1976-05-05

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 25 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9
95568- \Vi
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 5, 1976


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. A 20-hour time lag before the search and rescue centre in Halifax reacted to the loss of a Canadian fisherman off western Newfoundland emphasizes again the lack of coordination between responsible elements of and weakness in Canada's effort to provide a rescue capability. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian citizen lost on Monday has still not been found. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House orders that elements of Canada's search and rescue group be deployed and stationed in the province of Newfoundland immediately, pending the report of the task force on search and rescue policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented to the House when there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the President of the Treasury Board to introduce at an early date the necessary amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, so that retired Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel will have their pensions escalated annually in accordance with the rise in the cost of living, commencing in the year following the year of retirement, regardless of age, thus ending the discrimination that applies to many of such personnel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an urgent motion of pressing necessity.
Since the average cost of premiums for automobile insurance in Canada increased by 25 to 30 per cent last year and since they will go up by 45 per cent this year for an ordinary car and 100 per cent for a commercial vehicle, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House immediately discuss the entire record of automobile and other insurance and shed light on the real operation costs of that business to protect Canadians who are already tackling other problems as a result of inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF MEANS OF MAKING CANADA SELF-SUFFICIENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF VACCINES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that by its failure to create a national capability to produce enough A-swine influenza vaccine to meet our own needs the government has endangered the health of Canadians; and in view of the fact that the executive

Criminal Code
vice-president of Connaught Laboratories, our most important supplier of vaccines, has stated that Canada could very quickly become self-sufficient in large-scale vaccine production, and that "it would be a very small price to pay for not having to rely on outside sources in other countries who can only help us when their own needs are fulfilled, especially in a potential epidemic situation like the one we may be experiencing this year," I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the question of the means by which Canada might most speedily be made self-sufficient in the production of vaccines be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for study and report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PROPOSED COMMISSION TO MAKE INVENTORY OF CANADIAN RESOURCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent and important matter.
As the federal government does not have the means to evaluate scientifically Canadian oil and gas reserves, and as it has become urgent to assess our energy resources because we use a considerable amount of oil, which resource is not renewable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House order the government to take all necessary steps as soon as possible to create, with the approval and participation of the provinces, a commission on Canadian resources which would be responsible for estimating our energy needs for the next 25 years as well as the availability of adequate reserves to meet the needs of all Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for unanimous consent of

the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that Canadians are completely opposed to Bill C-84 aimed at abolishing the death penalty, that the government seems determined to ignore the opinion of the majority of Canadians on this subject and that democracy cannot survive nor prosper unless the views of the majority of citizens are taken into account, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House examine immediately the possibility of a national referendum on the question of capital punishment and this before the final vote on Bill C-84 is called, to enable hon. members to vote according to the will clearly expressed by all Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. General M. R. Dare, the Director General of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Security Service, indicated in a letter to Mr. Robin Bourne, Chairman of the Security Advisory Committee of his ministry, that the RCMP received instructions from the Prime Minister in effect restricting the inquiries of the secret service with regard to certain of its investigations in mid-1975. Can the minister inform the House whether he is aware of these instructions issued by the Prime Minister to the RCMP with respect to their investigation, and whether he had any input into the decision to issue such instructions?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member mentions my name, I think I might be permitted to reply. I prefer to begin by saying that I did not recognize the existence of this letter from our top security person to our second top security person. I am somewhat distressed that such a letter exists and is in the hands of the public. I, personally, only read this letter for the first time five minutes ago when I was in the House. I can state unequivocally that there are at least two inaccuracies in the letter. I understand that it is being referred to a cabinet committee in order to see if the instructions therein are exact. Such reference has not taken place.
May 5, 1976

Therefore, it is inexact to say that anything contained in this letter is government policy.


Erik Nielsen: Since the Solicitor General choses not to answer my question-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He can answer, too.


Erik Nielsen: -as to whether or not he was aware of these instructions which the letter sets forth, clearly indicating personal interference of the Prime Minister with the investigation of the RCMP, let me ask him this. On November 27, 1975 in response to a question by the hon. member for Halifax as reported on page 9492 of Hansard for that date, the Prime Minister stated:
. . . when the police or the Solicitor General informed me that they were going to carry out an investigation of some well known member of the Canadian public, whether Liberal, Tory, NDP or somebody outside, I always told them, "Look, do your duty; I do not want to interfere in any way."
The Prime Minister went on to say, as reported on page 9501:
... there are no orders, no theory and no practice under which the police must ask my permission to talk to any minister, any member of the House of Commons or any member of the Canadian public.
In the light of that statement, taken together with the letter which the Prime Minister says he has read, I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he does not consider the issuance of guidelines restricting RCMP inquiries into any segment of the Canadian public to be in direct contradiction to government policy as stated by him on November 27, 1975.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. The longer one is that such guidelines were not issued and do not exist. That is why I say there are some inaccuracies in this letter. The statement I made, and which the hon. member quotes-I have not refreshed my mind with respect to it and it is obviously ad lib-still stands as I heard it now. This does not mean that the police do not operate under ministers and under a government responsible to parliament; if they ask us for instructions in the pursuance of their duties it does not mean we cannot examine the matter. This has been the subject of study by a royal commission set up some years ago followed by indications from this government as to the manner in which it wanted the security force to exist and operate. Unlike the opposition, we have confidence in the RCMP and we do not rely on gumshoes to do the work which we believe the police can do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON PRIME MINISTER ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO SECURITY SERVICE
Erik Nielsen: I might observe that in the light of the Prime Minister's reply some doubt arises as to whether or not General Dare should continue in his present post, having regard to what he says in this letter. But may I put this question to the Prime Minister: since it is the primary responsibility of the Solicitor General to oversee the function of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, can the right hon. gentleman explain why he took it
Oral Questions
upon himself to issue the directives that General Dare says were issued rather than direct the matter to the attention of the Solicitor General who has to take responsibility for the RCMP?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer to that is quite simple. I hope the hon. member will not, when I give it, use, as he did, the words, "interference with the work of the RCMP". There were no guidelines issued by me or any interference by me. There is a cabinet committee on security and intelligence which oversees the operation of government agents in the area of security and intelligence. Certain conclusions were reached which were communicated to the police. They were not communicated by me personally or under my name. They were the object of a cabinet decision. If the letter says and implies the contrary, it is just an indication of mistakes in the letter. This bears out what I was saying earlier-that the letter contains several errors.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question also concerns the right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Dare states in his letter that, because of discussions held concerning investigation criteria for employees who are to join the civil service, normally an investigation should be done for those individuals. Mr. Dare says that in the case of a member of the Parti quebecois he would have been asked by the Prime Minister not to carry out an investigation, except of course, if this individual had been involved in a violent incident. Is Mr. Dare telling the truth or not? That is the question I am asking the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I bring the attention of the hon. member to the fact that General Dare himself comes to this conclusion in his letter. Apparently the text reads as follows:
Consequently, I believe that... consequently the Security Service ...
That is his own conclusion from a directive issued by the cabinet, which, in my opinion, does not say that at all. And this is why the letter has been referred to the committee on security and intelligence to establish whether General Dare was drawing valid conclusions. However, I repeat that, in my opinion, his conclusions are not valid; that is why the matter was referred to a cabinet committee.


INQUIRY WHETHER INVESTIGATION MADE ON ALL MEMBERS
Roch La Salle: A last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
For greater clarification, according to the Prime Minister's reply, I understand that if it sees fit the RCMP will conduct an investigation about any person belonging to the Parti quebecois, the Liberal Party, the Tory Party or any other party.

May 5, 1976
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would add something else. When the government considers the appointment of anyone to a civil service post that involves security, or even when an appointment is made by order in council to a post involving security, we always ask the RCMP to provide us with a file on that person and advise us on subjects they feel we should be aware of. This applies, I repeat, to members of the Liberal Party, Progressive Conservative Party, Parti quebecois, Social Credit Party and to those who do not militate in any political party.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I resent the fact that the Prime Minister left out the NDP in his list. It simply means that of course we are "super safe".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of. Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister said yesterday that nothing has happened in the Pratt and Whitney of Canada case which would "inhibit development in Canada". Since Pratt and Whitney of Canada stopped their development work following instructions from their parent firm after the U.S. department of justice opinion on the matter, having done so on the clear legal understanding that the parent firm in the United States, following this opinion, would have been subject to legal action had the work in Canada not stopped, would the minister now please explain just what he meant yesterday?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I will to a degree, Mr. Speaker, but as I pointed out yesterday I am waiting for additional information from the United States and our sources there as to just what is the legal position. The point that I was making was that the informal opinion was not in itself something that would necessarily inhibit the company from a legal point of view. I think the hon. member is indeed correct that, as a result of the informal opinion having been given, a stop has been put on the work, so in that sense his position is thoroughly consistent. The point that I was making was that it was not a legal decision in the United States that had caused the situation but company reaction to what I understand was an informal opinion. Whether that stop is of a permanent nature is what I am seeking to find out.
I mentioned to the hon. member yesterday that the information that I have, which has not been confirmed by official sources, is that it is now likely that there will be an informal inquiry made in the United States to determine what will be the reaction of the United States government. If and when that occurs, of course, we will decide what
[Mr. La Salle.)
action by the government of Canada or by my department is most suitable in the circumstances.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to ask the minister to repeat that answer, but the gist of what he has said is that the action of the company located in Canada has resulted in this development work, which would have provided up to 1,000 jobs, being in fact stopped. Therefore I would ask the minister this question. Is it not the case that the work was stopped in Canada precisely because, in the legal view of the parent firm in the United States, had the work been proceeded with they would have been subject to legal action in the United States? If it is the case, does this not clearly represent interference in Canada by an outside country and corporation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not ask the hon. member to repeat the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: At the risk of being evasive, which I assure the hon. member I do not want to be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, Don.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think hon. members will understand that what is involved here is a highly technical legal question. I should like very much, in terms of giving him a detailed answer, to get something in writing, which I have not had up to the moment. I have tried to answer to the point that I can on the basis of what is essentially hearsay, in the sense that people have been giving me various reports of what has happened. I have not seen anything in writing. As to whether or not this kind of action, if in fact the framework the hon. member has outlined is correct, is of concern, let me say it is of great concern. I repeat, once I have all the facts I will be looking at them in terms of further action that can be taken regarding what appears to be at the moment something very damaging to the Canadian economy and Canadian industry.


COMBINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would add, and a violation of Canadian laws now in existence. I should like to direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since Section 31.6 of the Combines Investigation Act stipulates that interference by an outside country occurs if a company in Canada makes a decision which is the result of an "instruction" or "intimation of policy" from another country or outside person, I should like to ask when the head of the Combines Investigation Branch had this particular case brought to his attention, which clearly involves a contravention, and when can we expect
May 5, 1976

action from the government before these jobs are permanently lost?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I brought the matter to the attention of the director for investigation the moment it was brought to my attention, which was, frankly, yesterday morning and not before. The director has the case in hand. He fills, as you know, a quasi judicial function. His first job is to make certain that our law is as the hon. member presumes it to be and as I presume it to be. He is seeking information from the United States. If he finds that the Department of Justice of the United States has interfered to the degree that it could cost jobs to Canadian subsidiaries, then I suggest it is about time for this government to do something to prevent any such further interference with the domestic scene, because we need all the jobs we can get in this country for Canadian workers. We do not want that type of inference by a foreign country, particularly if it is in clear violation of our laws. However, we want to make sure what are the facts.


FINANCE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of Finance.
He announced a readjustment of oil prices within a few months so as to keep them in line with world market prices. Now, quite recently, yesterday or the day before, the premier of Ontario suggested a two-price system, for oil namely one which would prevail on the home market since we are entitled to pay below the international rate, being ourselves oil producers, and the other on the international market.
Is the Minister of Finance aware of this solution? Did he contact the Ontario premier? Is he in a position to advise us whether or not the government is prepared to consider this dual pricing to safeguard and protect the interests of the Canadian consumer?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this suggestion but it is my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who held talks with his Ontario counterpart. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to put his question to him.


PROPOSALS BY ONTARIO TO ADOPT TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Oral Questions
This is the same question. I would like to know whether there have been communications between his department and the government of Ontario about the adoption of a two price system for oil, that is a Canadian price for Canadians and an international price, with a view to protecting Canadian consumers and allowing them to pay less than the international price?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows I am sure, of course, we already have a two-price system. We have one price for Canadian consumers, which protects them against the international price, and we are selling our oil at international prices. The proposal that the Ontario government has put forward is a very complicated system which would deal with the various elements in a very complicated way and would not provide any additional funds for the exploration and development of Canadian resources which in my view are desperately needed.


David Réal Caouette: I want to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister in a position to give details? I understand he has just told us there now exists a two-price system, one price for eastern Canada and another for western Canada, as we have a two-price system in the north of the province of Ontario. In Rouyn we pay for gasoline about 14 cents a gallon more than in Kirkland Lake, and these two places are only 50 miles apart. That is a two-price system. But this is the point I want to make . . .


An hon. Member:: It is the difference between Whigs and Tories!


David Réal Caouette: If you do not believe me, come and you will see that it is how things are.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether Canadian consumers can draw any benefits from the development of their own natural resources. That is where we would like to see a two-price system, in which there would be one price for Canadian consumers and another, an international one, for the other countries, in order to make transactions with other countries and protect Canadian consumers. Is the minister in a position to say whether steps are being taken to achieve that?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken steps to protect the consumer ever since the oil price increase in 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: For those who would laugh, just let me mention that the bill, in terms of the subsidy for the Atlantic provinces alone since the start, will be by the middle of this year very close to $1 billion. The hon. member probably has not made the important distinction between retail prices which are governed by the market arrangements within the provinces and which are not under the regulation of the federal government. The federal government has provided to Canadians one price. It is $8 per barrel at the wellhead which is roughly $4.50 below the
13196

May 5, 1976
Oral Questions
international price. If the Ontario government has any plan to impose one retail price for gasoline in the province of Ontario, that particular proposal has not been raised with me.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Will the Solicitor General table a copy of the guidelines which were issued to the RCMP by the Prime Minister restricting the security services inquiries and will the Solicitor General table a copy of the Role Tasks and Methods of the RCMP security service as the Prime Minister specifically referred in an interview with General Dare to sections (a) to (f) in that document.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I just learned about this some minutes before the question period as well, and I am not quite sure I know what they are talking about. I intend to look into it and get as much information as possible.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the RCMP, indicating that he is not aware of any guidelines which were issued by the Prime Minister or by a cabinet committee which controls the activities of the RCMP?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the different directives from time to time. As a matter of fact, the security service is guided by provisions of the Privacy Act in respect of the use of electronic surveillance. There are other directives as well which are put forward from time to time. However, in answer to the direct question, I am not sure what the hon. member is talking about. I have not read the article which is the basis for this and I intend to get all the information before answering the question.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he has taken any steps to implement the recommendations of the Dube immigration practices inquiry, in particular as it relates to the need to establish regulations governing immigration counsellors and a tariff of fees for their services.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I gave a detailed answer to this question before the standing committee when my estimates were being discussed about two or three days ago. I would need more time than is permitted to give a detailed answer now, but the short answer is that almost

every recommendation of the Dube Committee has been implemented or is being implemented now. With regard to the specific reference to the very important and significant question of questionable practices by so-called immigration counsellors, we are looking very seriously at this in terms of the development of a new immigration policy and new legislation which we hope to place before the House this fall.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the answers he gave to questions of my colleague the hon. member for Yukon. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman if General Dare is under some misapprehension with regard to the Prime Minister issuing guidelines to restrict RCMP investigations. Will the Prime Minister report now or in due course how this occurred and also state how often he and General Dare meet in any given period for discussion of security matters and where the Solicitor General fits in, if he does?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the letter which apparently was quoted it is apparent to me that General Dare was asking for instructions of a cabinet committee. That is why I answered earlier that his answer obviously was not final and he was drawing conclusions which he was not sure of himself and which I have stated are erroneous. With regard to how often I meet with the general, I am not sure what the relevance is of that question.


An hon. Member:: Twice a week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Twice a week is overstating the case.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, given the Prime Minister's professed concern for the independence of the RCMP can he advise the House if he has issued directives in other instances involving the conduct of RCMP investigations and if this is the case could the Prime Minister inform the House of the nature of those directives and those occasions which he felt warranted them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The way in
which the question is phrased, Mr. Speaker, leads me to believe the hon. member was not here or was not listening when I answered the first question. I indicated quite clearly that there hade been no directives issued by me in the
case.
May 5, 1976


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Could the Solicitor General explain to the House what possible justification there can be for transferring, under pressure, two dangerous criminals from Archambault maximum security prison to the Warkworth medium security institution which is not designed or operated to handle this kind of criminal?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the decision was made late last night. In the process of negotiations, the inmates had put several demands to the authorities. All the other demands were rejected. However, this demand was accepted only on the condition that when they went to Warkworth they would be given a security classification test and that there would be no guarantee they would stay there if they did not meet the classification. One of the inmates had been at Warkworth and had asked to go back there. We told them that in these circumstances, to resolve the hostage-taking incident, we would send them there but there was no guarantee they would stay there if they did not meet the criteria of the institution.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious why the criminals concerned asked to go to Warkworth. It is a completely different type of institution. I would ask the minister would he not agree that this display of weakness on the part of the government will invite similar violent pressure by dangerous criminals in maximum security institutions to be transferred to medium security institutions which are not in any way designed to handle this type of criminal whose lifestyle is completely different. If the Solicitor General has any doubts about the kind of lifestyle in these medium security institutions, I suggest he ask Harold Ballard of Maple Leaf Gardens.


William Warren Allmand: It was exactly for those reasons that we would not give them any guarantee that they would stay at Warkworth, and it was considered that if they were willing to go to Warkworth, even for a short period of time, it was a good way to resolve the conflict and possibly to save two lives.


George Harris Hees: I am sure the minister is confident that they will not stay in Warkworth long because this type of criminal is the kind who will probably lead a jail break out of Warkworth in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National
Oral Questions
Defence. In view of the fact that there has been another unfortunate incident in which a Canadian fisherman was lost, and in view of the time lag of 20 hours before search and rescue were able to react, I wonder if the minister would, since there have been so many incidents, direct that elements of the search and rescue group be deployed to the province of Newfoundland with aircraft capable of providing surveillance and patrol capability.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into the circumstances surrounding the alleged time lag. With regard to the possibility of deploying search and rescue personnel and equipment to Newfoundland the hon. member will know that we have examined that on a number of occasions in the past. It has not been found to be cost effective.


An hon. Member:: What about lives?


James Armstrong Richardson: However, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I have been examining on an urgent basis ways in which we can improve the search and rescue capability, and the comments of the hon. member will be kept in mind.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Life is involved.


Jack Marshall: It is difficult to imagine why a price tag should be put on the saving of lives or the capability to save lives.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jack Marshall: I emphasize that since the first of the year there has been only one rescue out of seven operations by airsea rescue, and everything points to the fact that the reaction time between leaving Halifax and entering the zone is at least two and a half hours. I hope the minister will reconsider and see the need for deploying the elements to the province of Newfoundland so they can react more quickly and save more lives.


James Armstrong Richardson: These facts will be borne in mind when the study which is taking place is fully under way.


MEASURES TO PROTECT VISITORS TO OLYMPIC GAMES AGAINST POLIO-POSSIBLE USE OF SABIN ORAL VACCINE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the great anxiety felt over the discovery of wild viruses of polio, and the fact that only approximately 30 per cent of young people in the province of Ontario have any antibodies against all three types of polio virus and no protection, excepting the neuromotor system, against the wild viruses of polio, I should like to ask the Minister what steps will be taken to protect those people visiting the Olympic Games in Montreal.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been assured by Connaught Laboratories that there is a plentiful supply of vaccine.
95568 -2V2

May 5, 1976
Oral Questions
The population is encouraged to get vaccinated if this has not been done recently. Both in August of 1974 and in July of 1975 I instructed that inserts be put in with family allowances asking mothers to see that their children be vaccinated, and the only other piece of advice I can give is for people concerned to get their vaccinations from the usual sources from which they have been getting them in the past.


Philip Bernard Rynard: In view of the short time left for total immunization I should like to ask the minister, as the senior health minister of the provinces, whether he would advise the use of the Sabin oral vaccine, which would protect those people attending the games.


Marc Lalonde: We asked the national advisory committee at their meeting of October 30 and 31 of last year to study the matter of all the vaccines presently used in Canada against polio, and that particular committee has reported that both Salk and Sabin vaccines were found to be suitable to fight polio, so I am not in a position to advise at this stage as to whether one should be preferred over the other.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the minister if he checked into the fact that the Sabin vaccine is the only one which protects against the neuro-muscular type of polio and other manifestations of the disease.


Marc Lalonde: I will check into that, but I understand that this is not the advice we received from the national advisory committee.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as minister responsible for the status of women. Now that ten days have gone by since the delegates of the national action committee respecting the status of women were here in Ottawa and in light of his having met yesterday in Winnipeg with the National Advisory Council, is the minister in a position to state whether the government is prepared to introduce further specific measures to improve the status of women such as federal grants toward the capital cost of child care centres and the provision of pensions for spouses who are homemakers?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as far as the latter part of the question is concerned, the government put forward very progressive proposals to the welfare ministers conference last February. Most provinces endorsed the general principles of the proposals we put forward. They asked for time to study the details, and as the hon. member knows, the support of two thirds of the provinces having two thirds of the population is required before I can put forward any amendment to the Canada Pension Plan.
As far as the first part of the question is concerned, I remind the hon. member that as the law stands at the

present time we are providing more generously than any social service for day care in Canada at the present time. This is the only social service for which we are allowing the depreciation of the capital cost as a cost eligible for cost-sharing. In addition, we are also cost-sharing the cost of rented space, so at the present time we are cost-sharing on a very generous basis, more generously than for any other social service.
I have indicated that I intend to introduce in the fall a new piece of legislation called the social services act which will provide, I hope, for even greater flexibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Paul Martin would have been proud.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Rather than these generalities would the minister indicate when the government is prepared to contribute to the actual or original capital cost of day care centres?


Marc Lalonde: I fail to see the generality of what I said, and I will ask the hon. member to be more specific.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Grouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 30 I asked the Prime Minister two questions with regard to Canada-United States boundaries, and in the absence of an answer, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries).
Since Canada maintains the equidistant principle in the seaward extension of the boundary dividing the land mass between Canada and the United States, while the United States claims the fundian channel divides the fishing banks on the Atlantic coast, has the minister or any of his officials held recent talks with the Americans on this topic, and if so, can he inform the House on the progress being made, in view of the valuable groundfish, lobster and scallop fishery as well as possible oil, gas and minerals in this area?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the matter was raised when we met with the state department officials handling problems relating to fisheries last week in New York. It will also be raised at the bilateral talks between the Canadian and American governments which are to take place next week in British Columbia. Meanwhile, the reciprocal arrangement which exists between the Americans and ourselves has been extended for one year, to April, 1977. I do not hide the fact that we will have some complicated boundary negotiations with the United States.



BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF OIL EXPLORATION PERMITS FOR GEORGES BANK BY UNITED STATES

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. The United States Bureau of the Interior recently
May 5, 1976

announced it is considering leasing something like 206 separate sites on the Georges Bank, totalling 1.2 million acres of ocean, to offshore oil explorations. Of these sites 138 are very important fishing grounds and I understand 50 are spawning areas for haddock, whiting-hake, herring and yellowtail flounder. Since ownership of this bank is obviously in dispute, can the minister tell the House if any informal agreement between our two countries exists and if none does, on what basis can exploration permits be issued to oil companies probing the resources of the seas?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am more familiar with the fisheries aspect than the exploration aspect. With the hon. member's permission, I will take the question as notice.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the free vote on Bill C-84 be free to the cabinet?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: Otherwise, how was your caucus this morning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a freer group of men and women still has to be found in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the executive director, Robert Johnstone of the Anti-Inflation Board is reported this week as saying that "There is a point at which high rates of increase in government spending, incurring of substantial deficits, and high rates of money growth would blow the (anti-inflation) program to smi-thereenes," would the minister indicate if he agrees with this view and specifically does he know of any provincial or municipal governments which are allowing such excess spending increases or deficits and if so, who are they?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, all governments in Canada are exercising restraint against increases in government expenditure and, of course the Bank of Canada has been following a tighter monetary policy which has been the subject of complaints by the hon. member because of high interest rates.
Oral Questions



EFFORTS OF MINISTER TO REDUCE DEPARTMENTAL


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of all governments following such restraint, and dealing with the minister's own spending estimates for salaries and related matters which we find have jumped by 15.5 per cent for the current year compared to a 9.5 per cent increase last year, would the minister indicate what steps he is taking to ensure that this 15.5 per cent estimated hike in his own spending will not materialize? Would he also explain to what extent he feels he can reduce his spending to meet at least the 9.5 per cent level of last year's increase and be within the AIB guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. gentleman's arithmetic is somewhat faulty. As indicated to the committee last night, of course the government is bound by the collective bargaining agreements already entered into. I am confident that the Treasury Board will be able to keep settlements with respect to the Department of Finance and other departments, well within the guidelines.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is so confident concerning his own arithmetic, would he be willing to refer his own estimate increases to the AIB for a ruling to decide whether the increases are within the guidelines? Also, would the minister now confirm that his budget will be brought down on May 25, so that the nation can have a look at what this relatively highly paid staff has produced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have no difficulty referring them but since they obviously will be within the guidelines I see no necessity for doing that. As to the date of the budget, I will be prepared to indicate that to the House next Monday.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the government offered to set up a linguistic relocation subsistence fund for air traffic controllers and, if so, what is the purpose of the fund?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions concerning the terms which might be available for air traffic controllers located in a control centre which is designed to become a bilingual control centre, who are unable to operate in a bilingual control atmosphere, and who will therefore seek to be relocated rather than take the necessary training. The discussions are really related to recognizing the special circumstances of the transfer involved and indeed are therefore a better condition of transfer than is available generally.

May 5, 1976
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question. Does this fund or assistance apply to all air traffic controllers within Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the proposal is to have it available to those who find it difficult or are unwilling to accommodate themselves to a bilingual control atmosphere. In that sense it applies to all of them who are in that situation.



POSSIBILITY ONE THIRD OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS WILL LEAVE QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO CONTINGENCY PLAN

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Transport. Since there has been a request on behalf of approximately 100 traffic controllers out of some 270 in the province of Quebec, and remembering that air traffic control is a highly demanding occupation that does not readily lend itself to overtime work, has the government formulated any contingency plans should the contemplated exodus of up to or over one-third of the air traffic controllers in the province of Quebec take place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty of having an adequate number of air traffic controllers who can control traffic in the two languages was a reason which I gave at the time of setting out the gradual schedule rather than a more rapid one for the implementation of bilingual air traffic control within the province of Quebec. I can say to the hon. member that the most recent report I have is that the number of controllers interested in moving is rather lower than the figure he is using which would be closer to the figures I have seen for both those desiring some training and those wishing to move.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO SAFETY ASPECT OF USE OF BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I believe the figures show that 62 air traffic controllers are taking active steps to leave the province and another 37 are contemplating doing so as soon as possible. Would the government at the present time be receptive to the idea of setting up an independent public inquiry to determine conditions for air safety in Quebec so that we may set this whole question to rest once and for all?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to show the hon. member that we are not at all hesitant about any kind of examination of our procedures in regard to air traffic control and the safety involved. I should remind hon. members, however, that this whole discussion is based on a plan of progressively offering additional air traffic control services in the two languages in the province of Quebec. The whole plan was based, in the case of instrument flight operations, first of all on very carefully testing and developing procedures with the co-operation of airline pilots and controllers in order to be absolutely sure they are safe. We can assure the Canadian people that we are confident the moves we are

making in regard to bilingual air traffic control will be fully consistent with the high standard of safety which Canada has always had.



POST OFFICES


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Is it now the policy of the Post Office Department to discontinue use of postal letter boxes on street corners as a further cutback, except in communities where there is door to door delivery service? The postal letter boxes I refer to are those used for mailing letters.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is not a very rigid policy. If the hon. gentleman would give me a particular case of hardship as a result of some negligence or action on the part of the Post Office, I should be glad to rectify it.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this cutback in service affects all citizens but in particular our senior citizens. Will the minister reconsider this policy? As an example, of where it has taken place I will use the town of Neepawa, Manitoba.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is a beautiful town and I shall do everything to accommodate the senior citizens.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa
5 May, 1976
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 5th day of May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Jolly de Lotbiniere,
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Considering Bill C-83 while the debate is now
May 5, 1976

proceeding in the House of Commons on Bill C-84, which is part of the security package.
When this peace and security package was presented, Bill C-83 entitled "An Act for the Better Protection of Canadian Society against Perpetrators of Violent and other Crime", and Bill C-84 entitled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code in Relation to the Punishment for Murder and Certain Other Serious Offences", by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), both bills were linked together. In fact the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in his speech on what is known as the abolition bill presented the question of gun control as the answer to control murder, and at that stage he too linked both bills together. The government linked both bills together in a peace and security package.
The personnel who are interested in the debate on Bill C-84 are also interested in the debate in committee on Bill C-83. I want to make this important point of order with regard to the arranging of business. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, because you are the only one who can protect our rights, since we are confined to the committee when the other debate is going on here as part of the same peace and security package-


An hon. Member:: Where were you Monday night?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I happened to be here. The hon. member does not know I was here because he was absent. I do not know where he was.
The personnel on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs naturally want to consider the debate on abolition and yet are being tied to their places on the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee because the whole strategy and plan of the government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the House leader is to ram legislation through. They know that crime is on the increase and they want to sell the idea to the Canadian people that they are doing something about it. In fact, they are doing absolutely nothing about it.
They flaunted their own law that they passed 2Vi years ago in reference to murder. They have postponed the penalty for murder while a number of people are waiting in jail, having been convicted of killing police officers and prison wardens. Therefore my point of order is that the committee should not and must not sit while the House is considering the bill to abolish capital punishment. I have a right as a member of parliament to listen to the debate in the House of Commons. I should not be denied that right by being confined to a committee because of the Liberals over-powering majority in the House that runs slip-shod over parliament and, in particular, members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I realize that timetables are tight. However, this is not a question of a tight timetable. It is a question, I repeat, of a government making up its mind to ram through a bill against the will of the people of Canada and the will of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Be serious.
Committee Procedure


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have never been more serious in my life. You, Mr. Speaker, are the only one who protects the rights of the individual members of parliament. Our rights, as they exist, exist and continue to live because you have been elected to the highest office in the House of Commons. I make this appeal to you. Should members of parliament, in particular members of the opposition who have a duty to fight Bill C-83, not because of its intention but because it is the most horrible, badly drafted legislation that has come before the House of Commons, not be in the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am using this as part of my argument on my point or order. The facts that I set out now are to substantiate why we should not have two hearings going on at the same time in two parts of this institution.
I was in this House of Commons when we had a Progressive Conservative government. The then 49 Liberals refused to sit on committees while the House was sitting, the Right Hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), because he believes in democracy and the supremacy of parliament over a powerful government such as we have today, gave into that.
I am told the government wants to get the bill on the abolition of capital punishment out of the road. It wants to rush it through. I am speaking for thousand of Canadians today who are writing letters to all members of parliament on all sides of the House, and who are concerned about these bills and concerned about crime.
We have heard six witnesses with reference to Bill C-83. Our party is co-operating in every regard. However, even the written briefs are pushed through. Members are denied the right to present full argument on the briefs being presented. They are given only 15 minutes in committee. A few members are only given ten minutes, and there are many on the list who are not allowed to ask a question. The government is ramming through this legislation against the will of the people of Canada.
I am asking, therefore, that there be a directive that a matter that comes before the House in one package cannot be debated in two places at the same time. When the debate on the abolition of capital punishment commenced the other night, there were only 53 members in the House. I was one of the 53.
The committee is being asked to sit and consider one part of the package, and the House the other part. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of the rights of parliament, to give a directive in this regard because it is the same package. I make this special appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, because the government is running slip-shod over parliament, the people of Canada and, indeed, its own backbenchers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my remarks through you to the government

May 5, 1976
Committee Procedure
House leader. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has made a good point with regard to the proper consideration by this House of Bill C-83 and Bill C-84. As he pointed out, the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) in his speech the other night said it was part of one package. On that ground the Chair ought to consider the situation very carefully. The government House leader has a particular responsibility to consider the operation of parliament.
There is another side to this debate which is also important. One of the two bills before parliament, C-84, is a bill on which there will be a free vote and for my argument I am overlooking the question asked today by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I presume that bill will not be discussed in caucus. It is the kind of bill on which each member will make up his or her own mind on one basis or another and, on that basis, decide how to represent his or her constituents.
In that context, it is important that every member of this House of Commons be at least afforded the opportunity of coming into this Chamber and listening to the debate on Bill C-84. This debate, perhaps more than any other, does not advance a party point of view but involves persuasion. All members must admit there is an atmosphere about this place which one cannot capture. There can be nuances to argument that one cannot capture from the pages of Hansard. In addition to what the hon. member for Calgary North has said, even though there are some difficulties in the committee system, I respectfully suggest that these difficulties are not insurmountable for the government. They ought to be surmounted so that members who are being asked to reach a difficult decision with regard to Bill C-84 should have an opportunity of listening to the debate.
I admit we are restricted by the fact that committees do sit while the House is sitting, but surely those members who are concerned with one part of the whole peace and security package in a committee ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of participating in the debate in the House. To my mind it is incongruous that the present situation should continue to exist.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the House leader, to take note of the fact that the bills, in their essence, are completely different from each other and that special consideration is due to members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in this particular case, not only because of what the hon. member for Calgary North has said but by reason of the nature of those two bills.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, as a member of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in support of what has just been said by my House leader and by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The difficulty I experience, as one member of 
the House, is this: my constituents expect me to participate in the work of parliament and they have shown a special interest in Bill C-83, as is exemplified by the amount of mail I have received with regard to it. As a consequence I should be participating in the work of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during its clause by clause consideration of the bill in a meaningful way, by contributing to the discussion and moving amendments.
At the same time my constituents expect me to be in the House to take part in the debate on Bill C-84, another important bill in which they are taking great interest, as are all the people of Canada. They expect me as their representative to take part in that important debate so that I can make up my own mind and put forward the views of my constituents if it happens that my views do not coincide with the majority of theirs.
My House leader made the point well when he said there had been no input from caucus on this issue and presumably, since there is to be a free vote, this is the case on the other side of the House as well. Consequently we are all expected to take part in the debate and listen to the arguments expressed by other hon. members, and then cast our votes according to the dictates of our consciences so as to best serve the interests of our constituencies and our country. But we are denied the right to do this as a result of the management of the business of the House by the government House leader. He has taken what has been a package, what was presented to the House as a package, and split the package, and now he tries to split the House, something he cannot do.
Another point I should like to make has to do with the scheduling of committees. It is very relevant to my argument. Tomorrow, for example, while the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is sitting, four other committees will be meeting at the same time to examine estimates- Labour and Manpower, Miscellaneous Estimates, Agriculture, and National Resources and Public Works. My hon. friend reminds me that the National Capital Commission committee will also be meeting at the same time.
Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we are expected to take part in the clause by clause examination of Bill C-83 in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. We are expected to participate, also, in the extremely important debate in the House on Bill C-84. Third, and not necessarily in this order of importance, we are expected to carry out our principal responsibility in this place, that is, the voting of supply. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can we carry out this responsibility, the examination of estimates and, dependent upon that, the voting of supply, when there are ten committee meetings taking place tomorrow, beginning at 9.30 in the morning and carrying on past 8 p.m. at night? I ask the government House leader does he take parliament seriously, or does he think this is a joke? I can assure the House leader that we look upon the examination of Bill C-83 and upon the debate in connection with Bill C-84 as being of the utmost importance. I also say we have a responsibility to examine all the estimates, and I submit he is denying us that right by having 14 committee sittings on the same day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because my hon. friends have put our case in
May 5, 1976

such a compelling manner I intend to be very brief. I would point out to Your Honour that I raised a similar point of order with respect to the Standing Committee on Agriculture sitting at the same time as agricultural matters were being discussed in the House of Commons in the course of the present session.
If the Committee on Agriculture were sitting while a bill affecting justice and legal affairs was being considered in this Chamber, that would be one thing; we would have to determine our priorities in terms of the topics under consideration. But here we find one part of the peace and security package being considered in two different forums at the same time, and affecting people who are very closely involved in each of these debates. If the government House leader is serious he will review this matter and make other arrangements. It would not necessarily mean the suspension of the sittings of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Surely some provision could be made for the committee to sit at times when the House is not debating the capital punishment bill.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the government House leader. Would it not be possible to cut down the number of sittings which members of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs presently face? Members of that committee who, it must be remembered, have other duties as well, face an extremely arduous task on the basis of the present program of six sittings a week, and this for an indefinite period.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that as the spokesman for the House of Commons you have the right, as guardian of the rights and privileges of our members, to rule that there can be no debate on capital punishment legislation at times when the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is sitting to consider the other part of what has been described as a legislative package. I hope favourable consideration will be given to this point, not only by Your Honour but by the government House leader who has now come back from a holiday.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to make myself the spokesman for our party on a point of order so well put forward by the official opposition. I think this discussion on Bill C-83, which comes from the same department as Bill C-84, is held at the same time as the House of Commons examines Bill C-84. Now, I think both bills should not be discussed together, one in the standing committee and the other in the House. First-


Mr. Blais:: Do you want to sit until July?


Some hon. Members:: No, until August.


Léonel Beaudoin: Until August, that is it. We know we will adjourn in August because there are only 20-odd days left for government business: there are six days for discussing the budget and the rest is alloted to the opposition. Therefore this means we know in advance that we cannot finsih the study of current business for June 30; it would be a mistake if one thought so.
Second, we are here to make a serious consideration of the legislation. I think the point of order raised by the
Committee Procedure
official opposition is in order, and perhaps more for our party than for the Progressive Conservatives because we are only 11 in the House of Commons and we must be everywhere at the same time. With due respect, I suggest that this be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that we have to be at both places at the same time to discuss almost the same issues. I would also like to make one small remark at this time: the other committees sitting for the consideration of estimates or other issues could very well sit, for it is not at all the same thing. But as Bill C-83 and Bill C-84 come from the same department, they should not be studied at the same time.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am rather taken aback by the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) because I have been discussing the business of the House with representatives of all parties.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But nobody ever agreed to this kind of nonsense.


Mitchell William Sharp: There was no reaction like this, Mr. Speaker, though I can understand there are difficulties. May I point out to the House that debate on Bill C-84 has only just got under way; it began on Monday of this week.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have had six meetings about this.


Mitchell William Sharp: There could not have been any substantial conflict on this matter because we have just begun debate on Bill C-84, which I recall was introduced by my colleague on Monday. So it could only have been on Monday and possibly today that a conflict might arise.
It is very difficult to know how to schedule the business of the House toward the end of a session of this kind. I can assure hon. members that as House leader I shall try to do it in a way that will facilitate debate. As I understand it, the committee dealing with Bill C-83 is very anxious that it should meet as seldom as possible while the House is in session, and indeed is trying to give priority to morning sittings, and to make them long so as to minimize the possibility of conflict.
I hesitate to say this to the hon. gentleman, but since we have only just begun to debate Bill C-84, his outburst at this time really seems to be quite unjustified. I do intend to meet with the House leaders, as they know, and I hope we can discuss this subject. I believe that this House would like to proceed to deal with both these measures as expeditiously as possible, with as free a discussion as possible, and that is also our view.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been raised and contributed to by quite a number of members. I have attempted to give an opportunity to each party at least to be represented in putting forward a view. I see there are one or two other members who want to contribute to the point, but some who wanted to contribute have had the opportunity.
I am sure all hon. members realize at once two or three things. First of all, the grievance or concern that has been expressed is not new to this House. It has been raised many, many times in the past, though I must say not very frequently in this particular parliament but rather in pre-

May 5, 1976
Committee Procedure
vious parliaments. It is a very familiar concern with hon. members such as those who have participated in the discussion this afternoon, who are attempting conscientiously to fulfil all of the obligations placed upon them, and who find carrying the workload both in the House and in committee impossible at times.
While I think hon. members express a concern that is deeply felt, at one and the same time I am sure they will realize that the provisions of the Standing Orders are such that standing committees are empowered to sit while the House is in session. I do not say that in order to recommend it or to comment on its advisability; everyone knows the difficulties that this creates. I say it only because it concerns my jurisdiction in terms of attempting to make any order which may or may not determine when House committees can sit.
I hope that there are channels through which this kind of problem can be settled. It is certainly a matter for settlement among those who are ordinarily charged with some responsibility for coming to some agreement as to the progress of business through the House. The good will that attends discussions and arrangements is essential to orderly proceedings, and it is hoped that following the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) the good will that has prevailed in the past will not fail us at a time when there is so much important business before the House.
It is difficult to see an area in which my authority could extend to make any other arrangements. However, I hope consideration will be given to this in the negotiations.
Though this is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the subject matters that may be discussed on these days, it has already been noted that there are quite a number of opposition days remaining. If it becomes necessary to have extended sittings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in respect to this very important bill, it might be that those days ought to be pre-empted for committee sittings of that sort in order not to conflict any more than is necessary. However, these are only reflections. If the Chair can be of any assistance in the negotiations, as always I am more than ready to assist; but I am reluctant to enter with any authority an area where the Standing Orders do not at this moment appear to give authority.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said I was unjustified in raising this. I would bring to his attention, through you, Sir, that at this very moment the debate on the abolition of capital punishment is about to recommence and there is a committee meeting being called. That is the reason I raised the point. I do not think I was unjustified; I think I had a proper and necessary grievance. As far as I am concerned, he is imputing motives. I did this because I believe I have to do the work for my constituency and for the opposition so far as justice affairs are concerned. I appreciate your sympathetic viewpoint. I only hope that the President of the Privy Council is as sympathetic as Your Honour and not as wishy-washy as he always is.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reason I felt it unjustified is that I had called a meeting of House leaders for this afternoon and it would have been only courteous to have laid this complaint before his House leader so he could have talked to me about it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,956, 5,103, 5,147 and 5,196.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs request automobile companies operating in Canada to provide it with copies of all hidden, secret or good-will warranties on their products sold in Canada in the past ten years, and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what are the names of the companies which provided copies of their good-will warranties and, in each case (i) in what years (ii) for what models (iii) for what particular work?
2.	Did the Department or any agency of the Department receive requests for information on hidden or goodwill warranties and, if so (a) how many (b) what information was provided and did it include copies of specific hidden or good-will warranty programmes of automobile companies?
3.	Did the Automobile Protection Association provide the Department with copies of any hidden or good-will warranty programmes of Canada's automobile companies and, if so (a) on how many companies was such information provided (b) on what dates?
4.	Did the Department send copies of such documents to enquiring consumers and, if not, for what reason?
5.	(a) How many persons are working for the recently created automotive section of the Department (b) was particular automotive knowledge and/or experience a prerequisite for being employed (c) what other criteria were necessary for employment (d) what are the functions of the section?
6.	Has the Department consulted with the APA in its attempts to deal with the problems of hidden or good-will warranties, given their expertise in this area?
7.	What action has the Department taken on a complaint made two years ago by the APA concerning advertising by STP for oil and gas additives and is any action contemplated?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The former Minister did request this information from the automobile manufacturers and distributors in Canada. In general, the response was that internal company documents would be provided to the Department only on the condition that they remain confidential. This restrictive condition was not acceptable to the Minister, and he was not in a position to insist on its removal.
2.	The existence of unpublicized post-warranty adjustment programs not made available to all owners became a subject of public concern in March, 1975. From that time until mid-March of 1976, the Department received over 400 enquiries relating to automobile warranties. In addition, the disclosure to the public of these programs resulted in more than 2,000 complaints alleging premature failure of vehicles or components, and seeking compensation. To consumers who contact the Department concerning automobile problems, officers provide copies of documents provided by the Automobile Protection Association which pertain to the specific problems experienced by the con-
May 5, 1976

sumer. In addition, each consumer receives general information about consumer rights and company obligations within the contractual warranties. In the case of the Ford Motors Company, consumers are provided with details of the company's policy on post-warranty adjustments relating to automobile corrosion.
3.	The association provided copies of internal documents from two Canadian and one United States companies. These documents were sent or given to the Department on March 21 and November 5, 1975.
4.	Yes: see also the answer to question (2).
5.	Initially two officers were assigned responsibility for the Department's work on the problem area. They were chosen for their experience in handling automobile complaints, and in problem analysis and policy development. Before the remainder of the Unit could be staffed with officers having appropriate experience and expertise in the automotive field, the companies refused to co-operate with the Minister by providing documents which could be released to the public. At the present time, apart from handling automotive complaints and enquiries, policy is being developed in the more general area of warranties and guarantees.
6.	Yes.
7.	The result of an inquiry by the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act into claims made by S.T.P. for their gas treatment product resulted in the referral of a Summary Evidence to the Attorney General of Canada on January 30, 1974. After careful and extensive consideration of the matter and in view of the fact that the company had discontinued the use of the performance claim which had given rise to the inquiry the matter did not result in a charge being laid. Since the revision of the company's advertising, the Department has received no further complaints.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the estimated completion date for the Jacques Cartier terminal now under construction at the Port of Montreal?
2.	What is the estimated total capital cost of the facility including the amount allocated for the take-over of existing break bulk facilities to be incorporated as part of the terminal?
3.	Have any commitments been made by shipping lines and/or terminal operating companies to use the terminal and, if so, which shipping lines and/or terminal operating companies?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board [DOT] advises as follows. 1. The estimated completion date is April 1977.
2.	The estimated total capital cost, including the amount allotted for the takeover of existing break bulk facilities to be incorporated as part of the terminal, is $5,500,000 exclusive of portainers for which a lease is still under consideration.
3.	It is planned to operate the Jacques Cartier Terminal as a public facility and no contract has been concluded with any terminal operators or shipping lines.
Order Paper Questions MIRABEL AIRPORT


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total amount expended, itemized to reflect the purpose of all main expenditures, by the government directly or indirectly on the Mirabel Airport up to March 31, 1976?
2.	As of that date, what further monies have been committed, itemized to reflect the purpose of all main expenditures, with respect to the project?


Ralph Goodale: (1)	(2)
	Accumulated	
	Expenditures	76-77
	to March 31/76	Estimates
	($000's)	($000's)
Land Acquisition Land Development and	16,772	400Improvement	6,700	300Grants and Compensation	7,349	-Airfields	76,386	1,200Air Terminals	78,360	1,700Utilities	20,790	900Roads and Parking	32,212	1,200Operations Facilities	11,661	300Unapplied Common Construction Costs	10,367	300Project Administration	37,252	1,479Recoverable Capital Costs	5,627	-Equipment	9,646	500Headquarters Charges	-	638Total	$313,122	$8,917


Mr. Howie: What was the total amount expended to April 5, 1976 for legal fees and expenses for the prosecution of the Irving interests under the Combines Investigation Act and to whom was it paid?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Cost of New Brunswick Newspapers Prosecution0*, William L. Hoyt, Q.C., Hoyt, Mockler, Allen, Dixon & Godin, Fredericton, N.B. (Crown Counsel); Legal fees, $132,566; Disbursement, $31,278. T. Joseph Scanlon, Dean of the School of Journalism, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario (Special Assistant to Crown Counsel Consultant); Fees, $9,100; Disbursements, $3,367. Winnifred Johnston, Saint John, N.B. (Witness), $630. Total: $176,941.
(1) Does not include travelling expenses and time of Department of Justice personnel and of officers on the staff of the Director of Investigation and Research.

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-84, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to resume my speech on capital punishment which I began on Monday. At that time I was concluding that aspect of my speech respecting the impact of TV on the perception of violence in our modern society. In this latter connection I wish to continue for a moment.
It appears to me to be abundantly clear that we in Canada live in one of the most peaceful societies in the world, bar none, yet in the many meetings I have held in my own riding I have found, like so many of my colleagues, that many of my constituents are convinced that we live in a volatile, violent, and highly dangerous society.
I have already indicated that television has played a considerable role in this disproportionate impression of a violent world, but I have said nothing to date of the significant impact of news coverage, particularly when any atrocity or act of violence or of inhumanity, wherever it may happen in the world, is played up in the most dramatic and often bizarre way possible. It is no wonder that, being constantly bombarded and exposed to this sort of news coverage, we conclude, often subliminally, that the violence we see distilled and capsulized from around the world on a daily basis is really the condition in our country and neighbourhood.
It is astounding that so many who think that our streets and homes are unsafe and that there is a thief or criminal on every street corner have themselves rarely ever met one. Their essential fear is not based on personal observation or experience at all, but on hearsay, and the impact of the media upon them. Our minds are constantly focused on the abnormal and we begin to believe it is the normal condition of society.

Many have become partially, and others almost exclusively, the victims of the modern media and we are now beginning to see the fruits of the fear and apprehension that is being created in society as a whole. Such impact has become the condition of society living almost exclusively on a diet of media realism, devoid of substantial reality. I am not blaming the media nor a gullible public. I am simply saying that perhaps we are beginning to perceive an insight into ourselves and our relationship with the media that had been hitherto inadequately appreciated.
The present demand for capital punishment as a solution to violence is only the beginning, because when it is discovered that capital punishment does not solve the problem the public believes is the fact, the public may well clamour for a type of law and order which would attack the very fabric of our judicial system and the sacred and historic provisions upon which it is based.
This exaggerated fear, based in part on fantasy, is already beginning to express itself through many who suggest that perhaps we can no longer afford to presume the citizen innocent until proven guilty. That is too awkward an approach when we want instantaneous justice. Many want a highly expeditious justice, which is more reminiscent of frontier days of old than of civilized civilization. I believe that in the past the pendulum may have swung too far in favour of the criminal with inadequate cousideration for the real need to protect society. I do not think we can correct the situation by swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction, paying too little attention to the rights and privileges of citizens in our society who may be rightly or wrongly charged with a criminal offence. We really need a proper balance in our society; a balance in considering this highly emotional and divisive question.
It will be a sad day when, through a false perception of reality, we end up destroying some of the more fundamental freedoms of rights and protections that have been built up over the years on behalf of individuals simply because the public thinks it is essential in order to protect itself from a perceived but artificial and unreal world.
People advocate capital punishment as though it would spell the end to violence. Such is self-evidently not the case. I am not suggesting in any way that all is well in the world and that there is no need for changes in our present law, nor indeed that the proposed law before us is in fact perfect. Obviously changes are required not only in the law but in the administration of justice and in the enforcement agencies which are responsible for enforcing justice in our society. This we can achieve, but I do not think we need to over-react.
As I have said earlier, as politicians we must deal with the perceptions the public has, but surely as members of parliament and as legislators our first obligation is to deal with the condition as it in fact exists.
The fourth element of my speech today deals with the hard facts relating to crime in our society and what effect capital punishment would have on the occurrence of these crimes. Quite evidently, and as a caveat before dealing with these hard statistics, I should indicate that there is a shortage of hard information. It is extremely difficult to do
May 5, 1976

a lot of research and collect enough information to be able to come to the kind of conclusion all of us would like to reach. I am sure it would be of interest to members of parliament and the public at large if I relate the hard criminal statistics in Canada to those of the United States and other countries of the world to see how we fare in that relationship. Unfortunately the bases of our statistics in this and in other countries are not really comparable and do not lend themselves to ready or accurate comparison.
In addition to this, the fundamental definition of murder or capital homicide has varied in this country over the years and, indeed, in all other countries with which we would like to make comparisons. Nonetheless, and in spite of this reservation regarding the shortcomings of statistical data available, I think there is some justification in looking at the facts that are available.
First of all let us look at the volume of reported crime in Canada during the years 1962 to 1970. In 1962 there were 796,675 offences reported to the police, and 34,954 were violent offences. Violent offences in that year constituted 4.4 per cent of actual offences reported.
There has been a gradual increase in the number of offences during that period which is not particularly dramatic, culminating in 1970 with 1,574,135 offences reported to the police, of which 92,372 were violent offences. The percentage of violent offences rose from 4.4 per cent to 5.9 per cent.
Violent offences in all categories related to the population figures in Canada indicate that in 1962 the rate per 100,000 population was 226.6. In 1970 this figure has grown to 494.4. In other words, they more than doubled, clearly indicating an increase in violence in society. However, the operative point is, what kind of violence and how do we as legislators best deal with the growing trend? That is the central question.
Criminal homicide in 1962 constituted three quarters of one per cent of all violent crime in Canada. In 1970 criminal homicide constituted less than one half of one per cent. This alone illustrates that although there was an increase in criminal homicides during those nine years in absolute figures, from 265 in 1962 to 425 in 1970, criminal homicide as a percentage of violent crime had indeed shrunk and not grown.
Let us turn our attention now to another aspect of violent crime. The average rates over the nine-year period in the five categories of violent crime are as follows: criminal homicide .52 per cent, attempted murder .24 per cent, wounding and assault 86.18 per cent, rape 1.28 per cent, and robbery 11.78 per cent. These statistics illustrate a fundamental point relating to capital punishment. Capital punishment is directed toward criminal homicide only, and this is the area where there is the least growth in violence. Its retention in my view does not have any effect on the larger categories of violent offences such as wounding, assault, rape, and robbery, which constitute over 99 per cent of all violent offences in our society.
If the public wants more peace and security then clearly we as legislators must deal not only with the question of capital punishment and how to deal with murderers but the larger and ever increasing problem of other forms of
Capital Punishment
violent criminal activity where capital punishment has no place in the minds of any of us in our society. Simply, in terms of protecting human life we must look at the problem of loss of life in society in proper perspective.
In 1970 there were 425 criminal homicides. It is generally accepted that only about 30 per cent of these were premeditated homicides. In the same year the death rate for motor vehicle accidents was 5,312, and for boating and water accidents 1,205. I do not have the statistics for the thousands who died in our society each year through all other kinds of accidental mishaps. Clearly these facts alone indicate that the danger to our population through non-criminal accidental death is much more severe than that which faces our citizens through criminal activity and homicide. More recent statistics indicate that in 1973 there were 475 murders, 2,773 suicides, 6,429 motor vehicle fatalities, and 13,476 other fatalities. In other words, 97.8 per cent of violent or accidental deaths are from sources other than murder.
The incidence of crime statistics is very closely related to drug and alcohol abuse. It is estimated that in British Columbia which has the highest per capita crime rate in Canada, approximately 70 per cent of all crime committed in that province is related to drug and alcohol abuse. If we want to solve crime in society we must get down to the nuts and bolts of the question, deal with its root causes and forget about capital punishment as a final solution to our ills.
It is estimated that as high as 90 per cent of victims of criminal homicide knew their killer. This illustrates an important point that criminal homicide is largely committed between friends, families, neighbours, lovers and so on, and not by the so-called criminal element of society. One has the vague impression that the public have an unwholesome fear of being murdered by some unknown criminal in society. The facts do not bear out this kind of concern.
A point which flows from the above statistics is that those who commit murder in the domestic or neighbourhood context are generally, up until that moment, normal law-abiding citizens and commit the crime either through passion, temporary mental derangement, or a unique and specific motive arising from the special relationship between the two parties involved. Such persons, I am informed, are rarely even remotely inclined to commit the same kind of offence again. Indeed they must be punished, but in my view one who says that this group must be hanged to provide protection for society is not facing the realities of the situation. I know of no evidence that a person in this group has ever committed an offence of that calibre for the second time in this country.
These statistics, like all statistics, are very confusing but they do indicate clearly that there is an increase in violence in society, but in proportional terms, not for premeditated murder. Therefore capital punishment, although it may be desirable to some, will certainly not be a solution to the problem of violence in society.
Now let us for a moment take a look at the bare facts in relation to a new look at what the government's response has been to the perceived problem of the public in our society. Let us look briefly at the new peace and security

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
package the government has presented. There are three bills that have been introduced to deal with these questions. Capital punishment must be viewed in the light of these proposals taken as a whole because they constitute a package to deal with this central question.
Bill C-71, dealing with bail reform, switches the onus so that under this legislation the individual must now prove that he will not constitute a threat to society after release on bail. I think this is a welcome change which gives a great deal of protection to citizens in our society against dangerous criminals who might be too readily released on bail.
Bill C-83, which is presently before the standing committee, deals with the following items. First gun control is invoked, consisting of licensing of all gun users. I am not saying this bill is perfect but I support its central thrust of making sure that guns are not given to people or may not be purchased by people who are mentally deranged, have a history of violence in our society, or who perhaps have been regular abusers of drugs or alcohol and so on. I made a speech on gun control only a few days ago in the House of Commons and indicated my concern about that legislation. Therefore I shall not go into the subject further now.
Second, Bill C-83 deals with crime inquiries on the provincial level which are now being authorized through this legislation to fight organized crime in a more effective way. I think that is a responsible response.
We have further expanded detection and electronic surveillance to allow additional police powers so that we can deal further with organized crime. Dangerous offenders who may constitute a threat to the safety of the public are now subject to indeterminate sentences so that they will not be re-released into society if they continue to constitute a threat to the safety of the public.
There is also a broadening of the activities in relation to crime prevention and the imposition on all levels of government of stronger measures to ensure adequate custody and safe technique for release of inmates.
Bill C-84, with which we are dealing now, essentially covers the question of capital punishment, treason, and other offences of that nature. It deals with the problem in the following ways. First, first degree murder is redefined with a penalty of life imprisonment and with no eligibility for parole in less than 25 years.
Second, in respect to first degree murder, the judiciary may recommend a reduction of the non-parole period to a point not less than 15 years.
Third, community membership is proposed to be included on the Parole Board in the determination of whether an inmate will be released on parole into a given community situation.
Fourth, first degree murder is defined as premeditated, and in addition to that, any homicide relating to police officers or prison guards, or murder committed together with hijacking, kidnapping, rape or indecent assault. All other murders will be considered second degree murder. The penalty here is also life imprisonment with no parole eligibility in less than ten years, and the court is entitled to

extend this period to a point not exceeding 25 years if it believes it is in the public interest.
In so far as temporary leaves and absences, day paroles from prisons and so on are concerned, those sentenced to life imprisonment will not be eligible for parole except in the last three years of their non-eligibility for parole period. In addition there will be a mandatory one to fourteen years added on for anyone convicted of a crime committed with the use of firearms. That is over and above the penalty they would normally receive for the original offence.
The next point I want to talk about for a moment is the feeling that so many have that our prisons are insecure and that the amount of time served by people in prison has become less and less over the past few years. I myself was surprised to learn that during the period from 1961 to 1968 those who had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment had served an average of 12 years in prison. Those who had been sentenced to life imprisonment served an average of 6.2 years. However, during the Trudeau administration, from 1968 to 1974 those who had their sentence of death reduced by commutation served 13.2 years, which is more than such persons served in the preceding period prior to this government coming into office.
Those who had been sentenced to life terms also served more time than the same group during the period from 1961 to 1968 because the time they spent in prison went up from 6.2 to 7.7 years.
Let us look at the proposed legislation with regard to the time a person will in fact spend in prison. Those convicted of first degree murder will spend up to 25 years in prison instead of 13.2 years, unless a judicial review proposes to reduce the pre-parole period to less than 25 years, but more than 15 years, and the Parole Board agrees. That is a very substantial change. In the case of those sentenced to life imprisonment the 7.7 years actually served in the period from 1968 to 1974 will become never less than 10 and could go up to 25 years. I think that this illustrates to the public that their perception of this government being soft in terms of length of time being served by those convicted of criminal offences simply does not wash.
These are tough measures to combat crime in Canada, particularly violent crime, and I basically support them. However, there is still more to be done, particularly with respect to uprooting and eliminating the underlying causes of crime in society.
I should like to make a few brief comments about capital punishment per se. First, I am not opposed to capital punishment in principle. To vote for capital punishment would not in any way offend my conscience. I understand that a large percentage of those who are opposed to capital punishment oppose it because of some deep philosophical or theological reason. I believe, without any doubt in my mind, that the state clearly has the right to impose capital punishment if the protection of society genuinely requires it. The question is, to be adequately protected, does society require capital punishment? My position is a more pragmatic one based on my considered reason and judgment. My judgment is based on research and a careful consideration of the arguments which have been put forward by those who advocate capital punishment.
May 5, 1976

My opposition to capital punishment is based on several considerations. First, in my judgment capital punishment does not provide a deterrent against murder. Statistics neither prove nor disprove this statement. It seems to me that the burden of proof rests on those who think it is a deterrent when they are asking society to take another person's life. Second, no state should impose a penalty more severe than is required to protect the integrity of the state or the safety of its citizens. Capital punishment violates this principle. Third, capital punishment as a mandatory sentence for first degree murder would limit the number of convictions and result in more murderers being free in our society than would ever happen without capital punishment.
Fourth, statistics clearly show that our judicial system is fallible and that the risk of hanging innocent persons is too great. I think there has always been a presumption that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to incarcerate or hang an innocent one. I think that is fundamental to our whole institution and system of justice.
Fifth, the retention of the death penalty will create the false expectation that we will reduce the incidence of violence in our society, and I just do not believe that is true. Sixth, the retention of the death penalty will divert public attention away from determining ways and means of identifying and eliminating conditions which give rise to violence. Seventh, the state will not create in society an abhorrence for violence by resorting to such methods itself under the guise of protecting society.
In my view this new peace and security legislation which I have briefly detailed in my speech is a more reasonable and responsible approach toward the reduction of violent crime in society than the death penalty could ever hope to be. This new package will maximize protection for society as a whole, provide a more meaningful deterrent against crime in society and should eliminate the anxiety of many of our citizens respecting law and order.
As I have said, a great deal still has to be done to restore confidence in the law itself, its enforcement agencies and our judicial system. As parliamentarians all we can do is make value judgments and hope that the legislation we pass is sound, reasonable, and effective. We all know that such laws are not carved in stone, and if further changes need to be made the future will give us an opportunity to make them.
Many will be disappointed if the death penalty is eliminated, but I am confident that they are basically reasonable people and that they will support this proposed legislation and give it a fair and reasonable trial.
This new package is tough law, probably as tough, if not tougher, than criminal law in the vast majority of civilized nations. It substantially corrects the abuses of the past and significantly provides greater protection for the future.
In light of the present evidence and the arguments I have heard I am persuaded to believe that the broad public interest would be best served by the abolition of capital punishment and the passage of the two bills we have before the House and the committee to restore in our society the kind of law, order, and protection for our citizens which all of them expect and have a right to receive.
Capital Punishment


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed by the words of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), and certainly by the number of factors he put before the House in the last few minutes with respect to the arguments which he saw as being of a pragmatic nature, as he indicated, leading him to believe that the abolition of the death penalty should now be finally approved.
I hope to keep brief the main substance of my remarks because I think the nature of this debate is such that it will be important that many hon. members can take part in the discussion. As a member who has taken part in at least two previous debates on this subject, there may be a number of other members on both sides of the House who would question whether I had anything of a substantial nature to contribute-


Mr. Chretien:: Just give us the page numbers.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I could give the page numbers and let the minister go back and read the speeches. Perhaps they are better. I think there are a couple of misconceptions which are new, however, and I want to deal with them. There are also two basic aspects of what we are faced with in the legislation which I hope to touch on, perhaps by way of emphasis rather than with new material.
First of all we have to look at the context in which we approach the present debate. I know the debate is theoretically, and I suppose legally, on the subject of whether we will abolish the death penalty. As hon. members and the public realize, this is increasingly becoming a kind of theoretical issue. Since December, 1962, a large segment of the general public realizes that we have had a de facto abolition of the death penalty, and there have been many requests, petitions, letters and statements with regard to reinstitution of the death penalty. We should face the fact, however, that for well over a decade it has been accepted that the death penalty has not really been an option either in the minds of the courts or in any other aspect of the criminal justice system.
There is a real danger in having an unreal discussion, as if we were going to start something new next week or next month and have not had almost a decade and half experience with it already. That experience should quieten to a degree some of the hysteria about the great danger to society if capital punishment is abolished. Through a decade and a half of abolition I do not think people have been terrorized in the streets.
I have been increasingly impressed by the high degree of acceptance in Canadian society, compared to a great many other countries in the world, of the security that exists here. It is true that individual instances of violent behaviour are reported from time to time and that, particularly in urban areas, there has been some intimidation that tends to make people fearful. I am very much inclined to the view of the previous speaker, however, that we are in much greater danger of being terrorized by the kinds of violence portrayed on television and in the media, and by

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
the kind of reports that come to us from time to time of brutal and tragic crimes.
By and large Canadians are a law-abiding people. The de facto experience we have had for almost a decade and a half has not greatly endangered Canadian society. It can be argued that the very fact that there has been a gradual understanding of and experience with de facto abolition has led some people to realize that there is perhaps more to be gained by declaring once and for all that capital punishment is not acceptable than there is by lingering in the kind of twilight zone that faces us under the present law.
Second, there have been growing comments and criticisms in recent years about the government not obeying the law. I have heard that somehow or other, with the partial abolition established in 1967, and renewed in 1973 for a second five year period, the government had failed to obey the law. Having passed a law to the effect that capital murder is now confined to the killing of a police officer or prison guard, persons who were convicted of those charges were not executed and so people felt the government had failed to live up to its responsibility. I find this very strange on a number of points.
The practice of commutation by the cabinet did not commence in 1967 or 1960; as hon. members know, it goes back beyond the history of our country. Even before the new act was proclaimed in 1968 there were many more commutations under the old law. Before the act came into effect in 1968, 17 people received commutations under the old law but the government has not been criticized for that. Since enactment of the new law in 1968 only five commutations have taken place. I am concerned that members of the government have done so little to explain this to the people who do not realize the difference between what the law states in regard to sentences for particular crime and the responsibilities of the government and of the monarch in the circumstances.
According to the 1975 version of "Martin's Criminal Code," Article 684 (1) states:
The Governor in Council may commute a sentence of death to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, or for any term of years not less than two years, or to imprisonment in a prison other than a penitentiary for a period of less than two years.
That states very clearly that in each and every case of a capital sentence the government not only has the right, it has the duty to make a decision whether it will allow the sentence of death to stand. In the five instances since the new law came into effect in 1968 the government said in effect it would commute in almost every instance to life imprisonment. As has been said by the previous speaker, this has usually resulted in longer sentences than were imposed prior to that time.
It seems to me that when the public or individuals complain the government has not obeyed the law, it is because they do not understand the law. The law makes it clear that the government has an obligation to consider commutation in each and every case. If that were not sufficient, according to "Martin's Criminal Code" article 686 states:
Nothing in this act in any manner limits or affects Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
This means quite simply that since 1968 if people wish they can criticize the judgment of the government on whether in each and every instance it should have exercised commutation. I think it is really playing fast and loose with the truth, however, to say that the government has not obeyed the law in those instances. If there are members in this Chamber who take that view I would point out that by the end of the first five year period in 1973 when no executions had taken place under the partial ban of 1967, I do not recall that any individual member advocated or put forward an amendment for the removal of article 684. Considering the number of lawyers we have as members of the House I am surprised that no one has challenged the legality of the government's action in the courts. If there are some who feel the government has not acted according to the law, let them take the matter to the courts and have it resolved. I just make those two points by way of introduction, Mr. Speaker.
I want to come now to the central part of the consideration of what is before us in this bill. First let me say I am delighted that the government has finally taken the issue in hand to make de jure what has been a de facto situation for about 14 years, that of abolishing the death penalty once and for all. I realize the government has in some ways created some difficulty for itself in doing this.
While having exonerated it to some degree with respect to its actions under the law, I take strong issue in terms of tying in with this abolition the punitive and, frankly, irresponsible aspect with regard to sentence which is related to this abolition of the death penalty. I find it difficult to believe that the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), their colleagues and advisers spent very much time talking to the people involved in the criminal justice system, particularly the penitentiary system, with regard to the implications of this part of the act in terms of its acceptability, enforceability, viability and, perhaps most important, the aspect of security for the Canadian public.
Many members here have had the opportunity to examine in some detail our present penitentiary system. It is not a happy situation. I am sure many on both sides of the House will admit that the reason we have a high rate of recidivism is, indeed, the whole penitentiary system. However, to argue in this legislation that we can trade-off the removal of one barbarous, cruel, and unacceptable form of punishment for one that is not equally as bad but is certainly moving in that direction, I find the rationale difficult if not impossible to understand.
I believe that the government has in a sense weakened its own presentation by representing to us in this bill the fact that the real protection is to ensure the people are locked up for such an enormous length of time that they will never be in a position to again be at large and be able to commit a subsequent and similar crime.
I do not have to quote statistics to the minister. However, they indicate to a very large degree that people who serve prison terms for capital crimes in many instances offer some real hope and possibility of rehabilitation. However, by this particular approach we even deny that to be a fact. While the substance of abolition is fundamental and I

May 5, 1976

support it, I hope that the unrewarding approach with respect to sentencing is reviewed, both in the context of when this bill goes to committee and subsequently. If the Solicitor General and the government maintain this position with respect to the totality of this bill, I believe that subsequent Ministers of Justice or Solicitors General will have to revise that aspect of it accordingly.
I want to come to the two points that concern me on the basic issue of whether members of parliament should finally make the decision to abolish the death penalty. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) stated quite clearly that there is a basic assumption about the utility of the death penalty which I have never been able to accept even for an instant. It is that the level of certain offences must have a penalty so serious that there can be no doubt in the minds of a possible offender, or those who have already committed a crime, about just how seriously the government and the general public treat these kinds of activities on the part of an individual or a group of individuals.
If one takes that position, and I know that quite a few people do, I find it difficult to accept that the adoption by the state of a means of violence, the most total we can think of, that of taking a human life, will somehow set an example that society should subsequently emulate. I find this a totally illogical position, certainly illogical for the vast majority of the general public who to try to believe that governments have great responsibility to set an example in terms of normative and responsible public behaviour.
If we as members of parliament, individually and collectively, believe that one of the greatest if not the greatest offence that any individual can commit is the taking of another human life, what is the rationale that would allow us, for reasons of some kind of justice or working of the law, to commit that very same offence? It is true we would do it under certain accepted guidelines, principles, procedures and tests of validity. However, if we believe that when an individual or group of individuals commit a murder the state must emulate that, I find that the most faulty and self-defeating kind of reasoning imaginable. In fact I would have to say that the use of capital punishment by the state is a final and total admission of failure.
I am not anxious for our government or any government to be committed continually to what I can only see as a total admission or irresponsibility and failure. That is why it is so important that members of parliament representing the general public not fall into that trap. More than that, beyond the argument some people make for the legitimate use of state violence there is the motivation that has to be put on the table before us this afternoon.
The day before yesterday, the day we began this debate, I had a journalist in my office interviewing me about something totally removed from capital punishment. We got on to capital punishment because it is a subject that people seem to talk about very easily. She told me of an experience she had. She said she had recently been visiting in a jail. She ran up against a situation where a criminal who had been locked up got hold of a gun and shot a guard. She said she previously had no feelings one way or another about the question of capital punishment, but when she really got angry and thought about this criminal shooting the guard, she felt there was only one thing good enough for that individual and that was capital punishment. When
Capital Punishment
I asked her whether she came to that conclusion because she saw this as a question of justice or a question of deterrent or revenge, quick as a whip she replied "revenge, what else?"
It is not a pleasant quality in the human make-up, but we mislead ourselves if we believe there is not in all of us a quality or at least a possibility of wanting to retaliate. I am no different from anyone else. When I read of a brutal slaying of an innocent child, the taking of a life that appears senseless, stupid and tragic, my immediate reaction is one of simple blind retaliation, the desire for revenge against the individual who has been so sick as to steal the life of a fellow human being. However, simply because I have that motivation of revenge does not in any way justify it being an acceptable principle, or position for the state on which to operate.
I have to say that to the degree that we, any of us, allow ourselves to operate on that basis, we are not asking for the good order of society, to the degree that we want to see some element of retaliation or revenge. There is far too much of that in our whole prison system today. To the degree we respond to that and allow it to motivate us in establishing guidelines to social responsibility we are not seeking really to provide some framework of order and security; we are really asking for some kind of return to the law of the jungle and anarchy. That is always a possibility. No society, no community can ever say it has arrived. We have been exposed to enough tragic experiences in this century to realize this is always a danger we face.
This brings me to the final point I want to make this afternoon. It is really the basic point I want to make. I went back and looked at the speeches I made previously. I tried to say it before, but now I see it more clearly perhaps-this is one of the advantages to debating this thing once every two or three years-you finally come down to what is the essential position that you must adopt.
I think there is an essential issue here that all of us have to face. It isn't the question which has been raised-as a matter of fact, I raised it myself ten years ago-about whether the state had the right to take a life. That was mentioned, I think, just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Ontario. I suppose that in a theoretical sense the state always has that right, but that is not really the issue we face here. It is not even the question of deterrence, because as has been pointed out we are dealing here with the human animal and we have not reached the level of sophistication where we can quantify the basis on which individuals make decisions and commit actions. God help us if we ever think we have arrived at that point. We are not going to solve it on the basis of the theoretical right of the state to take a life, or the more subjective analysis of statistics and psycho-analysis which might come into play in this modern age with respect to deterrence.
To my mind the basic issue is the whole question of our respect for human life. If I am asked to say on what basis I make a decision to abolish the death penalty today, I have to answer that it is because capital punishment is no solution at all. In fact the very desire to retain the death penalty is in itself a great affront to any individual who believes there is no higher value, in an absolute sense in

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
terms of the duty of the state, than that of preserving human life. My goodness, I really should not have to say that in this Chamber where we vote billions of dollars each year to enhance, protect or secure human life through various health and welfare programs and a whole variety of laws and regulations.
If we really believe that central to our responsibility as legislators is the enhancement and protection of human life, I know no justification for saying that somehow or other some people can be used as a kind of means to an end. I have heard the rationale many times that it is an acceptable principle-I have heard it advanced many times in this debate-that from time to time certain individuals should be executed as an example, as a deterrent against the future kind of crimes we want to avoid. What this says to me is that some people, a few people, not very many people, perhaps only two or three, or five or ten, can be used as a means to a greater good. I find this not only misleading but dangerous.


An hon. Member:: Hitler said that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Thank you. I am grateful for that comment because it is exactly what I am trying to say. I do not want to use that kind of scare tactic here but there is not that long a connection.
When you make the argument that certain people in a society are expendable, for whatever reason, then it is not too long a trip to say that perhaps a number of people are expendable. We live in a time when we are being told continually there are all kinds of goals we should be achieving.
We live in a time in which sometimes when we analyse our economic and social situations we tend to look at people as one of the factors in an over-all system, as one of the factors in production, for example, as one of the commodities to be manipulated or induced to take a particular action from the standpoint, say, of monopolies or of large-scale industry. There is a terrible danger and pressure, right now, in our time because of the corporate strength of institutions to manipulate and abuse and mislead people for some purpose, whether it is for the maximization of profits, or large corporate growth, or national prestige. If we succumb to any one of these pressures we will, of course, be providing for ourselves the most inhuman kind of society possible.
I do not apologize for the time spent in the House debating the issue of capital punishment because to me it is a cornerstone for the appreciation of human beings, men and women both individually and collectively, and if even to some small degree we can say there are certain basic principles on which the state operates, that we have a certain basic view of man that says he cannot be a means to an end, that man is always an end in himself, then we cannot even for the sake of justice think of manipulating and abusing and occasionally executing people, we will have made some small advance in the nature of our society.
What I am saying to members on both sides of the House today and to the general public is that I believe that it is terribly vital for the future sense of responsibility, security, and most of all for human dignity that we should not allow to exist in our country, and presumably as an example to other countries, not continue even in a kind of de

jure sense, the option of the state for capital punishment. It is clear to me that we must once and for all reject the notion that people, no matter who those people may be, can be expendable. We as a state are committed in the most basic way possible to the enhancement and preservation of human life.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) who, in the name of the right to live, the dignity of life, suggests that nobody, especially members of parliament, should legislate to maintain death penalty. Bill C-84 has given rise to many comments throughout Canada. In some areas of the country, some people advocate the abolition of the death penalty or the passage of Bill C-84, while in others, in my opinion, the controversy is somewhat general and represents about the same percentage across the country.
When the hon. member for Egmont says that, from a Christian point of view, we cannot interfere with a human life, I ask him then why we have jails in Canada. Why send anyone to jail? Is life emprisonment so much better than the method advocated to get rid of criminals and murderers, not necessarily in a spirit of revenge but out of respect for law and order? This is still important. When we see a red light on a street corner, it does not mean to go ahead but to stop. Someone may go ahead just the same, but at his own risk. If a car drives through the green light in the other direction, the person that voluntarily crossed the road on the red light may be killed. The red light does not say: You are going to be killed. It says: Stop. I think that capital punishment is the red light that says: You have no right to kill. If someone kills just the same, let him suffer the consequences of his action.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that capital punishment is a controversial issue throughout Canada and public opinion is almost equally divided. We are discussing Bill C-84 and the freedom of the members to vote for or against it. However, we feel that some instructions are given in spite of the free vote. For instance, Liberals who are retentionist are advised to stay home when the vote is taken in the House. The same thing might happen on the Progressive Conservative side, because in the present situation, people are well posted after reading press reports. The Progressive Conservatives are divided. Some are retentionists, others are abolitionists. On the Liberal side, it is the same thing: Some are abolitionists like the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They want Bill C-84 to become the law of the land. As far as the New Democrats are concerned, they are for the complete abolition of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the pressures exerted by various organizations, not only policemen but public organizations throughout Canada, the Solicitor General sticks to his guns. He is an out-and-out abolitionist even at the cost of his seat if the government should fail to support him. Mr. Speaker, as I already suggested in this House several times, why not hold a referendum on Bill C-84 concerning the abolition of capital punishment?
I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister and the Solicitor General are opposed to a referendum because they are
May 5, 1976

afraid to go to the people. And yet they pretend to be the people's representatives. They tell us how much they like the people. But when time comes to consult Canadians on such a serious matter as capital punishment, the Solicitor General says: If capital punishment is not abolished, I will resign. I say to him that he does not even have the guts nor the slightest desire to resign because this is exactly what the people of Canada would want him to do right now. And I say that the people's attitude is not totally prompted by a desire for revenge, it is not so. On the contrary, they want to maintain capital punishment for the sake of justice.


An hon. Member:: But it is for the protection of honest people.


David Réal Caouette: As I often said, we must determine whether society must be protected against criminals or criminals against society. This is the question we must ask ourselves today.
In the correspondence we get from Canadians of all regions we see they are in favour of maintaining capital punishment. Last fall, I attended hot line programs in Montreal, Edmonton and Toronto, and people were calling me from everywhere, asking me questions and giving me their views-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Justice on a point of order.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I understand that the hon. member has just attacked and commented on the absence from the House this afternoon of my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). May I point out that while the bill is in his name I am here in the House as Minister of Justice representing both myself and the Solicitor General, who is in Montreal on parliamentary business meeting with various groups concerned with gun legislation, which is certainly no exhibition of a lack of courage.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I see some wise guys applauding over there. That does not change anything at all because the Minister of Justice is just as responsible for the bill as is the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General was here just 15 minutes ago with a motorcycle leather jacket, and was listening to the hon. member who spoke before me. If, on the other hand, the Minister of Justice wants to put on the hat, if it fits him, let him do so, I have no objections, but I want to continue my remarks and talk about the Solicitor General who will still have the right to speak when he comes back to the House if he is held up in Montreal today. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we received petitions, recommendations and suggestions from different intermediary bodies, and also from police forces. That the Minister of Justice knows, and so does the Solicitor General.
I have here, for example-and it is not so old, May 3, 1976, when the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association questioned 68,705 people and asked the question No. 1 in that letter. I believe that other members in the House received it also. It is a letter from Sid Brown, president of
Capital Punishment
the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. Here are the questions and answers. The first question is as follows:

Should capital punishment be retained only for the murder of on-duty police officers and prison guards?

The answers were as follow:
Yes: 4,855 No: 55,425
Not only for policemen and guards. Let us move now to question No. 2:

For the murder of any citizen during the commission of an intended or planned crime?

Capital punishment for those people. That is the answer of the public.
The public's answer: Yes, 55,374, to maintain capital punishment for premeditated murder; No, 8,516. That represents quite a large majority, almost 80 per cent and even more than 80 per cent.
Question No. 3:

Should the capital punishment issue be decided by a national vote of the Canadian people?

By referendum: Yes, 55,282; No, 3,444. So it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that those people here-the policemen's association-are in favour of maintaining capital punishment. Question No. 4:

Are you opposed to capital punishment because of the method of execution used (hanging)?

Yes, 9,954 are against the hanging method but 44,258 who do not care about the way the murderer is executed, but about the execution of the murderer convicted of abominable, premeditated murder.
By the way, I might say here that we do not want to see capital punishment imposed as it was 50 or 40 years ago because at that time you ran the risk of hanging an innocent person, a man who was not responsible. But we say that in all cases of premeditated murder, when we are absolutely sure of the guilt, then capital punishment should be maintained. In all other cases we should have imprisonment sentences, but let no one suggest or make us believe that we are again going to hang innocents. The Minister of Justice knows what we mean and he knows that we absolutely refuse to hang any person when we are not absolutely sure that he is guilty. We do not want to take any risk. The case must be clear, obvious and definite.
Furthermore, we are not the only ones in this House to take a similar position. Montreal and Toronto newspapers take the same position too. However, some people in Canada do not behave this way, they go against the whole world: the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister of Canada and some Progressive Conservatives. As for the New Democrats, they are always in favour of capital punishment. They are so illogical that they are in

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
favour of abortion too, in favour of killing an infant even before its birth. But once it is born, it's a different matter. The murderer who kills his victim should not be touched. This is their overall, their general policy: Kill the innocent and let the criminals, the bandits, the murderers live.
Mr. Speaker, we are not very much in favour of this theory. Now I come to Question No. 4, where 44,000 persons answer that it is not the method used which makes them endorse capital punishment in Canada. Question No. 5, I ask which method would you use? Some choose the electric chair. Others suggest the gas chamber, others poison. They suggest giving poison to an individual as you give poison to a dog; or the firing squad-


Mr. Benjamin:: How about drawing and quartering?


David Réal Caouette: I will send them to you.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Let them spend an hour or two in the House!


David Réal Caouette: Excuse me, I did not hear.


Mr. Gendron:: Let them spend an hour or two in the House!


David Réal Caouette: My hon. friend might settle the matter during the next elections, he needs only stay home.
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 6:

"If you are opposed to capital punishment in any form what alternative punishment would you prescribe?"

The answer of the public: 168 suggest rehabilitation treatments and psychiatric treatments; no parole, 1712 and parole, 194. That is not really much out of a total number of 68,745. Here, 87.6 per cent of the answers are favorable to capital punishment.
When the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice goes to his riding in Vancouver for instance to speak about abolition, I receive dozen of letters from British Columbia people who ask that capital punishment be maintained. Lately I made a sort of survey in my riding and I sent a questionnaire to all residents, not only to people I knew but to everyone. Out of 813 answers from my riding, 86.9 per cent were in favour of capital punishment. When I talk opinions throughout the country, it is about the same thing: in Toronto this percentage was very much the same-87.6 per cent; in my riding it is 86.9 per cent and in Montreal there are ridings where this figure is even higher with 86 or 87 per cent in favour of capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, while we face all these demands and all these suggestions, we have here in Parliament a government and minister who present to the House a bill such as Bill C-84. I think honestly and sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, that these people should resign to make room

for others so that we have here people who truly represent the opinions expressed by their constituents and the Canadian people. I have heard the Solicitor General repeat often that there are means other than capital punishment to protect our society. I am still waiting for these means which will protect our society. In Montreal, I do not know how many murders we have had since the beginning of the year and one hears here in the House about ways and means to rehabilitate criminals. We let a murderer loose in the street, he kills or he perpetrates a hold up. Just recently a murderer who had been sentenced to life imprisonment was released and soon afterwards was again arrested after a holdup. The judges and the lawyers do not know what to do with this kind of situation.
Recently, there was the case of a youth of 14 who had not been sentenced to death but had committed a holdup in a small shop with a loaded gun. The owner defended himself and killed the youth of 14. But then the judge gave him a lecture saying: "Do not you think that for a theft of $40 you went just a little too far. It is the judge's intelligence which dictated those words to him. If the amount stolen had been $40,000, that would have been beter. It is not the amount of dollars stolen from the grocer which is important but the fact that the young boy was armed to the teeth. If the small shopkeeper had not defended himself, he would have been killed. But the judge did not think of that. "Do you not think that for $40 you went just a little too far?" Our judges must be naive to say that in court to someone who tried to save himself but is treated like an idiot by a judge who thought himself intelligent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I shall be charged with contempt of court, but if the judge finds that the shoe, fits, let him wear it. There is a limit, after all. The police are hindered, they have to cope with gangsters all year long. One is arrested, put into prison, two hours later he is out on bail. He is charged with murder, but is told: Your trial will take place only in July, so you are released. Give us $25,000 bail on property or ask your aunt or uncle to sign the form. You meet the guy on the same street, the same sidewalk, in front of the same policemen. What happens? We see what happens in Montreal. Montreal is not the only city.


An hon. Member:: That is most exaggerated.


David Réal Caouette: No! Listen to that, "exaggerated". Come with me and I will show you.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for I do not know which constituency does not know that these guys are released almost immediately after they are arrested. Young offenders do not stay two hours in prison after robbing right and left, sometimes ten or twelve times in a row. They are brought before the court, and they are told immediately: For rehabilitation, we take your word. Do not commit the same offences! And he is immediately sent back in to the streets.
Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about Montreal but the same happens in Toronto. We find the same thing in Regina and Vancouver. There is a shortage of justice at the present time. We pass-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a murder charge?
May 5, 1976


David Réal Caouette: We pass-Any charge! We pass regulations, we pass laws and the governments are first in failing to enforce them. We have seen this! These days, especially in Montreal, since it is in our province, we hear every morning, on the radio, on all open-line programs, people objecting to the abolition of capital punishment not because they want vengeance, but because they want justice. They are afraid to walk freely on Sainte-Catherine street or any other street in Montreal. The representatives of Montreal ridings know it. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) knows it. Everyone complains and here, in Parliament, the Solicitor General, who comes from Montreal and is aware of it, would, if he took a referendum or made a survey in his own riding, obtain exactly the same results as we do. But he persists in saying: I favour the abolition of capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the surveys made among members of Parliament. In La Presse, in an article by Andre Ouimet, in the Parliamentary Bureau, in the Ottawa Journal, we find the following:
Death penalty will be abolished
This shows the results obtained after interviews with members of parliament. This article says, and I quote: [English]
A recent Gallup Poll showed that 69 per cent of Canadians surveyed favoured a complete return to the death penalty-not only for murdering prison guards and policemen but also 'any innocent person.'

This has been done here in Ottawa, and everywhere in Canada we have obtained 69 per cent. In fact it is 70 per cent; I would say it is more than that, it is 86, 87 per cent. Mr. Speaker, why is the government afraid of the referendum? Because it knows it would be beaten on that issue. We have here a letter from a concerned Canadian from Edmonton in Alberta who is in favour of maintaining capital punishment. This letter originates from Mr. M. Marleau from Edmonton. The Solicitor General has a copy of it. This letter states: "Mr. Stanfield knows Peter Lough-eed". It is addressed to the Attorney General of Alberta, to the RCMP Commissioner, to Chief Constable R. Lunney, and to myself. Here again, it states clearly-


An hon. Member:: You are important!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, that is right! But I am telling you about it because if you are not hitting the headlines, you will at least know what those who do receive on the Liberal side. Mr. Speaker, about letters and articles in favour of maintaining the capital punishment, I have a letter here from Sudbury, Ontario. It is not far from the place of one NDP member. I have another one from New Westminster in British Columbia, Dr. Calverly who says:

Dear Sir:
We are trying to recommend that you decide upon and vote in favor of retention of the death penalty. We also recommend that you use your influence to ensure that it is implemented where there are no extenuating circumstances to warrant stay of execution.

He even is against changing rulings, against exemptions.
Capital Punishment

More humane and acceptable methods than hanging should also be considered.

He is against hanging but for capital punishment.

Both of us were born and grew up in the heartland of Canada. We are well qualified psychiatrists who have spent the past twenty-five years interviewing and treating Canadians from all walks of life. We feel that this background and experience qualifies us to offer you an opinion on this subject, and that we have both a professional and social responsibility to do so.

Mr. Speaker, this letter comes from New Westminster, British Columbia. It is signed by Dr. M. O. Calverley and M. R. E. Helgason, also a physician. There are also two psychiatrists-


Mr. Gilbert:: They bury their mistakes.


David Réal Caouette: Oh, yes; you are much better than the doctors in this country. I know they can make mistakes as you are making a mistake right now.

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are always wrong.

You always think you are right but you are never right. Here is a letter addressed to Mr. Real Caouette, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa. It is from a United Church woman.

This one comes from the United Church Women and I am not too sure whether or not the hon. member who spoke before me is not a United Church Women "preacher" as we say.

Dear sir:
I have noticed your excellent stand on behalf of capital punishment and am taking the liberty of sending an extract from the book of Dr. Emil Brunner on the lex talionis. This throws new light on a great law which has been criticized by the abolitionists of the death penalty.
Do you think that a man who herds 30 people into a restaurant closet in Montreal and causes their deaths deserves to go on living?

Mr. Speaker, this letter was dated in late March: Thanking you for your help. She is a member of the United Church Women. I have another one here from the Church of Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada dated April 30 and signed by Mr. Charles Yates, General Secretary, about Bill C-84. He gives a complete list of the various areas where churches are working in cooperation with this one and where they ask for the retention of capital punishment. In the province of Quebec the situation was different. I even think that the synod of Catholic Bishops asked for the abolition of capital punishment. It is their right. As a Catholic, I am for the retention of capital punishment. When I was a little boy at the primary school and later in college I was told that murderers should be hanged, that there was no other solution. It is none of my business if those people changed their minds today but I did not change my mind. I am still convinced-

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment


An hon. Member:: They have become more civilized.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: This is called the degradation of evolution!


David Réal Caouette: This is what degradation of evolution is. We see it in full evolution. We see now what evolution is, with the members of the common front in the province of Quebec. If capital punishment came from them, it would be good but as it does not, it is bad. Inasmuch as their own carcass is preserved, it is right. If by misfortune the carcass is a little disturbed, then they switch, period.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister-

This is a transcript of the Prime Minister's interview with Mark Raines, M.P.

-on February 12, 1976, when the Prime Minister was in British Columbia, he was interviewed on television by Mr. Mark Raines and he said this:

Mark Raines: It's not a crime to murder a politician in cold blood.
Prime Minister: ... or a housewife, a mother of several children. No, I think my position on this, and it may have been misreported, is not one of conscience. I think society has a right to defend itself unto death, just as in self-defence you're allowed to kill somebody who's trying to kill you. If society could only survive by hanging those that were trying to destroy peace and security then it would be permissible.

The Prime Minister said this in British Columbia. Here, in Ottawa and in the province of Quebec he does not say this at all. In the province of Quebec he says: I am in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. In British Columbia, he said to a reporter who was interviewing him:
If it is dangerous for society, I suggest that capital punishment should be reinstated.

But to me that's a practical judgment, as the judges make all the time when one pleads self-defence. If you kill somebody in defence who was only going to box your ears, you know you've used too much force and you're guilty. If you kill somebody in defence who's trying to kill you then you're exonerated. I think society is in the same position. If we hang people who are really destroying a society, then we're allowed to do it.

Mr. Speaker, these days I think that some people, particularly in the common front, should not have it as easy as they do now. When one gets to the point where he challenges the law or tells people: If we do not like the premier of the province of Quebec, we will throw him in the Lachine canal to get rid of him. An exasperated, offended, mad guy who is quite prepared to drown the Quebec premier if he does not win his labour-management dispute against the Quebec government, it is simply anarchy that seems to grow ever stronger in the province of Quebec.
It is unfortunate, but we have come to encourage violence and violence arises from something: a general relaxation of discipline. We have forgotten to enforce the law. Parents are told: Listen, if your children do wrong, do not spank them. Don't! Because this is not a nice way of

punishing them. With all these changes, we have come to the point where children challenge their parents and show total disregard for them, where teachers have no more respect for school boards, where school boards have no desire to respect governments. We are now living in a kind of condoned anarchy, a kind of anarchy that is even encouraged in certain areas by those people who think they represent the public's views.
Mr. Speaker, there is violence on television, in movies, over the radio, in theaters, there is violence left and right. And we wonder why at 12, 13, 15 and 16 our young become so violent. Unless we give our young people principles of public morality, a sense of respect for authority and discipline, certainly our society will not be worth much within 10 years from now.
To uproot violence, there need only be some true respect for the law.
Mr. Speaker, we are living in a violent society where everyone is frightened. Provincial premiers are frightened, in Quebec like everywhere else; ministers are not safe. Threats are made by telephone and by letter. People throw all sorts of things. We see what is happening throughout the world, in Beirut, in Africa, in all countries or nearly all, there is violence, nearly nothing is tolerated, people kill each other.
Here, in Canada, we watch what they do. Everyone admits that these people behave wrongly, that they should not use violence. We admit this, but we let our society go towards exactly the same situation as that which exists in those countries. In Montreal, union leaders like Charbon-neau, Pepin, Laberge and others, or about half a dozen men, are responsible for what is now happening and what will happen in 5 or 10 years. Mr. Speaker, these men have no respect for anyone. They do not respect the law. They do not respect any member of parliament or any politician. Let those people form the government, and then we will see purges the likes of which are seen in the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia and other communist countries.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need those people. We want to protect society. But let us protect this society concretely.
That is why I appeal to the government, to the Minister of Justice and to the Solicitor General not to force the Montreal Liberal backbenchers to hide when the time for voting will come.
In hope that in a month or two when the debate is over people will not run away to Montreal to avoid voting. But I am afraid of that. They call it a free vote to throw dust in the eyes of the people of Canada, but when the time to vote comes, people run away. There is a reception, something here, something there, and they do not vote at all for or against the abolition of capital punishment.
And the people from Montreal, you know, even from Sherbrooke, know quite well that the people are in favour of maintaining capital punishment in a proportion of 80 to 90 per cent. The ministers are under some occult force pushing in favour of abolition of capital punishment- someone is pushing for sure-it is up to us members of Parliament not to push but to face the music. There will be no pushing but let the Liberal members in their caucuses tell the ministers squarely: You people, your Bill C-84 is not going to pass. The election, we will cope with that. It
May 5, 1976

will be a lot easier for you to get reelected by voting against abolition of capital punishment than in favour. It is the same thing for Progressive Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say this: In my party, the Social Credit Party, we are 11 members and we all advocate retention of capital punishment, not in a spirit of vengence, no, but in a spirit of justice. If a man is so heartless as to attack the life of another, he should be prepared to put his own life on the line. He is well aware of the existing law, he knows it, if he wants to defy it, let him pay for the damages, that is justice and order . ..


An hon. Member:: Will you be here to vote?


David Réal Caouette: I hope so. If I am in
hospital, I shall be unable to be here to vote. My hon. friend knows very well that I shall vote to retain capital punishment.


Mr. Pelletier:: That is because you believe it!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, it is because I believe it.


Irénée Pelletier: We can believe something else.


David Réal Caouette: No, you should believe what your constituents tell you to believe. In your riding, 80 per cent of your constituents are in favour of capital punishment.


Irénée Pelletier: We have brains to use them.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I understand. But your voters were not intelligent when they elected you. It is one or the other.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will go back to his riding-he knows full well I am not lying-where his electors are in favour of retaining capital punishment. I am convinced they will watch how he votes in this House. The hon. member is answerable to his electors, not I.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to manage with his electors but I say, in the province of Quebec, the people expect us to vote for retaining the death penalty and I say that, in the other provinces in Canada, in Toronto, in the maritime provinces, even in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta, everywhere, and to the same extent, the people want or recommend retention. That is exactly what we are going to do and I ask hon. members who are really free, to vote for maintaining the death penalty.
Capital Punishment


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite novel to be able to take part in a debate which is entirely non partisan, for a change. I think that is a crucial point to make, especially for this side of the House, because there is considerable opinion throughout the country that this bill to abolish capital punishment is a partisan move by the Liberal Party. Although retentionist resolutions have for many years been rejected by national Liberal conventions, I think that rank and file members of our party throughout the country are seriously divided on the question, at least as divided as hon. members on this side of the House.
The question posed in Bill C-84 is not one of government program and not one in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) are forcing their own convictions down the throats of their colleagues. Rather, it is a question of conscience and a question of moral choice to be exercised in one's own right.
However, I must emphasize one small point of procedure in the debate on this matter which has been alluded to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and was substantiated in the question period today. It is unfortunate that members of the Treasury benches have been denied their right to make this moral choice because of cabinet solidarity. This has tended to confuse public opinion and has tended to give the impression that Bill C-84 is a Liberal bill. As we shall see often in this debate, this will be a very free vote, so free, in fact, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the former leader of the opposition will vote for the bill, along with many of their colleagues. The list of speakers on this bill is long, and like the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) but unlike the hon. member who preceded me, I do not propose to take my full time in the debate.
I should like to deal with two aspects of capital punishment, first in the context of the present social and economic climate, and second with due respect to the hon. member for Egmont, in the context of the rights of the state to exercise absolute power over the life and death of the individual.
Let us look at the current climate upon which present public attitudes toward capital punishment are based. It may be remembered that immediately after the second world war public opinion favouring retention was as high as present polls indicate it is now. And no wonder, for two generations had come to be brutalized by the effects of two world wars. Death on the battlefield, on the seas, and in the skies was an everyday occurrence. The enemy was to be killed; it was a matter of survival.
Capital punishment polls in the late 1940's were a spillover from the hostilities of the war and reflected the cynicism and despair of the era. No wonder that sensitivities to the human condition were blunted.
However, post war prosperity returned Canada to normal. Pockets were full, bellies were full. And we all know, Mr. Speaker, that when one's pockets and one's belly are full, one is more considerate, compassionate and tolerant-considerate, compassionate and tolerant toward all beliefs, to all races, to all creeds, and even tolerant toward

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
deviant behaviour which, I believe we would all agree, has a sociological rather than congenital origin.
Attitudes toward retention of capital punishment softened in the late 1950's and 1960's. Yet over the past few years these attitudes have once again changed. Why? To explain this, Mr. Speaker, one need only read the debates in this House over the past few years.
Our mixed economy, which has been so successful for the past 30 years, has suffered severe reverses. I do not have to dwell upon the evils of stagflation and the pressures of urbanization that have rocked this country of late because the problems are familiar to us all, and all sides of the House have been grappling with their resolution.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that communities or individuals when threatened tend to harden positions, to resent authority, and to disrespect abnormal points of view. This is what has happened in Canada and it is a terrible shame. Despite economic problems, Canada has weathered the storms of the past few years. Unlike some of our major trading partners we have not seen living standards decline, we have not seen massive unemployment, and we have not seen an absolute erosion in investor confidence within our country.
Yet Canadians have become an angry mob and we all know, Mr. Speaker, the dangers of the mob and mob rule- quick response to irrational impulses, lack of mercy and instability prey upon the weaker elements within the society. So we hear cliches like, "There are too many immigrants coming to Canada, too many non-whites"; "Our education system has fallen apart and is producing illiterate and undisciplined students", "The morals of young Canadians are depraved"; "Let's bring back the strap"; "Criminals are running loose on the street"; "It's not safe to go out on the streets at night"; "Criminals in prison are treated like hotel guests"; "M.P.'s are feathering their own nests with a salary increase"; "All politicians are crooks". Mr. Speaker, scapegoats are easy to find in hard times.
Of course protection to the individual in society must be given, as the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has so eloquently stated. Bill C-83, now before the committee, is a step toward improving that protection for all Canadians.
The popular view in my constituency and the Toronto area in general is to put the question of capital punishment to a national referendum. This would certainly mean rule by the people in the literal sense; but the passions of the people run high. For me, the spectre of the disorder on the streets of Paris in 1792-94 develops in the scenario of a nation governed by referenda.
Countries that revert to putting questions to referenda often find that more problems are created than are solved. The Canadian referendum of 1944 on the conscription issue intensified racial and regional opinion and created tremendous difficulties, difficulties which were only spared the government by the conclusion of the war. The same analogy may be drawn with the 1975 United Kingdom referendum on the European Common Market, and the recent Italian referenda on divorce and abortion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it could be argued that the results of the recent Italian referenda have helped to destroy the unity of the

Christian Democratic party and precipitated the present political instability in Italy.
Like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) I will take my chances with the theory of representation as clearly enunciated by Mr. Edmund Burke, and followed by many politicians in this House and the British House over the past 200 years.
To summarize my first point, I believe the present hawkish attitude toward capital punishment is a product of the social and economic environment in which we now find ourselves. Of course there are those who are for retention as a result of conviction, but there are those in the Chamber who are being stampeded by opinion polls and constituency surveys. These members are doing the community an injustice. More than that, positions of convenience betray the very ethics and essence of the high office to which we in this Chamber are elected. No, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is right-our efforts must be directed to better protection of the individual and property, better methods of crime detection, and further empirical research on the psychological and sociological courses of crime.
The second aspect of capital punishment with which I propose to deal is to put the matter in the context of the state's right to have absolute power over the life and death of the individual in society.
The state embodies the collective will, but it must be remembered that in the final analysis each individual will is paramount. The ultimate responsibility of the state is to protect the rights, the person, and the property of each of its constituent members. The fundamental right of each individual in society is the right to life, and any abrogation of that right must be rare and impeccably justified, not only in criminal law but in natural law.
History is littered with examples of tyranny by the state. The power of the state is omnipotent and must be checked at every turn. Even in this great country, the state's record has not been unblemished when it comes to protecting the rights of the individual. Look at the treatment of our native population, the treatment of aliens in the second world war, and more recently the War Measures Act.
The state on short notice can become the most ruthless element of repression; the state that can legally terminate the life of a criminal can, under duress, terminate the lives of other socially "unacceptable" people. Look around the world, look at Greece under the generals, Brazil, Chile, Cambodia, Rhodesia-the globe is rife with regimes that commit repression and assassination in the name of the state. Look back 40 years and see the extermination in the Nazi death camps, legitimized by a frenzied whipping up of the collective will.
I know the immediate response to these arguments is, "Oh, that can't happen in Canada". Those who believe this wear blinkers and have no appreciation of history. Think of Argentina, the most sophisticated of Latin American countries 30 or 40 years ago and look at her now-rampant political kidnapping and assassination-the politics of witchcraft. Think of Lebanon-only three or four years ago-the progressive, economically vibrant outpost in the Middle East, shattered by internecine struggle-jungle warfare in concrete urban canyons, moods can change overnight. No, Mr. Speaker, democracy and respect of
May 5, 1976

individual rights require constant vigilance. The state that can kill one of its own once can kill a thousand times thereafter.
At the risk of digressing somewhat from the actual provisions of the bill, I should like to argue further that the abolition of capital punishment and its inherent implication of sanctifying the right to life can be linked to another question that is currently before the nation and another that is waiting on the political doorstep. I refer of course to the questions of abortion and euthanasia. I do not want to go into the substance of these questions, but merely point out the principle involved in abortion and euthanasia in my mind is the same as the principle involved in the matter of capital punishment-the right of society to make a subjective moral judgment as to the value of continuation or termination of a life. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely against euthanasia for any reason, and abortion as a method of birth control by the parent or the state. Furthermore in each of the three issues the possibility of any metaphysical factor cannot be discounted, cannot be disproved, and as with our concept of justice must be given the benefit of the doubt unless otherwise established.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that although I have tried to take a fresh approach to the question of capital punishment, that does not mean that I do not agree with the standard abolitionist arguments as admirably spelled out by the Solicitor General, my colleagues, the hon. member for Ontario, the hon. member for Egmont, and the hon. member for Greenwood. Capital punishment is not a deterrent; the possibilities of an irreversible injustice are real; and the existence of the "final solution" intimidates juries in capital cases, resulting in the unjust mitigation of sentences and even outright acquittal. I therefore support this bill wholeheartedly.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke on the capital punishment issue in this House on May 22, 1973, I supported the extension of the trial period of partial abolition for a second five-year term ending in 1977. That trial period will not end for 20 months. Now we are suddenly confronted with a bill that would abolish the death penalty completely. It is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of the trial period since the federal cabinet, in commuting every death sentence put before it, has thwarted the very intent of the partial abolition step.
It might seem that, as one who hopes that Canada will one day be an abolitionist country, I would welcome this bill. But I do not. The government's action in bringing in a total abolition bill now is an underhanded way of evading its responsibility in carrying out the present law. It will be impossible to build public support for total abolition while the public thinks that the enforcement of present laws, including the partial abolition law, is too lax. We must move forward slowly, surely, and honestly if real progress is to be made.
Canada is not ready for total abolition. A chief reason is the growing crime rate combined with the government's ineffective dealing with crime. Violent crime in Canada increased 90 per cent in the ten year period 1965-74. In 1965
Capital Punishment
there were 243 murders in the country; in 1974, 545. The murder rate in this period has doubled from 1.2 per 100,000 population to 2.4. Despite the fact that 38 policemen and jail guards were murdered in this same ten year period, no convicted murderer has been executed. Is it any wonder that the public is upset? Far from there being support for an abolition bill there is a strong demand for retention of full capital punishment.
Public confidence in the administration of justice is further weakened by the parole system. The actual time served in prison by 42 murderers paroled between 1968 and 1974 averaged only 13.35 years. In 1974 alone, 1,019 temporary absence permits were issued to inmates convicted of capital murder. It should be clear to all of us that the public does not want convicted murderers paroled in an average 13 years, or out on day passes. The public has a perfect right to demand the highest standards of safety in society; what the public sees is growing crime and weak law enforcement. It is in this climate that the government introduces a total abolition bill. What grotesque timing!
Much as I desire abolition, I cannot vote for it at this time. It is not sufficient in parliament to vote for a principle regardless of the applicability of the principle. It is clear to me that abolition would seriously divide the Canadian people in a way that would risk the credibility of both law and the democractic process. In other words I cannot isolate the principle of abolition from real conditions in our country. The reality is that it is better to keep capital punishment in limited cases than to rush total abolition and diminish respect for the law.
I fall back on Aristotle for my guide in this judgment. He writes in Politics: Book IV:
The best is often unattainable, and therefore the true legislator and statesman ought to be acquainted not only with (1) that which is best in the abstract, but also with (2) that which is best relative to circumstances".
I believe Aristotle is telling us here that we ought not only aspire to the ideal but take account of circumstances, and even be prepared to preserve an inferior type of law if
necessary.
A capital punishment debate always raises the question of an MP's conscience. Should the MP always follow the wishes of a majority of his electors even when his conscience would lead him in an opposite direction? We are dealing here with the highest question members of parliament can face, the question of life itself. We cannot slough off our responsibilities in the guise of adhering to questionable public opinion surveys. We are responsible to our constituents and to parliament itself to use our best judgment in resolving the capital punishment issue.
The people who sent us here must be able to evaluate our reasoning process. To insist that the MP always vote the popular opinion would be to turn him into an automaton. On the other hand I do not regard my right to enter the House of Commons as a licence to do whatever I want. I accept my responsibility to my electors, but I interpret that responsibility as one in which I should form unbiased opinions and come to mature judgments as best I can.
I have the greatest respect for those many constituents who press on me their belief in the reinstatement of full capital punishment. Their argumentation contains within it the frustration at seeing the murder rate climb and
13220
May 5, 1976

Capital Punishment
murderers freed after 13 years. But it does not follow from this that full capital punishment is the answer. In fact the evidence in support of capital punishment as a deterrent to murder is inconclusive. The answer lies rather in a firm and fixed sentencing for violent crimes, a tightening of the parole system, effective gun control legislation, and a rooting out of the causes of violence.
Only when the public has confidence that such measures have been put into practice, resulting in a discernible decrease in the crime rate and a resulting increase in the feeling of safety in society, will the public generally be ready to consider abolition on its own merits. This is the argument I put before the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in a letter last July 11 when rumors began about a new peace and security program. I urged the Solicitor General to demonstrate his commitment to justice by strengthening law enforcement without touching the present capital punishment law. I said it was wrong and divisive to couple a crime prevention bill with total abolition. Put crime prevention into place, reassure the public about the enforcement of law, and only then reopen the capital punishment question. Of course, Mr. Speaker, my suggestion resulted in just the opposite course by the government.
Immediately following Bill C-83 on crime prevention we now have Bill C-84 on total abolition. The government has made a package of the two. Bill C-83 is not even out of committee where considerable improvements in it must be made. Yet the government is rushing abolition.
I have therefore to ask myself why the government could not wait until the expiration of the present capital punishment law before introducing abolition. The only conclusion I can come to is that the government wants the successful passage of abolition now to remove the distasteful duty of considering the commutation of 11 convicted murderers now awaiting execution-three of them now past the judicial appeal stage, scheduled for July 15, 1976.
The government has the statutory right to commute death sentences, but more commutations would convince the public beyond all shadow of doubt that the government will not carry out executions, which is tantamount to ignoring the intent of the present law which provides the death penalty for those convicted of murdering policement or jail guards. The government ranks will clearly be split on carrying out executions; a storm of political protest will erupt if the present law is seen to be continually ignored. Therefore the government has taken the expedient course of changing the law, and moreover, getting this change out of the way well before the 1978 election so that, hopefully, the public will have forgotten such legislative manipulation.
The issue we face at this time, Mr. Speaker, is not the pure principle of abolition, but respect for law and the legislative process. The government has so muddied the waters that a vote against this bill cannot possibly be construed as a vote against the principle of abolition. It is rather a vote against legislative expediency and manipulation. It is a vote for justice. Only justice being done now, and being seen to be done, can prepare the way for an abolition bill in subsequent years that will be capable of winning public support in a calmer atmosphere.
What is the proper course for the government? It should apply the crime prevention bill as improved in committee,

and then extend the present capital punishment law for a third five year period. Let the public judge, on the evidence of its application, whether it is a good law. Only then should we be asked in parliament to make a definitive judgment on whether this country should live under an abolition or a capital punishment law. But free us from political machinations in such a deeply moral question. The common good demands that we take m'ore time in coming to a final answer.
I want to emphasize that I will continue to work toward those circumstances that will ensure the viability of an abolition bill. I believe in a morality which excludes violence as permissible conduct. The sanctity of life is my starting point. When a murderer violates the sanctity of life by an act of violence on his victim, how is the sanctity of life preserved by another act of violence on the murderer, this time by the state? If we accepted execution as retributive justice in an earlier period, we should be thankful that society is becoming more sensitive and that there is a movement throughout the world for total abolition. I believe that in Canada, through the tolerant and patient application of the law, we can employ more effective means of protecting society against all crime, including murder.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I should have to follow the speech of the Pontius Pilate on the other side of the House.
Of all decisions we as legislators are called upon to make, surely this one is the most vital. We are, quite literally, being asked to decide between life and death. Mr. Speaker, my personal decision is to choose life.
I believe that to take human life is an action most foul. To take it in the name of the state does not, in any way, diminish the hideousness of that action. Only self-defence, in the most extreme of circumstances, could possibly justify this brutal, irrational and irrevocable step.
Would capital punishment act as a defence mechanism? Would it protect society? If we are to judge by statistics, then the answer is no. The possible deterrent value of capital punishment has been exhaustively studied. Staggering statistics and data, collected throughout the world, indicate a contrary value.
To place the matter nearer home let me point out that our policemen, unlike their U K. counterparts, are armed. Criminals know, therefore, that in attacking our policemen, they face what could be in effect summary execution. That they are not deterred by this risk is evidenced by the sad number of murdered policemen.
In attempting to eradicate disease among humans it never occurs to civilized people to eradicate the diseased persons. Murder too is a plague, the most virulent of all social malaises; but in seeking to stem its proliferation I feel we should look carefully at its causes and work with all our might towards its prevention. This, then, would be the ultimate defence of society which must be our primary aim.
Greater minds than mine have studied, and continue to study the causes of violence. The death penalty itself breathes an atmosphere of violence into the society which
May 5, 1976

uses it. Capital punishment stands for and teaches the moral that human life ceases to be sacred when its usefulness is questioned. This is a particularly dangerous lesson in troubled times such as ours. What our time cries for is a lowering of the level of violence in our society.
I mentioned causes of violence and there are many, but by and large I believe that violence is to a great extent the product which results from the placing of too little value on the worth of life. Those who truly respect life do not take it. The antidote for violence is therefore to emphasize the worth of life.
There has, alas, been an unhappy increase in the rate of violent crime, but there has been a parallel increase in the incidence of violence in our physical and cultural environment. The atomic bomb which was heralded as the culmination of scientific genius by its makers, brought to the survivors of Hiroshima the macabre spectre of on-going contamination and debility. From there we have moved to another, less dramatic, but more insistent seeping of violence-the kind we see daily on our TV screens-a cultural nourishment fed in indiscrimate doses to our children. Are we, as parents and educators, so innocent of our offsprings' guilt?
One of my favourite Canadian authors, Eric Nicol, has summed up the situation much more eloquently than I could:
The person who actually pulled the trigger, must accept his share of the guilt, but how large that share is, no one has established with any degree of accuracy. This is why justice is such a distant relative of law and order. For starters the condemned should be accompanied to the gallows by Mum and Dad. Something went seriously wrong between the cradle and the noose. Somehow the cuddly little kid got transformed into "an animal". The chances that his parents are totally innocent, genetically and sociologically, in that strange metamorphosis, are extremely remote. Okay, so we have the killer, Ma and Pa in the death cell. Maybe Grannie and Grandpa too-right? There is still lots of guilt to go around. For example, should we not demand a share of the death penalty for the mongers of violence? The cold-eyed characters who push TV violence like Kojak and Cannon, and the motion picture violence of the various "Godfathers", "Mandingo", "Rollerball", "Jaws"-how do you measure their cumulative effect on a susceptible mind?
The trap-door is getting a bit crowded. The hangman can use the services of a commissionaire to handle the queue. Yet the list of the guilty is barely begun, even after we include those of us who shout "Kill Him". At the football game, then look shocked when one of our team's linemen relaxes by dismantling a civilian. The prisoner strapped to the electric chair affords only so much room for others to sit on his lap. But we cannot, in all fairness, omit the culpability of developers, urban planners, politicians and others with a vested interest in the kind of depersonalized environment that abets the crazed sniper on the roof of the high rise, the senseless strangling in the park. We may wonder how a society can become so dichotomous in its philosophy as to see determinism as the main factor in illness, unemployment, divorce, abortion and a host of other crying shames, yet sees the killing of a policeman as 100 per cent an act of free will. Perhaps the answer is that society is so uptight with the frustrations of daily living that many of us are frantic for a sacrificial goat. Hang a few people, they feel, and maybe we can arrest the decline and fall of our mutual fund. If we can't kill inflation, dammit let's kill SOMEBODY!
Now let us look at those who have paid the supreme penalty in a society very similar to ours. Are they usually the well-educated, the well-bred, or those who can fully afford the luxury of expensive legal ingenuity, well versed in plea bargaining? An examination of sentences imposed by California juries in first-degree murder cases over an eight-year period in the 1960's revealed that 42 per cent of
Capital Punishment
the blue-collar workers convicted of murder received death sentences while the comparable figure for white-collar workers was 5 per cent. Does this imply that people have died only because they could not afford a lawyer who was specialized and highly skilled in criminal defence? Discovery and proof of mitigating circumstances and the rebuttal of evidence of aggravating circumstances may require costly investigation.
With reference to this latter point, former Governor DiSalle writes:
I have never seen a person of means go to the chair. It is the well-heeled gangster, the professional killer who can afford the best legal talent to defend him, who gets off with a lesser sentence. It is the poor, the illiterate, the under privileged, the member of the minority group-the man who, because he is without means, is defended by a court-appointed attorney-who becomes society's blood sacrifice.
The court-appointed defender, diligent though he may be, is always handicapped. Sometimes he is inept-there is no criterion of experience in criminal law to guide a court appointment-and always he lacks the staff and funds available to the prosecution. Without funds and personnel to investigate the backgroud of jurors and witnesses, to check alibis and examine the evidence before trial, the court-appointed attorney and his client have two strikes against them before they even enter a plea.
Then, of course, there is the possibility of error. Which of us does not shudder to remember the fate of Timothy John Evans who, in 1950, was hanged in Britain for murders actually committed by John R. Christie? Sixteen years later society acknowledged its horrendous mistake and granted Evans a posthumous pardon. His body was then exhumed and finally laid to rest in consecrated ground. Cold comfort!
Perhaps Canada can benefit from the experience of other countries and recall a statement made by the Belgian minister of justice in 1930, after 67 years of abolition of capital punishment:
The lesson has been learned that the best means of inculcating respect for human life is to refrain from taking life in the name of the law.
I would like to rebut yet another argument frequently advanced by retentionists who hold the view that a 25 year mandatory jail sentence is less humane than the death penalty. But is it really? To put forward such a thesis is surely to debate the quality of life, but is this not a secondary consideration if the primary requisite, life itself, does not exist?


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I speak on this subject of capital punishment having knowledge of murder cases in my own constituency. Upon reading Bill C-84, which proposes to abolish capital punishment for persons convicted of murder and to replace it with a sentence of so-called life imprisonment, I have found it to be merely another instance in which the federal government has chosen to disregard the rights of truly innocent citizens.
Where is the conscience of our government and its officials? Continually they overlook public opinion. Today I have heard people reacting to public opinion in the wrong manner. Public opinion is very important, but in this instance it has been overlooked. The government is overwhelmingly ignoring the obvious wishes expressed by the majority of constituents across Canada. The petition pre-
QSSbS-jVz

May 5, 1976
Capital Punishment
sented to the House of Commons on May 1, 1975, attracted little respect and much contempt in this House.
Being from a city which has experienced first hand the tragedy of savage and brutal premeditated murder, it is not difficult for me to understand why my constituents are so forcefully demanding the full reinstatement of capital punishment. The common arguments supporting this view may seem rather meaningless unless you have been personally involved and have seen the effects of such violence on a total community. What would be your reaction, Mr. Speaker, if this press release, which I quote in part referred to members of your family, neighbours, or fellow citizens?
Two slain Moncton police officers may have been ordered to dig their own graves, found the digging tough in frozen ground, and moved elsewhere. The two were found buried in shallow graves Sunday, shot through the head and wearing handcuffs. One handcuff was not fastened in each case. The bodies were found buried on a hilltop near a spot where two graves appeared to have been started, but not finished. The policemen's revolvers, portable radio and other articles were found by the unfinished diggings.
Two other "diggings" had been found near where the revolvers were located, but police could not speculate on who had apparently tried to dig at that spot. The two policemen, one a 47-year-old father of four and the other a 33-year-old father of two, had been missing since early Friday when they stopped to inspect a car suspected to have been involved in ... kidnapping.
Certainly situations such as this one require more than the 25 year sentence suggested by this bill. Should the life of one who threatens society be preserved when individuals of this kind have so painstakingly planned the death of two innocent victims? Surely there is no means of rehabilitation which could instil in the mind of a murderer a conscience, the element of mind he obviously so severely lacks. Surely we must realize that a mere 25 years of free room and board are no deterrent, and definitely no solution, to such a grave problem as murder.
Let us pause for a moment to consider this situation. A person has committed murder and been sentenced to 25 years. This offers society, at best, a questionable and doubtful partial and temporary security from the killer. Having the greatest incentive to try and escape-and escape they do-it is not unlikely that in doing so two or three guards could be killed. What is to stop the prisoner from successive murders of this nature? Certainly the threat of another prison sentence, added to what already seems an indeterminable length of time, has no restraining power over an individual capable of murder.
The thought that to take the life of another would ultimately bring the destruction of his own being would most definitely produce an obstruction in the mind of the murderer, a mind in which the only element dear to self is self. Let there be no doubt then that the death penalty is a deterrent.
Let us turn to some numerical facts with regard to this matter. Disciples of and adherents to abolition constantly use the argument that during the period between 1957 and 1970, while capital punishment was a written law in this land, murders increased from 129 to 420-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will be permitted to continue at the next resumption of this order.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. G. Vandelac, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the right hon. Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-92, An Act to provide for compensation for former prisoners of war and their dependants and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof .-Chapter No. 95.
Bill S-8, An Act respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicle tires and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicle tires imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.-Chapter No. 96.
Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act.-Chapter No. 97.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.01 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 6, 1976