1976-07-08

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, July 7, consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and Motion No. 13 (Mr. Reynolds).
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Before concluding my speech, I would like to mention by the way, as recorded in Hansard of July 7, 1976, that many government members have been pointing out that we are repeating ourselves. Mr. Speaker, of course we have been repeating ourselves. Why? Merely to make some members understand their irresponsibility in introducing such a measure as Bill C-84 which does away with the security protecting on duty policemen in a country where criminality is constantly increasing. So if we repeat ourselves, as I have just said, it is only to make an individual as irresponsible as the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Allmand) understand that policemen and prison guards can be heard in this Parliament.
It is almost impossible for them to be heard because some members of the opposition and even some government members stubbornly reject clause 4 of the bill before us. I hope that in view of the opposition the government, and the minister in particular, will withdraw clause 4 of the bill. Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General ought to be sensible enough to realize the uneasiness which exists among police officers and prison guards, since those people must risk their lives every day. This is not a time for philosophy or for hot air, like the Solicitor General seems to think.
Mr. Speaker, one cannot deny that most criminal actions are committed by a small number of individuals whose only purpose it to flout the laws passed by this House. On reading the Journal de Montreal, we see that it is always the same people who commit crimes and who threaten peace and security in Canada.
I quote that paper:
80 per cent of all prisoners are habitual criminals.
On reading things like that, how can we understand that the minister should introduce such a bill? We are told that
about 80 per cent of those who are behind bars in Canada-
10.200	in the provincial institutions of the country and
8.200	in federal penitentiaries-all hardened offenders? Now, to go back to the quotation:
That high percentage is not surprising to anyone who is aware of the traditional weakness of our prisons in the field of rehabilitation, as well as of the obvious hostility of society towards prisoners or former prisoners.
Mr. Speaker, much more could be said about the bill now before the House, and particularly about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). He, at least, understands the opposition of the prison guards and policemen who want to ensure security to the Canadian people in the exercise of their duties.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I shall support this amendment gladly. If the Solicitor General lacks the judgment and common sense to understand the situation, I trust that at least hon. members, even those of the opposition, who are against the amendment, will show enough good will to recognize that prison guards and police agents have good reasons to demand that the death penalty be maintained. Consequently, I intend, on my own behalf and that of my party, for the ridings we represent in Canada, to support this amendment: it is designed to protect the valorous guardians of the peace and public security that police and prison guards are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for British Columbia-Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson).


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to say that there are other representatives from British Columbia here as well. It is a wonderful, large province inhabitated by great people, and it takes a considerable number of members of parliament to represent the people of British Columbia in the way in which they deserve. However, I am honoured to be one of the group from British Columbia.
We are currently discussing amendments to Bill C-84 in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences. The motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), proposes to delete clause 4, and I take the opportunity to indicate my support for the motion. It would retain for policemen and prison guards a measure of safety which presently exists under our ineffective and sloppy administration of justice.
I listened with interest and amazement to the comments made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) yesterday when he stated that while he was in favour of retention of capital punishment, he was going to vote against this motion because it would retain protection for a

July 8, 1976
Criminal Code
certain group of people which was denied to other groups. The hon. member knows very well that this motion is not a discriminatory action on the part of the members who support this motion but is an endeavour to salvage something from the wreckage of a very bad bill proposed by the present government.
It is hardly necessary to remind ourselves of the history of the provision that is being discussed today. It was included in a bill to abolish capital punishment for one reason, that was, I believe, to get the measure through the House of Commons and have it become law. The proposal was that capital punishment be retained for the murder of policemen or prison guards but, as every member of the House is aware this morning, that was just a farce because the government had no such intention at that time, nor has it since that time allowed an execution to be carried out under the provisions of the present legislation. There was a measure of public protest that arose over the inclusion of the exception at that time and many communications came to the desks of all members of parliament, not to object to the protection granted to policemen and prison guards, but to the fact that the same protection was not granted to all the citizens of Canada.
As we look at the facts, we discover that the policemen themselves took exception to the fact that the same protection was not granted to the other citizens of Canada. In a brief, which I am sure every member received, from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, we find several brief paragraphs in this connection which I should like to read. On page 15 of the brief we find the following statement:
We must make our position clear with respect to the current law dealing with capital punishment.' It is our contention, clearly and emphatically, that we never proposed, requested nor supported the law as it now stands. In other words, we were not the ones to suggest, request or propose that capital punishment be retained for the killing of police officers, as we are sure neither did the prison officials request capital punishment be retained for the killing of prison officials.
Farther on it says:
We must criticize the current law as being discriminatory in the sense that it places a greater value on the lives of policemen and prison guards than it does on the lives of children, housewives, shopkeepers, businessmen, cab drivers, etc.
Not only do we wish the present law to be retained but we wish it to be expanded to cover the murder of any citizen during the commission of a crime.
I think that is very clear in the presentation of the views of the policemen of this country. So, I wanted to put that on the record to make it clear that this was not a special request made by the policemen or the prison guards of this country. In spite of the fact that protests were raised by citizens, I do not believe that they wanted this clause to be removed. They wanted it to be expanded to include the protection of all Canadians.
Those of us who are speaking on this motion believe that all citizens should be guaranteed the maximum degree of security


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: -that this penalty affords. But if the government is determined to remove this degree of security from society in general and succeeds in doing so, it should be known that we are endeavouring to retain it at

least for those who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring the apprehension and incarceration of criminals in this country.
The policies advocated and put in place by this government have underlined the preoccupation of the government with the so-called rights of the criminal element, to the neglect of the rights of society in general. It seems to me that this motion should carry, so protection could be retained at least for prison guards and policemen. What do we find today? We find that our prison guards are shorn of authority to maintain discipline, and this has been done by government direction. The prison guards have been hassled and insulted by the inmates. They have been deprived of the maximum safety measures. These public servants are working under the severest of handicaps in their efforts to contain the lawbreakers in this nation.
I would like to call attention to a document which has been forwarded to all members of parliament by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. On page 3 there is a reference to a telegram which was forwarded by Mr. J. K. Wylie, executive vice president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, to Mr. A. Therrien, commissioner of penitentiaries, concerning the measures to protect custodial officers. I would like to quote just one statement made in the reply to that telegram. It was sent by Mr. Therrien, the commissioner. He states, and I quote:
In closing, I wish to assure you most emphatically that the Penitentiary Service considers it of the utmost importance that custodial staff should enjoy secure, peaceful working conditions in which they are able to go about their duties unharrassed and unmolested. The measures I have outlined above are intended to create and maintain a safe environment for personnel, and I am confident that with the co-operation of all concerned, they can be effective in doing so.
I will not take the time to place on the record the statement outlining what has been done, but I do want to point out that I question very much the statements which are made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the commissioner of penitentiaries, and others who are trying to insinuate that adequate measures are in place or will be in place to guarantee the safety of the personnel in these institutions. I do not believe that they are sufficient or adequate, and I question very much whether there will be any really effective administration to ensure that the regulations which are now in place will be actually carried out to the fullest extent.
The question then comes to us: what is in store for our penitentiary personnel if and when the legislation is passed and becomes law? Reference has been made to 25 year sentences, but here again there is a catch, and it is quite possible that the exception will become the rule. The clause providing for consideration for parole after 15 years under certain circumstances could become the regular procedure. The precedent that has been set by the government by its actions, including the retention of the death penalty for the murder of certain classes of citizens and then refusing to allow sentences to be carried out, is an indication of what we can expect in the future administration of the law.
I would like to call attention to a portion of the presentation made by the Toronto Policemen's Association in this regard. Page 22 reads, in part:
July 8, 1976

News reports of the new law have left Canadians to believe that if capital punishment is abolished it shall be replaced with a mandatory twenty-five year prison term. Very little, if any, mention is ever drawn to the attention of the public that there is provision for a review of that twenty-five year prison term after fifteen years have been served. Our concern based on past experience is that if capital punishment is abolished in return for longer prison terms, then shortly after the abolishment of capital punishment we will see a lessening of the mandatory jail term and a lessening of the time for a review.
Apparently I am not the only one who questions the credibility of the statements made by the Solicitor General, or even those included in the law, because those who are charged with the responsibility of apprehending criminals-and I believe this feeling is shared by those who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining their incarceration-have very serious questions with regard to the effectiveness of this particular provision.
As I return to the motion which is presently before us to delete from the bill the clause which would remove capital punishment, even as far as the murderers of policemen and prison guards are concerned, I believe this motion warrants the support of the entire House. It certainly should warrant the support of hon. members such as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni because it seems to me that the arguments he used were rather superficial. If he is in favour of the retention of capital punishment for all murderers in the category of first degree murder, or however it may be classified, then he should not withhold that protection from some categories, even if his government insists on removing it for the murder of Canadians in general. So I trust that when this motion is brought before the House for a final decision, it will receive the unanimous support of all hon. members of this House and that capital punishment, at least for the murderers of prison guards and policemen, will be retained in our legislation.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to make a few remarks on that extremely important clause of the bill, because if there is a subject which should spur the conscience of all hon. members of the House, it is indeed this bill, and particularly clause 4.
Mr. Speaker, when we think about the role policemen have to play in Canada, we realize the full significance of the legislation before us. We know to what extent our municipal officials and our Canadian police associations at various levels rightly insist on the dedication, the competence and the respectability of our policemen. We even require a very high level of education for an applicant to be accepted in any police force. Courses are given every year in all provinces to our different police forces to ensure public protection, because the policeman, for any normal Canadian, should ensure public protection. That is why he is highly paid. This is why we now see policemen earning $15,000, $18,000 and even $20,000 a year. We are spending staggering amounts for our police salaries so that people may receive the best possible protection.
But while we are asking the police to ensure public safety we, in return, do not want to ensure police safety. We want our policemen to protect us but Parliament does not want to protect them. I cannot imagine more stupid, more inane legislation than the one which is before us. We are paying security forces to protect us, our children, our society, the taxpayers and their properties. We are asking
Criminal Code
the police to fulfill its role, namely to ensure the security of society; that is what we are paying for. On the other hand, the House of Commons refuses to grant those policemen the very protection they are expected to give the public. It is outrageous that this government has reached such a stage. In the final analysis, it means the present government is trying to bring this country to the brink or anarchy. From the moment we do not want to give any protection to the individuals who receive large amounts of money to protect us, this means, Mr. Speaker, that we are ready to live in anarchy in Canada as of tomorrow morning.
Mr. Speaker, we also expect policemen to be well educated and to drive good cars, we ask them to have good systems to fight fire, we also require our prison guards to be well equipped; nevertheless, the first facility we must give policemen is the opportunity to protect themselves, to protect their own lives. We must put ourselves today in the situation of the policemen who have to respond to a telephone call saying that a hold-up is in progress in a bank on the corner of a given street and that someone has already been shot by the bandits who broke into the bank. In the city of Acton Vale, we saw a notorious bandit, who had been swearing for years he would get rid of the police chief, take advantage of a fight in a hotel one evening to shoot this police chief in front of witnesses standing by, something like 200 people. The police chief of Acton Vale was the father of nine children.
How do policemen feel while they are waiting in the police station for distress calls from the public? How do they feel when they must take over after their chief has been shot by a bandit, when they are asked to protect them while they themselves are not even armed and protected, in the sense that it will not matter if the same bandit, who just shot the chief, guns down his assistant or other policemen because there is no punishment, because he is on the same social footing and enjoys the same credibility as the chief of police who had to submit references and a clean record. The bandit who just shot the chief of police, and who already committed many murders is put before society on the same footing as this policeman.
Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear such an argument from a member who asks for the protection of policemen, and who refuses today to give them such protection. I have here the summary of the brief submitted by the national police committee. We must consider it because those concerned today are the policemen. We should have consideration for those who are bound to fight criminals rather than take the advice of political scientists, sociologists or demagogues who hide behind the Solicitor General, who have probably never seen a gangster in their life but who are good at counselling or advising the minister. The minister should choose policemen and nobody else as advisers because they are the ones who are concerned with clause 4. But as long as the government is going to sit and listen to public servants who have no responsibility in running the country, we are likely to be faced once again with bills as stupid and childish as the one before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the position of our policemen. Why are they so disgusted today to see that parliamentarians refuse them the same protection they have always
15146

July 8, 1976
Criminal Code
granted us? I know dozens of police forces in Canada and more particularly those in my riding. They have a conscientious approach to their work in providing public protection. They protect our children, our students and our properties which they defend with eagerness in spite of the risks. We call them to lend assistance to threatened people and to some organizations. They are called in case of fire, for instance, the same way the fire fighters are called, but they are policemen whose services are used to help the people when fire breaks out.
And today we have before us a bill which tends to deprive policemen of protection. I find that disgusting and I find that those who are going to remove the protection for policemen are without conscience. They want to deprive policemen of protection and at the same time they demand police protection. I can only feel revolted by this legislation which should never have been put before the House. And here is what policemen say about the Solicitor General:
We disagree with the minister when he says that it is up to retention-ists to show why the legislation should not be changed. According to us . . .
They are policemen, they are not all fools, not all civil servants sitting in an office who never had to face criminality ...
the minister is the one who should prove .. .
They are not listened to, the representations made in Canada by police forces are not taken into account, some of us would rather listen to representations made by criminals and those who have to do with crime.
According to us, the minister is the one who should prove that the legislation must be changed . ..
That is good logic. The minister is the one who should prove that the legislation must be changed, that is what policemen say.

We object to the public statement by the highest judiciary authority in Canada that he would resign if capital punishment were to be carried out.
Mr. Speaker, how can someone make such a childish public statement? A real child! If he does not get a toy, if he does not get a candy, he is going to go into tantrum. The minister has said that he would resign if anyone should hang. And this statement emanates from the highest judiciary authority in the country! He is the one responsible for the implementation of the law. And he would resign if his bill were not accepted. The brief goes on:
What if all law officers in Canada had this attitude regarding the laws they do not like to enforce?
If law officers were to have this attitude, Mr. Speaker, there would be a general strike overnight by all police forces in Canada because police officers now have to enforce laws they do not like, and yet they do not voice such irresponsible and stupid remarks as those expressed by the minister who said recently that he will resign if his bill is defeated.
We are worried by the public statements of the Solicitor General reflecting his intention to propose a reduced term after which murderers would be eligible for parole following the abolition of capital punishment.

If the Solicitor General really believes that neither the state nor any individual or institution has the right to take a life, we can then expect that he will soon propose that Canadian policemen be unarmed lest they might kill someone in the course of their duties.
What action did the minister take to accommodate the large number of murderers . ..
It sounds good to say that those people will be sent to jail, but our current pentitentiary system in Canada prevents us from putting those people behind bars because we do not have enough jails, enough facilities and the minister knows it. No plans have been made yet to implement what is suggested in this bill: send murderers to jail for 25 years. Jails are already filled to capacity.
What plans did the minister make to accommodate the large number of murderers who will be sentenced to 25 years if the bill is passed in its present form? We are told that jails are already overcrowded, obsolete and are nothing but rest homes. How will these institutions and their authorities be able to face the flow of convicts sentenced to long terms?
Mr. Speaker, what do the policemen think of the deterrent effect?
The executed murderer cannot commit a second crime.
The fact that violent riots in prisons have caused the death of inmates and injuries to guards shows positively the deterrent effect of the capital punishment threat.
Mr. Speaker, about 500 feet from my home, two prison guards have witnessed last year the murder of their colleagues in the Cowansville jail. Presently, those people are on leave without pay because they suffer from a nervous breakdown after they realized what happens inside jails because of the lack of protection given to prison guards. Those people are still on welfare. They received a salary for some time and, today, their doctor gave them a medical certificate: nervous breakdown. It is not the minister, the Solicitor General who risks his life in prisons, without any tools, without any means of protection.
We recommend to the members of the justice committee to consider the findings of a study conducted by Ehrlich and Yunker of the United States, as well as the verbatim report that the American Attorney General filed with the Supreme Court of that country dealing with capital punishment and the constitution of the USA. It is interesting to note that out of the 50 states, 37 have now passed legislation on capital punishment. We are convinced that if we want to compare our jurisdiction with others, it would be more helpful to compare it with that of the USA, because it is more relevant to Canadian jurisdiction than any other in this world.
We take pleasure in this House in wanting to copy the legislation of countries that live under socialist governments, but we should be more inclined to imitate our next door neighbour whose methods we copy every day in the field of trade and in every other activity, except that of justice.
We think that the punishment should be proportional to the crime committed. To us that is justice, not revenge, nor retribution-justice.
Justice is not set by administrators, policemen or legislators. Justice is set by the acceptance by Canadians of the degrees of punishment and their relation to the seriousness of the crime committed.
The results of countless surveys indicate that the majority of Canadians demand justice for murder. The justice they demand is that capital punishment be maintained and that it be applied to premeditated murders, or murders committed during the perpetration of a crime.
That is signed by the Canadian Police Association, by the president, the vice-president and the past president.
I could also read what was done in England:
Return to hanging for murder or genuine life imprisonment.
July 8, 1976

While all Great Britain police departments are going through the country with a fine toothcomb looking for dangerous murderers, the widow of a recently slain chief of police launched a massive campaign in favour of the reinstatement of hanging in England.
"If the country were at war nobody would be offended that death would be the fate of the enemy and I think we are at war with criminals," said pretty Maureen Richardson, a 35 year old brunette.
Her husband, Superintendent Gerald Richardson was gunned down with several shots as he was attempting to arrest two bandits who were trying to flee after stealing jewelry estimated at over $120,000 in Blackpool.
The police identified Richardson's assassin as being Frederick Joseph Sewell, age 34 or 36; this would be his second murder.
Forbes had escaped last Monday from the Peterhead prison in Scotland. He would be the first individual in the judicial annals of Scotland to be guilty of a second murder after being paroled on a sentence of life imprisonment.
That is what the Solicitor General's policy will lead us to with paroles and 25-year terms. Because after a few months, we have seen that individuals commit one, two, three or four murders.
It goes on to state:
Commenting on her campaign, Mrs. Richardson indicated: "I urge reinstatement of hanging for premeditated murders, and I stress that anybody who puts a loaded revolver in his pocket is premeditating something".
Also, as my hon. colleague from Moncton (Mr. Jones) suggested, and I quote:
The Maritimes police officers urge for a return to capital punishment.
This is what Senator Robichaud indicated, and things become serious when a senator suggests he is going to make his own justice.
Senator Louis Robichaud, former premier of New Brunswick, suggested he was opposed to violence under any form but could not accept the way the parole boards and the judicial system let murderers go unpunished in a number of instances. "If someone rapes and kills my daughter, and if adequate punishment is not inflicted by the judiciary, I will personally make it my duty to apply punishment". Such were his words.
Mr. Speaker, when we hear a senator going on record to say he will protect himself, what can we expect from police forces in Canada when they find they have no protection anymore? They will be considered just as criminals are. They will be afforded the same kind of respect given gangsters who perpetrated three, four or even five murders. We will see criminals put on the same social footing as a chief of police with credibility and an impeccable record. Police chiefs are men of talent and character, they often have very important responsibilities outside their official function, as some I have known in my own constituency. At this point in his conscience, the Solicitor General is placing the gangster and the chief of police on an equal footing before the law.
The Quebec Association of Police Directors is fed up with the way the parole board behaves; they blame it for being too generous toward recidivists.
Recidivists are awarded medals! I wonder why, in his bill, the minister did not ask that bandits and criminals be given credit cards and Cadillac cars to better rehabilitate those poor souls into our society.
The Quebec Retail and Services Federation said the following:
The Quebec Retail and Services Federation covers seven professional associations of retailers in various sectors of the retail trade ...
Criminal Code


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on motion No. 13 brought forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). The amendment calls for the deletion of clause 4 of Bill C-84, the clause which would repeal the present provisions of section 214 of the Criminal Code and substitute the penalty of life imprisonment for first degree murder. In effect this would mean a penalty of 25 years in the case of a first conviction for the murder of a police officer, prison guard or correctional officer. I support the amendment because if this clause were deleted we would go back to the law as it was.
I wish to refer to an excellent article by Michael Marley in today's Montreal Gazette in which he comments on the convoluted thinking of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the death penalty. I quote:
It is because I have an enduring confidence in mankind (the law-abiding sort) and confidence in society's ability to protect itself (if it is given the chance) that I favor retention of capital punishment.
This is certainly a volatile enough issue for a general referendum. The government should either give us one or resign and allow us to choose leaders who will be less autocratic and more responsive to the desires of the population.
I agree with Mr. Marley that the government should resign. However, I do not think there is any need for a referendum. There have been many polls taken in Canada as well as questionnaires and letters to members of parliament. We already know the views of the Canadian people.
On April 30, 1975, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) presented a petition. At that time he said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on capital punishment on behalf of over 200,000 concerned people across Canada- a very small percentage of the overall majority who are in favour of capital punishment. May I say the petitions forms were made available in both official languages across Canada.
I understand the end result was that this petition finally had about one million signatures. That in itself should give this government something to think about. It is another reason for them to consider supporting motion No. 3.
There was another article which appeared earlier this year headed "Gospel church poll is 90 per cent in favour of death penalty". I quote:
A Hamilton minister wrote to Canada's Solicitor-General yesterday calling for the retention of the death penalty, based on a survey of the membership of the Associated Gospel Churches of Canada.
It will be found that many opinion polls reached 90 per cent in favour of the death penalty although the overall average for Canada is 75 per cent.
95570-58V2

July 8, 1976
Criminal Code
On February 2, 1976, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) issued a news release containing the results of a questionnaire sent to his constituents. It stated that no fewer than 73 per cent of the citizens of Ottawa West favoured retention of capital punishment. Because of his actions there, in all probably the hon. member for Ottawa West will return to this House after the next election.
We cannot ignore the presentations we received from police associations and prison guards. I wish to read into the record a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister, copies of which were sent to all members of parliament. I quote:
The Canadian Police Association, which represents 40,000 municipal and provincial police officers in Canada, met in Toronto in February 1975 to discuss the issue of capital punishment. The Association is deeply concerned over the fact that there is now no penalty of consequence imposed on persons who commit murder in our country. Persons convicted of murder who are given a "life" sentence can be eligible for parole in seven to ten years after conviction. It is the view of the policemen of this country, as represented by the association, that this is not a suitable penalty and does not serve to protect society.
There have been some changes with regard to the length of sentence, but that is not what the Canadian people want.
In July 1972 the Association informed the Honourable John Turner, then Minister of Justice, of our position with respect to capital punishment; a copy of the submission setting out our position was forwarded to you as well. Our recommendations were ignored by your government.
The government is not only ignoring the police association and the guard's association, but between 80 and 90 per cent of the Canadian people.
In July 1973 the association wrote to the Honourable James Jerome, Chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, advising him and his committee of our views on the issue of capital punishment. Once again our recommendations were ignored.
It is our belief that our position, as outlined to the government in 1972 and reiterated in 1973, is even more applicable in 1975 since crimes of violence continue to plague this country at an alarming rate and since the penalties imposed by present legislation are no deterrent.
We recognize that it is the responsibility of police officers to enforce the law and that it is the responsibility of government and parliament to make the laws which police officers must enforce. However, the law must serve to protect the citizen and it is the view of the Canadian Police Association that the present laws with respect to punishment for murder are inadequate and fail to provide for the proper protection of Canadian citizens.
It is our belief that unless substantial steps are taken to provide meaningful penalties for the murder of our citizens the rate of these violent crimes will continue to escalate.
The Canadian Police Association is again advancing to members of parliament the position they take with respect to capital punishment and are advising the Canadian people of this position so that citizens can be aware of the concern felt by their police officers in every province in Canada.
The Canadian Police Association strongly recommends that the government of Canada immediately review the present laws pertaining to punishment for murder, in line with the following resolution:
"Capital punishment must be extended beyond the present limitations so as to include all crimes in which acts of violence result in the death of any person.
Persons who take the life of another while committing such crimes as child molestation, rape, air piracy, political assassination, treason, and robbery must be charged with capital murder and, if convicted, should face the death penalty.
In cases where persons are found guilty of capital murder, after all levels of judicial appeal have been exhausted, and no recommendation for mercy is forthcoming from the judicial process, the federal 
cabinet shall be prohibited from interfering with that sentence and subsequent punishment.
In cases where a recommendation for mercy is forthcoming from the judicial process the federal cabinet should be permitted to commute the death sentence. However the alternative to the death sentence should be limited to natural or true life imprisonment."
We, the police officers who have sworn to serve and protect the citizens of Canada, firmly believe that all law abiding citizens have a right to expect, and indeed to demand, to be able to live in peace and safety, free from fear of criminal acts being perpetrated against them or against member of their families. The continued eroding of this feeling of security by elected representatives, through their failure adequately to maintain legislation guaranteeing every reasonable protection to all law abiding citizens, is of the greatest danger to our free society; if allowed to continue, this erosion will ultimately destroy our accepted way of life.
The letter is signed by S. R. Scarr, the president of the association. I might point out that the police association has the support of the majority of Canadians. I find it strange that this government continually ignores these types of requests, as well as representations received from constituents across Canada.
Members of parliament received a letter from the Public Service Alliance of Canada dated June 24, 1976, which reads as follows:
Before you cast your final ballot on Bill C-84, we would like to bring to your attention the following facts so that in conscience, as you were reminded by the Prime Minister of Canada in his address to the House on June 15, 1976, appearing in the Commons Debates, page 14499, and I quote "I want to make it very clear that, if a majority of honourable members vote against abolition, some people are going to be hanged. Their death would be a direct consequence of the negative decision made by this House on this bill."


Mr. McKinley:: What about the victims?


A. Daniel McKenzie: It is to them we should be giving consideration, but this government is not too concerned about the victims.
On our part, we would also like to appeal to your conscience and revert the statement of the Prime Minister on all abolitionists that they would be held responsible for all future killings of penitentiary employees and law enforcement officers across this land, and we make the pledge that every time one of those killings takes place, we will remind all those who will have voted for the abolition of the capital punishment.
The facts that we would like you to take into consideration are as follows:
1.	the irresponsible attitude adopted by the Commissioner and the directors of institutions in regard to the pressure groups entering the institutions;
2.	the lack of proper management now in charge of the majority of institutions across the land;
3.	the horrible states in which the inmates are being classified, endangering the life of both penitentiary employees and the majority of inmates who would be ready to accept the rules that they have to conform with for the length of their sentences;
4.	the lack of facilities to guarantee the protection and security of both penitentiary employees and inmates against murderous types who will have nothing to lose by the proposed sentence of 25 years as being considered under Bill C-84.
I would remind the House once again of the recent escapade of Donald Kelly who obtained a toy gun and attempted to escape from an Ontario prison. Imagine what would have happened had it been a real gun: we would probably have had six dead guards on our hands. To continue:
July 8, 1976

For those reasons, the Hon. Warren Allmand, Solicitor General of Canada, who did not have the courage to disclose those facts to the hon. members of the House of Commons, should in conscience resign from his cabinet position since he has lost the faith of all penitentiary employees and law enforcement officers across this land.
Please consider very carefully in all conscience, keeping in mind the security of your own family along with the penitentiary personnel and law enforcement officers of this country, the following: "We want to make it very clear that if a majority of hon. members vote against retention, some people are going to be murdered. Their death would be a direct consequence of the negative decision made by your House on this bill".
In conscience,
Paul Caouette, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Public Service Alliance of Canada
These are some of the reasons for which I am supporting this motion, and I hope every member of the House will give serious consideration to supporting it.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a further opportunity to speak on this important subject because I believe we are dealing with a critical aspect of our whole system of law and order when we address ourselves to this motion. We have an opportunity before us now to uphold that system at least to a degree by affording to police and prison officers the protection which many Canadians are demanding.
Prison guards and policemen are, by the very nature of their work, in contact most of the time with lawbreakers and the criminal element of our society. In other words, their chances of being attacked or murdered are very much greater than those of the average citizen. This being the case, they deserve special protection. We owe it to policemen and prison guards to provide them with every reasonable protection we can offer. In recent times we have seen an alarming increase in the taking of hostages both inside and outside prisons, an exercise often designed to make possible the escape or release of inmates held in prison. Such incidents will probably have serious consequences for us in the future and will, undoubtedly, result in the murder of prison guards.
Those who take on jobs as police officers and prison guards are fathers and husbands just like anyone else. When they undertake to make a career as policemen or in prison work they recognize there are certain risks attached to their decision. The question here is how high this risk ought to be. Surely, men and women who embark on a career in this type of work should be able to enjoy a normal life expectancy. We are increasing substantially the risks run by these public servants if we fail to pass the amendment before us.
One of the immediate concerns affecting police forces across the country is whether they will be able in future to recruit sufficient men of high calibre, such as we are privileged to have in our police forces at the present time, to meet the needs of our law enforcement requirements. At the present time, for example, I am advised that the Calgary police force is experiencing great difficulty in meeting its recruitment needs in spite of the fact that pay for policemen in Calgary is No. 4 in Canada and that fringe benefits are equal to the best. The pressure is already beginning to be felt. The removal of capital punishment to
Criminal Code
the extent indicated in this motion is likely to have serious effects in terms of police reaction and morale.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that last winter, following the killing of policemen in the province of Quebec, there was a strong likelihood of the entire Quebec provincial police force going out on strike in protest. A few years ago, in Montreal, when the police decided to walk out the result was chaos. If we remove this important protection from the law we are inviting a reaction from our police forces every time there is a brutal slaying of a policeman in this country. We have all witnessed the paralysing effect of a walk-out by airline pilots. I ask hon. members to consider the effect of a police walk-out, whether in a city or in a province, or of a walk-out by prison guards.
The government, either on purpose or by bad management, seems to have pitted almost every conceivable group in our society against another ever since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power. They have set labour against business, rich against poor, French against English, and in this case law-abiding citizens against the government. If there were to be a widespread walk-out by police or prison guards, or a tide of resignations, the result could be the imposition of martial law in this country.
Why is the removal of the death penalty for any and every possible offence necessary or desirable? The government across the way is directly responsible for the deterioration of law and order in Canada. Its permissive actions and the changes it has made in the law have brought about a much worse society than we had hoped for or deserved. Under this administration, the man who obeys the law, the man who works for his living, is taking a back seat to the law breaker, to those who will not work and to those who are encouraged to live off the system. The removal of protection for our police forces as prescribed in the bill before us is another step backward, a step toward anarchy.
I wish the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) would tell us more about the trial period in connection with abolition which began in 1967 and which was extended in 1973. What trial was conducted? What scientific evidence was gathered? Why did the minister ask the House to extend the trial period a short 32 months ago? What further evidence does the government require? What further evidence did they get? Mr. Speaker, the so-called trial period was not a trial period at all. The whole exercise was a farce. Since the law of Canada was never carried out, no one was ever hanged for the killing of a policeman or a prison guard. There was no deterrent, no experiment. We have, in effect, been living with the complete abolition of capital punishment since the Prime Minister took office.
This example of lawbreaking and disregard for the wishes and feelings of the people is a matter of national concern. The government seems to believe that laws are to be passed with no regard whatsoever for the wishes of the people. It will learn that as a result of this arrogance and disregard it will be thrown out of office. Governments and members of this House, no matter what anyone says, are here to speak for their constituents, and when they do not the voters find representatives who will speak for them. I know that members opposite are under tremendous pressure from their constituents. I understand this is particularly the case with members from the province of Quebec. It is interesting that their leader has so much influence on

July 8, 1976
Criminal Code
those opposite that they listen to him and not to their constituents.
Capital punishment in the United States is an example which cannot be overlooked. The Supreme Court ruled very recently that the death penalty is not a cruel or unusual punishment. Thus, the death penalty can and will be imposed by many more states. Some 37 states have returned to the death penalty and it is expected now that many more, in fact most states in the United States will.
If we do not uphold capital punishment in respect of the killing of prison guards and policemen, I would ask you to consider what are the consequences for our Canadian police forces which are considered to be basically conservative groups of men. If we remove this important protection from the law in respect of our police officers, and they are faced every day and night with investigations, checking out people in automobiles and strange, dark places, they are going to step out with their guns drawn. I can assure you that they are going to shoot first and shoot to kill if there is any question about their own security or their own lives. There will be no trial and no jury. The action will be all over. In addition to that, it is clear today, although it may not have been a few years ago, that in such instances these police officers who kill in the carrying out of their duty will have the full support of the Canadian people.
I think it is important to put on record the fact that since this experiment of partial abolition, which truly has been complete abolition, there have been 37 policemen and three prison guards killed in our country. If we consider the statements made by the Solicitor General even in the last few weeks, we see that he has made it very clear in his speeches around the country that he intends to alter the commitment he is apparently making that the 25-year imprisonment provision will be enforced in respect of those convicted for first-degree murder. It is very clear from the history of this government and the statements of the minister that they will very soon start to whittle and chip away at this proposed punishment so that it will be just a matter of time until it is reduced to 20 years, 15 years or perhaps even 10 years.
The Solicitor General has a very important place in this whole matter of law enforcement in our country. He answers to parliament for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for the prisons and penitentiaries of our country. When it is clear that the prison personnel and, certainly privately, members of the RCMP do not agree and take a very strong reaction against the bill, specifically the removal of this clause to protect prison guards and policemen as referred to in the amendment we are now discussing, then it becomes clear he has lost the confidence of those to whom he is supposed to show leadership. If this clause of the bill is defeated, then I think the Solicitor General has no alternative but to resign his position as Solicitor General.
In closing, I wish once more to refer to this question of capital punishment and whether it is a deterrent. This has constantly been the question raised by hon. members opposite and by the Prime Minister. A constituent of mine, Mr. R. G. Campbell, has stated, as have so many, that the

question of capital punishment is one in respect of which each person's opinion is just as valid as the next. The claim of some privileged, or some special knowledge or understanding which is made by hon. members opposite that apparently is not available to Canadians at large is the basis of an absolutely foolish and ridiculous argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about your own members?


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of noise from members opposite who undoubtedly feel terribly sensitive about this. They should feel sensitive, because it is clear we do not have a free vote as this is a government bill.


An hon. Member:: It is a free vote.


Peter Colwell Bawden: It is a government bill and there is no free vote on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: If there had been a truly free vote on the government side, the bill would have been defeated on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: I think it is clear to the Canadian people that by calling this a free vote, yet maintaining cabinet solidarity and putting heavy pressure on members opposite in the Liberal party, the government is truly deceiving the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: I am not surprised that we hear from so many sensitive members opposite at this point in time. In closing, I would simply say that I hope when members vote on this amendment they will listen to the people of Canada rather than to their leader, the Prime Minister. I hope that after listening to their constituents they will support this amendment which provides for the retention of capital punishment for the murderers of policemen and prison guards. I hope, too, hon. members will reconsider their position on third reading, because if the current trend is not altered and this bill is passed, it will profoundly and adversely affect the future of all Canadians.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of the amendment to Bill C-84 in relation to capital punishment for the murderers of policemen and prison guards, presented by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). I was not going to enter this debate until I heard the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson). He claims to be a retentionist, but during his speech he said he would not support this amendment because it would make second-class citizens of many Canadians. I really do not understand the logic or the rationalization of that hon. member, if in fact he is a retentionist.
I heard this argument used during the last debate we had in respect of a further five-year experiment to abolish capital punishment with the exception of cases involving
July 8, 1976

the murder of policemen and prison guards. The people who put this argument forward were, of course, in favour of the retention of capital punishment for everyone, but they certainly agreed most emphatically that there should be capital punishment for anyone who murders a policeman or prison guard.
Now we are speaking about the total abolition of capital punishment and we have already had one vote in which those people who are in favour of abolition won by a very slim margin. A retentionist argues now that he will not support this motion, which is the very motion we should favour, that there be capital punishment for the murderers of policemen and prison guards. How can anyone rational-' ize his position and say he will not support the motion because it will make second-class citizens of people who are not policemen or prison guards? How can this position be rationalized thus?
The motion put forward by the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta is essential for the maintenance of law and order in Canada. The government came forth with what they call a peace and security package in Bill C-83 and Bill C-84 which they said would bring better law and order to this country. When we were able to analyze these two pieces of legislation, together with the people of Canada, we found we could not buy this package which, as the government said, would bring better law and order. Bill C-83 deals mostly with gun control. It will not do much to control guns in the hands of criminals; it could even make criminals out of people who have guns. The people of Canada quickly saw through this and the majority of them continue to favour retention of capital punishment. In my view, there are more people in favour of capital punishment since this package was presented than there were before. Before these two bills were put forward, well over 50 per cent were in favour of capital punishment, whereas now nearly 80 per cent favour it.
There was a five-year experiment in retaining capital punishment for the murder of policemen and prison guards only. A bill was presented a second time, which received less acceptance in the House, extending the experiment for a further two years. We know that during that time 37 policemen were murdered in Canada and three prison guards. These are the kinds of results that the people of Canada are looking at. Canadians want law and order in Canada, which they do not have under the present government.
The work of our policemen and prison guards should be made easier, and this is what the amendment before us attempts to achieve. Those of us who are retentionists, as well as those who are abolitionists, should look closely at this amendment and be ready to vote in favour of it. By taking away the last line of protection that policemen and prison guards have, we are making their jobs that much harder. People who are looking for jobs in Canada, the very people whom the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) wants to put to work, will not be interested in obtaining that kind of employment which affords them no protection, where they have to put their lives on the line at all times. The government will have a hard time recruiting people for these jobs.
Criminal Code
We know that many prison guards who have been working at their jobs for a long time and who know much more about that work than we as parliamentarians do, are saying they will not be happy in their jobs if this bill passes unamended, and in fact they will be ready to retire early or find some other work. To replace them we will have to find another group of people; but they, also, will find these jobs hazardous, especially when they hear people who do not respect law and order saying, "Let's go out and get a policeman tonight". Policemen are very aware of this situation and aware of the hazards of their jobs.
I say we should make our policemen and prison guards proud of their profession and proud of the opportunity to carry out law and order. We should provide protection for them so that they do not have to be worried about their lives. I say to every member of the House-and especially to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-that they should look at this amendment which would provide better protection for policemen and prison guards. It is a good amendment to Bill C-84. I am certainly in support of it and I hope the amendment will be accepted.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate in support of the motion which is before us and which proposes that clause 4 of Bill C-84 be deleted. If I may, first of all I would like to outline why I am most anxious that hon. members consider allowing the death penalty to remain with respect to the killing of jail guards and policemen. If we read Bill C-84, it is very disturbing to find that the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) proposes that a man may be convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and can literally be out on the streets-granted, with an escort-within a day for various lengths of time. I draw the attention of hon. members to clause 21 of the bill, which appears at page 12. It proposes an amendment to section 674 of the Criminal Code, and I refer specifically to section 674(2) which provides:
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-
, It specifies that this will be the case until there are only three years to run of the full sentence. In short, what the Solicitor General is suggesting is that even where a person is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, under certain circumstances he may be permitted to leave jail provided he has an escort.
Let us consider those circumstances, because this is what I find most disturbing. We find that absence with an escort is dealt with in another bill which is before is, Bill C-83. In that bill it is clearly set out that if someone is incarcerated, he may be temporarily absent with an escort under two different circumstances. The first is that the Commissioner of Penitentiaries, for an unlimited period of time for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding 15 days for humanitarian reasons or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate, may grant leave with an escort to anyone in jail. Second, and this is what I find most disturbing, any officer in charge of a jail, for a period not exceeding 15 days for medical reasons and for a period not exceeding

July 8, 1976
Criminal Code
five days for humanitarian reasons, or to assist in the rehabilitation of the inmate, may allow an inmate to be absent from jail provided he has an escort.
I have mentioned that the person in charge of a jail may permit an inmate to leave for five days. I point out that under the existing act it is only three days. However, the Solicitor General is proposing in Bill C-83, that such a person be given two extra days leave or the right to be absent, provided he has an escort.
I think the misrepresentation which has taken place with respect to the so-called life sentence which the government is proposing is most unfair to the Canadian public. The Solicitor General should have made it abundantly clear that there is no life sentence in the context in which that term is usually used. Abolitionists have said to me, in referring to life sentences, that they generally think of a Devil's Island type of situation where a man is convicted and for 25 years, come what may, he stays shut off from society and there is no way he can get back into society. In effect, the key is thrown away.
Let us be clear; that is not what the government is proposing in the bill before us. It is suggesting that even where a person is convicted of murder he will be sentenced to a term of life, or 25 years, which is open to review in 15 years, but let us bear in mind that during that period even for the first 12 years he can be absent from prison as long as he has an escort. Who is the escort to be? The escort is to be a policeman or some other peace officer as defined in the act. I think that is an extremely dangerous provision.
As hon. members know, I am proposing that the Solicitor General's amendment to the Criminal Code contained in Bill C-84 be amended, because I believe that under no circumstances should a person be permitted to leave jail, even with an escort, without further review or confirmation that there is a minimum of danger. My amendment suggests that absence with an escort should not be granted unless there is a judge's order. I have discussed this with the minister. He points out that the wording may be ambiguous. With that I agree, and subsequently a colleague of mine will be moving a further amendment to my amendment to make clear exactly what we are trying to achieve. We are saying that there should be no absence without an escort, under any circumstances, but that absence with an escort must only be with the approval of a judge or, as has been suggested, perhaps with the approval of the National Parole Board. That will be the tenor of our amendment to be introduced subsequently.
I was a little startled when the hon. member who spoke before me referred to the remarks which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) made yesterday. Speaking on the amendment which is before us, namely, the retention of the death penalty for murderers of prison guards and policemen, the hon. member stated that, while he is a retentionist, he felt it unfair to have the death penalty for what he though was a select group of society. He wonders why policemen are different from others. He stated, as reported at page 15133 of Hansard;
I believe that the murder of a policeman or a prison guard is no more, or no less, important than the killing of a child, a fisherman or any other member of our society ... I still feel that this is a discriminatory provision, and the sooner we get rid of the idea that some groups in society are more important than others, the better off we will be.
[Mr. Stevens.)
I am not saying that the death penalty should not be extended to many more classes of murder than simply the killing of a jail guard or a policeman, but I do say that the hon. member is quite wrong in saying that policemen should not have the added protection which the death penalty provides. I say that because we must accept that policemen, contrary to what the hon. member says, unlike firemen and unlike most people in society, are charged with the preservation of our whole system of law and order. They are the front-line troops, so to speak, and I think this parliament must do everything in its power to ensure that they are respected when they are on duty.
Perhaps one of the main reasons I feel so strongly about the retention of the death penalty is that when I was a reporter for the Toronto Daily Star, many times I had the opportunity to be with the police when they brought in people who were involved in crime. I remember very vividly that day in March, 1952, when two detectives were shot down in the city of Toronto by Steven Suchan and Leonard Jackson. I think if any member of the House had witnessed what transpired before that shooting, what transpired after the shooting and what happened afterwards as far as the police were concerned in rounding up the two convicts, they would be a lot less sure that they should vote for abolition.
Perhaps many hon. members do recall that shooting. Sergeant detective Edmund Ton died 17 days later, and his assistant detective sergeant Roy Perry was wounded and recovered but could take no part in active police work and occupied a desk job for the rest of his days on the force. He is now dead. I mention this because I remember the night they finally cornered Leonard Jackson in Toronto. I remember the apprehension of the police as they left police headquarters to try to arrest Leonard Jackson. I remember Jackson's statement, hollered from the house he was in, that the police would have to come and get him. They did, Mr. Speaker. I remember the account of what happened in Montreal when Steven Suchan was cornered in his apartment. The police had to go in with guns drawn. He was shot as he tried to shoot the police who went into the apartment.
I believe for members of the House to suggest that policeman should not be given the added protection of making it clear to a criminal that if he dare shoot a policeman or a prison guard he, in turn, will lose his life is to let down our police force and prison guards. In fact, I think the government must carry a heavy weight through insisting that this legislation be passed.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), perhaps feeling that there was not sufficient support for this bill, stated in this House that members should keep in mind that if they voted against this bill and it did not pass, some people in this country would hang. I say, let the Prime Minister remember that to the degree he insist and his cabinet colleagues insist that this bill be passed, every future murder in this country is on their hands to the degree that it could have been deterred. While the government weighs the fate of the 11 people who are now sentenced to die, while they hesitate to commute, hoping that this legislation will be passed and then they will not have to take that position, I say to hon. members that since the death penal-
July 8, 1976

ty was abolished, to all intents and purposes, 65 people in this country have been sentenced to die. Of that number, 54 death sentences have been commuted and 11 are awaiting the decision of the government and the passage of this bill.
As we weigh the possibility of whether these people should be legally executed or not, let us not forget that in the same period over 4,000 Canadians were illegally executed. They were the victims of this type of crime. I think it would have served the Prime Minister better to have pointed out that retention of the death penalty, at least in a limited sense and certainly for prison guards and policemen, may help to deter future murderers, and if in any way we can lower the death rate from murder in this country, we should. I think the government is not acting responsibly and I call upon hon. members to support this amendment on that point alone.
The government likes to raise the question of how some of our members have voted. Have hon. members on the government side noticed that in the second reading vote on this matter, 80 per cent of the Conservative caucus voted for retention?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would suggest this means that 80 per cent of the Conservative caucus is right in step with 80 per cent of the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would find it interesting if government members could explain why approximately 17 per cent of their number voted for retention and something over 80 per cent voted for abolition, bearing in mind that the cabinet bloc-27 in number-voted solidly for abolition.


An hon. Member:: Like your front bench.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of our caucus voted for retention, and a little over 80 per cent on the government side voted for abolition. Let us not confuse the question of who is voting how. The other point I would make-and obviously government members are confused about it-is that this is represented by the government as a free vote. Where is the freedom on their side to reflect the 80 per cent of public opinion in Canada that says retention should continue? The free vote is on this side of the House and we, to the extent of 80 per cent, voted for retention. I think it is a credit to our caucus that we were allowed that freedom of vote.
I have touched briefly on why I believe this amendment should be supported and why we should allow the death penalty to continue with regard to the killing of prison guards and policemen. I should like to back this up with some statistics. It is often stated-I notice the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) said that somehow what I was saying was totally different from what the Prime Minister was saying-that it is a deterrent to have the death penalty.
On January 26, 1973, at page 688 of Hansard, speaking on Bill C-2-which was the old version of Bill C-84-the Solicitor General stated that he would like to have three six-year periods to compare with respect to three ap-
Criminal Code
proaches to capital punishment, and at the end of that time he could decide whether the death penalty should be eliminated permanently. The minister said, in 1973:
We are just receiving the statistics for 1971. It seems to me that we must see the process, commenced in 1967, through to its logical conclusion. That further necessitates making no substantial change in the law until such time as we are in a position to fully understand the impact of the partial abolition. Bill C-2 will allow us to complete this evaluation. If the House agrees to the provisions of Bill C-2 we will be able to compare three periods of approximately six years when three distinct and different laws concerning the death penalty prevailed. If we are properly to acquit ourselves of our responsibilities to the public, Mr. Speaker, we must be prepared to grant the time necessary to study the effects of the three laws so that decisions can be made on sound ground.
I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was an interesting approach to suggest that we look at these three six-year periods, but I would point out that the minister has very cleverly avoided comparing the three six-year periods either in this House or anywhere else. I should like to give the basic statistics of what has occurred in those three six-year periods. For example, the first period ran from 1956-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may only put those facts on record if he has the unanimous consent of the House, because his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members. The first period was between 1956 and 1962. I am referring to Statistics Canada figures regarding murders. The average number of murders per 100,000 of population during the first six-year period, when the death penalty not only was on the statute books but criminals were executed was 1.1 in Canada. I have referred to Jackson and Suchan in Toronto who were executed in December of the year they committed the crime. In the next six years, while in theory the death penalty was still in force in this country, in practice every sentence was commuted and there was no death penalty. In that period the murder rate rose to 1.5 per
100,000	population. Now let us look at the last six years. As the minister said when speaking on second reading, last year the murder rate in Canada had risen to 2.4 per 100,000 population, a rate more than double that applying to the 1956 to 1962 period.


An hon. Member:: And what about other serious crimes?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member asks, what about other serious crimes? That is a strange twist. The hon. member should realize that our crime rate is rising because the government is taking a more lenient attitude to those who commit crime.


Mr. Horner:: It is too permissive.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Those guilty of the most serious of all crimes, murder, should be punished with death; only then will people realize that this government means business. I emphasize that I am not making an emotional argument. Statistics show clearly the rising murder rate in this country and elsewhere. Faced with such a rise in the murder

July 8, 1976
Criminal Code
rate, the government should propose the continuation of the death penalty, not its elimination. In short, it is evident that the government's attitude to the death penalty in the three six-year periods to which I have referred has allowed the murder rate to rise. Ordinarily, you would think that a minister would say, "I have looked at the figures and think for the time being the death penalty should continue." But for reasons which I do not understand, the minister says exactly the opposite.
I have referred to the attitude of the solicitor general of the United States who made known his views on the death penalty in a brief submitted to the supreme court of the United States. As you know, the United States supreme court has held that the death penalty, in certain circumstances, is constitutional and may be imposed. Many attorneys general of states of the United States hold similar views. They think the death penalty is a deterrent, are fighting to have it instituted in cases where it is not on the statute books and to have it retained in cases where it is.
The attorney general of California, E. J. Younger, submitted two briefs to the United States supreme court. I invite hon. members to read those briefs. In them he set out clearly why it is thought in California that the death penalty is a deterrent. For example, in one brief he says that the Los Angeles police department conducted a survey between December 21, 1970, and February 4, 1971. It interviewed 316 arrestees. Unarmed suspects were asked why they did not arm themselves, and armed suspects who did not use their weapons were asked why they did not. Of the 316 persons interviewed, 217 denied their crime or refused to make a statement, primarily out of a desire not to jeopardize their case. The positive statements made by the remaining 99 are classified as follows:
1.	Deterred by fear of death penalty from carrying weapon or operating weapon, 50 (50.5 per cent).
2.	Unaffected by death penalty because it was no longer being enforced, 7 (7.07 per cent).
3.	Undeterred by death penalty, would kill whether it was enforced or not, 10 (10.1 per cent).
4.	Unaffected by death penalty because they would not carry weapon in any event, primarily out of fear of being injured themselves or of injuring someone else, 32 (32.3 per cent).
Clearly, the majority of those who made statements agreed that they did not carry a weapon because they were frightened of the death penalty. I suggest that even if only one person is deterred from carrying a weapon and committing murder, the death penalty should be retained as a worth-while measure. The attorney general of California stated in his brief:
The conclusions drawn from the study are as follows:
The adoption of an effectively enforced death penalty system is a deterrent in the prevention of homicides.
The report also notes:
If this study contained only one and not the 50 documented cases supporting the fact that the death penalty is a deterrent, there should be no question of its retention and enforcement-
Appendix C to the brief quotes the actual statements made by people who had been arrested. The reasons given for using or not using a weapon are most interesting. For example, one suspect said:
Since in reality there is no death penalty in California, I would kill to obtain what I want.

That was the statement of an unarmed robber. A suspect charged with armed robbery said:
I used a pellet gun because I didn't want to kill anyone and be put to death in the gas chamber.
An unarmed burglar who was charged said:
I don't carry a gun. I don't want to be shot at by police and am afraid of the death penalty.
Another man interviewed who had been charged with armed robbery said:
I used an unloaded gun in the robbery of a market so I would not hurt anyone and because I am afraid of the death penalty.
May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: But the hon. member is already on overtime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 fully realizing that unanimous consent is a rare thing in this House. The motion which I will read is of a strictly non-political nature, the substance has been communicated to the appropriate persons in all parties, and I understand that general agreement has been achieved on the matter. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the elected representatives of the people of Canada assembled in the House of Commons on July 8, 1976, extend congratulations and best wishes to the mayor, the members of the municipal council and to all the people of the municipality of Smiths Falls in the province of Ontario on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of this leading community in eastern Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 can be presented to the House only if there is unanimous consent. 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!
July 8, 1976

Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Lack of funding to provide for the protection of salmon rivers in Newfoundland necessitates the lay-off of river guardians one and two months before the close of the season. The situation is made worse because of low river levels and both these circumstances provide a paradise for poachers. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That this House order the matter to be deemed an emergency and that funding be provided to allow continuance of patrol activity on rivers affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented for debate by the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that all signs indicate that unemployment among students this summer will be even higher than last year's level, which was 14.4 per cent; in view of the fact that the government is directly responsible for much of this unemployment because of its withdrawal of the Opportunities for Youth program, the lack of which departmental studies indicate could have raised student unemployment by two or three per cent last year, and in view of the fact that present Canada student loan plan regulations do not use the amount a student earns during the summer to gauge how much he should be eligible to borrow but instead examine only the number of weeks during which the student was available for work, a procedure which, if followed this fall, will force students unable to find work this summer to discontinue their post-secondary education, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government of Canada follow the example of the Province of Nova Scotia in dealing with students by basing eligibility for loans on their actual income as defined by the Income Tax Act rather than on the number of weeks they are available for work but are possibly unable to find it.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


AVAILABILITY OF ALCOHOL ABUSE PROGRAM TO NATIVES IN QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the National Native Alcoholic Abuse Program has not been effectively implemented in the Province of Quebec- indeed, no moneys have been allocated for the program in Quebec to date-and in view of the fact that Indian people have been denied the right to become involved in their own health programs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of National Health and Welfare immediately consult with the responsible native groups in the Province of Quebec to resolve this critical issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on an urgent and pressing matter. In the light of the fact that the Ministry of Transport has been unable to resolve its differences with air inspectors, and since this dispute is causing considerable hardship to aircraft owners and pilots, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to give his attention to a rapid settlement of this dispute along lines acceptable to both parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!
[DOT] <14101



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture but, because of the serious nature of it, perhaps I should direct it to the minister responsible for his department in

July 8, 1976
Oral Questions
his absence. In view of the fact that the operational head of the PFAA has been committed to trial on charges of criminal fraud and that the House leader has postponed the legislation to repeal PFAA until the trial is over, did the Minister of Agriculture approve the burning of the internal correspondence of PFAA as reported in the House yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will be in the House in a couple of seconds.


An hon. Member:: Let's have the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps that question could be deferred until the arrival of the minister.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Has the question of the purchase of the Orion aircraft from Lockheed been determined by the Cabinet and, if so, will an announcement be made by the appropriate minister to this House with a full statement of the reasons for the decision so that this House, being concerned as it is with a billion dollar deal, with the controversy that surrounds the matter, the doubt about the strategy involved and the stability of the aircraft concerned, will have an opportunity to hear about it and an opportunity to comment on it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it will be our intention to report to the House when the cabinet has come to the consideration of this matter in a final way. We did not discuss the substantive item this morning in Cabinet. We expect to do so probably next week. Whether we can make this report to the House or whether we will make it to the country will, of course, depend on whether the House is still sitting. It would be our intention to make it to the House if it is still sitting at that time, and I hope it won't.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a question that would be much more appropriately addressed to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence-


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Defence has recovered his breath I should like to ask him this question. There is a story published by the Financial Post under the byline of Clyde Baxter which says that the minister recently took a rather quite, unannounced trip to Washington, and suggests he was there advised, or perhaps pressured, that the United States authorities would prefer Canada to purchase Orions rather than consider Boeings or some other possibilities. Is that correct?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, parts of the statement are correct and parts are not correct.


An hon. Member:: Which are which?


James Armstrong Richardson: The part that is correct is that I did go to Washington, and I did have discussions with senior officials of the government and the United States navy. My main purpose in going was to find out what they are going to do over the next 20 or 25 years, not to have them tell us what we should do. They did not offer the kind of gratuitous advice that is suggested in that report. They did, however, confirm that they intend to use Lockheed P3-C's well into the 1990's.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister advise the House whether any of these very important discussions going on between the government of Canada and Lockheed aircraft are being committed to paper, or is the whole thing to be conducted on the basis of a gentleman's agreement similar to the type that the Prime Minister a few weeks ago told me very definitely in this House he preferred for important matters of this kind?


An hon. Member:: Between friends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman is not remembering what I told him. I said that every day hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions go on through gentlemen's agreement and he, as a gentleman, should remember that. He should also remember that having been, I think, president of a stock exchange, where a large part of these transactions take place.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister, of course, as he usually does, did not make any attempt to answer my very pertinent question and it was this. Would he advise the House whether the discussions that are being carried on are being committed to paper, so that each side knows where the other side stands and we do not have this musical comedy fiasco type of thing that we had a few weeks ago when the whole Lockheed deal with Canada fell apart right before our eyes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would perhaps reassure the hon. member by telling him that we are being cautious this time, but I would not like to have to say whether we are putting it on paper or on tapes.
July 8, 1976


HARBOURS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
A few weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Transport in the House whether there were discussions between the officials of his department and those of the government of the province of Quebec concerning the wharves along the St. Lawrence River, which constitute the link between the islands and the mainland. He had assured the House that the discussions were continuing. Is the minister in a position today to tell us whether these discussions had favourable results?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that the increased tolls on the St. Lawrence which are estimated at an additional $15,000 for every load of grain that goes down the river will not be announced while the House is in recess?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a purely speculative story. This whole question has not yet been considered by the government. I do not know at what particular point in time it will come before the government; therefore I cannot tell him whether the House will be here or not.



AGRICULTURE


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I telephoned the minister's office a couple of hours ago about this question, so that he knows of it. In view of the fact that the operational head of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been committed to trial on charges of criminal fraud, and in view of the fact that the House Leader has postponed the legislation to repeal the PFAA until the trial is over, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he approved the burning of the internal correspondence of the PFAA administration, as reported to the House yesterday by the parliamentary secretary?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is well aware of the fact that the RCMP had access to all the material, went through
Oral Questions
all the files for the court case, and so on. As far as I am concerned, the officer in charge was within his rights and juridiction because they were closing the offices of PFAA. I am sure the hon. member is also aware that all the other documents, books, etcetera, are in the archives at the present time and therefore anyone can check, excepting the material-


Mr. Fairweather:: Excepting the evidence.


Eugene Whelan: The material that was destroyed was destroyed by the officer in charge under normal circumstances, I am told.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is very obvious that someone must have authorized the burning of this internal correspondence. Does the minister know who it was, and specifically, does he or anyone in his office know whether the advice came from the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board or any of his staff?


Eugene Whelan: The information that was given to me was that no instructions were given to the person in charge who decided that all insignificant documents should be destroyed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: As I said earlier, the RCMP went through all the files and kept all the documents they thought of any importance, and those are still before the courts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the minister's answer that the person in charge of the office on his own authority destroyed these documents, is the minister fully aware of the fact that the person in charge of the office is up on a charge of criminal fraud laid by the RCMP?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the hon. member knows that that is not correct. I am sure he knows also that the RCMP said there was insufficient evidence of any wrong-doing to proceed any further with the case, and it is up to the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan to do anything further if he so desires.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member at three o'clock. The hon. member for Red Deer.



INQUIRY WHETHER PFAA PAPERS DESTROYED INCLUDED DOCUMENTS RELATED TO FIRING OF STAFF

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. In view of the fact the Minister of Agriculture has been warned and that he was questioned in the House as early as December, 1974 concerning improprieties within the PFAA administration, can he inform the House whether or not the statement by his parliamentary secretary yesterday that internal corre-

July 8, 1976
Oral Questions
spondence has been destroyed included papers related to the firing of long term PFAA staff?


Eugene Whelan: The statement in the House is clear. It states clearly what was done. I have nothing further to add to it.



INADEQUACY OF REPLY TO MOTION AS RESULT OF DESTRUCTION OF PFAA PAPERS

Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the fact that the PFAA fund amounts to approximately $9 million plus compound interest, will the minister be accountable, and with what accuracy can relevant questions be answered when documents have been destroyed? The papers delivered to my office in response to motion 102 are inadequate.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member has the right to his opinion but the motion clearly asks that material such as travelling expense accounts, wage claim reports, fieldmen's work reports and mileage diaries be made available, but internal correspondence was destroyed in the process of closing down the office, and that is what is usually done when an office is being closed down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fraser:: But it was done just before the cops got there!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. A few days ago the Consumers' Association of Canada in a brief to Ottawa stated:
The federal government should negotiate contracts with the railways for specific passenger rail services in Canada with subsidies increasing with the number of passengers carried.
In view of the fact that incentives of this kind are very likely necessary in order to encourage the railways to put more into passenger services, will the federal government give serious consideration to these representations by the Consumers' Association of Canada, and can we expect action pretty soon?


Otto Emil Lang: In view of the fact that when the policy was announced in January we indicated that it would be our policy to move to a 100 per cent subsidy basis in that we will be looking for a system that gave incentives to the railways to run the business as well as possible. The proposal from the Consumers' Association of Canada is fully in accordance with government policy. Indeed, I have asked my office to indicate to them that I appreciate their specific suggestion. We will be looking at this and other alternatives to accomplish that result.



MEAT AGREEMENT WITH AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND- REASON FOR LOW PRICE

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it relates to yesterday's agricultural news release covering Canada's new meat agreement with Australia and New Zealand which effectively establishes a discount price on all Oceania beef imported into Canada of 6 cents a pound below the same meats entering the United States. Will the minister explain why Canada's trade representatives agreed to any price discount at all? Why should a pound of imported offshore beef be worth any less in Canada than in the United States? I ask this question in view of the very serious market depressing effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Let's hear the answer to that one.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice in order to prepare the mathematical calculations. I will be very glad to find out the basis of the conclusion which was drawn and make it available to the hon. member. I understand that it constitutes certain differentials in cost with regard to shipments to Canada and to the United States, but I will get the figures for the hon. member.



AGRICULTURE


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious consequences of these offshore imports, which have now increased 51 per cent in 1976 over 1975-and during last week alone some 6.4 million pounds of these imports came into Canada-will the minister indicate if his department will now give serious consideration to a Canadian meat import law, as suggested by cattlemen's representatives yesterday in Ottawa in discussions with officials from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and from the Department of Agriculture, and does the minister personally support the 6 cent discount price which was agreed to yesterday?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I am glad to see that, along with the Canadian cattlemen, it appears that the hon. member also wants more intervention in the beef marketing system we have in our country.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Eugene Whelan: He seems to realize that there is something more than the North American market affecting beef marketing in our country.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.
July 8, 1976


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the hon. member knows that the 6 cent differential per pound, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said, shows that this can be a realistic figure because of the tariff and freight rates which are involved in this type of program. I am certainly not happy about what is happening, and I have asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to investigate whether chain restaurants or the consuming public who are going to be buying processed meat, hamburger, etc. are going to be ripped off.
However, I also want to point out that our figures show nothing as outlandish as the hon. member has indicated with regard to the increased importation of Australian and New Zealand meat into this country. Our figures show it would be more like 25 per cent.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I can assure the minister that those figures are entirely up to date. I would like to ask him if he is aware that at least another 16 million pounds of offshore imports can legally come into this country, exclusive of the 6 cent discount price, that is, at discounts of up to 25 cents.


Eugene Whelan: I apologize for not answering part of the question the hon. member asked before about the import law. We are studying the ramifications of having such a law, but I want to make it plain and clear that the Americans, who have been pointing out that they are the great free traders of the world, have such an import law, and we think it is darned restrictive. If the hon. member and his party are asking us to interfere with that free market, we are willing to consider that if they are willing to back it.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the absence of the Secretary of State, and I hope he will relay the question to him or attempt to answer it.
Now that Bill C-20 has passed through the Senate without amendment, making the residence requirement three years rather than five years, is there any method to deal with such urgent cases as Dr. Gerald Wiviott, an eminent psychiatrist and Olympic fencer who has held landed immigrant status for your years and eight months but cannot compete for Canada without clarification of his Canadian citizenship status, in view of the fact that the IOC must settle these matters before 12 o'clock tomorrow night?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Citizenship Act is under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Secretary of State, but I believe the fact of its passage should be made known to the Olympic Committee so that they can make the decision which is theirs to make, recognizing that this is now only a technical matter involving the timing of proclamation
Oral Questions
which would permit the gentleman to become a full Canadian citizen and therefore eligible to compete.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns participation in the Olympic Games of the representatives of the Republic of China under their flag. In view of the degree to which Canadian public opinion has been aroused, and considering the views of Canadians of Chinese origin who have overwhelmingly condemned the attitude of the Canadian government in this regard and coupled with the condemnation in the press of Canada and the international press-yesterday the New York Times and the Washington Post-and the condemnation today by the representative of the Canadian Olympic Committee, would the Prime Minister consider permitting the representatives from the Republic of China and their flag to be shown and to participate in the Olympics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has quoted some authorities to support his two-China policy but I am sure there are many Canadians-I would say the overwhelming majority-who have accepted and support this government's position that there is only one China and that there may-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -so I am not overly impressed by what the right hon. gentleman describes as "an overwhelming majority". I am somewhat disturbed that on an issue like this, where the government of Canada has an obvious case, where the IOC has been given more than a year's warning about this difficulty and where it has let it ride, I am a little disturbed that as a matter of course so many Canadians follow the example of the right hon. gentleman and assume the government is wrong. The government is right on this particular issue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it certainly would be an abnormality if this government were right in anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has forgotten the contribution made by the Republic of China whose government through the years stood with us for freedom against the surrender to communism. Are they now to be thrown overboard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Back in 1962?


John Allen Fraser: You fools thought you could win a nuclear war!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot hear the supplementary question.

July 8, 1976
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister forgotten that, and will he not take action on it because this is giving Canada a black eye everywhere in the world? I ask him to give reconsideration to it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that assertion. This gives Canada a black eye with those people who still believe there are two Chinas or alternatively-


John Allen Fraser: We still believe in undertakings.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps it is a mistake to talk of the two-China policy. I think the right hon. gentleman believes there is only a one-China policy but he still thinks Taiwan is the government of China. The world has moved on since the right hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move on to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the dispute between the tenants and the landlord at a CMHC financed limited dividend project of four buildings on Jean Brillon Street in Ville La Salle, Montreal, concerning proposed increases in rent and breaches of the landlord-tenant agreement, would the minister contact the parties concerning the dispute and determine if the proposed rent increases of 19.4 per cent are in violation of Quebec rent law and if the breaches of the landlord and tenant agreement are contrary to landlord-tenant law in Quebec?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not keep track of every individual project across the country but on this one I happen to know that my officials have been in touch with the tenants. There has not been an increase in rent since 1972. The total increase was 19 per cent and the tenants have been informed. It was in keeping with the undertaking we have with the owner of the building so that it reflected actual costs. In so far as whether it is in line with Quebec legislation, I shall check that out and advise the hon. member.



PARTICIPATION OF TENANTS OF LIMITED DIVIDEND PROJECTS IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR RENT INCREASES

John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister going to give the tenants of limited dividend projects and public housing units the right to participate in the negotiations concerning rent increases with regard to the maintenance of standards and also in providing a grievance procedure? When will tenants have the opportunity to negotiate on these very important matters in view of the fact that the minister has promised it many times over the past year?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the rental agreement was an agreement between the lender and the landlord under specific conditions. As the hon. member will understand, this is an even more tenuous relationship than when the private lenders are the principal lenders, as in this case. We are working out procedures with some of the tenants groups that are organized. We are trying to be as responsive as possible and to make sure that rules are followed and standards maintained. Under the arrangements that we are working toward to which the hon. member is referring in Toronto, these were superseded by the rent control regulations in Ontario. We are trying to be as responsive and sensitive to the needs as possible but there are contractual difficulties.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport? Is the minister aware of the threatened closure of the CNR Ser-vocentre in Brandon notwithstanding the promise that was made when local railway stations were closed a few years ago that service to customers in western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan would be upgraded by establishing a centrally located Servocentre? Would the minister undertake to end this continuous downgrading of transportation services in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the report to that effect until the hon. member very kindly gave me notice of his question at a couple of minutes before two o'clock. I shall look into the matter and see where it stands.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the delay in sending the message-it must have gone through the mail. In view of the CNR statement that the move would mean a saving of only $7,000 a year, would the minister in his reply square this with the large sums of money that have been spent by DREE in regional development in that area- development that will be placed in jeopardy by this constant downgrading of transportation services, including the discontinuance of air service begun some three years ago?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the impact is one of those things which will have to be looked at. I think of greater importance is the first allegation, namely, that an obligation would be neglected. I think the hon. member may want to look into his own postal services. I am informed that the message arrived by personal messenger at two minutes to two. There may be some problem between our offices.
July 8, 1976

Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE



HARBOURS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Probably it should be supplementary to the question which may be asked by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. I will put mine first. In view of the necessity to treat equitably all developments in our major ports and inasmuch as Beaufort Flats received the sum of approximately $20 million with respect to land fill for the development of that container facility would the minister be prepared to give equitable consideration to the port of Halifax with respect to its expanded container facility?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, naturally we attempt to give equitable treatment to all our ports. Indeed, we are adopting a policy for better reflecting costs in various structures, which will do just that. I think the hon. member will support that program. This specific action with regard to Beaufort Flats arose partly because of dredging needs; therefore the fill is for developing the future use of the property, but it is without any immediate use.



HALIFAX-ROLE OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN EXPANDING CONTAINER FACILITIES

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a two-part supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? First, would the hon. gentleman not agree that the initiative for the expansion of container facilities in Halifax-Dartmouth by general, that is, dominion-provincial, agreements are being left with the provincial government; second, that so far as the government of Nova Scotia is concerned, it has not made its representation to the federal government as to the site, or as to cost sharing?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will not close any doors absolutely, although what has been done so far has been done essentially at provincial initiative.



FINANCE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister ask the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to explain allegations that it participated in a loan to a British company to exploit its mining interests in Rhodesia which, if true, is clearly contrary to the United Nations sanctions and contrary to Canadian foreign policy?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I had the same reaction when I read the story this morning. I will be gald to pursue the matter.



RECLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMISTS, SOCIOLOGISTS AND STATISTICIANS-CONSULTATION WITH GROUPS CONCERNED-APPOINTMENT OF CONCILIATOR

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the President of the Treasury Board relates to Treasury Board's unilateral decision to reclassify the positions of economists, sociologists and statisticians. Can the minister assure the House that the association will be allowed adequate consultation in setting up the new classification structure, particularly since they were not consulted in the decision to dismantle the existing one? Would the minister also advise the House what length of time he expects this procedure to take?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded as usual when it was necessary to do some reclassifications. I do not know how long it will take, but I think it could take two or three months. The growth in that sector has been quite extensive during the past six years. It was obvious that the number of classifications was inadequate, this is why we were compelled to proceed in such a way.
I think that my officials are prepared to consult. However, the decision rests with Treasury Board.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House why Treasury Board refuses to bargain with the association on all cost items until the new system is set up and why Treasury Board has so vigorously opposed the appointment of a conciliator; and can he assure the House that Treasury Board will abide by the report of the conciliator in this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that reclassification is the responsibility of the employer and we expect to exercise our rights to that effect. However, if we can consult, we will do so, but we cannot submit ourselves to arbitration in such circumstances.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I gave him notice earlier this day and which is supplementary to questions asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Red Deer? Did the Minister of Justice issue instructions to the attorney general for the province of Saskatchewan to ask for a stay of proceedings in the case of the Queen v. Ernest Buchan who was charged with fraud pursuant to section 338(1) of the Criminal Code in relation to his duties with the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration?

July 8, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The answer to it is, no. He referred to a prosecution under the Criminal Code; therefore it is within the responsibility of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. Whether my officials have had communication with him I do not know, but I will look into the matter.


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would look into the matter and determine to his satisfaction whether the stay of proceedings was justified.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the stay of execution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wagner:: We can see what is on the minister's mind.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Any stay could have been undertaken by the Crown officers of the attorney general's department in Saskatchewan. It would not be proper for me to determine whether they were justified, but I will be happy to inquire about the reasons.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and is supplementary to the question with respect to multiculturalism grants given in London asked yesterday by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. I wish to make it clear that I am referring to the grant to Mr. Ed Struzik, in London. In light of the fact that the individual who was awarded a controversial grant to study immigration patterns in London and Windsor this year also received a grant from the multiculturalism branch last year which, although scheduled for completion last September 1, is still not finished, may I ask the minister whether he feels it is an acceptable practice for his department to award a second grant to someone who did not complete his first project and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that people who are given taxpayers' money to complete a project do, in fact, complete it?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. I thought yesterday the hon. member who raised this question was referring to another grant on which I based my reply. Certainly, in view of what the hon. member is now alleging I will be happy to look into the matter and report at the earliest opportunity.



REQUEST MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF ETHNIC GROUPS DURING VISIT TO LONDON, ONTARIO

Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State? Since the Secretary of State is to go to London this week end, to meet with the publisher of

the London Free Press and, as well, with the writer of a series of articles exposing the practices of the minister's office in London, can the minister indicate what the nature of his London visit will be and if he is willing to meet with representatives of the various ethnic communities in London who are asking to meet with him at that time?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yes. I was not aware that certain groups are interested in meeting with me. I will be pleased to meet with them. I will be going down tomorrow morning; I will be in London most of the morning and will be delighted to meet these groups. Perhaps the hon. member could give me the names of the groups.



CURRENCY


Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: That's you, Pierre.


Mike Landers: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mike Landers: Mr. Speaker, since blind people handling paper money have been cheated in the past and since Switzerland apparently has printed its paper money with raised bumps on the lower left hand corner of notes, to enable blind people to determine by the number of bumps the denomination of the bill, would the government of Canada consider printing Canadian paper money with similar sorts of bumps?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question with me some time ago and has given me the opportunity to inquire into the matter. I must say this is a good and generous idea. On inquiry, I found that, according to the knowledge we were able to gather, the amount of people being deceived because they were blind by the absence of such identification marks is infinitesimal. It is not certain whether the use of this device would be of any help, even to that very small number who are deceived, because the possibility of counterfeit would still exist. I repeat, the idea seems to be a very good Liberal one, and we will continue to look into it. If the idea seems worthwhile, we will consider its application.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 8, 1976



FINANCE


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Considering the fact that the government has not taken steps which will effectively counter very high levels of unemployment among students, and in view of the fact that the Canada Student Loan Plan now bases the amount of loans available to students not on actual earnings but on the length of time they are available for work, and in view of the fact this will mean many students will not only be unable to find work but will have great difficulty even borrowing enough money to return to school, will the minister tell this House if he is now going to take steps to have the basis of the Canada Student Loan Plan changed to actual earnings as defined by the Income Tax Act in order to be fair to the thousands of students unable to find work this summer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the best thing is to check the accurancy of the hon. member's assertions first.



DATE OF DECISION ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that the Atomic Energy Control Board has at long last ruled that the Port Granby area is not suitable for a radioactive waste dump, will the minister tell the House when a decision will be made on the site of another dump so that again at long last the cleanup at Port Hope can start?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this work is continuing. There are discussions between two levels of government. There is a good deal of discussion with the citizens' groups in the area. The hon. member referred to the Port Granby site. He was referring to the permanent disposal site of the existing refinery. That particular refinery has two other problems. One is the cleanup of Port Hope and the other is a permanent disposal site for that low grade radioactivity. The agency is looking at a number of places in Ontario. It has not been able to come to a conclusion on that. However, I can assure the hon. member that work is progressing at a very rapid rate. The other question is the permanent disposal for the wastes of the refinery. The Eldorado Nuclear Corporation presently has this under consideration.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Since the lifespan of this radioactive waste is only 22,000 years, I wonder if the minister could hurry it along.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



PROPOSED SALE OF URANIUM TO JAPAN BY SASKATCHEWAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns a recent announcement by the premier of Saskatchewan that he had negotiated with the government of Japan an assured supply of uranium from the province of Saskatchewan. As the federal government has control over the export of this very important commodity, will the minister inform the House whether any negotiations are now being carried on or whether consent has been given to the government of Saskatchewan with regard to this assured supply to Japan?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received any official statement or report on the conversations by the premier of Saskatchewan in Japan. I know that he is aware of the federal power in this area.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister prepared to table the agreement between Canada and Cuba on the DC-8's today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No I am not, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question two or three times in the House. I would like to know what the Prime Minister is trying to hide. Are these planes being used for military purposes or some other purpose?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question before in some detail. I did not realize the hon. member wanted a written report. If he has a precise question, he should place it on the order paper as I am answering dozens of these questions all the time. Perhaps he could screw up his mind and write something down on paper so that we will know exactly what it is he wants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate to the House whether cabinet has come to a successful conclusion regarding the allocation of departmental responsibility of the Coast Guard, and if so, when will an announcement be made?

July 8, 1976
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, any such announcement will be made when a decision has been made.


John Douglas Reynolds: Will the minister indicate what the policy is with respect to the funding of the Coast Guard Auxiliary since in Delta, volunteers have already undergone training, but are impeded by lack of formulation of policy and fund finances?


Mr. Speaker:: The question period is surely not the place to outline a general policy of that nature.



STATISTICS CANADA


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have given him rather brief notice of the question and I have talked to his officials. He is the Minister of Trade and Commerce and sometimes he is industrious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister advise or find out from his officials why there has been a change in the reporting of statistics of the labour force from absolute figures to seasonally adjusted figures for the preceding months or years so that these figures will have some relevant use?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for notifying me and also having asked my officials about this. There is quite a lengthy explanation which I am sure Mr. Speaker would not permit me to give in detail. However, I can say that it was in the interest of making for a shorter document that the monthly form was provided as it is now. There is a background document available, a report issued at the time of the change. By referring to it, you can get comparable data. Also, if you look at this month's publication and that of the previous month, you can get the comparisons. I hope the hon. member will permit me to send the detailed explanation.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the current strike by civil aviation inspectors is causing great inconvenience to private pilots whose licences must be renewed, in some cases in order to keep jobs, will the minister consider taking action to ensure that the backlog of licence renewals is dealt with expeditiously?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that would certainly be our objective as soon as the

available staff is there to do the job. However, as long as strikes persist, we are obviously not capable of keeping up let alone catching up. The matter is receiving urgent attention. The AIB process is being pursued. It has been our hope that these individuals involved in the strike would be at work while the process ran its course, but that has not turned out to be the case.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Union have voted to take strike action against Teleglobe Canada, and in view of the fact that the strike can commence legally at any time with the result that no overseas broadcasting of the Olympic Games can occur, can the minister tell the House what plan is in place to guarantee the broadcast of the games to the home countries of the participants?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there is no way we can guarantee the broadcasting of television and radio programs as we had hoped to do. However, if there is a strike at Teleglobe, steps have been taken to assure at least essential services. But the efforts of the management are now concentrated on the resumption of negotiations and I am hopeful, as the Teleglobe management is, that the two parties involved will reach an agreement to ensure service during the Olympic Games of 1976.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) on a question of privilege.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think, on reflection, that I will try to resolve the matter by a series of questions and then decide whether or not a substantive motion is necessary.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was not quick enough when you were inviting the presentation of reports. May I table a report at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.
July 8, 1976


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, a report on textured polyester filament yarns from the Textile and Clothing Board.


IMPAIRED DRIVING PENALTY ACT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-442, to amend the Criminal Code (day-fines).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring greater equality into our sentencing procedures for impaired driving by basing the fine assessed on the offender's ability to pay. It will also eliminate the present inhumane practice where persons willing but unable to pay their fines must go to jail, thus ending the needless and costly imprisonment of thousands of Canadians each year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 5,743, 5,773, 5,784 and 5,809.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What is the maximum amount which the Last Post Fund will pay for the burial of a veteran?
2.	Are the family or friends of a veteran allowed to contribute toward the burial cost of a veteran in order to pay for expenses in excess of the amount paid by the Last Post Fund?
3.	When was the maximum amount, which the Fund will pay, raised to its present level?
4.	What criteria are used by the Department of Veterans Affairs in determining the maximum amount which the Fund will pay for the burial of a veteran?
5.	What amount does the Department estimate to be the average cost of a funeral in (a) Vancouver (b) Edmonton (c) Winnipeg (d) Toronto (e) Montreal (f) Halifax (g) Corner Brook (h) St. John's?
6.	Is any consideration being given to raising the maximum amount the Fund will pay for burial of a veteran?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. $500 for the services provided by the funeral director (plus the actual cost of a grave, the opening and closing thereof and the provision of a grave marker).
2.	No.
3.	November 7, 1975.
Order Paper Questions
4.	The criteria used were: (a) to provide a dignified and honourable burial for veterans who served in Her Majesty's Forces or forces allied with Her Majesty, who at death are in destitute circumstances, friendless, indigent or liable to become a public charge, (b) to pay for the services provided by a funeral director (and the cost of a grave, opening and closing thereof, and a grave marker) in relation to the average cost for similar services to major municipalities in Canada in 1975, with an adjustment to allow for subsequent increases in costs.
5.	The average cost of a funeral, similar to the services provided for the Last Post Fund, paid by municipal authorities in 1975 was (a) $280; (b) $415; (c) $306.45; (d) $480; (e) $350; (f) $505; (g) not known;(h) $390. The average cost of a funeral to the general public in the locations specified is not available.
6.	Not at this time in view of 3 above.


Mr. Marshall: What is the schedule of (a) passenger (b) freight rates on the ferry between St. Barbe. Newfoundland and Blanc-Sablon, Quebec?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Schedule of (a) passenger; (b) freight rates as hereunder: (a) Passenger rates, one way, adult, $2.75, child, $1.30; (b) There are not rates on freight as such. Freight is carried by trucks and charge is made for trucks as follows: under 6,000 lbs., $ 10.50; over 6,000 lbs., $16.50; heavy equipment, $35.00; car and camper trailer, $15.00; large camper, $16.50; large truck camper, $16.50; bus, $35.00; mobile home, $35.00.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	During the 1975 fiscal year, what was the consumer credit debt contracted by Canadians?
2.	What percentage of the debt was contracted with (a) chartered banks (b) trust companies (c) finance companies?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada report that: 1. During the 1975 fiscal year consumer credit indebtedness increase from $20,784 million at March 31, 1975 to $24,071 million at March 31, 1976, (an increase of 15.8 per cent ).
2. At the 1975 fiscal year end (March 31, 1976) the chartered banks held $13,624 million, 56.6 per cent of the $24,071 million total consumer credit outstanding; (b) trust companies held $226 million or 0.9 per cent of the total; and (c) finance companies held $2,842 million, or 11.8 per cent of the total outstanding.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Canadians served in the Canadian Armed Forces in (a) World War I (b) World War II?

July 8, 1976
Order Paper Questions
2.	In each case, how many were born in (a) Canada (b) the United Kingdom (c) other British possessions (d) elsewhere?
3.	How many were of (a) Anglo Saxon origin (b) French origin (c) other ethnic origins?
4.	In each case, what was the total enlistment by province?
5.	In each case, what was the classification by main religious denomination?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: l. (a) World War I, 619,636; (b) World War II,
1.081.865.
2 and 3. Information not available.
4.	World War I, Information not available. World War II, Prince Edward Island, 9,649; Nova Scotia, 62,153; New Brunswick, 46,951; Quebec, 180,756; Ontario, 416,995; Manitoba, 80,541; Saskatchewan, 86,344; Alberta, 82,631; British Columbia, 97,649; Outside Canada, 18,196. Total,
1.081.865.
5.	Information not available.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,338 and 5,808 could be made orders for return, those returns would be tabled immediately.

BUSINESS DEALINGS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND OLYMPIA AND YORK DEVELOPMENT AND/OR ALBERT REICHMANN OR PAUL REICHMANN


Mr. Cossitt: From April 20, 1968, what is a complete description, with details, of all business dealings of any kind whatsoever between the government and Olympia and York Development Company or any subsidiaries thereto and/or Albert Reichmann or Paul Reichmann?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	During the 1974-75 and 1975-76 fiscal years, has the Canadian Dairy Commission rented premises to store butter, cheese and milk powder and, if so, what (a) were the names and addresses of the persons and companies who rented the various premises to the Commission (b) was the total rent paid (c) were the renting conditions?
2.	In each case, did the lease provide that the cost be (a) a set price (b) proportional to the quantity of dairy products stored and, if so, what was the storage cost of a (i) pound of butter (ii) pound of cheese (iii) hundred pounds of powdered milk?
3.	As of March 31, 1976, how many pounds of (a) butter (b) cheese (c) powdered milk were stored?
4.	Is the stored cheese imported and, if so (a) what kind (b) from what countries does it come?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and motion No. 13 (Mr. Reynolds).
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was about to conclude my remarks in support of motion No. 13, and outlining my reasons for hoping that this will be the view taken by the House generally. I was pointing out that there was considerable evidence that the retention of the death penalty would be a deterrent to murder, and to that end I was reading certain relevant parts of a submission made by the attorney general of California to the supreme court of the United States.
In Los Angeles, the police department interviewed various people who had been arrested for certain offences and asked them, for example, why they did not carry a gun or, if they did, why they did not use the gun, and so on. It is interesting to note the number of occasions on which those who had been arrested said they did not carry a gun or resort to the use of a gun because they were afraid of the death penalty. I drew attention to the words of a man charged with armed robbery who said:
I was afraid to use a gun because of a possible death sentence.
Another stated:
I did not use a gun because I am afraid of the death penalty.
Another told the police:
I never owned a gun because I am afraid of the death penalty.
I could go on and call attention to some 25 such comments. When the Solicitor General suggests it has never been proven either way whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not, he is bound to admit that though this may be so, there is strong evidence to show that it is a deterrent. I believe it can be shown that it is a deterrent to murder, particularly of a prison guard or a policeman, and that it would be in the interest of all Canadians if the death penalty for such an offence was retained.
While we torment ourselves over the question of execution, it should not be forgotten that although 11 persons are now in so-called death row-65 people were convicted of murder in the 12 years ending 1974-over 4,000 people have been illegally executed in this country in the course of the crime referred to as murder. Surely this is an equation we have to weigh. More than 4,000 people were illegally executed, or murdered, yet we hesitate to execute legally even the small number to whom I have referred-the 65 persons in the last 12 years who have been charged with murder and sentenced to death.
It is particularly important that we give this protection of a deterrent to those who are upholding our laws, that is to say, our prison guards and policemen. They, after all, are in the front line. They are the people who must deal with convicts and bring offenders to justice. We owe these men an assurance that if any one of them is murdered, his
July 8, 1976

assailant will in turn pay with his life. If we fail to do this, we have let down our policemen and prison guards. That is why I urge hon. members seriously to consider the merits of motion No. 13.
I would point out, also, that if under the present proposal a man who has been convicted of murdering a prison guard or policeman is sentenced to life imprisonment, it does not mean he will spend 25 years in prison. From the day he is put in jail he becomes eligible to get what is called leave of absence, with an escort, at any time. He is able to get that privilege by permission of the jailer or of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries. I believe this provision is unduly lax. I believe it is irresponsible for the government to be suggesting that a hardened criminal, a man convicted of murdering a prison guard or a policeman, should be allowed leave of absence from time to time, with an escort, bearing in mind that it would be easy for one of these hardened criminals to jump his guard and commit another murder.
That is the basis for my belief that hon. members should support motion 13. It is not enough for members on the government side to cite certain people who happen to be abolitionists or retentionists. I think they belie the free vote their Prime Minister claims is in existence every time they make these statements. We in the Conservative caucus believe this is in truth a free vote and that people should decide for themselves how we should dispose of each of these amendments and the bill itself. Every time a government member calls into ridicule, if you like, one of our members who has chosen to vote one way or the other, he is belying the free vote the Prime Minister claims to be in existence.
When speaking of the free vote I would point out that it is time members of this House reflected, in the free vote, the free opinion of Canadians. Canadians wish the death penalty to be retained. I think the time has come when we in this, hopefully, democratic institution should cease to frustrate the free will of Canadians, at least in the case of prison guards and policemen, by allowing the death penalty to be retained.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have read very carefully the speeches delivered during the past few days, including of course those of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party, on the proposed amendments to Bill C-84. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has asked hon. members to vote conscientiously, according to the wishes of their constituents. I am greatly pleased to be the representative of my electors in Parliament. Since the introduction of Bill C-84, we have received hundreds even thousands of letters from all parts of Canada in which people state their views on the abolition of the death penalty.
I think I can truthfully say that at least 90 per cent of the population across Canada, out west, in the east, the Maritimes or the centre, 90 per cent of the people want to retain capital punishment. Now, Motion No. 13 before us advocates the retention of capital punishment for the murder of policemen and prison guards. Mr. Speaker, I believe that policemen and prison guards have made
Capital Punishment
representations to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) as well as to the Prime Minister, the cabinet and all federal representatives.
On June 22 last, we voted on second reading on Bill C-84 which was defeated. The vote upheld Bill C-84 by 133 votes against 125. What happened to me may have happened to other members or other political parties. On June 22, the vote was taken at noon. At two o'clock in the afternoon, I was returning home to Rouyn by car, and in the evening, around 7 or 7:30, at my Hull residence, a carpenter was doing some repair work. A blue car stopped at my place and the driver, a chap of 25 or 26, called the carpenter to his car and asked him: Where is Caouette, the guy in favour of hanging; I want to kill him! As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this chap had a revolver next to him on the front seat of the car, and was ready to kill a member who had voted for capital punishment for murderers. But then, the protection we would need, no member has it presently. I know full well that those individuals, either in Montreal, here in Ottawa or in Hull, as it happened at my place, have set for themselves or have been assigned the task of trying to influence the members or to frighten them by threatening them with death if they vote for the retention of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, when in a system or a country like ours we have reached the point where we have to put up with or tolerate that sort of people, I think the members should think twice before deciding: For all practical purposes, we are going to abolish capital punishment in Canada, even for murderers of policemen, prison guards, my wife, my children, the wives and children of everyone, even members of parliament, the Prime Minister and the other ministers. We should have protection against those people! Of course not, there is an attempt to frighten people, and that is when I wonder how true is the free vote on capital punishment in this House.
I said before June 22 that I was in favour of capital punishment for qualified gangsters, and I say it again today: capital punishment must be urgently restored in Canada, not as a revenge against anyone, but so justice will prevail for all the public, for Canadians, for our families, for government leaders, authorities, everybody.
Mr. Speaker, when we reach a point where we have contract killers, people paid to go and kill someone, we are going to arrest those people, we are going to locate them, we are going to sentence them to 25 years in prison and they are going to cost us maybe $20,000 or $25,000 a year for subsistance, and we are going to keep those individuals under the pretext that we can rehabilitate them. Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to see the Solicitor General try and rehabilitate just one of those notorious gangsters who have only one reason to live, to commit murders and kill their fellow men.
Mr. Speaker, recently the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who supports the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) on capital punishment, said that in the name of humanity, we have no right to kill a criminal, even if he has killed a guard, a policeman or anybody else, we have no right to send him off to the guillotine or to the noose because it does not bring back the victim to life nor does it rehabili-

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
tate the criminal. Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that, we did not need a prime minister or a solicitor general to tell us that. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not here, but I hope he will read my comments. Recently, the Prime Minister took a little trip to Cuba, he told us how beautiful it was, how Mr. Castro runs the country well, that Mr. Castro was a very humane man. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister of Canada to send terrorists to Cuba, well-known criminals, to do there what they do in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa or Hull. How long would Mr. Castro tolerate them in Cuba? Precisely in the name of humanitarianism and humanity, in the name of the right to life, how long would those people live in the country known as Cuba, under the regime of Mr. Castro, a close friend of the Prime Minister of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows the answer to that question. A bandit would not live two hours. Why? Because we know that what used to be past practise in that country is no longer tolerated. When Mr. Castro was a revolutionary, a terrorist, he was tolerated by the authorities of the day. The moment he took power in Cuba, he got rid of officials, lowly civil servants, people by the thousands. Pits were dug by bulldozers with special blades and people were lined up along the pits. Then, they were fired upon so that they would fall, dead, into the holes, on Mr. Castro's orders.
The Prime Minister did not tell us that when he came back from Cuba. He does not speak of that when he introduces or has the Solicitor General of Canada introduce Bill C-84. What group in our Canadian society asked that this bill to be introduced in the House? What part of Canada asked the Solicitor General or the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada or the Liberal government to introduce Bill C-84 to abolish capital punishment in Canada?


An hon. Member:: The Catholic Church?


David Réal Caouette: Not so either. True, a few bishops did ask us to be more humane. That's fine. But none has said that the death penalty should be abolished at all costs. I am referring to the meeting of the Association of the Catholic Bishops of Canada, which took place in the province of Quebec. And even so, one or two bishops may favour abolition, that does not mean the whole Catholic Church is involved. It may be only one man's point of view, but we can


An hon. Member:: The Bishops' Conference-


David Réal Caouette: The Quebec conference was precisely about that.
Mr. Speaker, we did not ask anybody anything, all we asked for was our constituents' opinion on this very important issue. We are talking about a free vote tonight on motion No. 13, as on all the other motions which will be put this evening. A while ago, the hon. member who spoke before me expressed doubts regarding a free vote. I have doubts as well. There are little intrigues going on behind the scenes. One can overhear somebody say: "Well, in your constituency, you may be reelected even though you vote against retention and for abolition.

Mr. Speaker, I know that some hon. members are now under extreme pressure in their constituencies that they are being harassed from all sides by their electors who are against abolishing capital punishment. But no, they come here and they say that perhaps they will be able to restore their popularity before the next election. They vote against and we say: we vote according to our conscience.
Mr. Speaker, why do 90 per cent of the population pay for 10 per cent? Even the 10 per cent do not speak as loudly as all that, but the 90 per cent do not mince their words when talking about punishments which bandits and hardened criminals deserve; we do not clamour for hanging as we knew it 25 or 30 years ago, but it is as clear as crystal that in the case of premeditated murder, someone wanted to kill someone.
Then, let us try to rehabilitate such a bandit or murderer; I challenge the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to rehabilitate only one across Canada and in the province of Quebec. In his own riding, the Solicitor General has a vast majority of retentionists. He could not care less and goes even as far as to tell them to their face: before allowing any execution, I would rather resign. He lacks only one thing: it is the courage to resign, to walk out of cabinet and allow the population to respect him.


An hon. Member:: He is not beaten yet.


David Réal Caouette: He is not what?


An hon. Member:: Beaten!


David Réal Caouette: Then, I hope the hon. member will help me to beat him once and for all this evening.
The same applies to the right hon. Prime Minister. I mentioned earlier all those countries, I talked about Cuba, but there are other countries in the world. Let us talk about murderers in the U.S.S.R. for instance. Recently, a Russian businessman was conducting financial transactions with Swiss financiers. The Soviet government found him out. They did not charge him with murder; he was told that he has worked against the state and he was shot the next morning. Would terrorists be tolerated in Russia? Those who were in power in 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919 were terrorists. With Lenin and Marx first, and then with Stalin. Does the Prime Minister stand to protest against massive executions that are taking place in the U.S.S.R., in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in the whole communist block? The same is happening there. In other areas of the world which are not cummunist, in Africa, in Morocco, one day not too long ago 17 individuals were shot because of their revolting against a government bill.
In these countries, which are said to be as civilized as we are capital punishment exists for murders far less sordid than those that have happened in Montreal for too many years now. Recently, an aircraft was hijacked by pirates who flew to Uganda. We saw how this one ended not too long ago: about thirty dead. These people would be alive if there had not been any pirates, but there were and they were prepared to kill 106 hostages in an aircraft which did not belong to them. These pirates are dead now. But if they had not been shot and had come to Canada, we would have sued them and said: Gentlemen, there might be a way to
July 8, 1976

rehabilitate you. We will send you to prison for 20 or 25 years for life, but maybe you will stay only 15 or 10 years depending on the application, on the way the judge feels. Then you might be released in 10, 12 or 15 years.
Then, they had the right to shoot down the leaders of the hijackers. As for the policemen, the prison guards, since they expect some security, will we allow them greater latitude in return, will we let them defend themselves effectively and efficiently through Bill C-84? No, we still want to control their actions, to expose them to the bandits, the prisoners, the convicts in isolation who are ready to do anything in order to escape and commit the same odious crime.
Mr. Speaker, why are our policemen and our prison guards so shocked and so much against Bill C-84? Their security is at stake. When a policeman of about 24 or 25 arrests a bandit, charges him and proves that he is a bandit, this young policeman sees the bandit or the murderer condemned to 15 or 20 years in prison. Do you know that 15 years from now this criminal who is only 25 years old will be only 40, no more than that. At that time, he will be freed. Do you not think he will rather resent his 10 or 15 years in prison? At that time, he will be incited to settle with the policeman who arrested him when he was 25.
Mr. Speaker, I find absolutely illogical that supposedly reasonable people ask us and advocate across the board abolition of the death penalty in Canada. As I said earlier, we receive hundreds of letters from people protesting against the abolition of the death penalty and not only from people in the province of Quebec. One of these letters has been sent to me by a Mr. Lessard who lives on Henri-Bourassa West in Montreal. He simply sent me a few words to tell me:
I hope that, in Parliament, you are going to help us so that the death penalty will not be abolished.
Raynald Lessard, Montreal.
Some people ask that the death penalty be maintained, not for revenge but in a spirit of justice. As I said the last time I spoke in the House on this subject: There are traffic laws. I consider the death penalty as a warning to everyone: Do not kill your fellow being, or it will be dangerous for you. A red light at the corner of the street. What does that mean? Stop! Mr. Speaker, you are free not to stop but, if you do not stop, you might create a serious accident which could claim several lives. Mr. Speaker, at that moment, a man is free but the signal says: Stop. The law asks him to stop. I see the penalty in exactly the same way, it is a stop signal: Stop, do not kill your fellow being because if you do kill him you will bear the consequences of your act. That is what murderers should be told throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, those people know it. If we say to them: Listen, the noose is there. I do not want to hang anybody but neither do I want anybody to kill his fellow being. In this case, he will not risk hanging. I am not afraid to be hanged because I know that I have not killed anyone and I do not intend to kill anyone either. But when you see that there are people who steal, people who are contract killers and who are paid to kill, let us not imagine that I am going to believe that these people are fully repentant and have decided never to do it again when they are paid so much a head, so much per murder. Mr. Speaker, I do not trust these
Capital Punishment
people and besides they do not frighten me. I am not afraid to tell them to their face what I think of those who are killers, these human monsters of our so-called civilized society. Mr. Speaker, I have other letters and this one from Toronto says this:
It was like a breath of fresh air to read that you and all members of your party solidly voted for the retention of capital punishment and it proved to all Canadians across Canada that you and your party was the only political party that was listening to the voice of the public to retain capital punishment.

All our members of the Social Credit Party.
I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that some members of the Liberal Party voted for retention of capital punishment, according to the views of thier constituents. I have noticed also that many Progressive Conservatives voted for retention of capital punishment. And I have noticed that among the members of the New Democratic Party-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all hon. members for the opportunity they have given me to continue for a few more minutes. I will not abuse of their kindness.

Mr. Speaker, a letter from Toronto said:


An hon. Member:: It was in French.


David Réal Caouette: That is right, my hon. friend points out that it was in French, but I think he got the translation, since we have simultaneous translation here, Mr. Speaker, I also noticed that our neighbours from the NPD voted massively for the abolition of capital punishment. I can never understand their attitude on that very serious and very sensitive issue. On the one hand, they all vote and clamour for abortion on demand, free abortion. They suggest leaving it to the discretion of the doctor or the patient. I think that matters of conscience are personal, that there is no global conscience. Abortion is a right, you can kill innocents, people who never committed murders of crimes. Let us kill them! On the other hand, when it is time to kill a bandit, a criminal, in the name of humanity, in the name of humanism, in the name of decency, we must save his life. You do not have the right to take it. The young innocent can be killed readily, even before birth. Yet, the young innocent did not ask to be born.
Of course, the big innocent did not ask it either, but he was born and we had at least the courage, the decency to respect his right to life. And in return, we ask him to respect the right to the life of others. But they say no. A criminal can be rehabilitated. Then we must be civilized when all socialist countries in the world are in favour of
15170

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to understand in the New Democratic Party of Canada, and I think they will not get three votes in the province of Quebec at the next election. And I hope they will lose all the votes they now get throughout Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are too kind and decent.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I know. [Translation]
The letter from Toronto which I am quoting goes on as follows:

In view of the fact that the leaders of the other parties, such as Trudeau, Clark and Broadbent and the majority of their MPs ignored the desire of the voters to retain capital punishment, their actions on this critical issue will certainly cost them a loss of voters and MPs will suffer with the loss of their seats at the next election-
The letter was written by P. Bennett, of Toronto, on June 30, 1976.

Mr. Speaker, it is a Mr. Bennett, B-e-n-n-e-t-t, from Toronto, June 30. I did not request anything from him. I suggested some months ago to the Prime Minister that this stand on capital punishment was flying in the face of people in Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver and Toronto. That might be the issue that would cause the defeat of this Liberal government at the next election, either in one or two years. I am still of that opinion. The Canadian people has seen enough of a government that goes against their will, against their wishes, against their stated desires.
Here is another letter, from Ottawa:

What else can I say? Congratulations, but a poor result, 133 to 125. I am very pleased to see that your party MPs voted for hanging and it may pay off in the next federal election.

I am not counting on that, but I feel that all my colleagues in the Social Credit and myself voted according to the wishes not only of Quebecers, but of Canadians as a whole. Some Progressive Conservative and Liberal members know that. The New Democrats are insensitive, they are unaware of it.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter received from Residence Dorchester, in Montreal, 1650 W. Dorchester Blvd. Mr. Lucien Roussel writes:
The abolition of capital punishment by our federal government is not fair.
Following that decision, I would agree if at the next federal election we were asked on every ballot: Are you in favour of capital punishment or not?
This is a man who suggests that a referendum be held. We talked about the referendum. I already suggested it to the Solicitor General, the right hon. Prime Minister, this government, this House. They are afraid to let the people speak up, and all those who held some kind of referendum in their respective ridings received similar answers. From 85 to 90 per cent answered this: Retain capital punishment for capital murders, premeditated murders, not only for
murderers of policemen and prison guards but for all murderers. That is what those people are suggesting-a referendum. The Prime Minister tells us, no, no, no referendum.
The Solicitor General also tells us, no, no, no referendum. That is because he knows he would be beaten. That is why I keep asking who else has asked this government to bring Bill C-84 before the House? Who? What part of Canada? What member? What association? Would the murderers themselves have asked this government, please spare us the noose, we will be good little boys, so keep on protecting us. That is exactly what Bill C-84 does. It protects bandits against society instead of protecting society against bandits and criminals.
Mr. Speaker, I have here another letter from Montreal, from Mr. Bernard Molloy who says:
Congratulations on the stand you and your party took with regard to capital punishment. You are to be admired for having the courage of your convictions.

Mr. Speaker, this is the type of letters I get, but I did not receive a single one in favour of abolition. Is it because abolitionist are afraid to write to me? Not a single one! I got some against abolition from all parts of Canada, even the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Social Credit Party is not the only one who receives letters; others do too. My colleagues receive a lot of them and there is a general outcry for the retention of capital punishment, and I repeat, it is not in a spirit of vengence but in a spirit of justice. Let justice be done, rendered and obtained. Instead of thinking of the rehabilition of such bandits, let us think about their victims and their families. When a manager of a Caisse populaire with his child in his arms is killed in cold blood and shot point-blank, when that chap entered the house to rob with a loaded revolver, well, he did not go in with his rosary to do the stations of the Cross.
He went in there firmly decided to shoot if things turned out bad. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what happened. The father, the wife, a mother of a family, were killed. Recently in Montreal, we have witnessed I think the fifty-second qualified murder in the City of Montreal alone, in the MUC. And the same thing happens in the Quebec City region and in the region of Trois-Rivieres. The same holds true for Toronto as well as Vancouver.
Mr. Speaker, I think that motion No. 13 which aims at protecting policemen and prison guards must be agreed to by the House. I have noticed some hon. members who rose and were not afraid to vote on second reading. I congratulate them for that. As for those who were prompted by fear, who voted to avoid that this government be defeated, their case is a bit more doubtful and I say to them: You will have it out with your constituents. Meanwhile, let us think about the people of Canada who deserve to be protected, who deserve an assurance from a government that their life is being protected against gangsters, criminals, murderers, genuine and hardened criminals, those who cannot be rehabilitated.

July 8, 1976

If we secured the protection of policemen and prison guards, we would at least make a move in a direction where we might reach if not perfection at least a better safety than we now enjoy. For that purpose, I am still in favour of capital punishment, not against occasional criminals but for hardened criminals, those who have revengeful and hateful feelings for their fellow citizens or society as a whole.
Let us improve living conditions within society. I agree, if this means preventing some people from going wrong; however, I think it would cost less than maintaining criminals in our jails. If we gave them more respectable, more affordable living conditions finally to prevent those who have still some good in them from committing murder. Let us prepare ourselves before it is too late, but if society, government and the law are to be abused then let the murderer pay for his crime.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing two amendments today. They have been joined together because they both refer to clause 4 of this bill. I was delighted to hear that in the last two or three days the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendment proposed by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).
I will not address myself to that particular amendment because my concern is mainly with a statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) which appears in yesterday's Hansard. In that statement there was an unusual development of thought which I find difficult to understand. I thought I would use my intervention this afternoon to describe what an unusual position the hon. member has got himself into by using the logic he did. The anomalous situation into which he has talked himself is manifest in two clearly distinguishable respects. I cannot understand how he arrived at his conclusion. There may be some explanation and we may go into that afterwards. But we must remember that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is a self-declared retentionist, and I am glad of that. I am a retentionist myself. Also, on second reading the hon. member voted with the retentionists.
The hon. member declared, in a statement which appears at page 15133 of Hansard, that he believes in the retention of capital punishment. That is fine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that there is a Standing Order which says that hon. members are not supposed to reflect on the way other hon. members vote.


Donald W. Munro: I accept that admonition, Mr. Speaker. I was just pointing out that the hon. member voted the same way I did. I accept the admonition of the Chair and I will not come back to the voting pattern. However, in doing what he did, the hon. member obviously intended to show his opposition to the proposals put before him by his government. In other words, by his opposition and by his vote he wanted reinstatement of the law as it now stands, namely, the death penalty for murderers of policemen and prison guards and certain other classes of persons in dangerous positions like that. In other words, he
Capital Punishment
wanted return to the law as it now stands, because he is a retentionist. However, the hon. member is opposed to the present amendment which would reinstate the death penalty.


Mr. Epp:: And the law as it is.


Donald W. Munro: And the law as it is, although, granted, only to this extent. Why is he opposed to this amendment? He says it is because it introduces discrimination. The existing law is discriminatory, but the hon. member cannot go beyond that because backbenchers on this side or on the side opposite cannot extend the intent of the law as it now stands. That is the prerogative of the government. The extent to which the present law is discriminatory seems to have been what the hon. member voted for in the first instance. The second reason he has placed himself in this untenable position by his unusual stand is that he seems completely unaware of the fact that he could accomplish his purpose as a retentionist by supporting this amendment. It is as simple as that.
In my cogitations, if this amendment is carried it stands to reason the government will have to withdraw the bill. If the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) is approved in the vote tonight, the bill will be completely demolished and it will have to be withdrawn or rewritten. It would have to be presented again-and I have no doubt that it would be- but that is the situation and the purpose of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would be accomplished for the time being, anyway. Is he a bellwether just giving an indication to the rest of the retentionists in this chamber that this is the way the backbenchers on the government side are going to vote? I am not sure of that, although it may be a possibility. I hope he will reconsider his position, and having reconsidered it will alter the way he intends to vote when the time comes tonight. I will not point the finger and say, "You have changed your mind"; no, sir. That hon. member can change his mind because he will see that he will be accomplishing his purpose if he votes tonight in favour of this amendment.
There are other aspects of the amendment on which I feel I must comment. Last weekend I was at a July 1 ceremony in a small community in my riding and I heard a story which upset me very deeply. This came to me from someone who had been talking to the RCMP, which is the police force responsible for enforcing the law in that community of 5,000 or 6,000 people. I was told that in that apparently law-abiding community where there is a detachment of three, four or five policemen, at least once a month, when in pursuit of their duty and on patrol, they stare down the operative end of a gun barrel. That is a frightening thought, in a community which I have the honour to represent, that once a month these men are faced with a weapon that could go off.
Let us not forget that police, prison guards, penitentiary workers and those listed in section 214 of the Criminal Code, such as sherriff's officers and prison employees engaged in the preservation and maintenance of public institutions, and so on, are all public servants. They are the only civilian public servants whose lives we have been
95570-591/2

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
prepared to place at great risk, Mr. Speaker. 1 have just mentioned one of the risks these public servants have to face.
I would ask the government what plans it has to protect these public servants if this bill should pass. Most of them are married and have families. If the breadwinner happens to be a victim in the commission of a crime, what provision does the government make, over and above the ordinary provision that is now made by the public service, for this particular class of public servant? If there is a pension or superannuation plan, is the government going to demand extra premiums from them so that they can pay for taking these extra risks, or is the government going to provide the extra premium and the benefits that would be required by these public servants? These are matters that obviously have not been thought of, so far as I can make out.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the federal government could do this, but what about the provinces and the municipalities who also have public servants who are at great risk, some of whom might lose their lives? The risk is going to be greater if this bill should pass. Many more of these public servants, let us be frank, will pay with their lives. What about their survivors? What means does the government have to offer in order to entice, to induce or to recruit properly qualified persons to fill these risk positions? I do not think they have any particular plans in mind. These public servants are our protectors. They stand between us and the criminals in our society who have decided that they can disregard the law.
I do not think the government has looked ahead to see what the response of some of our policemen is likely to be when dealing with serious crimes. With the threat of the death penalty eliminated by the successful passage of this bill, when they are dealing with crimes involving the killing of policemen, who amongst us, would blame a guardian of the law who decided to use his sidearm first in the apprehension of a dangerous criminal? Who would be to blame if we were to find that the death penalty was carried out not infrequently before trial? Is this what we want?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Sidewalk justice.


Donald W. Munro: This is not just a remote possibility, Mr. Speaker. In raising the matter I do not question the integrity, self-control and discipline of our police forces. Wherever I have met them they have given me cause to be proud. But self-defence would be a justifiable defence in most of the circumstances that one can envisage. Is that what the government wants-execution without trial, to avoid execution upon conviction? That is what it looks like.
I therefore propose, even in this limited context, to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta which will give policemen and others who work for our protection, at least some protection rather than have them face the dreadful decision of having to shoot first and ask questions afterwards.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a few of my thoughts before the House and say at the outset that I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). In the days since the vote was taken on second reading of this bill a number of members who voted for abolition in the almost cocoon-like security of this place have possibly been faced with the stark reality of what their constituents were saying when they went back to their ridings. Some who thought that the figure of 80 per cent of Canadians endorsing the retention of capital punishment for premeditated murder was an exaggeration possibly found that 80 per cent was on the low side when they returned to their ridings.
I have to go back to 1972, Mr. Speaker. To all intents and purposes the amendment before us restores the law to the position it is in at the moment. Capital punishment would be the penalty for the murder of police officers or prison guards. I recall that in 1972 the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), an avowed abolitionist, said in an interview that he would have liked to go for complete abolition but this was the best he could get at the time. There was a minority government in 1972-73, and to my mind he had no intention of enforcing the bill that he proposed to this House. He was convinced that in every case to come before him he would try to convince the cabinet to commute the death penalty called for in the law which he sponsored.
The facts cannot be gainsaid. I submit that the death penalty should be maintained for the murderers of police officers and prison guards. Right now some prison guards are opting for early retirement. Many of them are veterans who took up their duties with the prison service at the end of World War II. Many have served 25 years. They need 30 years' service for a full pension, and quite a number are opting for early retirement. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? They seriously question the policies of the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for our prison service. They wonder if he has listened to their pleas. They are concerned not only about capital punishment; they are concerned about the whole question of security in prisons and say, "We do not have the support of the Solicitor General. Has he even listened to us?" Therefore, some of them are opting for early retirement. The situation in provincial jail systems is similar. Even now the Manitoba government is embarking on a plan whereby it will recruit officers to serve in Manitoba jails in future.
I know that last weekend many members did as I did; I visited the various parts of my riding and spoke to many people about capital punishment. Actually, it is more accurate to say that they spoke to me about capital punishment. There was no way to avoid them. They wanted to speak about it. I had the chance to speak with some RCMP personnel in my riding. I can best describe their attitude by saying they are angry, frustrated and, above all, cynical. They have become cynical about the government. You can tell them that the vote on the bill is free, but they know it is a government-supported bill, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General, avowed abolitionists, wanted to bring this before the House for passage before the end of the last five-year experiemental period.
It is known that this bill has been brought before the House despite the objections of the vast majority of Canadians who hold retentionist views with regard to premeditated murder. RCMP officers legitimately ask, as do prison guards, how they are to act. Obviously, there is a

July 8, 1976

communications gap between the RCMP and the Solicitor General, the minister who is supposedly responsible for the force and who does not listen. He does not do what the RCMP recommends. A police organization in Calgary says it cannot place any trust in the Solicitor General, a position also adopted by some members of the RCMP.
It was put this way to me, and I emphasize that I am not alluding to a contrived or unrealistic situation, because what I am about to mention could happen, "How is an RCMP officer to act, once this bill passes, if he faces a gunman with a loaded gun?" Let us say the gunman has already killed an innocent victim who is not a police officer or prison guard. The RCMP are called in to apprehend that person; they arrive at the scene and find themselves looking down the barrel of a high-powered rifle. What are they to do? In that situation you do not use polite language and say, "Please put down your gun and come with me." Gunmen do not understand such language. Therefore, because a policeman must act in self-defence it is possible that the gunman will be shot and killed. Will the RCMP be accused by abolitionists, including the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General, of taking the law into their own hands, of setting up a kangaroo court, acting as judge and jury and, instead of arresting him, shooting the gunman down?
Some may say that argument is strained, that the situation is contrived. I submit they are wrong. The RCMP do not think that situation is far-fetched. Right now they could face similar situations almost every day of the week. They ask, if they are forced to act in the manner described, who will defend them? Will it be the Solicitor General in whom they have no faith? They have received no answer to that question. I submit that the Solicitor General is obliged to answer. Be that as it may, our policemen will face gunmen and the situation I have described is not contrived. Therefore, fundamental questions remain to be answered.
Today our police forces are cynical. Society is cynical. It feels that parliament defied the will of the majority of Canadians by voting for abolition. I suppose all members of parliament wonder how best to ascertain the opinion of those they represent. I do not know how other members operate, but speaking for myself I often phone the same people to learn their opinions. Unfortunately, this procedure is not always satisfactory. To ascertain more accurately the views of people in the riding with respect to the retention of capital punishment for premeditated murder, I found it necessary to conduct a poll. The poll showed that the majority of my constituents are in favour of retention. I suggest that in no constituency is the majority of constituents in favour of abolition. If that were the case we would have heard about it a long time ago. One would have heard abolitionist members saying, "The majority of constituents in my riding favour abolition." They have not said that; on that point they have been remarkably silent. One can only conclude that such sentiment does not exist.
When I spoke on second reading I made my position as a retentionist well known and told the House that I had conducted a poll with respect to Bill C-84. Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of the respondents in my riding opted for the retention of capital punishment for premeditated murder. I am not a professional pollster and my poll may not have
Capital Punishment
been conducted scientifically. But even if you reduce the percentage in favour by 10 per cent, from 90 per cent to 80 per cent, you still wind up with an overwhelming majority, with a virtual consensus. That is how the people of my riding feel. I suggest that the poll results pertaining to my riding are not unique but hold true to a lesser or greater degree in every riding across Canada.
It is not only police and prison officials who are cynical and frustrated. Canadians are frustrated as well. They are questioning whether the representations they have made have been listened to. We have in this motion the retention of capital punishment for the killing of police officers or prison guards. Police associations and policemen's wives associations have indicated their position to us. They live under constant fear because of the risks inherent in their jobs. They have indicated that their fear is intensified because there is no longer the ultimate deterrent. Even though death sentences have been commuted since 1962, there has always been the possibility that a person convicted of murder would in fact pay the supreme penalty.
An example of the deterrent value was clearly brought out in the Israeli raid. I know that treason and hijacking were discussed earlier. However, one of my constituents pointed out that if capital punishment had been in force, and enforced in the countries where the terrorists were incarcerated, they could not have been used as ransom for the lives of those hijackers held on the Air France plane.
Whether we like to admit it or not, police officers and prison guards are being asked to put their lives on the line, with even less protection. Abolitionists are willing to accept those additional risks. They are willing to accept the death of these people because it is inherent in their jobs. I can interpret the view of the abolitionists in no other way. They are quite willing to extend those risks to the point where police officers and prison guards will have to sacrifice their lives, rather than retain the death penalty as at least a measure of protection for a person who is innocent. Innocent people are being asked to put their lives on the line in order to protect those who have already taken a life. That is not in any way compatible with justice.
The major question still facing me on the whole capital punishment issue is that some people say that if we invoke capital punishment, rehabilitation is impossible. From what I have seen, I do not believe that rehabilitation through the prison system works. I know we have had experts of all types in there, including psychiatrists, psychologists, and so on. I do not say this because I am a pessimist. I would love to see rehabilitation take effect. However, the state, by its very nature, does not have the ability to rehabilitate people. The state is impersonal, it depersonalizes everything. We have seen this happen in prisons. The state has no heart.
The only rehabilitation that will take place is in cases where organizations and individuals are willing to work with prisoners in a slow, ongoing process. A person might then be rehabilitated to the degree where he or she accepts the laws of the country, obeys those laws, and recognizes that by breaking a law the very basis of democracy is threatened because democracy can only survive if he or she

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
respects the rights of others. However, killers take away the basic right of individuals, and that is life.
There are idealists in this House who say that if we do not have capital punishment for premeditated killers, we can work on rehabilitation. The Solicitor General will have to be the first to admit that rehabilitation in our prisons has been a disaster.


Mr. Allmand:: I won't admit that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Rather than fewer people being incarcerated, there are larger numbers being incarcerated. The recidivism rate continues at a phenomenal level. Rehabilitation is simply not in place. The Solicitor General would have done a service to Canada if long before this bill, to which I am totally opposed, came into this House he had put in very specific terms the type of rehabilitation he would like to see take place in prisons. Along with that rehabilitation program he should have confirmed to prison officers and policemen across this country that he stands behind them, supports them in their work and will be their advocate in this House and in cabinet. He is not that at the present time. He is not representing their views at all. In fact, they almost look upon him as enemy number one.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is enemy number one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I wonder how the Solicitor General views his role. He said he would resign or seek another portfolio if the bill is defeated. I hope he will have to do that quickly, possibly after tonight. The real question is how he can sit in cabinet and speak on behalf of members of the RCMP and officers in the prison system when they have no confidence in him. They have said so in resolution after resolution. He speaks entirely opposite to what they recommend. He does not listen.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He does not care.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He hears a different drummer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He probably has the concept that everybody is out of step but Johnny, and that is him. How does the Solicitor General justify continuing in that portfolio while completely rejecting the ideas, concepts and recommendations of people directly within his charge?


Donald W. Munro: It won't be for long.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Solicitor General has a responsibility to stand in this House during the course of this debate and state how he sees his role as being responsible for the prison system and for police officers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for this courtesy. I will not take up too much time of the House; however, I do want to put before the Solicitor General this serious question. Does he really feel

that as Solicitor General he is fulfilling his mandate and his responsibility to the men and women who are officers and report to him?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He knows he is letting them down.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) says that the Solicitor General knows he is letting them down. I know one thing; the RCMP officers in my riding say he has let them down. They are saying they can have no confidence in the Solicitor General or in the Prime Minister who, I am sure, is the guru to whom he listens.


An hon. Member:: Who do you listen to?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I listen to my constituents, and I suggest the hon. member should do the same.


An hon. Member:: You should try to listen to your leader occasionally.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I do that, too.


William Warren Allmand: You should listen to your conscience, also.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is an interesting comment from the Solicitor General. As a matter of fact, my conscience and my constituents are in harmony. I should like to dispel once and for all the idea that a person who votes for retention is listening only to his constituents and does not have a conscience of his own. The Solicitor General is responsible to the House, but he is also responsible for the men and women in his charge. How will he answer them and their families when they are victimized? It is the guards who have to look after a person who has been convicted of murder and who will kill again in order to get out of prison. That is the question the Solicitor General has not answered, and it is one he must answer for all Canadians.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 13 which we are now studying is, to my mind, one of the most important motions that have been presented and which is on the order paper of the House in respect of Bill C-84. Indeed, this amendment, motion No. 13, proposes to maintain present Criminal Code section 214 or to delete clause 4 of the bill.
It is not without reason, I think, that many people, organizations and policemen throughout Canada are opposed to the deletion of section 214.
I am satisfied that each member studies carefully this question at the moment. We are studying together what we should do to give society, individuals and families the protection they are entitled to. We want to reach that aim by different means but, nevertheless, I think we must take into account the representations which are made to us and also the fact that policemen are friends of society.
In the past, policemen were often considered as persons to fear, persons that we should not get in touch with. They were not considered as friends. They were considered as people who had the authority to punish. It was in some ways the mentality that prevailed among the population. Fortunately, that mentality has changed. More and more the youth consider policemen as persons that should be
July 8, 1976

respected because they wield authority. They have the authority, they have been given a mandate to make people respect the laws adopted by parliaments. Therefore, policemen do not simply have the mission to punish; they also have the mission to enforce the law and protect the life and the property of individuals. The greatest proof of that is that when our rights are threatened by bandits, we call on policemen. When we are threatened by people who do not respect the rights and the property of others, we once again call on the police for protection.
If we ask for their protection, we parliamentarians have the obligation to ensure the protection of policemen as well, to place in their hands the weapons to accomplish their mission, and I am not talking about a gun or a revolver because we all know that this is necessary, but I want to say that policemen should be ensured by society that if they lose their life in the course of their duties against those who do not want to obey the law, an example would be made for the benefit of others who would be tempted to do the same. Murderers must be punished. This is what Criminal Code section 214 provides. And this is why I have no hesitation in supporting motion No. 13 because it aims at maintaining in our statutes some protection for our policemen, prison guards, all those employees who work in prisons, who are responsible for guarding and controlling prisoners, so that they may have the required protection, just like we now require on building sites that contractors take all the necessary precautions to prevent accidents to their workers. For instance, wearing a hard hat, using a cable when a roof is too steep, wearing a safety belt, all of which aim at protecting the life of workers. Therefore, the employees who work in prison or the policemen who work on the road are entitled to the same protection.
However, I believe that the question we must consider during the study of this bill is why are we now living in a violent society and why are many individuals now thinking that they must make their own justice. We hear this often nowadays. We say it, we hear it, but there is no order anymore. We are living in a violent society. We are never sure when we go out to the grocery store if we shall come back alive. Therefore, people think of making their own justice.
This is not a healthy society: indeed, the society is ill: it is a society in which there is violence. What are the causes? I think that television, movies and theatres are the main causes of violence. Violence does not exist only in Canada, it exists also elsewhere. But it is also where there is television, movies and theatres where so many things incite to violence.
It is deplorable to find that in Canada, our children are being shown violent films for hours at a time, and that happens every day. They are taught violence, the use of firearms, how to attack people, how to make a hold up, all kinds of violent ways. And our young people are looking at these for hours, and then, in their mind projects develop, so that at a given moment, faced with an economic situation rather difficult in the family, some young people will consider using these means, these weapons, they will take violent action to get a few dollars to do what they please. That is called teaching crime. People were shocked in old
Capital Punishment
times when the Romans made a show of death in the eyes of the public. People were shocked by that and we are also shocked when we read about it. That was done in the arena, just like cock-fighting today. In the end, one of them dies.
Today, it is not done on the stage, it is not done in the same fashion, but through images. Our children are given to see on television all kinds of films inviting to violence and after that we are suprised and wonder what is happening. Young people no longer want to abide by the law, their ideas are different from those of adults and they often cause serious problems in society. If we were in their place, we would perhaps do worse than them, because I think if we had to live in the same atmosphere and had been shown the same things in our young age, we would be even worse. They are not to be blamed; instead we should blame the adults who are responsible for seeing to it that the films shown on television and in cinemas really encourage respect for life, respect for human beings. Those children could still be entertained and shown excellent material, and they would be only too happy to get an education that instills respect for life, for other people's property, and teaches them to use their energy in wholesome entertainment while respecting peace and order.
Mr. Speaker, the League of Human Rights, which puts out a bulletin from which I have an excerpt here that I would like to quote you, is entirely of that opinion. I should like to quote you paragraph 3, on page 6, which says:
The information given by the press with regard to crime, especially as exploited by some groups ... is dealt with in such a way as to spread a collective psychosis of dangerous crime and give the wrong impression.
To my mind, there is truly food for thought in that paragraph. To go back to the quotation:
Contrary to what is being done in other fields, the press is quite content to focus the attention of the public on the most negative aspects, without analyzing them as they often should, while overlooking the positive information related, among other things, to the methods of rehabilitation.
So the negative aspects are exploited with great delight because that is profitable and sensational. But we fail to show the positive side. I continue to quote:
We think the press could help the population give criminality its proper dimensions if certain efforts were made in this direction.
Parliament and parliamentarians are responsible for passing legislation so that news media are forced to show the good side of things, to give positive information. We should stop going from one sensational piece of information to another to increase sales or the interest which can induce people to go and see things they own in order to get rich with these businesses.
On clause 4-The rate of violence in the programs of our television and cinema networks is obviously the reflection of a society which consumes violence excessively, without measuring the impact of this consumption on the making of criminality.
We really get down to rock bottom when expressing ourselves this way. One wonders about the following question:
Should not we directly face that matter?
So they suggest:
Governments, in cooperation with all competent and concerned associations, should establish school and adult education programs which

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
would make people ponder over the crime phenomenon and which would be basically oriented towards prevention, information and education.
We especially appeal to teachers and parents for their commitment to fight against the initiation to violence which dominates our society, in all kinds of areas and forms, from the most evident to the slyest.
We believe, among other things, that one of the best means to fight destructive violence is the initiation to positive forms of respect for life, which can be found massively and constantly in the various functions inherent in education.
Whatever measures are taken to fight murder and the most dangerous forms of crime directly, they may prove useless if there is not in Quebec and across Canada a systematic and general effort by the public to substitute patterns of human development for the countless violent patterns generated by our society. There again, we think that the most powerful weapons will come from our investing into social values, to really ensure respect for life and the emphasis of what is positive and beautiful in the development of human beings. What good is it to develop all those communication and information techniques if we cannot use them primarily to propagate life?
This was published by the Human Eights Association which sent us this announcement out of which I have quoted a few passages which I heartily support because 1 think this association is working for human rights and that it was duty bound to make its position known on such an important bill.
I said earlier that the economic causes must also be eliminated. I am not the only one to think so, for I believe that those who really think about it are convinced that certain economic causes also lead to violence, crime, and sometimes to revenge or to the temptation to take the lives of those who stand in our way. One can see the turn of mind of such people.
The Chief Justice of the Ontario Supreme Court stated, and I quote:
Canada will begin to control crime only by eliminating the economic needs which, in my opinion, prompt thousands of Canadians to break the law.
Therefore, I think that being a judge, he was able to size all the accused who appeared before him, in order to keep an open mind and to determine why such or such accused appeared before the court. And as a judge, he had to hear the evidence to be able to make a sound judgement.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that policemen have been murdered recently in the province of New Brunswick, that they were inflicted atrocious pains before being slain. Everybody was shocked by such atrocities and following these unfortunate events, policemen from everywhere in Canada got together to ask once more for the retention of capital punishment. All those people cannot be wrong at the same time.
There must certainly be good reasons prompting them to ask parliamentarians to retain capital punishment. That does not necessarily mean hanging. We could use hanging of course but we can take any kind of capital punishment, the most humane so as to respect the concept of the importance of human life and whenever an execution is to be carried out, it should be done as humanely as possible.
I think it must be considered. We shall also recall that last spring, in the Quebec City area, a policeman was killed in cold blood in the course of his duties and here I wish to

quote from an article in the newspaper La Presse of Montreal, of March 3, 1976 entitled:


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE PRINCIPLE OF LIFE
[Stage Direction]
I wish to quote this article, Mr. Speaker, as I think it is time that as parliamentarians we take into consideration representations made by those who are responsible for protecting the life and property of Canada. I quote:
Some 2,000 policemen gathered in Quebec City after the funeral of one of their colleagues were unanimous. When one of their leaders, the director of the Quebec City section of the provincial policemen association said: "The abolition of capital punishment, never.'', the policemen rose to applaud. And we can easily understand them.
They had come from several areas of the country to express their sorrow after the death of constable Michel Bedard. He died because of his faithfulness to his duties. A criminal, miserable as every criminal, killed him in his escape. This act is so disgusting that it creates revolt and passion. First the policemen offered their sympathy to the close relatives of the deceased at a touching ceremony. Then they got together. And briefly they enounced the principle that should protect them against the madness of killers: "Abolition of capital punishment, never!" We can understand, but are they right?
Mr. Speaker, I will not read this very interesting article in its totality, but once again parliamentarians are asked to do their duty to ensure those people full protection. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as I realize that the clock runs very fast, I wish to quote two extracts from a booklet published by the Solicitor General of Canada.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. To do so, the hon. member will need unanimous consent as his allotted time is now expired. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to complete his comments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my English and French-speaking colleagues of the Parliament of Canada for their kindness. As I said, I wish to quote from a booklet published by the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Allmand), in which he says the following in paragraph 6:
6. THE POOR AND MINORITY GROUPS. When capital punishment was in force, it was mostly applied to the poor, non-educated people, minority groups and immigrants. The rich who could afford the best lawyers and were influent had strong chances of being acquitted or getting a reduced sentence.
I know the Solicitor General has much more experience than I do in this area. But when I read that statement, I had doubts about our courts. I often heard people say: There are two justices-one for the rich and one for the poor. But I did not believe that a Crown minister could state it so clearly. Then, in that case, it is again our duty as parliamentarians to see that our laws are the best possible, that they are applied in the fairest way and above all, that judges who are appointed are really qualified, and not selected on the basis of some political patronage but following the recommendation of the Bar because of their knowledge, their occupation, which is really that of protectors of the law and not because of political services rendered.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to give the impression of accusing judges in any part of Canada or of the province of Quebec, but I wish to take this opportunity to emphasize
July 8, 1976

that if it is true that the poor have fewer chances than the rich to gain justice before the courts, this demonstrates that society is sicker than I thought, and I wish we did our best to take as many steps as possible to put it back in shape at all levels; not only as regards the poor but as regards the rich as well. And if it is true that justice can be influenced to that extent, it becomes outrageous and this is why it is called a society of violence.
We must really ensure that any segment of society, no matter its financial position, when it is faced to courts, be confident before those courts to obtain justice, whether they can or not pay the high price. Again, I hope we will seriously consider this point and that sooner or later the Solicitor General of Canada will be able to introduce amendments to ensure the best protection possible to all citizens as regards law enforcement, when this law must be adhered to by the courts, when someone has been convicted before society.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I again as for the help of all my colleagues in Parliament: For God's sake, tonight will see again the end of a memorable day. An extremely serious vote will take place. I, for one, do not take things lightly because tomorrow and in the days and years to come, everything will depend upon the action we will take tonight. I have no judgment to make about any of my colleagues, be they in favour of or against capital punishment. It is a personal matter, but I think, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said a moment ago, that not only we have the right to vote according to our own conscience but it is our duty to vote according to the people's will.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I will be brief, but I should like to put on the record a few thoughts about this amendment. I, like the hon. member for Comox Alberni (Mr. Anderson), do not particularly like this amendment. I am in favour of the retention of capital punishment for premeditated murder and I believe policemen and prison guards need protection. However, I also believe that housewives, children and everyone else in our society need the protection afforded by capital punishment. Having said that I do not like the amendment, I want to assure the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) that I am going to support it since it is perhaps better than complete abolition. It is better to retain the death penalty for the murderers of policemen and prison guards than abolish it.
I also commend the 38 members of the government party who supported retention on second reading of the bill. I urge those 38 once again to give some thought to supporting this amendment. Even though it is not a good amendment, it is better than complete abolition. It reinstates the situation in which we are today, the five-year trial period. It will be up in December of 1977, at which time we can again make a decision when we have studied the results of the trial periods which existed from 1967 to 1972 and from 1972 to 1976.
Many members have said that this is a vote according to conscience and therefore it should be a free vote. As I said a minute ago, I admire the 38 members on the government side who voted against this bill on second reading. I think it was a free vote for them, but surely the cabinet's and the
Capital Punishment
parliamentary secretaries' votes do not suggest that they were allowed the same freedom given to the backbenchers in that party. Many members have quoted Burke in saying that they have the right to lead their constituents. In 1794 Burke, in a speech made in Bristol, England, said:
Your representative does not use his industry only but his judgment and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
It has not generally been realized that Burke lost the election in 1794. I should like to point out that many hon. members may well lose the next election if they do not pay attention to the wishes of their constituents.


Mr. Railton:: That would not stop us. I would hate to think that you are taking that position so that you can be re-elected.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, but I sincerely believe I am in step with my constituents and that a member of parliament must represent his constituents. There may be times when one does not agree with one's constituents, but one has to represent them. I believe that in supporting this amendment we will help make Canada a better place in which to live. That is really why I ran for office, and I hope the hon. member ran for office for the same reason, in an attempt to make this country a better place in which to live. He suggests to me that he is working at it, but he is not doing so when he votes in the manner in which he did on this piece of legislation. The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) made a few interjections in the debate this afternoon. He is in trouble in this riding because his riding is mostly retentionist.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have many friends in Mississauga.


Eugene Whelan: The Ontario attorney general is in that riding, Mr. McMurtry, and he is a Conservative.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to intervene, but I think the hon. member has been concentrating, since the beginning of his remarks, on passing judgment or reflecting on hon. members, which is not permissible under Standing Order 35. Besides that, I must say that his remarks have not been relevant to the subject matter before us at this time. He should address himself to the amendment or to the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for coming to my defence. These members were heckling, interrupting and distracting me from the convincing argument that I intend to put forward.
Many hon. members have suggested throughout the debate that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Surely, if 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the people in a country believe that it is a deterrent, then in fact it is a deterrent for those people. To say that it has not been proven conclusively that it is a deterrent is nonsense, because it cannot be proven conclusively either way. Some hon. members have suggested this afternoon that policemen and prison guards, because of fear for their lives, might shoot first and ask questions later. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to create a society which encourages that thought. I urge all
15178

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
hon. members who sincerely believe in abolition to think about the society they may well be creating.
When asked a question in committee about what will happen if prison guards do not approve what he is doing, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) said that they can quit, he will hire new ones. That is not a very responsible attitude for the minister to take. He is forcing his wishes on people who serve him and in my view that is not a responsible attitude to take. Policemen's associations have spoken out quite clearly in favour of retention of capital punishment for their protection. They believe it is a deterrent. Now we hear of policemen's wives associations being organized. They urge the government to retain capital punishment for the protection of their husbands. They also believe that capital punishment is a deterrent. Surely this minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cannot turn a deaf ear to public opinion.
This summer many hon. members will be going back to their constituents, I hope very soon.


Eugene Whelan: So do I.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They will be listening to their constituents who believe that capital punishment is a deterrent. Their constituents will say to them, "You people in Ottawa don't care what we think". I have often regretted the poor name that politicians have in this country, because I think most members here attempt to serve their country and their constituents in an honourable way, but this governemnt has neglected the wishes of the people and thus are harming all politicians.
In 1967 we went into a trial period during which the killing of a policeman or prison guard called for punishment by death. We were told that that trial period was not conclusive and in 1972 it was extended for another five years. However, the cabinet jumped the gun on this latest five-year trial period and reached a conclusion. Did they reach it by way of logic, by looking at the facts or by looking at statistics? No, they reached the conclusion because the Solicitor General said he could not enforce the act, and so long as he was Solicitor General nobody would hang. He disobeyed the will of parliament. I like the Solicitor General, he is a fine man, but he is in the wrong job. If he cannot do it, let him switch places with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) or somebody who can do it. I know that basically the Minister of Agriculture is a retentionist, but because he is in the cabinet he has to go along with them.


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that a long time before I became a member of this cabinet I voted as an abolitionist. I ran in four elections as an abolitionist.
I made no secret of what my stand was, and I have been elected to public positions for some 30 years. I have been honest with my constituents in whatever position I ever held.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad I gave the minister the chance to put that on the record. We in rural Canada have wondered what made him tick. We are slowly sorting it out.


Eugene Whelan: I said the same thing in Alberta last week.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a serious matter. I hope we will vote on it tonight and that all hon. members can go home tomorrow. I hope they will not have to come back next week at all. If this amendment is passed tonight, we will be back in the trial period we were in before this bill was introduced, and the government will then have to obey the will of parliament on this issue until December of 1977. Then the government can make a decision, but to make a decision before that time, in my opinion-


Mr. Breau:: The House already has.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -goes against the wishes of parliament when it accepted the trial period from 1972 to 1977. I urge all hon. members to give this a great deal of thought because the reputation of every politician is at stake. We have to obey the will of the people and, if we do not, we are hardly better than anarchists. I do not want to be a party to that kind of society, so I urge all hon. members to support this amendment.


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the report stage debate on Bill C-84, not to reiterate what my colleagues and I have said with regard to the retention of capital punishment-I think we have stated our case very clearly-but rather as a matter of duty to plead with the government to heed the wishes of the majority of Canadians who have stated that they want the retention of capital punishment.
Can the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) tell this House why the bill must be debated now? Could it not have waited until after the Olympics? I feel the timing is insane. To debate the bill now does nothing but cast a shadow of apprehension over and doubt in the minds of those taking part in the Olympics as well as of those responsible for security at the games.
It appears that the government is strongly in favour of pampering criminals. Surely we must have our priorities confused. What are we doing to protect the citizens of Canada? Precious little, I would say, when we are making it harder for those responsible for maintaining law and order to carry out their duties. What we are doing is suggesting to Canadians that if the government does not invoke strong deterrents which will curb the ever increasing crime rate, the citizens of Canada will have to take the law into their own hands.
I have respect for all my colleagues on all sides of this House. However, I feel that the moral responsibility of hon. members is being overshadowed by their own personal feelings, which should not happen when in each constituency some 20,000 Canadians went to the polls to vote for the man or woman they felt would bring to parliament the opinions of the majority in their constituencies.
Some hon. members argue that this is a free vote which gives them the right to vote as they see fit regardless of the feelings of their constituents. What has happened? Has this session lasted too long? Are some hon. members that out of touch with reality?
July 8, 1976

To bring us back to reality I would like to read just one letter, out of hundreds I have received, from radio station CJOC in Lethbridge, dated June 28, as follows:
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
This letter has to do with the capital punishment bill that went through second reading on Wednesday, June 23, 1976.
I decided that it was about time that the Government of Canada knew exactly what the people of Southern Alberta felt about the bill
On Wednesday, June 23 and Thursday, June 24 I opened the phone lines here at CJOC Radio to find out what the residents of Southern Alberta felt about capital punishment. The phone lines were opened between 1:30 and 5:30 p.m. both said days. The final vote read like this: FOR capital punishment-384 votes AGAINST capital punishment-18 votes
I also received some mail after the phone line vote was finished with. Enclosed are the letters I received.
I do hope that this will give you a little more backing in Ottawa knowing that 90% or more of Southern Alberta is right behind you as far as the capital punishment bill is concerned.
Adding the letter vote to the phone vote the final tally reads:
399 for capital punishment 18 against capital punishment
We here in Southern Alberta would appreciate it if you were to show this to either Mr. Trudeau himself, or someone that might care.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Lethbridge Broadcasting Limited
I would also like to read a telegram from one of my constituents who happens to be an abolitionist, as follows:
Congratulations on your sturdy stand re law and order. Myself, an abolitionist of capital punishment by ideal, consider abolition presently the wrong measure, at the wrong time, in the wrong way, particularly remembering the coming Olympics. Good luck. G. R. C. Palmer, MD.
Dr. Palmer is from the city of Lethbridge.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the government thinks nothing of spending millions and millions of dollars on study group after study group-even study groups studying study groups-but when it comes to Bill C-84 it completely ignores the requests, wishes, and advice of our police forces across the entire country.
In conclusion, I think it behooves all of us to spend a few minutes reflecting on the wishes of our constituents.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Bill C-84, more precisely on May 11, I mentioned that I did not see any difference between the value of the life of a father or mother, a policeman or a prison guard or a defenceless citizen brutally attacked by bandits who are ever increasing in number. I might add that I have not changed my mind on this matter. However, I find that the motion under discussion is designed to give at least some protection needed by those who are responsible for the protection of society.
I know that policemen are better trained and prepared to defend themselves against bandits; on the other hand, they are much more exposed since their role is to try to arrest various types of criminals. And we notice from many examples that criminals are most of the time well armed and do not hesitate much before shooting down policemen on duty. The registration of their weapons is no problem at all for them. They have their own supply sources that are not subject to red tape which often lack flexibility. In view of the actual situation in general, we should at least give
Capital Punishment
law enforcement officers the assurance that the legislators realize the importance of their role and provide them with enough protection through legislation to cause those who are planning, often long in advance, some acts leading to crime, to think twice.
A release from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, dated June 24, 1976, said the following, and I think a few excerpts from that release would be in order. The executive secretary-treasurer referred to certain matters in the second paragraph of his letter, after making reference to the statement made on June 15, 1976, by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) in his speech in the House of Commons. I remember very well the recent reactions of some members opposite when the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) alluded to the speech of the Prime Minister. And yet, that is exactly what he did say. I have the text of his speech right in fromt of me. I am quoting:
I want to make it very clear that, if a majority of hon. members vote against abolition, some people are going to be hanged. Their death would be a direct consequence of the negative decision made by this House on this bill.
I now shall continue to quote from the letter of the executive secretary to the members of the House of Commons. It reads:
As for us, we appeal to your conscience and we take the opposite view of that expressed by Mr. Trudeau by saying that abolitionist would be responsible for all future murders of penitentiary employees and law enforcement officers, and we swear that each time one of these murders is committed, we shall impute them to all those who have supported the abolition of capital punishment.
Here are a few facts that you should consider in our opinon:
1-	The irresponsible attitude of penitentiary commissioners and directors before the pressure groups who visit the institutions;
2-	The lack of proper management by the authorities of most penal institutions in the country;
3-	The shocking convict classification system which endangers the life of penitentiary employees as well as the life of most convicts who only want to obey the rules they must follow during their prison term;
4-	The present lack of facilities to guarantee the protection and safety of the staff against habitual criminals who have nothing to lose because of the 25 years of imprisonment they would have to serve under Bill C-83.
For these reasons, the Hon. Warren Allmand, Solicitor General of Canada, who did not have the courage to reveal these facts to the members of the House of Commons, should, in all conscience, resign his ministerial responsibilities since he has lost the confidence of all penitentiary employees and all law enforcement officers in Canada.
We urge you, in your heart of hearts, to consider the safety of your family and that of penitentiary employees and law enforcement officers while reflecting on these words: "We want everyone to clearly understand that if most members of Parliament vote against the retention of the death penalty, people will be murdered. The death of these people would then be a direct result of the negative decision made by the House of Commons on this bill."
What our society needs is not an attitude of tolerance or permissiveness towards criminals but a return of everyone to spiritual and moral values. Let the murderes particularly return to them. Then, it will be easier to forego the death penalty. In the meantime, however, let there be no question of abolishing the right and the duty, through the civil and judicial authority, to take the lives of those who have too little respect for that of others.
9SS10-60Vi

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
We insist on the retention of capital punishment not in a spirit of revenge but of legal reparation for the greatest of crimes, and also to protect the lives of the people in the interest of the public and of order.
I already pointed out that the method of execution could be changed either for the gas chamber or any other method deemed appropriate. Considering the tremendous increase in the number of crimes of various types and the attitude of our leaders regarding the means available to reduce the number of crimes and allow a greater number of people to earn a decent living, a rather severe sentence must be maintained to give cause for reflection to those who, because of their behaviour, are likely to take the lives of others if they feel they stand in the way of their crimes.
It must be kept in mind that any individual who respects the life of his neighbour will never have to fear the death penalty if it is retained. In the part of the brief from the executive director of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police dealing with the attitude expected from the Solicitor General, the following was mentioned, of which I would like to quote two paragraphs:
Such a philosophy is of deep concern to us, because even if the period proposed in Bill C-84 remains in effect, it involves a much greater threat and danger for our society, and more particularly the prison guards in our institutions.
In view of that attitude, we submit that the minimum sentence of 25 years, as proposed in Bill C-84, is a flagrant hoax since, to all intents and purposes, a convict will have the right to ask for a remission after his first 15 years in prison.
Recently, I read an article published in Quebec City's Le Soleil dated July 4, 1976. Take good note of the title:
U.S.A. Supreme Court Retains Capital Punishment
No fewer than 582 prisoners on death row, of whom 10 are women, from 30 different states, may be executed as a result of a long awaited decision of the Supreme Court.
By a majority of seven votes to two, the Supreme Court has rejected the request filed by the attorneys of six persons who were condemned to death after having been found guilty of murder in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
The attorneys did not deny the convicts' guilt, but they argued that the death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment and therefore that it was unconstitutional. It was actually a test case for which the League for the Abolition of Capital Punishment tried to stir up public opinion.
Only Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall were in disagreement with their seven other colleagues who rendered their decision after studying the files for three months. In their majority judgment, the justices considered that capital punishment was not unconstitutional.
I am surprised at the attitude of the Canadian abolitionists who usually keep abreast with the situation prevailing south of the border. They will probably answer that capital punishment has been abolished in several states. This parallel shows the necessity of retaining capital punishment considering that the majority of the Supreme Court judges after pondering over what has happened in the states where capital punishment has been abolished, are favourable to its retention in the states where it still exists.
From the strictly religious point of view, with respect to the concern of the accused for his fate in the hereafter, the murderer sentenced to death can always rely on the assistance of a religious adviser. If he wishes to, he can always beg for God's mercy and prepare himself to die. But his victims seldom have had such an opportunity. In concluding, let me quote from an article published in La Presse of
(Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).]
June 2nd, 1976, and written by Mr. Arthur Piche; I may add that I agree with him.
Man has a right to life. Fine. But this is not equally true for the honest citizen and the murderer. To suggest the opposite would be denying a social and religious tradition which goes back to a thousand years and which has not yet been proved groundless or unfair even if abuses are unfortunately to be deplored. And when we say that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent against crime, we labour under a delusion.
Like anyone else, criminals fear death. It is evidenced by the fact that in order to protect themselves they carry arms and have often a whole stock of guns hidden somewhere.
And it has not been shown that a greater permissiveness and an absolute respect for the lives of murderers do help in curbing criminal activities. Indications would rather be to the contrary. We should therefore be wary of statistics purporting to show that the fear of death is not a deterrent, and that criminals do not value their own lives. If they do not why are we so concerned about saving them, once they are caught?
I also note that various press articles dealing with the subject illustrate on occasion what is going on. They should be food for thought to those who have the responsibility of deciding, because this is a very serious matter we are now discussing. I have here this other article that appeared in La Presse of April 17, 1975. It refers to the increasing rate of crime and the decreasing rate of case solving.
We would like some evidence that the government is making real efforts to try and reduce the crime rate in a way acceptable to the prople, to provide jobs and adequate salaries. But no, such evidence is lacking. In this country, we are living under a system that is totally upside-down. We are struggling between inflation and unemployment crises, without any solution whatsoever. It is that kind of situation that provides the ideal conditions under which discouraged people often feel compelled to do things that sometimes lead them to murder.
Clearly, in that kind of situation, over and above trying to improve the economic situation in Canada in general, and until there are more adequate ways of life, we must try and protect those who are paid to maintain law and order in Canada.


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I take cognizance of the endorsement and appreciation for my position shown by two members of the Liberal party. I hope it is reflected in their votes later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peters:: They were only applauding because you said you would speak briefly.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: On May 22, 1973, I had to make a speech which, while not brief, was the most difficult I ever had to make. Certainly much preparation, thought and soul searching went into it. That speech dealt, as well, with
July 8, 1976

capital punishment. As you will recall, Your Honour, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) had brought before the House a bill which would abolish capital punishment except in cases where a policeman or prison guard was the victim of murder. On that occasion I said the following:
For one thing, the minister-and I would predict, almost all of his cabinet colleagues-are abolitionists. Yet they present us with a bill that provides for the death penalty in the case of murder of a prison guard or law enforcement officer. If that alone is not questionable, surely the hypocrisy of this legislation is clear when the government presents us with a proposal it has no intention of carrying out. If a government is unable, or just plain unwilling to carry out legislation, it insults this House by presenting such legislation .. .
The present government would not enforce the penalty provided for in this legislation for the murder of a policeman or prison guard. To suggest it would do so is preposterous; to incorporate that suggestion into legislation is hypocritical.
I do not quote from my previous speech on this subject made when the Solicitor General brought forward the partial abolition bill because I want to claim credit as a prophet. It did not require powers of prophecy to see through the sham of the legislation he was presenting. I quoted my remarks to show that I understood the real designs of the Solicitor General and the government. Now, before the expiry of that experimental legislation which he claimed was so necessary and of paramount importance to the country, the Solicitor General says to us: "Let's wipe out the experiment. Let us forget what we promised with regard to another five-year period in which we would partially abolish capital punishment except in cases involving the murder of a policeman or prison guard. We are going to call the experiment off, abort the experiment in midstream, so to speak, and end capital punishment in this country." I say that the track record and attitude of the Solicitor General in matters concerning parliamentary democracy can only be viewed with deep regret.
It is interesting to note how government supporters proceeded when this bill was before the committee. When any ordinary piece of legislation is being considered, the members of this House, wishing to represent their constituents in the best way possible and not being experts in all fields, find it necessary to call witnesses to appear before a committee and to testify. Members hear what experts say about the application of this or that legislation. As I say, hon. members do not claim to be experts in highly controversial, difficult, and involved fields. We are a collection of commoners. Yet when this bill went to committee for study, the proposal of those opposing the bill to hear representatives of policemen and prison guards was turned down by the government majority on that committee.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That was a bad thing.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: As the House leader of my party says, that was a bad thing. It is apparent that the government is not willing to listen except when it suits its own convenience. We believe that those witnesses should have been called and heard. If anyone has his or her life hanging in the balance on the outcome of this debate and this bill, surely it is the men and women who serve on our peace enforcement forces and as guards in the prisons of this country.
Capital Punishment
Earlier in the debate, speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), I discussed the situation of the Canadian penitentiary system as I found it while studying that system as part of a special subcommittee of this House. Little did I know at the time that support for the assessment which I gave of the prison system in Canada would come from Dr. Ezzat A. Fattah, the great friend of the Solicitor General and this government relating to this peace and security legislation, in particular in its proposals to abolish capital punishment. After bringing in his report he wrote an article for Simon Fraser University weekly publication. I quote from that article:
It is a barbaric act, an act of unusual cruelty, to put people in cage-like cells for a minimum of 25 years without the faintest hope. Anybody who knows the living conditions in our penitentiaries would agree that this amounts to a slow death one hundred times worse than rapid death by execution. It is simply hypocritical to abolish a cruel, barbaric and savage punishment such as the death penalty while replacing it with another punishment even more cruel and more barbaric.
Dr. Fattah does not agree with the stand that I have taken on capital punishment, and I do not agree with his findings. However, we both agree, he an abolitionist and I a retentionist, on the barbaric cruelty that one finds in the prison system and the suggestion of the Solicitor General that we box people in them without offering them any hope, or any reason for maintaining themselves in a manner which would not endanger the lives of others.
The government decided that we should not hear representations from spokesmen for policemen or prison guards whose lives are on the line. Their own proponent, their own so-called expert advancing the cause of the abolition of the death penalty, says that it is a barbaric act to cage people like this. It will obviously create tensions that will endanger the lives of both inmates and prison guards. Somehow the government does not think we should listen to those representations or that side of the story.
I do not look down on public opinion. There seems to be an undercurrent of argument put forward by some in this House that members of parliament who support the maintenance of a strong law and order system through the retention of capital punishment are somehow capitulating to the forces of public pressure.
At no time have I ever suggested that anyone should support capital punishment only on the basis of what his or her constituents suggest should be done. At the same time, however, the same members of parliament who at election time return to their constituents with plaudits and praise for the good common sense of the people, asking for their trust and seeking their support, are not in a position to turn around and say that we who have been sent here by them somehow have a greater wisdom, a more developed social conscience that permits us to block out representations we receive from constituents. That is folly. It undermines democracy.
We serve our constituents best when we do what we believe to be in their best interests, when we do what we believe to be right, and when we do what we believe will bring the maximum possible good to the maximum number of people. However, in our search for putting forward

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
legislation which reaches that goal, we dare not ignore that same good common sense that we appeal to at election time and perhaps give lip service to all too often.
I accept personal responsibility for the decision I have made in this very difficult debate. When the Solicitor General first introduced his bill in 1973 I said that I had never faced a more difficult decision during my lifetime. I could not conceive of a more difficult decision to make. Nothing has happened in those intervening years to change my mind. It is the most difficult decision that any man or woman could be asked to reach.
I suggest to all hon. members that in reaching such a decision we should not ignore the counsel of the constituents we are honoured to represent. I do not suggest for a moment that it is always possible to say at any given point what the majority wants. That is a subjective thing. However, any member who returns to his constituency as frequently as he should, maintains contact with his constituency, reads his mail and stays in touch with his people, surely knows what that same good common sense is telling him.
When it comes time to consider the most important legislation that perhaps any of us will have to debate at any time, we should listen in open forum to the submissions of those who perhaps have additional insight into the. problems of criminology. They spend their lives day in and day out treating both the victims of crime and those who have committed crime to ensure that justice is done and the security of our nation is upheld.
I want to bring to the attention of this House the submission of the Police Association of Metro Toronto. At page 22 of their brief they speak about the situation that would arise if you placed a man into a penitentiary without any hope of getting out. It is along the same lines as suggested by Dr. Fattah. I quote:
When the only hope becomes one of escape or when additional crimes do not bring about additional penalties, then the lives of prison guards and prison officials and other prisoners will be placed in jeopardy by those who have "nothing to lose".
That is exactly the situation that will develop. According to the Solicitor General we are going to make sure that those people who, in full possession of their mental and physical capabilities commit premeditated cold blooded murder, will be sentenced to first degree murder and the penalty that they pay will be severe. I agree that it will be severe. I do not agree that it will be effective. It will place in further jeopardy some innocent lives. I refer in particular to the lives of prison guards who live in the pressure cookers we call federal institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Tonight we shall be voting, as agreed upon by the House, on a series of amendments. It has been suggested that we should not prolong the debate. In fact it has been suggested that representatives of the official opposition are involved in some kind of conspiracy to filibuster. I am glad that at least one member of the government found it possible for him to break the eerie silence on the other side of the Chamber and entered into the debate earlier this week.
I would draw attention to the fact that if we had proceeded as quickly as the Solicitor General and some of his colleagues had wished, the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), which the minister is now accepting, would not have been written into the bill. So I would suggest there is great benefit in declining to deal with this controversial and difficult legislation to suit the timetable of some hon. members. Consideration of the value of human life cannot be carried out on the basis of a timetable; there is no reason for trying to speed up debate on the many issues involved in this important measure. Rather, every member has an obligation to his own conscience, if that is the basis upon which he is deciding what his view should be, out of respect for the constituents he represents and the need to protect the lives of innocent Canadian people. Every member has a responsibility to consider as judiciously as he can each amendment, each clause of the legislation, and assess the consequences which would follow from the decisions we take here.
The lives of policemen and prison guards are on the line every day. I should like to see capital punishment enforced across the board for first degree murder. But I realize what happened not so long in this Chamber when we voted on second reading, and I understand that a vote on third reading might very well go the same way, though perhaps by a slimmer margin. I want to ensure that prison guards and police officers who daily face exceptional danger receive the protection which we owe to them. To those who are the champions of decisions according to conscience, I say that this, too, is a matter for the conscience of the House.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to intervene at this point in the debate and address myself to the amendment which is before us, namely, the amendment designed to continue to protect those upon whom we rely whenever our society, or safety, or integrity is threatened by subversive elements from within.
We as a society have the right to establish borders and perimeters in a geographical sense, in the moral sense, and in an ideological sense. Between ourselves and subversive elements we place people who protect us against intruders, against those who threaten to destroy us, disturb our ideological integrity or offend our moral values.
I said in the debate on second reading that I found it exceedingly difficult, as did many of my constituents, to put into context this willingness to abolish capital punishment and the protection which goes with capital punishment while spending up to a billion dollars annually to enable our armed forces to protect us against intruders from outside our borders. We have the right to protect ourselves and sometimes those arms destroy innocent lives, though quite often the intrusion, or the offence, is not against life in our country but against our moral or ideological guidelines.
As long as a threat exists from the outside it is accepted throughout the global community that we have a right to protect ourselves, a right to gear up industry to produce tools of aggression and tools of defence-tools to take lives.

July 8, 1976

Why is it then that within our society we seem willing to ignore the fact that there is a threat to the established norm? We seem content to ignore the fact that there are people within our society who cannot live in accordance with those norms and who challenge the system we have created for ourselves, the system which has evolved.
I also find it difficult to understand what is happening in the global community. Looking back on the wars, of 200, 300 or 400 years ago and comparing them with the wars of today with all the sophisticated weaponry and tools of destruction we have spread throughout the world, it seems to me that as we have evolved as a global community we have designed tools of destruction more sophisticated and deadly than any formerly used, weapons which can kill
100,000	people at one time. And then, because no one actually chops off a man's head-someone sits in an aeroplane and discharges a bomb and by the time it hits he is far away-nobody seems to worry too much about it. The same is true in a different area.
I cannot put into context the ideas of those of my colleagues who favour abolition. Many of my colleagues are in favour of abolition of capital punishment, yet when they talk about the other great emotional issue, that of abortion, their views seem to be directly opposed to any one might expect-one of the hon. members from the Social Credit party has touched on this point today. He found it difficult to understand why it would be that a person who is so determined to preserve life at all costs, even at the cost of innocent life, would also at the same time be prepared to destroy life that has not even had a chance yet to commit any act.
I make this comparison between those who design these tools of aggression and tools of destruction because they are meant to destroy something we do not really see. The doctor makes an intrusion in a private room or an operating room in the hospital. He reaches in some place with a tool, and it all ends up in a garbage can. Just because we do not see what is being done we do not really have to worry about it. It does not offend us any longer. Yes, there were some pictures published of a garbage can in a hospital in Winnipeg containing the bodies of these human babies, three of them wriggling around as captured by the cameraman. That offended us because that was not very nice. It offended our charitable instincts as it appeared in the newspapers, but it was soon forgotten.
What makes these people tick? What makes them think? We have a right and a responsibility, if we are successfully to perpetuate and preserve what we have achieved in a human and responsible way through a voluntary process in the global community of society. We must have the fortitude to accept the responsibility of recognizing and identifying those who have become subversive, and we must act in a way similar to the way we act in respect of cancer in the human body. We must identify the sickness, and we have the responsibility to find cures. We must work hard and diligently to learn and understand more about the human mind.
When we have identified one of these cancers as incurable, after we have gone through the process of examining all the possible cures, all the possible methods of leniency
Capital Punishment
and mercy and there is no recommendation from any source, and no hope that there is any cure for this particular cancer, then we have the responsibility to remove that cancer from the otherwise healthy body. We must protect the healthy body from the spread of this cancer. This is not something new. It has always been that way. This is part of life, part of our system, and part of the burden that those who have elected us have placed on our shoulders. They have the right to protection, the right to security, the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours, the freedoms of our system, and the sanctuary of their homes. They have the right to feel free, with the security to send their children out on the streets at night.
When this feeling of security erodes, as it has in recent years in our country, our whole society is threatened. We place between ourselves and those who threaten our system from within, people who are paid and equipped to protect us against those who perpetrate crimes against us. As we are confronted by the criminal element in our homes and on the streets we do not take direct action. As a matter of fact it is illegal to take direct action. Even though we do as citizens of Canada have the right to arm ourselves under proper licensing provisions, we do not have the right to take another life. We do have the responsibility to call on the law enforcement agencies to take over from us.
Sometimes we are partially to blame because we have put ourselves into a position that creates the difficulty we face. Then we find ourselves confronted by the criminal element and looking down the barrel of a gun. Perhaps we have left the home unlocked, or maybe we have left some material thing lying around that attracted the eye of the criminal. Perhaps we have offended the criminal and he is seeking revenge. When this does happen we get to the telephone and ask someone to intervene on our behalf. Inevitably a member of the law enforcement agency will come and take over the problem, putting himself between the criminal and us.
A policeman is a public servant and has accepted his responsibility voluntarily. In this country we have people who are members of the armed forces. These people like to think they are providing a service, doing something very special in the carrying out of their duties. The very special thing they are doing is protecting society, protecting the achievements of society, and preserving our moral values against offenders.
In return we have the responsibility to protect those people because we lay down specific guidelines on how they shall conduct themselves in their jobs. We tell them when we give them a pistol or a rifle to be very cautious in the use of that weapon. As a matter of fact when a criminal is confronted and is killed in an attempt to escape, we have a very rigorous procedure through which the policeman is put. He must defend his action in taking the life of another.
As we now renege on this responsibility to protect those we ask to intervene on our behalf, I wonder how they will react. I wonder what will happen after the death penalty is abolished. I can imagine myself being in a back alley some place attempting to arrest a criminal, starting the judicial process, then appearing as a witness in court, with the result that the individual is condemned to 25 years, five years or ten years in prison. I wonder what I might be

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
thinking because I would have to look ahead and consider my wife, my children, and my position in the community. I would wonder if I might have to confront the same prisoner again in some back alley. I wonder if I would not be tempted to pull the trigger, knowing the ineptness of the judicial process. I might wonder about the final result of my labour, particularly if I had made many arrests. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, before we allowed ourselves a short recess for dinner I was recounting the difficulty that I have in equating our approach to protecting ourselves against subversive elements from beyond our borders with the apparent failure to recognize the necessity for protecting our society from simmering elements within our borders.
The motion we are debating tonight deals with the retention of capital punishment for certain forms of murder, namely, the murder of prison guards or police or law enforcement officers. I would like to extend this provision to include at least the crime of treason. We spend millions of dollars on arming a very efficient force, as our Canadian armed forces are recognized to be throughout the global community wherever we have a military presence. I have been unable to reconcile why it is that we maintain this kind of safeguard for the protection of our society and, at the same time, make it possible for people to take out visitors' visas, come to Canada and perhaps assassinate our Prime Minister, or our provincial premiers, members of parliament, or other officials.
In other words, such people could come to this country on visitors' visas and take over. If my colleagues in the House of Commons see fit to pass this bill, and if we are able to catch these people, the worst punishment we can give them is to lock them up for 25 years. I should like to know who would be doing the locking up. There are no restrictions on the class of person who can travel to this country and we would have no protection against their activities unless it is to have our law enforcement officers shoot them down on the street.
I am sure that none of my colleagues in this House are naive enough to believe that the government is serious about maintaining in perpetuity a provision in the Criminal Code that incarcerates persons convicted of first degree murder for 25 years. This would indeed be a cruel and unusual punishment, particularly when compared with the punishment given in other countries. I think such a punishment would be more severe than the punishment meted out even by a country such as Russia to balance the ledger of people who attack their system.
In its recent report the Law Reform Commission suggested that we should find ways in which criminals can

make restitution and pay for damage done to the victims of their crimes. That is part of the Russian system. It is argued that this is a more humane system than the one we use. Surely no one is naive enough not to believe that after one, two, or at the most three years the government would once again come to the House of Commons and say, "Look, we have had a couple of suicides in prison, we just cannot maintain this kind of inhumane approach on our law books; we will have to go back to the good old days when a person convicted of a major crime can be back out on the street after 7 or 10 years".
The law enforcement officers who protect us against criminals in our society are human too. The average policeman in this country is willing to step between us and the criminal. He is willing to accept his job and the danger that goes with it. But he also wants some protection. He wants some respect for what he is doing, and he wants some recognition. If this bill passes and these amendments are not considered favourably by our colleagues-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret 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.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy extended by my colleagues. It comes as no surprise to me, or to any of us, that many people who are members of our renowned police force should want to leave the force if this kind of approach by parliament were to have a deteriorating effect on the morale of those on whom we call to protect us against subversive elements. They might also act differently in dangerous circumstances.
On the one hand they might use the tools which we give them to carry out the job more effectively; in other words they might point the gun a little lower, they might not fire that warning shot but, looking down the gun barrel themselves, they might point the gun at the person who is pointing the gun at them. On the other hand they might not respond as readily to the call of duty and might avoid future dangerous situations in which they might be placed. Of course it would be no surprise to anyone that the effect would be that citizens in our country would have to take the law into their own hands. We have already experienced that when we went out to dialogue with our constituents on the other portion of the peace and security package, that is, Bill C-83. I know that most of my colleagues have had similar reactions, perhaps not in the larger centres in our country, but in the frontier and the more remote areas of the country the reaction is loud and clear.
People are not altogether as enchanted with the permissive society as we seem to think they are here in Ottawa. They have this feeling of fear, the feeling that they might have to take the law into their own hands as they used to when the more remote areas of our country were being developed and when pioneers had to defend themselves against nature and intruders. That is the very real feeling I experienced when dialoguing with the people I represent. They have experienced this feeling of insecurity, of having to call on the law enforcement agency to protect them
July 8, 1976

against delinquent juveniles, for instance, and have found that our law does not have the teeth it should have to react to the kind of situation that we have imposed on our system as the result of the permissive society.
I should like to touch briefly on the climate which may exist inside our prisons as a result of the abolition of capital punishment and if the amendment, which would at least protect prison guards and policemen, is not passed tonight. Already we have news of the massive resignations of prison guards who guard some of the institutions in the province of Quebec.
Inside our prisons there will be a massive deterioration in morale and a brand new approach will have to be adopted. We will have to train a new generation of prison officials and we will have to find new ways of handling this new phenomenon. As is the case in countries where capital punishment is no longer in existence, some prison guards will make an unholy alliance with some of the dangerous criminals inside prison to avail themselves of their protection against others. The situation will be very serious. The only person who would really be safe inside the prison will be the prisoner himself.
The Solicitor General has brought before parliament measures to create new facilities for maximum security institutions which are now outmoded and outdated. Certainly the institutions which we need today to isolate criminals from our society are not adequate, never mind the situation that will exist after we bring in this new stage of permissiveness into our system. I fear that it will be indeed a cruel and unusual punishment for a person to join the public service in the service of prison administration because he or she will really be in danger if this amendment is rejected today.
Since I do not wish to abuse the privilege that has been extended to me by yourself and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by expressing my concern about the fact that some of our colleagues who favour abolition of capital punishment have attacked those of us who have spoken in favour of retention as appearing to be barbarians. I have not been present during all the debate but I believe that none of my colleagues who have spoken here are really barbarians. Each one of us would much rather have afforded himself the luxury of total abolition if indeed we could offer the people whom we represent some hope of not being afraid to send our children out into the streets after dark, some hope that there is some way of dealing effectively with the criminal element or with the professional killer. None of them are advocating that we should broaden the imposition of capital punishment to persons convicted of first degree murder or premeditated murder.
Most speakers who have expressed their views in support of retention have said they would be happy if the existing law were permanently enshrined. I would like to see the present law extended in the case of treason and one or two other crimes. That is why it is so important that hon. members should support the amendment that capital punishment be retained for the murder of prison guards and policemen. It is the minimum we can settle for now.
If we look at the statistics since capital punishment was suspended in Canada, because it has not been effectively administered since 1961 when the last person was hanged,
Capital Punishment
we find that 18 people should have been hanged, but none has been. Again, let us try to equate that number with the hundreds of people who have been murdered by criminals who have committed a second offence, or by people who have been found guilty of crimes of a lesser degree. When the Solicitor General tells us that we might be making a mistake, we might be hanging the wrong person, let him remember that there is only one chance in a million of this, but it is quite obvious from the statistics that there is a very good chance that one person in three who has been convicted of a capital crime and incarcerated for a limited period of time will go out and do it again, if he has not already done it within the prison.
I appeal to my hon. friends in the House here tonight seriously to consider supporting this very essential and important amendment and to give some protection for a further period of time to those upon whom we call when we find ourselves in difficulty and when we find ourselves confronted by the criminal element, by the organized criminal, by the paid criminal, and by the criminal who shows wanton disregard for any moral or human standards within our society. We should show some concern and commit ourselves to standing behind them when they carry out their duties, and when they often act beyond the call of duty to intervene on our behalf against these elements. We owe it to them because otherwise we cannot expect them to do their work as effectively and as efficiently as we have become accustomed to expect of them up to this time.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, consideration of amendments to the bill before the House leads us to serious thinking, since we should ask ourselves a good question: how is it that we have reached such an impasse and that Parliament finds it so very difficult to get out of it. The vote of principle taken at the second reading stage of the bill on June 22 last, is a good illustration of this impasse, in the sense that we realized that the House was divided almost exactly in two sections. But, when considering the reasons that have caused a faction of the House to vote in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, we find that the stakes have been altered.
The reason why these stakes have been altered are irrelevant to the basic principles involved when we are discussing whether or not to abolish capital punishment. I say they are independent from the only reasons that should concern us since they are the exclusive result of one man's ambitions and ideology, and that man happens to be the Prime Minister of Canada. As the leader of our party (Mr. Caouette) said this afternoon when he had the opportunity to take part in this debate, we can ask ourselves: who requested the abolition of the death penalty, how is it that while 90 per cent of Canadians openly support the retention of capital punishment, its abolition is being proposed?


Some hon. Members:: That is not true!


René Matte: Members opposite are shouting: that is not true. I challenge the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Mar-ceau) to make a double investigation in his constituency

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
and mine; I am sure that both in his constituency of Lapointe and in mine of Champlain 95 per cent of the people, and I am prepared to bet on this, are in favour of the retention of capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: That is true!


René Matte: So, Mr. Speaker, when we are faced-


Mr. Marceau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I say to my hon. friend that I advised my constituents, all 17,000 of them, that I shall vote for abolition, and I received three replies.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the people of Lapointe will answer him only when the next election comes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to both hon. members that they are getting into a point of debate, and I suggest that the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) get back to motion No. 13.


René Matte: As someone already pointed out, and as the hon. member from the government side said, the Social Credit Party members are like dandelions: the more you cut them, the more they grow. Let there be no illusions on that score.
So, Mr. Speaker, to get back to my point, the vast majority of the Canadian people are in favour of keeping the death penalty, that is, they simply want present laws to apply. That is all the people want. So, how is it that we are being presented with bills no one wants, or only a minute part of the population wants, while overlooking the real problems and the solutions for which the people are clamoring? Those bills are being put through.
To wit, for several years now, and especially since the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has come to power as leader of this country, it has been noticed that we have been chasing things that no one wanted, all the while wasting time as we have now been for weeks, if not months, in this House. Why? Because one day we had a Prime Minister who made up his mind that, if he became Prime Minister, the first thing he would do would be to abolish capital punishment. Second, he would repatriate the Constitution. Third-and it has already been done-he would permit abortion and legalize homosexuality. In addition, at one time he even spoke of legalizing some drugs such as marihuana.
When a man is the leader of a country and he has such ideas and thinks that he must absolutely implement them, we come to the dead-end we have now, since we simply cannot go against the people's will expressing itself as clearly, as plainly as in the present circumstances. Moreover, what should we do about this problem of capital punishment? It is still an individual and personal problem of conscience for each hon. member in the House. It amounts to changing the very rules of democracy, since you have the choice of two things:

Either each one of us is here to promote his own little pride or to represent people who want laws pursuant to their principles and ideologies. We have the choice of two things: Either we are democratic representatives or we are not. To my mind, every member prides himself on being democratic. The dictates of my conscience are that even if I were in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, I do have responsibilities to fulfill here because I must reflect the opinion of the majority of the 70,000 people of my riding whom I represent.
I do not think for a moment that it reaches on the borders of my conscience to vote for maintaining the death penalty because, Mr. Speaker, if we want to discuss that point on a philosophical basis, I will not decide, by my vote, to maintain the death penalty or to hang the murderer of John, Jim or Joe. No, Mr. Speaker, it is the murderer himself who decides because he knows that the death penalty will be enforced from now on. The man who commits a reprehensible act knows quite well that his act will bring about the death penalty. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the member for Champlain or his colleagues from the Social Credit Party of Canada or his other colleagues who will decide that that man should be hanged because he will decide by himself. Mr. Speaker, we are defending the principles of individual liberty; consequently, we should give his way to the man who decides so clearly and precisely that he absolutely wants to climb up the gallows.
This may sound like those words of revenge we often hear. Mr. Speaker, if we consider the situation as it is now, we are obliged to recognize that we have had a try with abolition. The law has not been enforced for so many years that we are now able, after a whole decade, to analyze and to come to the necessary conclusions. Consequently, we can say that we have had a try with the abolition of the death penalty. We know the results. I shall not put forward again all the statistics on this matter as we know them fairly well.
Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who, somewhere in his mind, feels obliged to go to posterity as the one who will have abolished the death penalty, as the one who will have repatriated the constitution from London. Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we will come to that end. Many of my colleagues opposite suffer the blackmail of the Prime Minister. For several weeks, I have not been able to participate in the proceedings of the House but I could verify, in the field, as we say, the consequences, for our Parliament, of the measures he advocated.
Mr. Speaker, in 1970, during the famous October crisis, the Prime Minister went as far as speaking with a demagogy that only his attitude could equal. He said, not only to his friends of the Liberal party but also to all members of the House, that the 11 persons now on death row would be sent simultaneously to the gallows if necessary-


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


René Matte: -if the death penalty was maintained. I say that such remarks are not worthy of a man who holds such an important office. It is quite obvious that several of my colleagues opposite bowed to that blackmail. And I believe that explains why the House was pretty well divided in
July 8, 1976

two clans when it came to the question of the principle of the bill on second reading. Were it not for that blackmailing, were it not for that fad the Prime Minister has to absolutely want to have that legislation passed, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the majority of the members of this House because of their personal interest and their role as genuine members of Parliament would truly reflect the thinking of the people in their ridings and consequently would vote for retaining capital punishment. So, Mr. Speaker, the game has been fouled and that is why the second reading did not truly reflect the opinion of my hon. colleagues in this House.
Tonight we have a chance to undo that, and this time, to move with the support of the majority of the people of Canada. Earlier, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Mar-ceau) said that he had received only three replies in favour of the bill from his riding; I do not question that, because the people of his riding cannot get over the fact that he is going against the wishes, so they no longer want to have anything to do with him. That is very clear. For those three replies he mentions, I can show him over 8,000 I received from the riding of Champlain. Imagine 8,000 replies out of
16,000	questionnaires sent out! When 50 per cent of the people go to the trouble of writing their representative to indicate clearly and explicitly to him that they are in favour of something I would be very ill advised, Mr. Speaker, with an extremely scrupulous conscience, to say: How I hate to end the life of someone who has killed five or six children, or a poor old man, or a poor old lady! I hate to do it in my own conscience, I am shaking at the thought of that man being sentenced to die.
Mr. Speaker, that is utter ridicule since, as I said earlier, a person in full possession of his faculties who commits a capital murder, who decides at a given moment to kill, automatically decides also to have himself put to death. The decision was taken by him, not society. That is why I think we can therefore accept the principle of being against the fact that society has its revenge against an individual by committing exactly the same act for which the individual is blamed by that society. But this is not the case at all, I think.
From now, on we must say that we are no longer naive. I am not referring to those eleven people now sentenced to death. They were so sentenced in a system under which they were sure of not being hanged. Consequently they cannot be judged in that light, confident as they were because there had been no execution for more than ten or eleven years, I think. As a result, those who are now on death row were sure of not being hanged. We could say that after them, there might be some revision, that they should be sentenced to life imprisonment rather than do what the Prime Minister suggested-giving a show to all Canadians and send them all to the scaffold. No, of course!
Mr. Speaker, we will not give in to this kind of blackmailing on this side of the House, at least not the Social Credit members. We are not at all impressed by that because we consider that those individuals were convicted. Yes, they were convicted, but within a system where, for all practical purposes, abolition had been accepted. Now that it would be reinstated, that it would again take effect in a strict sense, we could say that from now on anyone who hangs would necessarily have decided so himself, and
Capital Punishment
it would not be because society wants to exercise revenge, but simply because he has decided so. There is a distinction.
Therefore in my view the best way to do away with capital punishment is very simple, it is indeed very obvious, Mr. Speaker. Let no one commit murder. If there is no murder, then there is no capital punishment. It is just as easy as that. I have no qualm of conscience when I say to myself: Everybody has been warned; everybody knows what to expect. And I know that if I commit a murder of that kind, a premeditated murder, I deserve to hang. Every one will agree. Anyone who decides to commit murder has only himself to blame, not society, since it is he who has freely elected his course of action. He later will have to bear the consequences.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are completely justified to support the bill before us. This amendment gives all hon. members an opportunity to change their minds, all those who had been misled and blackmailed can straighten their views. Now is the time to review one's decision. I am now addressing myself especially to those who felt some compunction, and I am trying to prove to them that they need not let their conscience bother them. Let them simply say: As for me, I object to anyone being killed, I do not want at all that society take revenge on anyone. In that sense, I am against capital punishment. It is as easy to abolish it as to refrain from committing murders. Some people say: "We are smarter than anybody else". I even heard on the radio one member say that if he is a member of Parliament, it is because he is the most intelligent in his riding.
That is why he was sent here and, therefore, his opinion was worth much more than that of any other person in his riding, with a population of close to 90,000 or 100,000 inhabitants. His opinion is more important than that of his
100,000	constituents. Mr. Speaker, I would not have a clear conscience if I reasoned in this manner. I find that a reasoning which questions the very principle of democracy is worse than one which would restrain by every means someone who wants to be hanged. I find it is a good thing to respect public opinion, and if society is sick and there are murderers, I say that it is because it deserves it. If our present society, which is admittedly decadent and in which the level of morality is getting lower and lower, demands capital punishment, it is because it feels the need for it. I say therefore that it deserves it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all my colleagues.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I do not consider our role in the House to be holy nor do I think that we should take Xor granted that we want to establish a perfect society

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
which would therefore allow us to abolish capital punishment. No, we are no angels, and I do not know of any in this House. There is no need to have scrupules, particularly because basic principles prevent us from doing so in view of the moral corruption, the violence as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) pointed it out today, which is systematically shown on television, from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, in a society that teaches violence to its youngsters. When we finally talk about exercising some control over television, radio and the press, our honorable colleagues of the New Democratic Party are shocked, they rise as offended virgins in defence of the principles of freedom while at the same time taking a contradictory approach in their actions.
Mr. Speaker, once again this goes to show how sick our society is. We intentionally produce violent people and then we want to abolish capital punishment. This is utterly illogical. I repeat that our society needs capital punishment. When it will be proved to me that we have an almost perfect society, then it might be logical to consider the abolition of capital punishment. But in the meantime, we are far from that and whoever pretends that the material advancement which characterizes this phenomenal era of industrial and scientific progress, has improved the moral fibre of our society is all wrong. We have gone back to the Middle Ages and today, as some people would say, capital punishment is something left over from the dark ages.
I am sure that the crimes we are witnessing today are worse than those ever committed in the Middle Ages and with all those movies about violence on television, we are seeing things still worse than what may be described in any historical movie relating events which occurred in 1100 or 1200. This is much worse. Then, society today is worse than it was in the Middle Ages. Then, we can say that if the people are informed that in the future, anyone who commits a crime will be hanged, if someone does it, he will condemn himself.
In concluding, I would like to refute the argument brought about by those who say that the retentionists are motivated by a desire of revenge and some kind of cruelty. I shall tell them that it is even more cruel and inhuman to sentence a person to 25 years in prison. I recall that here in this House, my former colleague for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) had read a letter from Leopold Dion, the murderer of five children who had begged his member to arrange for him to be hanged. He could not bear living in the penitentiary. And this murderer was asking that the law be applied in his case. Who is cruel? I suggest it is those who ignored the desire of this criminal and preferred to have him rot in prison. This kind of Chinese torture is worse than hanging for who knows what to expect. So I think that tonight the majority of the members will have a chance to openly express the views of the vast majority of Canadians who favour the retention of the death penalty.


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on second reading of this bill I said we are embarked on a serious debate which demands sober judgment. Sir, the amendment we are considering will, if passed, provide for the execution of those convicted of murdering prison guards or policemen. This is not a debate between enlight-
ened abolitionists and barbaric retentionists. Sir, this debate concerns the very roots of justice itself.
We speak of prison guards and policeman. Who are they? Who are these guards and policemen to whom we refer so glibly in this House? Sir, they are the fellows next door; I suppose I should add, as well, the gals next door. They are people with hopes and dreams; they experience the same joys and sorrows which you and I experience; their expectations are the same as yours or mine and they want to realize, to fulfil them the same as we do. They love life.
They are the people who protect us from those who would plunder our cities, destroy our freedoms, murder our people, strip us of our liberties, and clothe us with fear. Sir, our prison guards and policemen protect us from these elements, from criminals who act without regard for the historic values Canadians hold dear and the traditions which have been built within our nation, within our very borders, a bastion of strength and liberty. Sir, policemen are symbols of the authority which protects Canadian people. If you want to analyse the protection of the Canadian people, and resolve that these policemen and prison guards are symbolic of this protection, this protection is the will of the Canadian people to do right and to act against those who have no such will. It is the collective determination of Canadians to live free from fear and violence.
Seldom in the history of this parliament has the collective determination of the Canadian people been so clear. I am not refuting that from time to time parliament is called upon by the people of Canada to lead. It is a rightful duty of any parliament and any government to lead. Surely if it is the responsibility for parliament to lead, it is also the responsibility of parliament to reflect this obvious collective will of the people. It is blatantly obvious that the government is not in harmony with the collective will of the people, but the government by gentle reason and sound argument can lead the people until the two wills are a reciprocate echo of a determined direction. But the government is not displaying gentle leading. It is displaying a flagrant violation of its mandate.
Where there is no common will or purpose, there can be no justice. Laws ought to-and I know that often laws passed by this government do not-at least to some degree reflect the common will. The antithesis of courtroom justice is street justice.
It is alarming to me when I hear among the highways and byways of this country, in the coffee shops, on the street corners and in the homes, about Canadians taking justice in their own hands, executing justice on the spot rather than in the courts. It is a sad situation when the government by its inaction to reflect the common will forces Canadians to take this kind of justice, which is the way of anarchy.
Because the time is late and there are other members on this side who want to speak, I will conclude my remarks. However, I first wish to point out that when the government runs contrary to the obvious common will of the Canadian people it threatens to unravel the frail fibre of justice that was so carefully and intricately woven by our forefathers and is now jealously guarded by the courts of our land. This parliament must accept this amendment. I
July 8, 1976

say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that we have not the liberty to do otherwise.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this report stage debate, particularly with regard to motion No. 13, will be very brief. I have not spoken to date, but the letters I have been receiving from my constituents indicate that I should put on record some of my feelings.
The amendment offered by the hon. member for Barna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) deserves the support of all members. Before commenting on that, I want to make a brief statement regarding the speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) just before the dinner hour. I look at this very bright young man and realize that at half my age he has a maturity that belies his years. In my opinion the speech that he made shows a responsiveness that is not felt by members of the cabinet. I came here in 1972 at the same time as this young member. In 1973 we were faced with a vote. The history behind it is well known. It was also supposed to be a trial period in 1967. It was not a trial period. There had been no attempt to use it as a trial period. It was merely a facade.
When it was brought back in the second time in 1973, we were told this would be the second five years of a ten year trial period. We were asked to vote for it. The vote at that time was basically the same vote as we are faced with now. Anyone who voted for that bill was called an abolitionist. Tonight, voting for the same bill, one is termed a retention-ist. I find that ironic and difficult.
In 1973, I voted with the cabinet on second reading to support the bill in principle. I did so with some reservation, on the promise by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) that he would provide some protection. Instead what did he do? He tried to bootleg the bill through committee. I was disgusted with what I term a dishonest action on the part of the Solicitor General. On third reading I changed my vote and voted with what was then termed retentionist. The vote at that time carried. Frankly I do not have a great deal of hope that the vote tonight will carry. However, I am convinced more than ever that it is absolutely necessary to curb the growing crime rate in this country and to have something on which the people of Canada can rely. It is now three years since the Solicitor General promised he would carry out that bill. After all, he brought it forward. Now his hair shirt is bothering him.
The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) brought in a public relations package with a real fanfare. They termed it the peace and security package. Bill C-83 was a ripoff. There were more amendments to that bill than any other bill in the past.
Canada wants protection. I polled my riding, as I am sure many other members did. The figure happened to be 81.4 per cent in favour of retaining capital punishment. That is a little higher than the national average. Nonetheless that is the percentage of those in my constituency who want capital punishment retained.
I do not particularly think that capital punishment is a deterrent, but that does not matter. As far as I am concerned, we need to support the police at a time when crime is rising.
Capital Punishment
I was a member of the board of police commissioners in the city of Belleville for four years. I was instrumental in enlarging the police force there. After having hired some of those men I can say that it is a police force that stacks up against any other police force, and is finer than many, in any city of comparable size in Canada. I have a tremendous amount of respect for them and a high regard for and faith in their judgment. They, like many others, want to have the protection of capital punishment.
Like the hon. member who preceeded me, I am going to be brief. I would have liked to have gone on at some length. However, there is one question I have to ask. Why does the government want to continue with this confrontation? It recently had a confrontation with the air traffic controllers. Not long ago it started a confrontation with the people of Canada as a result of the Anti-Inflation Board. Now there is the worst confrontation of all, the matter of capital punishment.
Over 75 per cent, possibly 80 per cent, of all Canadians want capital punishment. If between 15 and 20 million Canadians want capital punishment as opposed to the lives of eight, ten or a dozen individuals who are murderers, or maybe something quite a bit worse, our legislative priorities are out of whack. As far as I am concerned, if the people of Hastings will sleep a little better at night should capital punishment be retained, then this member will vote for capital punishment as often as he has a chance to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, June 29, a recorded vote on the said motion stands deferred.
We shall now turn to mention Nos. 21 and 22 in the name of the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).

The House will now consider motions Nos. 21 and 22 standing in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere) moved:: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended jjy deleting Clause 7.

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Mr. Speaker, with your leave and following a discussion with my colleagues from all the parties represented in the House about motions Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
Since these are technical motions concerning pleas, refusal to plead, allowing time, pleading over, and peremptory challenge, I will simply refrain from any comment on the matter. These subjects are very clear to the House, and I would rather hope the House would vote on motions 21, 22 and 23 in order to speed up the business of the House. We should prevent any unnecessary debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: That Bill C-84, and act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting clause 7.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, June 29, 1976, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. This also applies to motion No. 22, since it has been suggested that a negative vote on one of these two motions will dispose of the other. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As suggested by the hon. member, is the House also ready for the question on motion No. 23, in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: That Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting clause 10.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday June 29, 1976, a recorded vote on the proposed motion stands deferred.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been some agreement in the House that having reached motion No. 23 we should skip to motion No. 36 in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and forgo discussion of the other motions until tomorrow.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is agreement on that.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we also agree to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I still have to ask hon. members whether there is unanimous consent that we do not proceed in the order which has been set out but that we go directly to motions Nos. 36 and 37.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-84 be amended in clause 21 by inserting in line 18 at page 12 immediately after the word "Act" the following words:
"in the absence of a judge's order,"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall also put motion No. 37 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) as follows:
Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-84 be amended in clause 21 by
(a)	striking out lines 22 to 43 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"669. The sentence to be pronounced against a person
(a)	whose sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life or who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence under subsection 214(3) or paragraphs 214(5)(b) or (c) shall be that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served twenty-five years of his sentence;
(b)	who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life for second degree murder, shall be that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served at least ten
July 8, 1976

years of his sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty-five years, as has been substituted therefor pursuant to section 671; and
(c)	who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life for any other offence, shall be that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life with normal eligibility for parole.";
(b) striking out lines 35 to 44 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"672.(1) Where a person has served at least fifteen years of his sentence, where he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served more than fifteen years of his sentence,".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with regard to motion No. 36 perhaps I might first of all deal with the proposed change in the wording now on the Order Paper. Hopefully I shall get the unanimous consent of the House. This motion was prepared in some haste. Our object was to ensure that the granting of temporary absences to convicts sentenced to life imprisonment should be accorded stricter scrutiny. My first thought was that this might be secured by way of a judicial review-a judge would review the proposal to allow a temporary absence. However, upon reflection it is generally felt that it would be preferable to have the National Parole Board review these cases.
If it is in order I should like to suggest that the amendment now before us be changed to read, "by striking out the words after the word "offences" and substituting the following therefor:". It would then read:
"be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 20 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
'under the Penitentiary Act, and no absence with escort for humanitarian and rehabilitative reasons may be authorized under the Penitentiary Act without the approval of the National Parole Board and no day' "
Perhaps I may explain the procedure as I understand it. It is possible for me, with the unanimous consent of hon. members, to change the wording of the motion I now have before the House to the new wording, and that is what I hope to do. The thought is not changed, this is simply to make the clause more readable, making it clear that it is the National Parole Board that must give approval. I understand the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) would like to speak on the matter.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and, because he merely wants to change the wording of his amendment, I am agreeable to asking for unanimous consent, or agreeing to unanimous consent for him to do that. We all know he had to prepare these amendments rather quickly for the report stage, and I think it is only right that we give him the opportunity to have his amendment debated in a proper fashion. I would ask the House to give him unanimous consent to change the wording of his amendment as proposed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Of course the House is the master of its own rules, but I would want at least to have a copy of the proposed changes to the motion that has been moved and of which notice has been given by the hon. member.
I feel the best way to accomplish what the hon. member seeks to do is not by way of an amendment but, as the hon.
Capital Punishment
member requested, with the unanimous consent of the House allowing the hon. member to modify wording of the motion. Otherwise I do not see how this can be attached to the motion as an amendment. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to make the modification or changes he has just suggested to the House, taking into account the fact that this would attempt to reach the same objective?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will read the new motion. It is moved by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That Motion No. 36 be amended by striking out the words after the word "offences" and substituting the following therefor:
"be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 20 at page 12 and
substituting the following therefor:
'under the Penitentiary Act, and no absence with escort for humanitarian and rehabilitative reasons may be authorized under the Penitentiary Act without the approval of the National Parole Board and no day' "


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for unanimous consent in accepting the new wording. Perhaps I might explain the motion we now have before us.
I would refer hon. members to Clause 21 of Bill C-84 at page 12. At the present time Bill C-84 proposes that:
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-
It goes on to say certain other things. I feel first of all that the clause as it is now worded is not clear that it is only an absence with an escort that may be permitted under any circumstances in the event somebody has been jailed for life. Secondly, I feel it was too easy, if you like, to permit even an absence with an escort on the say so, as it now is, of the commissioner of the penitentiary, or on the say so of the director of the jail where the man has been imprisoned, or in the case of a person who has been referred to a provincial mental hospital, on the say so of the director of that provincial mental hospital.
If accepted, the proposed amendment would simply make it clear that, first of all, in the case of those who have been convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment they may not obtain an absence without an escort under any circumstances. The amendment would also make it clear that in the case of an absence having been granted with an escort, if it is for medical reasons that is one thing and the local jailer or Commissioner of Penitentiaries can permit that absence with an escort, but in the case of an absence for humanitarian reasons or on the grounds of rehabilitation, under the proposed wording such absence would not be permitted without the approval of the National Parole Board.
In short, it is time to ensure that if the death penalty does not apply to convicted murderers and they are sentenced to life imprisonment, that life imprisonment will in fact mean there will be a minimum incidence of convicts being released even with an escort.

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
In drawing attention to this amendment I would mention to hon. members various statistical information and points in the brief presented by the Solicitor General on this subject in March, 1976. Under Question No. 28, dealing with parole eligibility, release and violation, and temporary absence, there is an interesting review of the whole question and what has been the record of those who have been allowed this or some other type of freedom under the Parole Board. If I may, I should like to quote from Question No. 28 as follows:
The responsibility for temporary absences has been shifted from the Penitentiary Service to the Parole Board.
That is under Bill C-83. This is the Solicitor General's own submission. Let me point out in respect of that reference that it is not totally correct. If we read Bill C-83 we find that while absences without an escort have been referred to the Parole Board under Bill C-83, oddly enough absences with an escort have not been referred to the Parole Board. Consequently you have a rather odd situation in which a man may be sentenced to prison for life and, if released with an escort, does not need Parole Board approval.
Based on the minister's own submission, what I am suggesting is that it would be wise and responsible for this House to ensure that if a person is to be released with an escort, and I emphasize that, he should only be released for humanitarian or rehabilitative reasons with the approval of the Parole Board. Hopefully it will only act under very, very special circumstances.
It would be natural for hon. members to ask to what extent this is a problem. Again I would refer hon. members to the Solicitor General's submission to this House of March, 1976, and specifically to Question No. 54 which deals with the simple question:
What is the performance on temporary absence of inmates convicted of murder?
If I may, I should like to read the response, and again I emphasize that this is the Solicitor General's own information. It states:
Preliminary statistics indicate that during 1974, a total of 275 individual murderers were released on 2,703 temporary absence permits.
It is also pointed out that:
-8 inmates failed to return from temporary absence, but all were subsequently returned to custody.
The point I want to make is based on the 1974 figures. You can see that it was not an unusual thing in the past to give temporary absence permits, 275 individual murderers having received them in 1974 alone, not only for one time but in 2,703 different instances.
I also refer hon. members to question No. 58 in the same submission of the Solicitor General's Department. It deals with how many persons convicted of murder have murdered a second time while on parole, while on temporary absence, while incarcerated, and after escape from an institution. The response in this case is as follows:
With the exception of one case, our knowledge of murderers who murdered again is limited to cases since 1963. The study is based on a review of CPS case files. This study excludes cases where the charge

was originally for murder but the conviction was manslaughter, or the original charge was for manslaughter.
While on Parole:
3 persons.
One person committed both murders in Canada (executed in 1944). The other 2 persons were involved in the same first murder which was committed in the United States; they jointly committed their second murder in Canada.
The next heading deals with persons who have been in jail but were unlawfully at large following a temporary absence. Presumably these are people on legal temporary absence and who, for their own reasons, failed to return. One person is listed who committed first and second murders in Canada. In the "While Incarcerated" category there was one person who committed first and second murders in Canada. In the "After Escape" category there were two persons. One committed his first murder in Canada, escaped from the B.C. pentitentiary to the United States and committed his second and third murders there. The other person committed his first murder in a prison in the United States, escaped to Canada and murdered a policeman.
I hope that will summarize what I am attempting to achieve in the amendment now before the House. In short, if the government wishes to do away with the death penalty for the ordinary crime of murder, I believe it absolutely imperative that the members of this House ensure that life imprisonment means life imprisonment, and that absences from prison on the part of convicted murderers should be kept to a minimum.
As we know, Bill C-84 proposes that people who are convicted of murder and jailed for life may not get leave from prison without an escort. My point is that even with an escort there has to be more scrutiny of any application for leave. In the absence of the death penalty surely even abolitionists agree that life imprisonment must mean life imprisonment.
Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, it is comparatively easy to escape from an escort. You cannot keep a man shackled indefinitely. Leaves are granted for periods of five days, 15 days, even longer. Even though a man is out of jail on leave and is escorted, he can easily escape and perhaps commit another crime or a murder. This is why I believe any application should not be left to the local jailer, or to the provincial medical institution if the inmate is in a mental institution, or even to the commissioner to decide; the deicsion should be for the National Parole Board to make. This is what my amendment provides, or will provide if hon. members see fit to vote for it.
I see it is almost 9.30, Mr. Speaker, and there is a House order that we vote at 9.30. I should like my proposed motion No. 36 to be voted on at that time, so let me conclude my remarks by saying that if we are to do away with the death penalty, let us make sure there are as few cases as possible where leave is granted even with an escort. One safeguard would be to insist, as this amendment does, that any application for leave is subject to National Parole Board review.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the penitentiary service about this amendment. The principal problem with it is that it
July 8, 1976

would prevent the penitentiary authorities from taking an inmate who is sick, or who suddenly becomes ill, to hospital with an escort for emergency treatment. At the moment, when an inmate becomes ill-let us say he has a heart attack in prison-he is taken to the hospital under escort pursuant to section 26 of the Penitentiary Act. If on each occasion we had to go to the parole board for permission to take him to the hospital, the man could die as a result of not getting the medical treatment he required.
I agree with the hon. member that we should do everything possible to tighten up our scrutiny of temporary absences, both escorted and non-escorted, and I am committed to doing that. But I do not see how we can accept this amendment if it means that we cannot take an inmate to hospital with an escort unless we get the approval of the National Parole Board. If he made a distinction in his amendment so as to require this to be done in the case of escorted temporary absence for rehabilitative or for humanitarian reasons, perhaps I could accept it.


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


William Warren Allmand: But in the circumstances, since this is done principally for medical reasons, I do not think I can.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is seeking the floor on a point of order.
Capital Punishment
[DOT]	(2140)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House will proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 and 38. There has been a grouping, for the purposes of discussion, of motions Nos. 4, 9, 18 and 38. I think it is clear that motion No. 38 joins itself with another motion which is yet to be discussed and is in a certain respect consequential upon the passage of some other motions, and therefore it ought to be deferred for voting purposes at least until after all of the motions this evening have been put. That may depend on the result of the vote. Perhaps it would be out of order, or in any case not sensible, to vote on motion No. 38 before the rest are voted upon.
[DOT]	(2150)
Motions Nos. 4, 9 and 18 have been grouped for discussion and it would be the intention of the Chair to take a vote on motion No. 4 and then, because the principle that is involved in that motion is common to motions Nos. 9 and 18, to see if the House gives its unanimous consent to the registration of the same result on those two motions. If there is not unanimous consent then a separate vote must be taken on motions Nos. 9 and 18. If that is agreed, the question before the House at this time is motion No. 4.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) suggests sending an escort with criminals who suffer a heart attack. Does he suggest the same thing for innocent people who have to put up with strikes in hospitals and can die because of that?


William Warren Allmand: They have that right now, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I know the Solicitor General's point, but perhaps he was unaware that I included that exception in my proposal. I propose that an absence with an escort for humanitarian or rehabilitative reasons may be authorized. I added those words so that medical cases would not be restricted by my proposed amendment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when the amendment was given to me this afternoon it did not contain that provision. I have not had a chance to discuss it with the penitentiary service, and when I will get the chance to discuss it it may be possible to agree with it. If it is voted on tonight I am afraid that I would have to vote against it, since I want to make sure that this can be administered properly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I declare the motion lost. With the unanimous consent of the House may it be recorded that the same result obtains for motion No. 9 and motion No. 18?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Halliday) negatived.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Halliday) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 38, which is in that same grouping, has been deferred for later voting. The question therefore is on motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kichmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 7 lost.
The question is on motion No. 10. Motion No. 11 is identical to it and the vote will therefore be taken as also being a vote upon Motion No. 11. Motion No. 10 is in the name of Mr. Fortin and Motion No. 11 is in the name of Mr. Reynolds.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motions Nos. 10 and 11 lost.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Reynolds) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question therefore is on motion No. 12.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motion No. 12 carried.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Corbin
Cote
Cullen
Cyr
Danson
Daudlin
De Bane
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-
The Islands)
Drury
Duclos
Dupont
Ethier
Fairweather
Faulkner
Firth
Fleming
Flynn
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gilbert
Gillespie
Gillies
Goodale
Goyer
Grafftey
Gray
Guilbault
Halliday
Harquail
Herbert
Hnatyshyn
Hogan
Holmes
Messrs.
Jamieson Johnston Joyal Kaplan Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lachance Lalonde Lang Laniel Lapointe Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lefebvre
Leggatt
Lessard
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Lumley
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacDonald
(Egmont)
Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Mackasey
Macquarrie
Maine
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Martin
McGrath
Mclsaac
McRae
Milne
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Ny strom O'Connell Olivier Orlikow Ouellet Pearsall Pelletier Penner Peters Phi I brook Pinard Poulin
Prud'homme
Railton
Raines
Reid
Richardson
Roberts
Robinson
Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Timmins) Saltsman Sauve (Mrs.) Sharp Stanbury Stanfield Stewart
(Cochrane) Symes Trudeau Whelan Yanakis-132


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 13 lost.
The result would obviate the necessity of taking a vote at this time on motion No. 38. However, there is some difficulty in a further deferral of the vote unless the House gives unanimous consent because we are operating under an order of the House that deferred motions have to be voted on within a certain period of time. It would seem better to leave motion No. 38 to another occasion when the result of the voting tonight might be taken into account in assessing what should be done with regard to the remaining motions. A recorded division will be further deferred, at least until remarks have been made in the House tomorrow at 12 o'clock to see what ought to be done, and this would allow for time for discussion tomorrow morning.
As a result of discussion this day divisions were deferred as well on motions Nos. 21 and 22. The question therefore is upon motion No. 21 in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). This motion ought to be taken together with motion No. 22.
Capital Punishment
The question is upon motion No. 21. All those in favour of motion No. 21 will please rise.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that motion No. 21 should carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Shall it be recorded that motion No. 21 was negatived on division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Fortin) negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is therefore on motion No. 22 in the name of Mr. Fortin. Is it pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Shall it be entered that the motion was lost upon division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 22 (Mr. Fortin) negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 23 has also been deferred for division at this time. Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Shall it be recorded that motion No. 23 has been lost on division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Fortin) negatived on division.
Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

July 8, 1976
Capital Punishment
To accelerate the business of the House and because of the votes that have taken place this evening, without wishing to interpret them, I would like to suggest, if I have the unanimous consent of the House, to proceed in the same manner with motions Nos. 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 37 and 43, and in this way, we shall have disposed of the amendments that I have moved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an excellent suggestion by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).
[English)
But as I have indicated earlier, perhaps the remaining motions, many of which will have to be given consideration, might be held off pending consideration to determine whether they might be grouped or withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock!


Some hon. Members:: Carry on!


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the pleasure of the House to proceed I would think the only process to be followed would be for the Chair to continue to call motions consecutively and dispose of them by voice votes.
The question is therefore upon Motion 24.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) moved: Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting Clause 12.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall it be recorded that Motion No. 24 was defeated upon division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 24 (Mr. Fortin) negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 25 in the name of Mr. Lawrence-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To prevent this ridiculous procedure, could I suggest, with unanimous consent, that these motions be simply withdrawn?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is indeed a very co-operative suggestion and an orderly way of doing this. It would
take only a minute to separate these motions that stand. Perhaps as we call the motions seriatim for votes, those that stand in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) could be dealt with. In each case where the hon. member seeks the consent of the House perhaps he should do so as the motion is called. The question, therefore, is on Motion No. 25 in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Shall the same result that has already been recorded for the other motions be applied to this amendment to Clause 12?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere have the consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 26?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) moved:
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Is there unanimous consent that the House proceed to the taking of the division at this time on Motion No. 26.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent to the taking of the division on motion No. 26 at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the House is not in the position to proceed to the taking of a division on any of the remaining motions until such time as they have been dealt with and deferred by the House. Therefore, it being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, July 9, 1976