I can chirp louder, the point I was attempting to make was this: if the hon. member is against any suasion being used, I am wondering what he is doing speaking this evening.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order. It is a point of stupidity.


Fred Alward McCain: I am expressing an opinion of my own, but one which I hope is shared by others.
I have been elected only on two occasions, not for many years as have other members of the House. My position is well known in my constituency. I have answered every letter I received on this subject, whether from my constituency or from elsewhere. I have expressed my opinions as I am expressing them tonight. I have expressed them to church organizations which favour abolition, I have expressed them to individuals who favour retention.
I have said to public meetings in my constituency that I favour the retention of capital punishment, though not clear down the line, as used to be the situation 20, 30 or 50 years ago. I do favour it for those crimes of murder which symbolize to society that citizens are not as safe as they should be, and for crimes which involve the lives of more than one person. Society deserves this protection from the House, and it is our responsibility to provide it.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been hanging around the House for a long time now.

June 14, 1976
Capital Punishment
Everyone who has spoken, everyone I have heard, has been sincere in his comments and has given reasons for being prepared to vote one way or the other.
We have heard all kinds of statistics. One thing we learned from that, if nothing else, is that you can always find statistics to prove whatever point you wish to make. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), a friend of mine for whom I have a great deal of respect, quoted statistics which clearly show that the murder rate in countries where abolition is in force is lower than it is in countries where retention is the law. I have some other figures. They come from a book which was prepared for the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) himself, at his request, and they show the opposite. They compare France, a retentionist country, with three other countries. I wanted to put these figures on the record because it seems logical to balance the information given.
In France, the murder rate is 3.28 per hundred thousand compared with the rate in Germany of 4 per hundred thousand. The rate in Austria, an abolitionist country, is a little lower. A similar rate prevails in Norway. But in the case of Germany, an abolitionist country, the murder rate is indeed higher. What this proves is that it is impossible for us, in the context of our own country, to use figures from other countries around the world to determine what effect either abolition or retention might have on the murder rate here.
We have conflicting reports regarding the efficacy of capital punishment in reducing murder rates. In the case of our own country, virtual abolition has resulted in a substantially higher rate. Look at the figures from 1940 to 1959. The murder rate was almost constant at about 1.2 per 100,000. Since 1959 it has risen to 2.4. we also know that the last hanging which took place in this country was in the early sixties and that since then there has been an increase in the murder rate amounting to 150 per cent. I do not believe any statistician will argue that this is not a significant increase.
I want to suggest something new. One of the criticisms made by members on the government side who want this debate to end quickly is that little which is new has been said-that no new proposals are being made. The proposal I wish to make is not new in terms of being an original idea, but it is new in terms of this bill. At least I have not heard it expressed in the debate so far.
If we are research-oriented and believe that through scientific research we can come up with the best answers to problems facing our country, we should be thinking of another five-year period of research. We have gone through eight years of abolition by law and a lot more than that, perhaps 15 years, of de facto abolition by commutation. The result has been a 150 per cent increase in the murder rate. We must now decide whether to abolish capital punishment or to retain it. The best thing to do, I suggest, is to try another five-year period of enforcement of the death penalty. It seems to me that if we do this, and if the murder rate goes down, it can be taken as evidence that capital punishment is indeed a deterrent to murder. But if the murder rate continues to go up we would know there is not necessarily any kind of relationship.
To some this might appear to be a strange suggestion. But I do not think it is possible to determine the effect of
(Mr. Yewchuk.l
capital punishment in our own national context in any other way, for example, by comparing the situation here with the situation in European countries or in Africa or anywhere else in the world. I do not think their figures are necessarily significant in this context since other countries are different in many ways. Their social conditions, laws, attitudes, religion, culture, way of life and their problems are different, so I suggest we cannot really compare ourselves with other countries because it is something like comparing apples and oranges. Even social conditions in Canada change from one year to the next, but if we could find the closest possible similarity in some kind of experimental setting then I would think it would be worth considering. Perhaps an amendment of this kind could be made to the bill, which I suggest would make it a little simpler to deal with.
One of the most compelling arguments against capital punishment, I think, is the possibility that an innocent person might be hanged. I do not think anyone would argue against that possibility. Nevertheless we must consider the other side of the coin, which is the possibility that a convicted murderer might kill again. According to the figures that I have been able to obtain from the best source available to me-indeed I obtained this information more by rumour-there has been one innocent person who was hanged in this country, and this took place some 30 or 40 years ago. On the other hand, figures from Statistics Canada show that since 1963 there have been seven repeat murders. Seven other innocent victims have been murdered by people who had been found guilty of murder and then paroled or released from prison having served their sentence. Or perhaps the second murder took place while they were still in custody. That is another statistic that should be considered. Weighing the possibility of a repeat murder occurring against that of hanging an innocent person, the chance of a repeat murder occurring is seven times greater. I think that figure speaks in favour of capital punishment for convicted murderers.
Some people have suggested that capital punishment might be used for other than the traditionally accepted reason. I am thinking here of people who are involved in the illicit drug trade, such as heroin suppliers and distributors. We often hear of heroin addicts dying from an overdose of heroin and I wonder how often these overdoses are accidental. It seems to me that if someone involved in the importation or distribution of heroin thinks that a user could report him to the police, there would be no simpler way of disposing of that user than by supplying him with a much stronger dose which the user would inject and thus kill himself. Perhaps the bill should be broadened to include such possibilities as this.
In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is not necessarily whether capital punishment is a deterrent or is not a deterrent. Rather the real issue revolves around our responsibility as the elected representatives of the people. As all hon. members will admit, we have a responsibility in this House to speak on behalf of those who sent us here. This is why we have representative government. Our whole democratic system is based on the principle that we are elected to this place for the prime purpose of speaking out on behalf of those who sent us here.
June 14, 1976

According to surveys that have been made, about 80 per cent of the people of this country feel that capital punishment should be retained at this time. If members of parliament choose to ignore this supposed will of the people, then we have to ask ourselves whether representative government, or democracy, is indeed functioning at all. If we take it upon ourselves to go against the will of the people, we being the representatives of the people, then we are behaving in no better fashion than as an autocratic dictator imposing our will upon the people, telling them what is good for them rather than reflecting their views in this House.
I am not trying to belittle the importance of the conscience of an individual member; that is a most important consideration as well. On the other hand we must keep in mind our responsibility to those who elected us. A lot of people in Canada feel that revenge is not necessarily all bad, that the principle of an eye for an eye is not necessarily all bad. As a matter of fact a lot of people think it is a good idea. I am not expressing my own personal view, but it is something that must be kept in mind.
Much has been said about rehabilitation of murderers. I am informed by my statistical source that the rate of rehabilitation has been rather good; that less than one per cent of homicidal offenders who were paroled in the U.S. have been returned to prison because they committed another murder. However, a larger percentage is returned for other reasons. Even though we know that some murderers cannot be rehabilitated, the figures point to the fact that most of them do not murder again.
There have also been comments about the cost of keeping men in prison for 25 years. This bill proposes to keep people convicted of murder in prison for 25 years. I am informed that the cost of keeping a person incarcerated is approximately $18,000 a year. Multiplied by 25, that works out at about half a million dollars per prisoner, in terms of 1976 constant dollars. We must ask ourselves whether a taxpayer who has already suffered because someone close to him or someone he may have known-an innocent person-has been murdered, should be asked on top of that to spend another $500,000 to keep the convicted murderer in jail for 25 years. It seems to me that that is a rather expensive proposition.
I was interested in the comment the other day of the whip on the other side. The governing party takes the position when talking in public that there is going to be a free vote on this bill, although we know that there is not really going to be a free vote at all. The other day the government whip stood up in the House and proudly announced that he was a retentionist. Then in the very next breath, the next sentence, he said, "Let's hurry up and get this bill passed". I wonder just how much of a retentionist he can be when he wants to pass a bill to abolish capital punishment. That is the kind of consistency we have seen from him ever since he has been a member of parliament.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I did use the expression "passed quickly" I really meant I would like to see this particular matter dealt with. I will rectify the wording, if I may, and say that I would
Capital Punishment
like to see the vote taken soon, getting the matter over with as soon as possible.


Steve Eugene Paproski: One way or the other.


Paul Yewchuk: I am glad to hear the whip clarify his position, because he still looks fuzzy in his position over there, and I am afraid that does not help clarify how he really feels about it. I only have a few minutes left until ten o'clock and I am not sure what time I started, but I do want to put on the record some other reasons why capital punishment is perhaps a good idea, and these are some of the reasons accepted by the United Nations.
One reason is that capital punishment represents a political necessity for the protection not merely of society but of the social order itself. Another is that if the state is to be denied the right to take the life of one of its members, then by the same token it should be denied the right to deprive that member in perpetuity of his liberty. In other words, if the state does not have the right to hang somebody, does the state have the right to put him in jail for 25 years? That is a question I have not heard answered in this place.
I think the key argument that should be stressed here is that capital punishment is a just and appropriate one in so far as murder is concerned. Perhaps above all other punishments it marks society's detestation and abhorrence of the taking of life and its revulsion against the crime of crimes. Capital punishment is required in the case of a subsequent murder in prison or in the course of escape by a convicted murderer, because if this existing deterrent were removed, apprehension would exist concerning the safety of the prison staff and the general public from prisoners for whom, because they are already serving life sentences, a further sentence of imprisonment could have no deterrent effect. In other words, if a man were serving a life sentence for murder and he knew he could not be hanged for another murder, why not murder again in an attempt to get away? This is a fairly compelling argument in favour of capital punishment.
There is also the argument that capital punishment is a painless and more humane form of treatment for a murderer than life imprisonment. Life imprisonment, it is argued, is more cruel, but that is a matter of opinion, of course.
The punishment inflicted for a grave crime should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens, and the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime, and from this point of view there are some murders which demand the most emphatic denunciation of all, namely, the death penalty.
It is reasonable to suppose that the deterrent force of capital punishment operates not only by affecting the conscious thoughts of individuals tempted to commit murder, but also by building up in the community over a long period of time a deep feeling of peculiar abhorrence for the crime of murder.
Where murder is premeditated it is only common sense to assume that not only the chances of detection but also the consequences in the vent of detection are ordinarily taken into consideration. The death penalty may be the

June 14, 1976
Adjournment Debate
only effective deterrent against a life prisoner making a murderous assault on a fellow prisoner or member of the prison staff.
Statistics, which ordinarily fail to demonstrate the deterrent effect of capital punishment, are for the most part assembled by those who wish to abolish the death penalty. In other words, such statistics are not compiled on the way to reaching a conclusion but, rather to support a conclusion already reached morally, philosophically or intuitively. Statistics are susceptible to different interpretations, and are unreliable and misleading. It is almost impossible to draw valid comparisons between different countries owing to differences in the legal definition of crimes, the practice of the prosecuting authorities and the courts, methods of compiling criminal statistics, moral standards, customary behaviour, and political, social, and economical conditions.
Upon the view that the deterrent effect of capital punishment resides primarily in its long-term effect on the attitude of society to murder, it is not to be expected that variations in the number of executions from year to year would be directly reflected in a rise or fall in the murder rate. A negative conclusion to be drawn from statistics does not imply a conclusion that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is not greater than that of any other punishment. It means only that the figures afford no reliable evidence one way or the other. It would be equally difficult to show statistically a direct relationship between the severity of any other punishment and the incidence of the crime to which it relates.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, for those who are in the habit of pointing out the countries where the murder rate has dropped after the death penalty has been abolished, those statistics do not in any way imply that the murder rate would not have dropped even more had it been retained.
There are many ways that we must look at these statistics to be sure we do not get fooled by them because, as I said at the beginning of my comments, anyone can find statistics to prove the conclusion he has already reached. We have seen many examples of that in this debate, rather than looking at the statistics and trying to conclude something from them. Mr. Speaker, may I now call it ten o'clock and conclude my remarks on another occasion?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I am again referring to a question I asked the minister on May 19 as recorded at page 13663 of Hansard. This relates to a comparatively new exotic disease in Canada, and the ques-

tion was asked with that in mind. I want to use the city of Toronto as an example to lay the groundwork for this matter.
It has been estimated there are about 10,000 in that area living underground, sharing living quarters with people who conceal their presence from officials. This, of course, causes a drain in taxes to the legitimate taxpayer in the area. These people living thus are denied the basic social services and even the protection of the law. They are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers and are paid below the minimum wage. Their fear of being exposed makes them more vulnerable, leaving them open to further exploitation.
These people can become a public health problem as many of them are harbouring parasites common in their country of origin and they have had no adequate treatment. In the field of pediatrics it is becoming more and more apparent that, due to the multiracial society in which we live, and this is very true in a city like Toronto, we are developing a considerable range of tropical and sub-tropical diseases. These diseases are imported not only by immigrants but even by travellers who have visited tropical countries.
Many times doctors who look at them have had no experience in the treatment of tropical medicine. Therefore a doctor often misses the diagnosis, forgetting even the geographic area from which the patients came. The question for the tourist is, where have you been and when?
This incidence in the increase of such diseases is particularly true in the city of Toronto where over half the old downtown area is composed of immigrants, many of whom cannot speak English. Certainly the majority of their children of pre-school age cannot do so. These people often have been let into the country with a health certificate which states that they have been examined in their own country. Such an examination could have been carried out six months before the person left the country and such a person could have become infected in the meantime. The possibilities are there. In any event the measure of capability of these countries to find and pick up infection is not of the same high standard as practised in the western world. In other words, patients can get a certificate stating that they are free of parasites only to find here in Canada that they are infested with parasites.
We need immigrants in Canada; there is no question about that. We are all immigrants. Certainly immigrants have done work Canadians would not do, and they have done it willingly. However, an added strain is placed on the immigrant when he is accused of harbouring tropical diseases such as intestinal parasites.
I should like to congratulate the minister for the proposals he announced today of a new control mechanism for the issuance of social insurance numbers. I think this is a good move. Visitors to Canada who wish to obtain work will have a distinctive number nine as the first digit in their social insurance card. I suggest that the minister should provide that these people be given another number to go with the new social insurance number, with which they would be able to go to a clinic, be examined, and be declared free of intestinal parasites. This would save thou-
June 14, 1976

sands and thousands of dollars and would spare the immigrant and his family the humiliation of harbouring parasitic disease. This, I feel, is how the problem could be solved.
It would be ideal of course if this work could be done in the country of origin just before the immigrant comes to Canada, especially if it were done in such a way that we could depend on the validity of the certificate which would be rendered stating that the person is free of infection. But as I have stated before, this is almost an impossibility.
All these people should be insured under our medicare plan. This also includes foreign students. Often these people are afraid to go to a doctor and tell him of their illness because of the fear of going to hospital and having their illness exposed. Certainly is is up to the Department of Immigration to see that these people, upon application for a social insurance number, also are required to have an examination and that the information is indicated on the card stating that they have been examined and are free of disease. If there is parasitic disease, this then could be followed up by physicians who are trained in the treatment of these infections.
Because of large scale immigration from tropical and sub-tropical countries, where standards of sanitation are much lower or non-existent, we have been flooded with infestation rarely seen before. Only recently has the Department of Immigration made it mandatory to have stool cultures done on applicants from certain countries. Anyone infested is a potential carrier and contaminator of others such as family, friends, and so on. Worms and parasites are passed on due to poor hygiene. Most parasites are found all over the world, and the precentage of any population harbouring them is determined by public health standards, living conditions, and so on.
Toronto's main parasitology clinic is at the Toronto General Hospital. It is certainly one of the biggest in Canada. But the clinic is able to treat only about 1,500 cases a year. It is inadequately funded, and its waiting lists are far too long. More personnel must be recruited and trained in tropical medicine so that cases can be seen, speedily treated, and handled. That would save a lot of money. Sufficient funding is needed to do this necessary work. Let us not be penny wise and pound foolish as we are at the present time. I suggest to the minister that he can now take a little more glory for himself for putting the number nine on isurance cards. Let him put another number on to be sure that this work I have mentioned is fully carried out.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) raised the matter regarding the medical examination of immigrants the minister gave a brief account of the situation and pointed out that other efforts were being made in this area.
Any immigrant seeking admission to Canada must undergo a medical examination pursuant to the provisions of the Immigration Act, and before he leaves his native country he is judged on the basis of the universal standards as set by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Adjournment Debate
Because of the number of non-immigrants, some 40 million, who enter Canada each year it is impossible, considering the expenses that practice would entail, and inappropriate, considering our desire to facilitate the admission of visitors, to have everyone of them undergo medical examination. So our policy is to have a medical examination for people most likely to present a risk to public health. It is estimated that the degree of risk increases with the duration of the stay and the nature of the activities of that person while he on she remains in Canada. All non-immigrants who plan on staying a year or more must undergo a medical examination and so do people who intend to take up a job in certain fields such as food preparation, the hotel business, hospital care, and so on. In addition, in cooperation with the Department of National Health and Welfare the department for which he is responsible intends to have other groups of non-immigrants undergo a medical examination when they are likely to present a risk to public health.
In addition, an increasing number of Canadians take holidays or a job for a prolonged period in certain countries where certain diseases exist. When they return to Canada they are granted admission as of right and they do not have to take a medical examination. That explains at least in part the emergence of certain diseases in Canada.
I would like to reassure the hon. member that the department of which the minister is in charge, in cooperation with the Department of National Health and Welfare, is doing its best to ensure that the Canadian public is not exposed to parasitic or other diseases.


INDUSTRY-PROPOSED CLOSING OF RCA LABORATORIES IN MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, On May 28 I asked the following question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson):
Is the minister yet in a position to report to the House as to whether the government has been able to prevent the RCA research laboratories in Montreal from closing at the direction of the RCA head office in the United States? Inasmuch as such a closing would clash directly with the principles of international business conduct which when tabled in the House last July were stated as reflecting government policy, could the minister tell us whether the government will take steps to make a reasonable degree of compliance with these principles mandatory and to fully monitor the extent of such compliance on the part of all foreign-controlled enterprises in Canada, the firms to which the government has said these principles apply?
The minister replied in part:
What action we may be able to take in law or what kind of enforcement measures we may be able to undertake are questions I am considering at the present time. But I am at present carrying on talks with the RCA company in an effort to see whether they can be persuaded to change the policy. The second part of the question was somewhat more complex than I could follow, since it was related to the RCA issue. Perhaps my hon. friend would wish to ask a supplementary.
Since it is evident to hon. members that government members are rarely, if ever, recognized during the question period to ask supplementary questions, I asked that this question be set down for the adjournment debate to give the minister a chance to respond to the second part of my question.

June 14, 1976
Adjournment Debate
As I pointed out, last July 18, 1975, the then minister of industry, trade and commerce tabled in this House a new set of guiding principles for good corporate behaviour. In the statement he made at that time he said in part:
Like the earlier set of "Guiding Principles of Good Corporate Behaviour", the new set of principles reflects broad government policy regarding the activities and responsibilities of foreign-controlled business enterprises in Canada. They thus provide an added indication of the sort of benefits the government looks for in assessing investment proposals under the Foreign Investment Review Act. But they are directed toward all foreign controlled enterprises doing business in Canada, whether they are involved with the Foreign Investment Review Act or not.
It seems to me that the recent decision of the head office of RCA in the United States to close its Canadian research laboratories in Montreal clearly clashes with these principles. Let me point to three of them in particular. Principle one says that foreign-controlled firms in Canada should:
Pursue a high degree of autonomy in the exercise of decision-making and risk-taking functions, including innovative activity and the marketing of any resulting new products.
Principle two says that foreign-controlled firms in Canada should:
Develop as an integral part of the Canadian operation an autonomous capability for technological innovation, including research, development, engineering, industrial design and preproduction activities; and for production, marketing, purchasing and accounting.
Principle four states that foreign-controlled firms in Canada should:
Strive for a full international mandate for innovation and market development, when it will enable the Canadian company to improve its efficiency by specialization of productive operations.
At this laboratory a team had been built up of some 62 highly-qualified research scientists and engineers. The press has reported that the closing of this laboratory will mean that only 16 of this group will be found other jobs in RCA plants in Canada. The other 42, according to the press report may-not necessarily will but may-be found jobs not in Canada but in plants or laboratories in the United States operated by the U.S. parent company.
This Canadian research facility is being closed not because the Canadian company is in difficulty, not because the laboratory is not productive. It is being done because of the management difficulties of the world-wide RCA interests and the resulting efforts of the new head office management of RCA to deal with the situation created during the term of its predecessor.
It is time to ask again what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been able to achieve in his discussions with RCA to get that company to change its decision to close the laboratory, on a voluntary basis. If this decision has not been reversed-and for that matter even if it has been-this situation shows the importance of making these guidelines mandatory in the sense I outlined in my question.
The company claims it is adhering to the guidelines but I say what it is doing appears to clash with the definite words of the guidelines. I challenge the president of the company to show how it will meet the guidelines if the laboratory is closed and research work, to whatever extent it is carried on, is continued only in divisions of the

company in Canada. The guidelines are government policy, but the government has no way of ensuring that foreign-controlled companies comply with them. The company claims it does not need the laboratory because the climate is not right due to the government's increasing intervention in the economic system.
RCA did not class it as excessive intervention when it accepted $20 million from the government-then it was not excessive or undue interference.
Industrial research and development in Canada are not increasing. They have declined as a percentage of the Gross National Product. The government needs new programs to stimulate this, and part of its efforts must be to deal with the situation created where decisions are made by foreign-controlled firms with the head office following world-wide priorities which clash with Canadian priorities in spite of the viability and economic strength of the Canadian operations in question.
To conclude, the government must act promptly not only to correct the RCA case but also to ensure that it is not the first of similar, unwarranted decisions taken by other foreign controlled firms in this country.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for having raised this situation which is the subject of much discussion and concern on the part of some hon. members, especially those from the Montreal area.
It is true that the company has recently announced in a brief press release its reorganization plan in Canada. The minister discussed this with the chairman and the chief executive of the company and particularly tried to find out how this project would affect the present research activities of the company. We have learned that this decision would be reflected in fact by reductions of the research and development expenses of RCA in Canada and that this must be considered in the following context: First, the major part of the yearly sales of the company come from two main sources, that is the manufacture of television sets, including picture tubes, and the division of electronic systems for the government and private companies, that I shall simply call the space division. This division manufactures microwave material, transponders for satellites and satellite ground stations. The research and development work for the manufacture of television sets has never been pushed very much in Canada. Most of the research of RCA Limited has always been aimed at its space division.
In 1974, the work accomplished until that time in the various commercial divisions was regrouped in a single research laboratory. This laboratory continued to serve commercial divisions, but it also got involved in more and more projects bearing no relation with the industrial activities of RCA. The result of the recent decision to centralize research facilities will be that all research for commercial divisions will be done in each division. Only the research elements having no relation with the industrial activities of the company will be relinquished.
The company has assured the minister that this will not affect at all its present production commitments, which insurance seems to us particularly important for the space
June 14, 1976

division. This division is the only one to produce for the parent company transponders that go into the manufacture of all the commercial satellites that it sells in the United States and elsewhere. The division also holds sales rights throughout the world for all the products that it manufactures and it has in fact sold abroad much of its telecommunication and satellite ground station material. It is therefore inaccurate to say that RCA will stop its research activities. But it is true that it will pursue in the future only those which can meet the needs of its various divisions.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to make a few remarks on some of the government legislation designed to ensure respect for international principles in matters of trade ethics, namely that the problem of obtaining reports based on those guiding principles are now being actively studied in the more general context of trade relations. The government is concerned about reducing as much as possible the burden of reports the Canadian businesses have to fill out. On the other hand, we must see to it that enough pertinent data is placed at the disposal of the government and the private sector to allow for formulation of a reasonable and realist policy. It is very difficult to conciliate those most desirable objectives, but I trust it will be possible to lighten the present burden of reports while, at the same time, obtaining enough information to allow control over the type of conduct mentioned by my hon. colleague.


PUBLICATIONS-POSSIBILITY OF ACTION TO CONTROL DISTRIBUTION OF MAGAZINES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 as reported at page 14027 of Hansard, I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) the following question:
. . . The minister has frequently expressed concern about foreign domination of the film distribution industry in Canada and has in fact encouraged provincial departments to initiate legislation in this area. I would like to ask the minister whether he has worked with the same intensity to bring magazine distribution under domestic control and in a way which would limit exploitation of sex and the almost unabated flow of pornography into this country.
The Minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would approach that with the same degree of zest.
I would applaud any effort on the part of the minister to repatriate Canadian dollars which would otherwise flow to another country. If he can also do something of benefit for the film distribution industry in that regard, I would applaud him for that action too. But I am discouraged. Although the minister takes initiatives to help the domestic part of the film distribution industry, which is outside his jurisdiction and, essentially, under provincial jurisdiction, he does not show the same concern for the distribution of magazines in our country.
It is good to promote independence, Mr. Speaker. But that kind of independence he is promoting is lopsided. On one hand he will eliminate Time magazine because he thinks it is a shame that any of our Canadian dollars should go south of the border to United States. I again underscore the fact that I would like to see those dollars remain in Canada.
Adjournment Debate
He is making a very dismal choice. He is encouraging the decline and the demise of Time magainze. At the same time he is not doing anything to discourage the inflow of magazines such as Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler and other pornography. The minister says he does not have the same kind of zest for stemming the flow of that kind of product into the country.
It seems a little bit inconsistent that we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on caps for medicine bottles so that children cannot open them and destroy themselves. We spend thousands of dollars advertising on behalf of household safety with regard to medicines, fire, and swimming pools. However, here we have a major pollutant which destroys the perception and expectations of children, and which is much more readily available than patent medicines. In its own way it is just as destructive, yet the minister says he does not have the same zest for steaming that tide.
This self-appointed, self-proclaimed prophet of Canadian culture, the Secretary of State, becomes very concerned when Canadian dollars go south into the bank account of Time Incorporated. However, he does not mind if by way of American distribution companies Canadian dollars flow south into the bank accounts of gangster organizations.
I have before me a page from the Toronto Star, dated Saturday, May 22. The headline reads: "Maclean's Brass Charged Over Skin Magazines". I remember when we were dealing with Bill C-58, the chairman of the board and the president of Maclean's magazine appeared before the committee. Oh, the saccharine piety those two men spewed out about the great Canadian culture that we have. They referred to Birks, Hudson's Bay, and all the other great symbols of Canadian culture-and all the time they were promoting a distribution company in the city of Toronto of which the main profit was derived from the distribution of pornography. What kind of hypocrisy is that?
The minister, the self-proclaimed self-appointed cultural czar of Canada, was really up tight to make sure that Time got out of Canada. He also wanted to get rid of Reader's Digest. However, he says he does not have the same kind of zest for getting rid of pornographic magazines.
You can go to any magazine shop in the country. The display of magazines will be somewhat in this order. On the very top shelf, almost out of reach of even adults, are magazines like Field and Stream, Better Homes and Gardens, and other such magazines. On the bottom shelf, six inches off the floor where all the little kids can get at them, you find Oui, Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler and all those other magazines. However, the minister says he does not have the same kind of zest for stemming the flow of that kind of literature into Canada.
It is discouraging when a minister of the Crown has a great concern about a few tax dollars going south of the border, but no concern about the mental, spiritual, and emotional health of kids when they read this kind of pornography. This minister should re-evaluate and reorder his priorities and perspective to be sure he serves the Canadian people well by preserving the mental and spiritual health of our young people.

June 14, 1976
Adjournment Debate


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the hon. member on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Miss Campbell), who is absent on official duty.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member I should like to emphasize that there are now 16 distributors in Canada operating on a national scale. Of these, four are wholly Canadian-owned, 25 per cent. Rather than contemplating the restriction of the activities of the foreign-owned operators, the government is focusing on a more positive approach, namely, the improvement of the promotional and distribution capabilities of Canadian-owned
publishers and distributors. The Canada Council administers a $1.5 million program annually to this end.
There is no intention to curtail the entry into Canada of foreign magazines above and beyond certain tariff regulations. For instance, item 99221 restricts the entry into Canada of periodicals, postcards, inserts or coupons printed outside Canada and containing 5 per cent or more advertising aimed at the domestic Canadian market.
On a second point, it should be noted that tariff item 99201/1 already prohibits the entry into Canada of "books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations-of a treasonable or seditious or of an immoral or indecent character." The application of the Criminal Code to the dissemination of such material falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 15, 1976