1981-06-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to introduce the following motion. Whereas the National Energy Board report dated March, 1981, publicly released in April, recommended the construction of the Norman Wells-Zama Lake oil pipeline, finding it to be in the public interest of Canadians, and whereas the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) some time ago completed his consultations, which were his previous excuse for inaction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House deplores the continuing foot-dragging of the Liberal government on this and other energy issues, and reminds the government that, if it is incapable of making decisions, there are 101 Conservative members of the House who are ready, willing and able to take over at a moment's notice.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *

That the government give immediate consideration to extending the DREE zone in northeastern Alberta to include the county of Thorhild which has demonstrated a significant need for economic stimulus.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a motion relating to the motion standing in the name of the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) for debate later this day, with respect to capital punishment.
In keeping with the precedent set by a previous Liberal Prime Minister, and to enable everyone to vote on the substance of today's motion without having to consider the issue of confidence in the government, I would seek the unanimous consent of all hon. members to move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 58, this House does not regard the vote scheduled for 9.45 p.m. this day, in connection with a proposed reference of the question of capital punishment to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Chamber of Commerce of Newbrook, Alberta, has made representations to government and various members of Parliament that the municipal district of Thorhild is very much in need of economic development assistance, and whereas this district already borders on an area designated for assistance by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):


Mr. Trudeau:: Madam Speaker, we might agree to that, if it should be a permanent change.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, whereas every Privy Councillor takes an oath of secrecy with

June
10484
respect to matters of state security, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Leader of the Opposition make a public statement indicating whether he considers himself and other members of his party to be bound by the Privy Councillor's oath.
And, further, that the matter of statements made by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to determine whether they were made in breach of his oath as a Privy Councillor.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I rise on an important matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Premier of Manitoba, the Hon. Sterling Lyon, in a recent radio interview reportedly declared that, pursuant to the negotiations carried out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and President Reagan over the Garrison Diversion project, he wanted to express the highest regard for the action of the federal government in the handling of this international matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That this House unanimously agree to echo the sentiments expressed by Premier Lyon.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some importance. A motion will be placed before the House later today dealing not directly with the issue of capital punishment, but rather with the right of Parliament to debate the issue. The motion will request that hon. members of the House approve presentation of the matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for examination in depth and detail. This motion must not be considered as a vote on the reinstatement of capital punishment.


Stan Darling: Such a motion might be brought to the House at the conclusion of the deliberations of the committee. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House affirms its belief that the motion to be put to the House at 9.45 p.m. this evening, pursuant to Standing Order 58, relates to the right of members of Parliament to discuss all issues of public importance and refer them to standing committees for investigation and report, and does not at this stage involve a decision on the question of capital punishment or of confidence in the government.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the publicly funded body, the CBC, has a responsibility to incorporate the highest levels of journalistic integrity and unbiased reporting in its programming, and in view of the fact that the program "The Monopoly Game" aired last night on television completely failed to present a balanced and honest appraisal of the Canadian Wheat Board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That this House condemns the agriculture and resources section of CBC Television for its consistently biased and reactionary programs on agriculture; ; and, furthermore, that this House calls upon A1 Johnson, the President of CBC, to dismiss the producer of "The Monopoly Game", Doug Lower, and others responsible for the program, and replace them with people who are prepared to present unbiased programming on agriculture.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the Conservative party has put forward a motion on the important issue of capital punishment, and tied that motion to supply proceedings so that we have a non-confidence motion resulting in the farcical situation that even if the motion is passed the issue of capital punishment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 11, 1981


Peter Joseph Lang: -would not be dealt with as there would be a general election, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That the House request the Conservative caucus to stop wasting the time of the House and the taxpayers' money with its attempts to denigrate the important issue of capital punishment by using it as a political tool to embarrass their own leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that no announcement has been made as to whether or not a payment has been triggered under the provisions of the western grain stabilization plan, notwithstanding the fact that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, when originally proposing the plan, stated that such decisions would be made early in each calendar year; and in view of the fact that no announcement has been made with respect to compensation to grain producers arising out of the Russian embargo, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the Minister of Agriculture make a statement on motions with respect to both these matters to indicate that he still retains some interest in agriculture in western Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the Solicitor General has indicated that he would have to reduce the size of the RCMP force by 3,000 if they decided to organize, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Solicitor General explain to the House in a statement on motions which part of the force would be reduced, or which part of the country would
have reduction of services, and to what extent he has consulted with the provinces' attorneys general regarding his plan to reduce the size of the force.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The natives of Restigouche Reserve in Quebec were instructed to cease all salmon fishing by midnight last night or suffer the consequences. As of 11 a.m. this morning, 300 Quebec Provincial Police and fisheries officers have the reserve surrounded and under siege. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to contact his provincial counterpart, urging him to intervene so that a peaceful solution can be found before this crisis situation gets further out of hand.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Minister of the Environment has told the press that the pollution of the Niagara River is a top priority concern to his department, and whereas it has now been reported that levels of cancer-causing PCBs have jumped from 153 to 266, and the Lindane compound is now at 26 when it had not previously been detected, and whereas four million gallons of untreated industrial and domestic waste continue to be dumped into the Niagara River from Niagara Falls, New York, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House instruct the minister that the people of Niagara want more action on the Niagara River problem and a good deal less time spent on consuming and unproductive talk with the press about his department's top priorities.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?

June 11, 1981
Ora! Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of Finance advised home owners and farmers who face foreclosure to talk to the banks about their situation. Whatever the merits of that particular policy, the minister avoided saying anything whatsoever about tenants. Even the minister must be aware that evictions are radically increasing across the country. In Toronto, alone, during the first four months of 1981, people in 1,081 units were evicted. What advice does the Minister of Finance have for those people?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member totally misunderstood the nature of my remarks yesterday on the subject of the impact of high interest rates on various groups in the community. I stated that I had a meeting with the representatives of The Canadian Bankers'Association, and they assured me that the banking institutions would lean over backwards in attempting to assist hardship cases in the present circumstances. That is quite different from his comment to the effect that I had given advice to various people to go to see the bankers. That was not the nature of my comment.


QUERY RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF SHELTER ALLOWANCE PROGRAM
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance may then recall that on March 6, 1981, his colleague, the minister responsible for housing, said:
The time had clearly come for all of those truly interested in the meeting of people's housing needs to seriously consider the idea of a shelter allowance.
That was stated many months ago. There has been no talk of a shelter allowance since that time. It is clear that the Minister of Finance does not agree with the minister responsible for housing, because it is somewhere close to the bottom in the government's list of priorities. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would reconsider his policy and put shelter allowances back up in a top priority, where it belongs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to a comment made by the minister responsible for housing that a shelter allowance is something which ought to be considered. I agree with him on that matter, and it has been
considered. When it comes to the point where financial circumstances would permit the Government of Canada to finance a shelter allowance, I will, of course, be pleased to make an announcement in the House; but at the present time, in view of the constant


Mr. Clark:: Money you are spending on Petrofina.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -exhortations that I am being given by his colleagues on the other side to restrain government expenditures, I would not want to go against that overwhelming advice from the other side.


Charles Joseph Clark: Maybe Maurice Strong would contribute.


Mr. Crosbie:: The record is getting worn out, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: So are the questions.


INCREASE IN HOUSE PRICES
David Edward Crombie: The minister may be happy with that response, but 1 can assure him that tenants are not. 1 would also like to remind the minister that everyone in this country knows that low income people are being hurt by his policies. What the minister must also know is that middle income people are increasingly feeling the squeeze, and they are feeling it hard. The average price for a home in Vancouver is now $135,000. For a single mortgage-


An hon. Member:: One hundred and sixty.


David Edward Crombie: -on an average home in Toronto one needs $36,000. Middle income people are renegotiating mortgages at a current record rate. People are now paying $300 and $400 more every month. I would like to ask the minister whether the best he can say to the middle-income Canadians is, "Go see the banks." Is that it? Is that the government's policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, that is the hon. member's rhetoric.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is in the same general subject area and it is directed to my friend, the Minister of Agriculture. It refers to farm bankruptcies, foreclosures, and forced sales. Farm bankruptcies in Ontario have increased by 90 per cent, year over year and foreclosures and forfeit sales have increased ten times. The minister gives commitments, and the minister does not fulfil commitments; he gives promises and he breaks promises. When can we expect at least one single piece of legislation before it is too late?
June 11, 1981


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that there is some legislation that may help farmers. For instance, the meat import bill is before the Standing Committee on Agriculture at the present time. If it received speedy passage and came back to the House before the end of June, it could be law before many days pass. It is up to members of the committee to deal with the legislation that is before them in committee.


MINISTERIAL SPEECHES
John Wise: Madam Speaker, the farmers of Canada have a very descriptive term for the minister's words, but I think it is unparliamentary so I shall simply refer his answer as sheer and utter nonsense. The minister travels across the country and when in one province he is going to amend the Bank Act; in another he is going to amend the Income Tax Act; then he is going to bring in amendments to the Small Business Development Bond to include the unincorporated farmer; in the next place he speaks he is going to bring in amendments immediately to the Farm Credit Act. When is the minister going to stop talking and do something?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: When is the minister going to stop misleading farmers or leading them down the garden path? Again, I give the minister the opportunity to tell us when he is going to do one single thing that will help farmers with this problem of high interest rates?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks when we are going to do something. I find it very strange that his party says that the economics of the nation is so important, yet they take one of their opposition days and waste it in the House of Commons, not even talking about economics. Who is the biggest hypocrite in this House? They have talked about legislation, but all they have to do is get rid of some of those foolish opposition days, and give us one of those days and we will bring some legislation forward.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. After his interesting meeting with the bankers association the other day, the bankers emerged saying that the impact of high interest rates on farmers and home owners was not as black as it had been painted. It certainly is not bad for the banks which are having record level profits.
Considering that the banks did not come up with one specific suggestion to help either home owners or farmers, could the minister tell the House whether he took a specific proposal to the bankers that they could act upon?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the meeting was to seek the co-operation of financial institutions in helping individuals who may be in real difficulty in the present circumstances. I believe that was a very important request and a very important subject to discuss with the representatives of the banks. They have assured me that in present circumstances they will do everything they can to avoid the kind of tragedy that was mentioned yesterday in the question period, namely, the possibility of foreclosure.
The hon. member may realize that a year ago, at about this time, we had a very rapid run-up of interest rates and people were concerned, as I was, about the possibility of foreclosures. The fact of the matter is that because of the co-operation between the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the financial institutions, it was possible for home owners who were renegotiating their mortgages in that period of high interest rates to get over the period and to maintain their homes and their payments. That is the objective that I have at the present time in enlisting the co-operation of the financial institutions.


SPREAD BETWEEN INTEREST RATES PAID AND CHARGED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the reality is that 1,000 Canadian families have to abandon their homes every month. The reality is that 100 Canadians go into personal bankruptcy every day. That is the result of this government's continuation of the high interest rate policy. It is time the government changed that policy, instead of coming out with vague expressions of concern.
Since the minister did not propose one thing specifically to help home owners or farmers, did he at least go to the bankers with another question concerning the spread between what the banks pay families who have savings accounts compared to what the banks charge for loans? This spread, as everyone knows, is one of the major reasons for record level profits for the banks. Did the minister at least say to the banks that they should reduce that spread and bring their profits down to reasonable levels?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put some statistics on the record, which I find to be really quite offensive-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because of their inaccuracy. I believe the hon. member ought, first of all, to produce the statistics which support his claim that 1,000 home owners for a period of time are losing their homes. I think that is totally false.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 11, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He ought to back up his rhetoric with some facts instead of poisoning the atmosphere in the country by these false statements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to take the minister to Halifax, to Montreal, to Toronto or to Vancouver, so he can see the thousands of Canadians who are losing their homes. The minister should go and talk to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: What about Cuba?


REASON FOR MEETING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has acknowledged that he took neither a specific proposal to the banks to help home owners or to help farmers, nor a specific recommendation that the banks reduce their profits, is it any surprise that the banks came up with no specific commitment at all? What was the point of the meeting which the minister had?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I asked the hon. member for some firm statistics, but instead he offered me a trip.


John Edward Broadbent: I will send them over to you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not find that an adequate substitute. I believe I received something much more important from the representatives of the banking institutions not in specific details but a general assurance that under these circumstances they would show the necessary tolerance and humanity in dealing with their clients. I believe that is very important, and it was that same attitude we succeeded in bringing to bear on a similar problem a year ago. The hon. member believes in different techniques. I believe in techniques that work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss MacDonald:: Show us one that does.


AVIATION SAFETY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. There are now nine associations connected with all aspects of aviation in Canada which have denounced both the composition of the minister's advisory committee as well as the review process with respect to the implementation of the Dubin recommendations on aviation safety. The composition of the review board and the process, which the minister has outlined, are being perceived as an effort to discredit the very good work of the Dubin inquiry. Yesterday the minister met with representatives of the nine associations who appealed to him for changes both in the composition of that committee and in the process. Is the minister seriously considering the suggestions and recommendations which were advanced by this group yesterday? If not, why not?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, we did meet yesterday. As a matter of fact, I had given consideration to the arguments which were presented by the group of nine yesterday. They had wanted me to appoint representatives of these different groups to this committee. I thought that this would not wash because we would simply have had a repeat of the Dubin inquiry. I suggested very strongly that appointing knowledgeable people who were connected with the industry in the past to give me advice was the right approach.
The most difficult problem is the presence of Mr. McLeish, the air administrator, on that committee. My hon. friend has mentioned that repeatedly. My reason for having him there is simply the fact that the air administration will have to implement the decisions that I make on the recommendations of the advisory committee. He will have to do that. He will also have to provide, as he is entitled to do, his opinion to the advisory committee. If he does not do that, the advisory committee will lose a lot of essential information. I was interested in the fact that the group, and ATAC in particular, recommended that Mr. McLeish should be there in an ex officio position. I fail to see the difference between him being a member of the advisory committee as a full-fledged member or as an ex officio member.


IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister should know that, unless he alters the course he is presently following, the continuing confrontation will undermine the credibility of the Dubin report. It will also impair the objectivity and indeed the independence necessary to ensure that the implementation process is orderly and smooth. In short, it is casting serious doubt upon the government's intentions as to whether it is serious about implementing the major recommendations of this report. What steps does the minister propose to take to restore confidence within the aviation industry? What steps is

June 11, 1981

he proposing to assure the Canadian public that indeed the recommendations of the Dubin report will be implemented and not diluted?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I suggest that common sense will prevail very soon. If you have a series of regulations and measures that have to be implemented by your department, the least you can have is representation of your department on the committee which advises you to do that. If Mr. McLeish were not on the committee, I would be faced with the difficulty of having to receive advice from the committee and then having to check the advice with my department. I thought it made sense to have my department represented on the committee. I repeat, common sense will prevail very soon.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister is suggesting common sense will provide the solution.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Will the minister make a clear statement on behalf of his government and his department in particular on whether he accepts the principle and the major recommendations of the Dubin report? If he were to do that, it would move the process along. It may provide the initial start toward ensuring that confidence is once again restored in the aviation sector.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the main recommendations in the first volume of the Dubin report, I have already done that. It is in Hansard. Some of the press have acknowledged that. For example, here is a headline, "Pepin Pledges Impartial Air Board". What else can I do? I have done that repeatedly.
The department readily accepts the necessity of having an independent air aviation safety board. This is clear. The problem is how to go about it. Should we accept the whole of the Dubin recommendations? My position on that is simple. Instead of accepting the report without discussion, I suggested we look at it and see whether we will accept 89, 90, 95, 99 or 100 per cent of it. That is what we are now doing.


FUTURE OF COLD LAKE, ALTA. MEGAPROJECTS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A few weeks ago the minister told this House that he would be able to give assurances to Alsands and Imperial at Cold Lake that a pricing regime would be ready in time to avert the cancellation of these two megaprojects in northeastern Alberta. Will the minister tell this House why he is so certain that these plants will not be cancelled in light of his failure to reach an energy agreement with Alberta yesterday? Also, what assurance is he
Oral Questions
prepared to give to the developers of these two megaprojects today so that they will proceed on schedule this summer?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member started with a reference to a statement I allegedly made. I would like him to quote the statement so that I can judge its source and content.


Jack Wendele Shields: The minister knows full well that he said in this House that he would be prepared to give assurances to the two companies.


GOVERNMENT LOAN TO IMPERIAL OIL
Jack Wendele Shields: Last fall the government took Imperial Oil's threat to cancel its oil sands project at Cold Lake significantly serious enough that it loaned Imperial Oil $40 million of the taxpayers' money. After what date does Imperial Oil have no further obligation to repay this loan, if indeed it is forced to cancel because of the lack of an energy agreement with Alberta?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member did not give the exact reference he was attributing to me. I invite him to do so. As far as his question is concerned, we have an agreement with Imperial Oil that it would be given the loan, that the advance would not lapse for at least a year after the expiration of a particular date in June-I believe around June 20. If the project is approved or proceeded with within the next year, the obligation of Imperial remains.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. This week while the Minister of Finance was offering the ailing nuclear industry his love but no more money, and I congratulate him for that, a Canadian Pacific trainload of Australian yellow cake uranium concentrate has been travelling from the west coast through the major population centres to Eldorado Nuclear refineries in Port Hope, posing a radiation threat to men, women and children.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Nonsense.


Mark Willson Rose: The U.S. nuclear regulatory committee has termed a yellow cake spill in a populated area as the worst conceivable accident that can happen in the front end of the fuel cycle. So much for nonsense! Why has the minister allowed this potentially lethal foreign cargo, which if spilled would pose considerable risk to humans and the environment, to be transshipped by rail across our country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, dangerous goods will be transported in Canada for a

June 11, 1981
Oral Questions
long time to come. This is part of the Canadian economy, as it is part of the economy of any industrial country. The question is whether we are taking all precautionary measures which should be taken in such circumstances. In this instance, yes we are. The Atomic Energy Control Board's regulations as well as the regulations on packaging of the Canadian Transport Commission are being implemented as they should. The transportation of dangerous goods section of my department is monitoring the operation. All precautionary measures are being taken. I suggest that is all that can be done unless you want to stop the economy, a great amount of which is based on the transportation of dangerous goods.


Mark Willson Rose: I would like to see a cost benefit study on that one.


CONTINGENCY PLANS TO COPE WITH POSSIBLE DISASTER
Mark Willson Rose: This country does not have a clean-up team such as the private clean-up teams offered by the Western Sherwood Mining company in the state of Washington. The minister knows that a derailment in the Fraser canyon could wipe out fish stocks for years to come, salmon stocks in particular. He also knows that a derailment in a populated area could contaminate it for years to come. Since this insanity is being permitted, and this is not the first time, I have two questions for the minister. First, will he outline to the House briefly what contingency plans he has other than just labelling the boxcars or flatcars, to prevent another Mississauga, a nuclear Mississauga? Second, will he assure the House that this kind of Australian "nuclear special" will not be permitted any reruns?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I explained at some length that the regulations of the Atomic Energy Control Board and the CTC are being implemented in this case. I went to some length to explain that my department is keeping a watchful eye on the situation. What else can be done? I do not deny that there is a danger. I am just saying that if one takes as a postulate that you should not carry dangerous goods, you would have to stop a good percentage of the Canadian economy. That is what I am saying.
On the subject of transportation of dangerous goods, this House passed legislation recently, about a year ago, which is being implemented now, and regulations are being developed. We have also had an inquiry, the Grange inquiry, into the transportation of dangerous goods, and nine of the 15 recommendations of Justice Grange are already being implemented, and the other six are being discussed before the CTC. I am just saying the problem is a real one and we are taking the necessary measures to cope with it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of Transport tell us whether the statement made by the Quebec Minister of Transport to the effect that there had been no consultation between the federal government and the port of Montreal is true or not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I must say that the difficulty lies in the fact that the statement was made by the Quebec Minister of Economic Development rather than by the Quebec Minister of Transport. Now we are not in a position to decide to whom we should report; in this case, we are reporting to the Quebec Minister of Transport. The new port policy was discussed at length at least twice with department officials. The minister received the publicity, the press release, the booklet, along with the announcement. So we do not think that Mr. Landry has any cause for complaint. He might have cause for complaint because his colleague the Minister of Transport failed to tell him about his exchange of correspondence with us on the matter.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell the House if the government has decided to pay compensation to those people who installed urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes? The minister indicated that the cabinet was to consider the terms of an assistance package today.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question for it enables me to tell the House that the government has authorized the immediate establishment of an action and co-ordination centre in my department in Ottawa to help Canadians who are facing this problem. Second, all Canadians anxious to contact this action and information centre will have access to a toll-free telephone service. Third, a national program will be launched in the coming months to monitor some 2,400 houses throughout Canada with a view to meeting the needs of those who feel most affected and most concerned by this question. Fourth, special monitoring and research units will be set up in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Finally, Madam Speaker, pursuant
June 11, 1981

to the Hazardous Products Act, the board of review will be created and will hold its first hearing at the end of this month.


HOME OWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I am pleased to note that there is some indication of concern on the government's part for these people who have installed UFFI, but I did not hear any mention about dollars and cents, or anything about compensation for those people who were given formal approval by the government to put this stuff in their homes. Is the minister aware of a number of groups forming across the country, the latest one in Toronto last night, well organized, responsible and voluble groups who are threatening massive class actions if the government does not consider some form of compensation for those who have put this material in their homes?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat puzzling and irresponsible that the hon. member should make such remarks. The government is assuming its responsibilities and will spend a few million dollars to make this house study and monitoring program available to Canadians. To my mind, it is a very significant first step, and the hon. member should commend us for this initiative instead of giving the impression he wants to solve this issue even before the board of review established under the Hazardous Products Act has had a chance to hold public hearings and submit its report. 1 am aware of the hon. member's interest in matters within the purview of my department. He ought to be familiar with the Hazardous Products Act and know that we cannot speak of really hazardous products as long as that board has not presented its report.


EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE GAS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: This question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Madam Speaker. Now that the government has assumed a degree of responsibility on this urea formaldehyde question, and my question to the minister concerns the health of Canadians who may have been exposed to urea formaldehyde gas, what is she doing to check on those people who may have been exposed to the gas? Is she prepared to follow the example established by her colleague, and set up, in co-ordination with the provinces, action centres across the country to do a check on the health of Canadians who may have been exposed to this gas?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that the co-ordination committee will give top
Oral Questions
priority to all men and women who have health problems. One of the cabinet instructions was to make sure that this co-ordination committee will give priority to men and women whose health is affected or who believe that they are affected by this product.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who will recall that in a letter to me, dated January of this year, he stated that under the National Energy Program provision has been made for federal-provincial assistance for the extension of natural gas service into communities where such service would otherwise be economically prohibitive. I have been informed that the Hon. Robert Welch, the minister's provincial counterpart in Ontario, has given approval for the construction of a natural gas line into the town of Parry Sound but has been informed by the federal ministry that funds for such a project are not available this year. Will the minister tell this House if, as he stated, there are funds for such projects and, if so, when such funds will be available?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the announcement made in the National Energy Program, indeed, provides for several hundred million dollars to be allocated over the next ten years for this particular purpose. The first priority we have set up, however, for this year has been the establishment of the Home Conservation and Oil Substitution Program, which means subsidizing individual citizens to the tune of $800 for conversion away from oil. We want to set this program in operation and have it fully going this year. Next year we will start the program concerning help for distribution systems.
As far as the particular project of concern to the hon. member is concerned, I might say that even if Mr. Welch had approved this project, that does not necessarily mean it would be eligible for a grant. This would have to be studied in terms of whether or not the project is viable on its own or needs help and support. That program will have funds available starting next year.


PROVINCIAL ROLE
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I was certainly informed by the minister, and certainly misled as a great many others were, that it was up to the province of Ontario, that there was $300 million plus in there and the federal government was willing, able, and ready to hand that money over. That was the impression you gave me in January. You said to go to your provincial counterparts; they are the ones who make the decision. Now you have changed the rules. What are your comments on that, Mr. Minister?

June 11, 1981
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my suggestion to the hon. member would be that he take a course in either quick or slow reading. To go back to my letter, 1 never said what he attributed to me.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. An agreement in principle has been reached between the corporation and its technicians in Montreal. After a three-week long strike, both parties have agreed to a 10 per cent raise over the first year and a 10.5 per cent raise over the second year plus a 3.5 per cent raise resulting from the restructuring of the pay scale, which adds up to raises of 10 and 14 per cent respectively. That is the new national standard for the CBC. Does the minister intend to ask the corporation to offer similar raises to its journalists who have been striking for over seven months? Also, could not this agreement serve as a basis for the settlement of the other current conflicts?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is mentioning the fact that the union leaders have agreed to recommend to their members acceptance of the offers the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has made to its technicians and on which they will be called to vote today. Needless to say, Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to convey the hon. member's suggestion to the president of the CBC. I should like to mention, however, that that union has also agreed to an increase in the number of working hours every week.


SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE BEFORE HOLDING OF ECONOMIC SUMMIT
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the CBC has negotiated and apparently nearly concluded a contract with its technicians in Montreal before doing so with its technicians in Toronto, which is something of a novelty, and in view of the fact that its journalists in Montreal and its technicians on the English network would be happy to receive the same offers before the economic summit, would the minister prevail upon the corporation to negotiate and settle these conflicts before the summit, or would he prefer to let these conflicts deteriorate until September, now that the corporation can use its transcoding
installations in Montreal to broadcast the proceedings of this summit to the world without having to settle with its employees who are still on strike?


Francis Fox: In view of the way the CBC has been bargaining this week, Madam Speaker, it is clear that it is anxious to get agreements from all its working units as soon as possible. There are some 24 or 25 of these units, and the CBC has already signed agreements with 16 or 17 of them. Which means that it still has to get agreements from 5 or 6 of them, and we hope that the parties will be able to sign new working contracts as soon as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Final settlement for many beef, dairy and sheep producers under the Herd Maintenance Program is being delayed while the minister in charge of DREE travels in Africa. Producers are frustrated and angry at still having to wait two months after their appeals have come to Ottawa for his attention, and in the meantime prices have continued to go down. They need the money now.
Is the minister impressing upon his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the need to deal quickly with these appeals, and when will the funds be forwarded to the producers who have waited almost a year for them?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member said they waited almost a year on the appeals. A lot of these applications were not submitted until after the deadline, which was the end of December, 1980. So the appeals have been here, and a committee of ministers will meet later this afternoon to discuss them further, and hopefully we can come to an early settlement.


COST SHARING OF DROUGHT RELIEF PROGRAMS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the deadline has been extended to December 31. Most of our producers did not know about that one.
In March the province of Saskatchewan announced a continuing program of assistance should drought continue into this season. Does the minister intend to inform Saskatchewan and other provinces as to his intentions regarding cost sharing of such programs, and when is the government going to make an announcement in that regard for 1981?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we are more optimistic than is the hon. member. We
June 11, 1981

hope no announcement has to be made of any kind. As we said earlier, we are monitoring the situation very closely and we will be meeting with provincial ministers in early July for further discussions.
Our reports show that there are probably at the present time much better moisture conditions than last year in most areas of western Canada. We know there is one area in particular in Saskatchewan in need of moisture, but the crops planted have in most areas germinated quite well, and if they do get moisture within the next week or ten days we could still have a very good crop in those areas.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister in a position to put to rest rumours of customs personnel reductions at the Saint John, New Brunswick, airport?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question. I can assure him there will be no reduction of services in the city of Saint John. There has been a review, with regard to the most efficient and effective use of manpower, but I can assure him there will be no reduction of the services of my department in that city.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have been in touch with the chief of the Indian band at Restigouche and he tells me that about 200 QPP officers have surrounded the reserve. The dispute is over fishing. The children are blocked from school and his band office is surrounded.
I am wondering if the minister could state whether he has some officials there attempting to solve this situation, and if he could bring us up to date as to what has happened in order to alleviate this situation.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I would tell the hon. member that I have just been advised the police have left the Restigouche reserve and the band chief has been in touch with the appropriate officials from Quebec and the deputy minister there, Mr. Gourdeau, and the band is resuming negotiations. The dispute is over the number of fishing days. The Indians wish to fish six days, the Quebec government which administers the Fisheries Act there wants three days,
Oral Questions
and the dispute is over the remaining three days. They have agreed to resume negotiations.


FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, as a short supplementary, does the minister have any officials on hand in order to keep the situation under control, and have there been any other federal officials involved such as members of the RCMP or federal fisheries people, in order that the band chief can have some indication of what has happened?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I do not believe the RCMP have been involved at all. It is the Quebec Provincial Police. I think the matter just broke out this morning. My director general in the Quebec region has been in touch and is keeping a very close watch and is ready to assist in the negotiations.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as the minister responsible for Emergency Planning Canada. At the June 5 conference of federal and provincial ministers and officials responsible for emergency planning, we are told that the participants addressed, among other topics, "more equitable arrangements for sharing the financial costs of large-scale natural disasters."
Since one of the government's stated aims in this area is the "mitigation of human suffering", and since the government has undertaken to consult with the provinces on arrangements for measures to alleviate hardship to individuals arising from disasters, I ask the minister if he raised with his provincial colleagues the possibility of remitting excise taxes levied on materials used in the course of repairing and/or replacing buildings and other losses as a result of major disasters? And if not, could he explain why?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, indeed, on Friday last I had the honour of chairing a federal-provincial conference on Emergency Planning Canada which was attended by my provincial counterparts. The spirit that prevailed was most encouraging. Indeed there was an obvious willingness to co-operate even further to ensure that every region in Canada is able to cope more efficiently, more significantly and more constructively in the various emergency situations that may occur. With regard to the specific and quite restrictive suggestion made by the hon. member, no provincial minister brought it up at the conference, at least not to my knowledge and I was at the meeting all

June 11, 1981
Oral Questions
day. Be that as it may, I shall take note of the hon. member's suggestion since we are in permanent consultation, and I shall certainly take it under advisement.


Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, I asked his colleague, the Minister of Finance, a few months ago if he would bring this matter to their attention. Obviously they forgot it, or just ignored doing it.


PARTICIPATION OF MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES IN PLANNING CONFERENCE
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In peacetime emergencies the government has indicated that it "recognizes and reaffirms that the initial responsibility for meeting emergencies normally rests with those directly affected". To this end, in part, the government sponsors courses on emergency planning at the Federal Study Centre in Arnprior. However, why does the government itself not seek important feedback from the private sector, from citizens who have been directly involved with peacetime emergencies and natural disasters?
At the recent conference last Friday on emergency planning, convened by the federal minister, why were those individuals, who have local experience in their own communities with natural disasters, not invited to attend? Finally, will the minister tell the House whether he will invite experienced private citizens to attend any future conferences on emergency planning?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that conference was a first at the ministerial level and we considered it an important step toward a better planning of emergency measures in Canada. What the hon. member is suggesting surely makes sense. Should the individual and the private sector become more involved? I fully agree with his suggestion, and because they were not invited to attend the first meeting is no reason why we should not be interested in the views they may wish to express. I can assure the hon. member that, through our regional directors, the responsible provincial ministers and our own federal ministers who are responsible for emergency measures in their respective departments, we are quite willing to consult the private sector, as we have always done in the past and will continue to do. We did not invite them to this first federal-provincial conference because it was a ministers' meeting; but there is no saying that, in the future, when other meetings are held, whether it be at the provincial, regional or federal levels, here in Ottawa, we may not have the opportunity of having discussions with all parties interested in emergency planning in Canada.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the government House leader with respect to business of the House tomorrow and into next week.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, tomorrow there is an agreement among representatives of the parties that we dispose of all stages of Bill S-7, an act to provide for the prohibition of certain international air services, standing in the name of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. The agreement was to the effect that one speaker per party will participate, and then the bill will be voted through all stages. I understand that if a recorded division is required any time tomorrow, it will be postponed until next week.
Following Bill S-7, we will deal with report stage and third reading stage of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act. Finally, we will deal with Bill S-10, an act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
Those are the three bills for tomorrow, S-7, S-4 and S-10, in that order.

Concerning the business for next week, we will later on be giving notice of a motion on behalf of the government to debate the important issue of the North-South dialogue and international affairs in general. The government therefore will be debating this motion, of which notice will be given later today, on Monday. Technically, we could wait until tomorrow to give this notice, but as a courtesy to the opposition and at their request, I will make sure that they can have the text of this motion, which will be introduced on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), later today.
Tuesday will be an allotted day set aside for the New Democratic Party, and we understand that they will keep the promise they made in this House to the effect that, if the government agreed to set aside a day to debate the important issue of the North-South dialogue, they would word the motion for their allotted day in such a way as to allow the House to debate the same subject. We therefore expect that Tuesday's debate will also deal with the North-South dialogue, which means that to all intents and purposes, we shall probably be dealing with international affairs and the North-South dialogue in the House of Commons next Monday and Tuesday.
Finally, many amendments to Bill C-57 have been moved. They should be disposed of next week. We are now having discussions in order to decide when we should have our second day of debate at the report stage. Whatever day we choose, at the end of it, we should be expected to vote on several dozens of amendments, and we have tentatively agreed that the votes should not take quite as long as they could. In theory, Madam
June 11, 1981

Speaker, if we were to vote 46 times, which is possible, members of the House would spend six hours yo-yoing and I believe no one here is interested in this type of exercise.
At a meeting this morning, we agreed that we could perhaps make arrangements to vote for a maximum of two or three hours if this debate were held on Thursday. In any event, we shall be completing the report stage of Bill C-57, on Thursday probably, but this remains to be confirmed. If such were the case, we would proceed to third reading on Friday, and if a recorded division is required, it would be deferred to the following week, once again depending on when we have the report stage of Bill C-57. If this were to occur Thursday, as I have just stated, Wednesday will be considered more or less like a Friday, and I shall then make arrangements with my colleagues, the other House leaders, to choose bills on which there is agreement to try to clean up the Order Paper, which is still rather crowded for this time of the year. Madam Speaker, that is essentially what we shall deal with tomorrow and next week.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, with respect to the understanding of the government House leader concerning Bill S-7, that we would deal with it in all stages with one speaker each tomorrow, that is agreeable to us. If there were to be a House order in that regard, there would be no difficulty.
Also, we concur with respect to the question of the divisions. I will have a discussion with my colleagues with respect to the procedure on the voting on Bill C-57, but it seems generally acceptable; we can work out the details later.
I realize the government House leader is not in a position this week to give consideration to the legislative program for the balance of this session, but does he feel that he might be in a position next week to discuss the matter? Would that be possible?
Before sitting down, I want to say that we are very grateful for the indication of the debate on Monday regarding the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the fact the New Democratic Party has forfeited a day. This will allow a two-day debate generally in the field of foreign affairs, which is consistent with the time we used in 1977 when the motion was in the name of the government.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will try to answer the question raised by the hon. member. I think I will be in a better position to provide the hon. member with the details of the program for the balance of the month of June, and perhaps part of July, hopefully next week. I told him that this morning, and I will try to live by that suggestion.
In so far as the debate on Monday and Tuesday is concerned, I am grateful to the NDP.
Business of the House


Walter David Baker: If the government feels it necessary, we would be prepared to agree to a House order now with respect to Bill S-7.


Mr. Knowles:: It is not necessary.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is not necessary. I take the word of my hon. colleague, as I always do, and I never regret it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the program announced for tomorrow seems quite reasonable. I do not think we need a House order with respect to Bill S-7.
With respect to Monday and Tuesday, I wonder where both of my friends have been. They speak as though, because the government has offered to spend a day on external affairs, particularly on North-South, they are glad that we are willing to do the same. The record will show that it started the other way around. We proposed that there be such a debate. We suggested that it be a three-day debate. A few days ago I indicated that, whether or not the other parties offered a day, we would use our day next week for external affairs, with particular emphasis on North-South. So I thank the government House leader for adding a government day to discuss the same subject. I am sorry that I cannot extend the same thanks to the members of the Progressive Conservative party. They have so many opposition days surely they could have given one to this subject as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, with respect to Bill C-57, we, too, have already set in motion possible discussions so that we do not have to vote for five or six hours, requiring the Clerks at the Table to call out several thousand names while we vote 30 or 40 times. I trust that the negotiations with respect to that matter will be successful.
Madam Speaker, all of that is preliminary. I come now to an important question. As the government House leader knows, hardly a week in this session has gone by in which I have not pressed the need for amendments which will take care of the veterans' widows who were left out of last summer's Bill C-40. I want to say to the minister that his answers have been very helpful and encouraging and have led most of us who are interested in this subject to believe that there will be such legislation in this session, even to believe that it will come before us in the month of June. Can the minister now say whether that legislation is ready to be placed on the order paper, or, if not, can he say whether we can count on it in June?
I might ask a supplementary question. Is it time that we started to make arrangements for a short debate so that once we have the legislation we can get it through and those who are the beneficiaries of it will know that that legislation is on the statute books?

June 11, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the legislation my hon. colleague is talking about is actually under consideration by cabinet. When it has received final approval it will be introduced in due course. Whether that will be in this session and whether it will be before the end of June, 1 regret to say I am not in a position to confirm or deny at this time. I can tell the hon. member that since he has been confident, polite and optimistic in the past, there is no reason he should change.


Mr. Waddell:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday, June 8, as reported at page 10350 of Hansard, I asked a question of the President of the Privy Council with respect to the government's intentions on Bill C-48, the oil and gas bill. He replied that he would be in a position to give me a more detailed answer on Thursday.
This being Thursday, I wonder if the minister is in the position to answer my question, which specifically dealt with the request that the government not proceed with Bill C-48 in this session. It is in committee now and people in the north, specifically native people, have expressed the wish that they be given more time to make their representations on this bill. Is the minister now in a position to tell this House that it is the government's intention not to deal with this bill in this session of Parliament but to wait until the fall to deal with Bill C-48?


Yvon Pinard: No, Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to give that assurance to the hon. member. However, I have been told that the minister responsible for energy is talking to the energy critics of both opposition parties with a view to coming to some arrangement to dispose of the committee stage of this bill. Obviously, depending on the results of his negotiations, I cannot at this time state what will be done with that bill. Whether it is reported before the end of June or before the summer adjournment, or whether he will deal with it in third reading in the House or at report stage, which is what the hon. member is asking, 1 prefer to wait for the results of the negotiations between the minister, the hon. member himself and the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). I will then be in a better position to give some clear indications to the hon. member with respect to this bill. But at this stage I prefer to leave the matter to the minister of energy, who is trying to come to some agreement to dispose of this bill.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises out of a motion proposed under the provisions of Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Fries-en). In that motion, statements were attributed to me which I did not make. I would like to set the record straight.
It was suggested by the hon. member that I had threatened that if the RCMP unionized I would reduce their size by 3,000 men-


Mr. Elzinga:: He never said "unionized".


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member asked whether I had spoken to the provincial attorneys general about this matter. In fact, I did not threaten that the RCMP would be reduced by 3,000 men.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I did indicate that if the RCMP did organize, their mandate would have to be reconsidered.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The minister does not have a question of privilege. He is obviously trying to set the record straight, but there are other opportunities to do that.


Benno Friesen: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I feel I must correct the record. I did not use the word "unionize". I think the Solicitor General-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is exactly what happens when hon. members start to correct the record.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Fores-ty-Miss Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, at this time I have the privilege to present a petition containing some 30,000 names which have been gathered together by the wives of the Ontario Provincial Police at the Huntsville, Ontario detachment. The wives are sitting in the gallery at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: There are names on the petition representing people from one coast to the other and, particularly, there are a great many names from the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec. The petition states that the undersigned are firmly convinced that capital punishment constitutes a reasonable and effective deterrent to criminal homicide of police
June 11, 1981

officers and other persons in Canada. The petitioners support the reinstatement of capital punishment as a deterrent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,601 and 2,436.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 74, what are the names and the salaries of all those earning $20,000 or more employed, attached to, under contract to etc., with the Prime Minister's Office that were not included in the answer?


David Michael Collenette: Name	Level	Salary RangeCaron, Christina	CR-6	$19,707-$21,566Langill, Michael	AS-4	$22,480-$25,015O'Brian, George	PM-7	$33,600-$41,500Brockington, Bruce	AS-2	$19,527-$21,858Nadeau, M. E.	AS-2	$19,527-$21,858Thomson, Eleanor	AS-3	$20,812-$23,221Secondment	Coleman, Major R. E.	Major (DND)	$20,045-$31,045Senecal, Nicole	FS-2 (EA)	$28,733-$41,540
Contract
Beauchamp, Clement-preparation of four reports at $5,000 each


Mr. Corbett: 1.	What amount did the government spend on the Pickering Airport development between 1970 and 1980?
2.	What amount did the government spend on the Mirabel Airport between 1970 and 1980 and what is the yearly operating deficit for the airport?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1.	For the fiscal years 1969/70 through 1979/80: $190.2 million.
2.	(a) For the fiscal years 1969/70 through 1979/80: $520 million.
(b) The deficit at Mirabel International Airport since it opened in November 1975 was $192.6 million. This represents all aspects of the excess operating and maintenance expenses, including interest and depreciation, over revenues. The deficit before providing for interest and depreciation for the period was $10.2 million.
Order Paper Questions
Fiscal Years	Deficit
1975/76	$ 18.4 million
1976/77	49.8 million
1977/78	51.6 million
1978/79	52.4 million
1979/80	20.4 million
$192.6 million


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,177 could be made an order for return, such return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,177 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	During the last year, did the government contribute to epidemiology and operational research and, if so (a) in what amount (b) who received such grants and in what amount in each case?
2.	What amount is the budget for next year?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty:: I bring to Your Honour's attention question No. 1,852, which has sat on the Order Paper for more than six months. When I rose in my place a couple of days ago to bring this question to the parliamentary secretary's attention, I received yet again the assurance of the parliamentary secretary that some action would be taken. The Minister of Communications intervened with a very irrelevant interjection, to suggest that he had the information and was ready to provide it before an estimates committee. I am wondering whether I am to infer from the intervention of the Minister of Communications that he is not prepared to answer questions which have sat on the Order Paper for over six months, and which

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
information was made available to him several months ago, according to the chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation. I would like to know the reason for the delay in view of the fact that the chairman's term has expired since this question was put on the Order Paper.


David Michael Collenette: It would be helpful if the hon. member would refer to my previous answers to his six previous interventions on this subject; but 1 would like to say that the government has never refused to answer any particular question put on the Order Paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House calls on the government to send a reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs authorizing it to hear arguments for and against the reintroduction of capital punishment as the penalty for some classes of murder, and, requiring the committee to report its conclusions by December 18, 1981; and
That this House further expresses its view that a free vote should be permitted by all parties on a motion to concur in the report of the committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about democracy, about the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am surprised that the very utterance of the word "democracy" should evoke from the Liberal benchers howls of protest. Certainly they have not practised democracy in their time as a government. We give them the opportunity to do so today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we are proposing here today in this motion is an opportunity to give to the people of Canada a right, through their elected representatives, through their elected Parliament, to discuss and decide questions which the Canadian people believe to be important. For some time members of this House of Commons have talked about rights. We have talked about unity. We have talked about national institutions. Today we offer the opportunity to members of Parliament to act on the right of the people to be heard on an issue which is national in importance, through the only institution which can speak for all of Canada. We propose today to let Parliament discuss the question of capital punishment.
The vote tonight is on the simple issue of whether Parliament is free to discuss important national questions. Some
months from now, there would be a vote on capital punishment, after the evidence for and against the death penalty has been heard in public committee meetings of the people's Parliament. That vote would come later. The vote tonight is on the question whether Parliament has the right to debate what it chooses; whether this institution, which exists to express the public's will, will refuse the public's right to have an important question considered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The question tonight is whether Parliament is free to consider a matter in which the view of the people may differ from the view of the government; whether Parliament is the people's institution or the government's instrument.
[ Translation]
Since the government does not see to it that the House makes more time available to private members, it is almost impossible for them to raise issues that their constituents consider most important, capital punishment being one of them. Millions of Canadians are now seriously asking themselves whether it should not be reinstated. We are asking in this motion that the committee conduct an objective study on the matter and report back to Parliament in order to allay the concerns of so many Canadians on this issue.

Through nine years as a member of Parliament, and through two election campaigns as a party leader, I have put on record two consistent beliefs. One of those is personal, a matter of conscience, about the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty. I have spoken against it, I have voted against it, and I believe the evidence proves that the threat of execution does not stop potential murderers from murdering.
The other principle is that the rules of Parliament and the views of party leaders must not be allowed to frustrate and to limit from expression the strong views of other members of Parliament who were elected by their constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The principle is quite clear. On a question of conscience, I should have a vote as a member of Parliament, but 1 should not have a veto as a party leader, nor should any other party leader in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Holding those views, as I do, I am pleased with the present law against capital punishment, but I am not proud of the way it was achieved. Without reflecting on the vote of private members, I believe that the government's procedure in introducing the resolution as a government measure prevented a truly free vote, at least-I say, at least-among cabinet members. But that vote is behind us. The question now is whether the matter of capital punishment will be closed forever from debate and decision in this House.

June 11, 1981

Each year we change laws regarding taxes, pensions, and even regarding constitutions. The tradition of Parliament is clear. No Parliament is bound by the action of its predecessors. Every Parliament is free to consider any question. Is capital punishment to be the exception to that tradition? Is the Constitution to be open to discussion but capital punishment closed? If we make that exception, we open the way to other exceptions and we erode both the power and the reputation of Parliament.
That question of reputation is important. If we are to build a sense of national community in this country, we must build respect for the institutions that serve the whole community; and Parliament is paramount among them. All of us who serve here must share the concern that Parliament does not command the respect in the country it deserves. I believe that is because Parliament is known to have too little power over the executive, and the government I led sought to bring much more power to ordinary members of Parliament.
But if we trace the causes of cynicism about Parliament, I think it is clear to all of us, whether we are abolitionists or retentionists, that one of the most basic and most dramatic causes is that, on the question of capital punishment, where most Canadians have strong views, Parliament went one way and the public went the other. That sense of wrong was compounded by the belief that the last vote was not in fact free.


An hon. Member:: It was rigged.


Charles Joseph Clark: It will be compounded again if the government uses its majority to stop the question from even being considered by a committee of this House of Commons.


David Michael Collenette: Forty-one Liberals voted for retention.
[ Translation]	.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why would government deprive members of the opportunity to express their views and vote on this issue that their constituents consider most important? How can we get the public, which already has misgivings about our parliamentary system, to change its views if the government refuses to have the matter studied objectively and in a non-partisan manner? How can the government stand in the way of a free vote on such a crucial issue without harming our democratic traditions?

The government may argue that this motion is, technically, a question of confidence. I would hope they would not make that argument as they have not made it in the past on occasions I will cite. But they may seek to hide behind a technicality rather than take the opportunity to let Parliament deal with an important public question.
There are three answers to the technical argument that they may raise. The first is that we, as the proposer and as the opposition in this Parliament, do not regard the question as a matter of confidence.
Capital Punishment
The second is that a predecessor of this government, under the leadership of the late Mr. Pearson, when defeated on a budgetary matter, did not treat that as a question of confidence. A party which treats a budget vote as not involving confidence cannot in conscience argue that it loses its right to govern by referring a question to committee.
Finally, in June, 1978, in an allotted day concerning the Indian Act, the government treated our motion on its merits, not contesting our explicit statement that confidence was not in question. Again, in February, 1978, concerning sunset laws and other reforms to reduce government spending, the responding minister welcomed the debate and did not raise questions of confidence. This matter, too, deserves to be dealt with on its merits, and not run away from on the basis of some technicality.
What is at issue here is whether Parliament has any control at all over its own agenda. We are using one of the few allotted days available to the opposition to allow this whole Parliament to consider a question in which the great majority of Canadians are interested. We have been careful to remove any tone of partisanship-any question of confidence-any bias in the subject matter we want referred to a committee. Clearly, this motion does not involve a vote of confidence in the government. It does, however, involve a vote of confidence in Parliament. To vote against this motion is to vote against the right of Parliament to inquire into an important public question.
I have spoken of the right of the Canadian public to have their Parliament consider a question of public interest, and the importance that it can have for the role, the reputation and in time the reform of Parliament, a reform that would give more power to individual members, not power to the executive.
There are two other reasons why I introduce this motion. One is educational. Violence and murder are matters about which the Canadian public has more fears than information. A public study can improve public understanding of the issues and the options involved.
We in this Parliament have just concluded a long experiment in public hearings on the Constitution, and there is no question that public opinion was informed and changed as a result of that process. Public discussion is the way a democracy becomes informed about public issues. If we want a democracy that decides on the basis of facts rather than on the basis of fears, public discussion of public issues is essential.
My other reason for proposing this motion is that I personally believe that a close study of the facts will cause more people to oppose capital punishment. The most recent statistics on homicides were released yesterday. They indicated that, for at least the fourth year in a row, the rate of homicide is going down, and the rate of murder is going down dramatically-a 17 per cent drop last year. Obviously other factors are also at work, but the fact remains that homicide and murder rates have gone down in Canada since the abolition of capital punishment.
10500

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
I believe an honest, open inquiry would introduce other evidence to demonstrate that, if we are interested in making society more safe, we should look to remedies other than having the state kill people. But as one member of Parliament,
I am prepared to take my chances with the facts, and I would hope that all other members who respect Parliament and have faith in their views will do the same, will support this motion and will allow the objective study by Parliament that we propose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to represent this party in responding to the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to send the question of the death penalty to a committee. The last time I know of when that happened was when Pontius Pilate did it.
I am very sorry that the Progressive Conservative party was not able to come to terms with what is going on in this country and the world. I am very sorry that the Progressive Conservative party did not see fit to give a day to debating the world's problems. 1 am very sorry that the Conservative party did not see fit to speak about Canada's problems, to speak about the economy that is going to pieces, to speak about the fact-


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Robert Joseph Ogle: -that this government is not standing up to the questions that affect the lives of everyone in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Joseph Ogle: 1 am surprised that the party to my right was able to face the fact that what is taking place now is not a question of capital punishment but a question of having old people live a life that is worse than capital punishment. What is happening to the old people in this country because of what the government is doing to them is making them less than human.
I am sorry that the Progressive Conservative party was not able to prepare a motion that would enable us at least to speak about what is happening this summer as it effects the whole North-South question. Rather, they turned around with a direct attack on their leader who had to get up today and, I am sure, humbly stand before this House and the country and say: "The leader of this party is being hanged by his own party."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stood here and explained to the people of Canada that it is against his conscience to have capital punishment. He has been forced to this by his party, and everybody knows that he has been forced by his party. He has been hanged by his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: The Leader of the Opposition is not speaking about a committee, he is speaking about the fact that he can no longer control his party. He is speaking about the fact that he has been hanged and that the Conservatives have decided
that there will be a new leader. That, I feel, is a very distressing thing for Canada. It is capital punishment all right, Mr. Speaker; it is the hanging of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: At the same time that this is happening to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, the party on the other side of the House is smugly glad that another day is going by that they do not have to come to terms, face to face, with the problems that are basically affecting every Canadian, the real problems of this country.


Mr. Corbett:: Tell us why you are going to vote against it.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I am going to vote against this proposition this afternoon because we are dealing basically with the principle of life and death. What is being covered up here is that this is a way of sneaking back to the act of killing people. That is what it is about.


Mr. Siddon:: Speak about abortion, then.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I will speak about abortion.


Peter Elzinga: Tell the truth.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I have been asked to tell the truth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rises on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that we listened quietly and attentively while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was speaking.


An hon. Member:: He told the truth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) deserves the same courtesy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken. The hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle).


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to speak the truth. The simple fact that that has been asked of me would indicate that I do not speak the truth. I do not know how to take that in this House of Commons. In a situation like this, I speak the truth.
In the election, I ran on this issue of life and death. I said that if elected I would defend human life from its conception until its natural end. Last November 18 I spoke on the first part of my principle, which is against my party's position, and today I speak on capital punishment, the second part.


Mr. Clarke:: It is not the debate.

*


Robert Joseph Ogle: The debate is on capital punishment.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Read the motion.


Robert Joseph Ogle: The debate is on the motion to bring again to this House the question of capital punishment. The position of the New Democratic Party, which every member of our caucus supports, is that clearly and unequivocally we are against capital punishment, against corporal punishment of any kind.


Mr. Corbin:: Be consistent.


Robert Joseph Ogle: A committee would not bring anything more to the people of Canada than what the Leader of the Opposition has already stated.
Since capital punishment was abolished in this country, the incidence of murder has decreased. I do not believe that any more information could be found except that found in transcripts of committee hearings. I have before me part of the debates which took place in 1976.1 think probably the clearest and fullest argument on this subject was presented by the then solicitor general, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).
I shall read into the record a speech given on June 7, 1976, as found in Hansard at page 14215:
In my examination of the evidence-and, like other members of the House, I have made it my business to look at the evidence as it relates to the deterrent effect of capital punishment-it has been my judgment that capital punishment does not function as a deterrent in the case of those peculiar people who commit murder.
Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition.
I have here material which was presented to me, and to members of this House, by Amnesty International. It states that all cruel punishment at this time, the death of people, be taken out of our country.


An hon. Member:: What about murder?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Also I have documents from the Canadian churches. The Catholic church, all branches of the Protestant faith and the Jewish communities all speak morally against capital punishment.
I want to tell a personal story about what murder and capital punishment is all about. After I had been nominated as a candidate to run in the new riding of Saskatoon East, and several months before we believed was going to be the time of the election, a mounted policeman by the name of Brian King was viciously murdered by two young teenagers from our city. The next day, people were angry. They were crying out, "kill them."
My background teaches me that when there is trouble, one should get to the people in trouble. It just happened that I knew all three families involved in this crime. I knew the mountie who had been murdered, I knew his wife and I knew his children. They were parishioners of mine. I knew the two youths and both of their families. Those two boys had walked out in the morning as two 17-year-olds. They never came home again. They were arrested that night after a vicious crime. I
Capital Punishment
am not in any way trying to cover for the crime. During the course of the next few days I acted as an intermediary for the three families. Two families were distressed because of what their children had done. The other family was distressed because of the loss of a father, a husband and a son.
My story is about three mothers, the mothers of the two young boys and the mother of the policeman. It was hard to console the mothers of the two young boys. It was difficult to console the mother of the policeman. She said to me, and I remember this so well, that killing their two sons would not bring back her son. If there is a question of humanity in the hearts of human beings, she said it clearly.
That is not the whole story. This murder caused a rise in human emotion. Several weeks later, in the same district, two grade five boys from a local school came home to play during lunch hour at the home of one of the boys whose parents happened to be away. They found an old 22 rifle and started to play cops and robbers. One of the boys shot his friend, who fell seriously wounded. The boy who had shot his friend ran home, went into the basement, took a rope and hanged himself. He hanged himself because he thought that would be the punishment for someone who had shot a human being. People who permit the idea that capital punishment will decrease violence are wrong.
If today we had been able to have a motion on capital punishment, I would have been proud to support the Progressive Conservative party in their move had it been a clear motion to support what the Amnesty International people are asking our country to do. That is to remove the provision of taking the life of someone else for the crime of treason, and join the 20 other civilized democratic countries in the world who have removed that provision from their code.
Our party will be voting against this motion.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, like members opposite, I intend to address the merits of this motion and the appropriateness of debating the question of capital punishment at this time either here in the House or in committee. Before doing so, I must say that we are dealing with a question of confidence in the government-


Charles Joseph Clark: No.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -however the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) tries to disguise it. We are debating a question under Standing Order 58(9) of our rules. The rules clearly indicate that this is a question of non-confidence, and our party views it as such. The Leader of the Opposition refers to his willingness, as an individual, together with some of the members of his party, to change the rules. He referred to a precedent of the Pearson government which took place under other rules. We see ourselves in the position of following the rules and being obliged to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in my remarks in relation to the subject matter of capital punishment I was

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
naturally expressing my views as an individual. When I was speaking on the question of confidence, I was speaking as the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and indicating that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this House does not consider this to be a question of confidence and will not so treat it. I simply say that to correct the record.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I hear the Leader of the Opposition but I also see the rule. It is clear. The members on this side of the House are bound to view it as a question of no confidence and will be voting accordingly.
The Leader of the Opposition also indicated that the position that the government and members on this side might take on the matter could only be interpreted to mean they were against Parliament's having the right to deal with this issue over which there is a great deal of public concern. Certainly there is a good deal of public concern and I want to talk about that.
I want to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that this is not the right rule or the right type of debate for this kind of issue. Given the evidence of the last five years, which I want to describe, this is not the right time for this debate. I concede that Parliament has the right to change a decision made in the past, to open the question of capital punishment and consider it. However, it is the view of the government that this is not the House rule, and given the history of the past five years, this is not the time to reconsider and perhaps reverse the decision which was taken in a free vote five years ago.
I reject the notion that there ought to be a six-month consideration of this question by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It is a wonderful issue, a very attractive one for debate. However, from my experience of having watched four parliamentary debates on this question, another debate on this question would inevitably be futile and inconclusive.
The same statistics are used by both sides to prove opposite points. Our moral traditions-the Jewish tradition, Christian tradition and others-are referred to in order to prove the opposite side of the argument. Logic is used in different ways to prove completely different results. What it boils down to is an excellent subject for debate, but one in which very firmly held views by all those who generally participate in it are simply confirmed.
When one looks at the important work the justice committee has before it, one must recognize and agree that the committee should not be used for six months as a debating society. It has before it the access to information bill, a bill which will give additional rights to Canadians to require and demand information from the government. There is before that committee a very lengthy bill completely revising the criminal justice system for young offenders, one to which I hope it will turn its attention on an urgent basis. I expect it will shortly have before it amendments to the RCMP Act giving additional rights to members of the force to grieve within the system and giving additional rights to the Canadian people to have their complaints heard by an independent tribunal. With all of this
business before the committee, a six-month debate which we know in advance will change very few minds, if any, and will raise very little new evidence, if any, is a very unproductive use of the time of a parliamentary committee under the circumstances.
Capital punishment is a matter of public concern. That is obvious from the number of times the House has addressed this subject in recent years and from the number of private members' hours that have been allocated to it.


Mr. Lawrence:: What about the public?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Public opinion has also been very lively on this subject. I also recognize and respect the desire of every member of this House to do that which his conscience tells him is right. We are all concerned with the reality of crime. We are especially determined to protect the physically weaker members of our society who most often are the victims of murder; women, young people, defenceless older people. There are particular concerns for the safety of those who risk their lives in order to protect the rest of us; I am thinking of our police, our correctional officers and members of our security forces.
Each member brings to this House a reflection of his own deep and personal sense of justice. Each of us has wrestled with the question of what is the appropriate punishment for someone who has killed one or more innocent persons. We all share in the frustration that crime is an evil and apparently intractable component of human society. But the issue has not changed since we last explored this territory in 1976. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in that debate, it is not the goal of protecting innocent people from the ultimate violence which divides us. He further stated:
It is a goal we all share. What divides us is the question of the appropriateness of state execution of murderers as a means of achieving that goal.
In my view, and as I will show, there is nothing new in the way of evidence to justify changing the decision that was taken deliberately and freely in 1976. In my remarks today, I will not argue that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. I think it is. It is not evident, however, that capital punishment is any more effective than the sanctions which have been put in place. At best, if there were to be a six-month debate and a fair view of it by an objective outsider, if one could find an objective analyst, one could only concur with the conclusions of Albert Blumstein and Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University that:
The deterrent effect of capital punishment is definitely not a settled matter and this is the strongest social-scientific conclusion that can be made at this time.
It would be so much more straightforward if there were conclusive evidence on the subject one way or the other, or even a reasonable prospect of conclusive evidence; but this is simply not the case.
There is something which is new, however, and I want to refer to that for the balance of my time. That is the experience since 1976 and I will turn to it in a moment. Before doing so, I want to remind the House about the predictions which were made by members of Parliament in 1976 during the very
June 11, 1981

debate that hon. members now seek to resume. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) said then:
If we remove that ultimate penalty, we will have filleted our nation. We will have removed its backbone and removed from our citizens the will to stand up and defend our way of life.
Has that happened? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) said that "Canada will become a haven for criminal activity". The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said that "Capital punishment is necessary if we are to prevent civilization from becoming more brutal and lawless". The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) said:
Communities of senior citizens (could be) forced to surround themselves with electrified barbed wire fences patrolled 24 hours a day by security guards in order to keep out marauders and potential criminals.
1 recently opened a senior citizens' home in Edmonton in the constituency of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who also had fiery words on the subject five years ago. There are no barbed wire fences around that senior citizens' home or guard dogs, even though they had advance warning that I was coming. On another line, an important point made by several members but perhaps most emphatically by Arnold Malone-


Charles Joseph Clark: "The member for Crowfoot".


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He is not in the House now.


Charles Joseph Clark: He certainly is.


Mr. Crosby:: It was Horner who was defeated.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He said this:
If you weaken the protection afforded to the police forces of this country, it goes without saying that when policemen act under duress, people will be killed. Policemen will obviously want to feel secure and, not having the protection of the law, will shoot first and ask questions afterwards.
Later he said:
If this amendment is not passed, capital punishment will not be done away with. It will be simply a case of the due course of law not being followed. Police officers and prison guards in this country will, in more rapid succession, be using their weapons in self-defence. The result will be capital punishment without trial.
The available evidence indicates that the words of the prophets in this case were widely mistaken. The trend in homicides, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) indicated, since 1975 has undoubtedly been downward. The actual over-all homicide rate over that period has declined from 3.07 per 100,000 to 2.48 today. Even more encouraging, however, is the information on murders committed during that same interval. In 1975 the murder rate in Canada had reached an all-time high of 2.79 per 100,000. Today that rate has fallen by about 25 per cent to 2.06. Yesterday, as was mentioned, data for 1980 were released by Statistics Canada, and last year alone the decline in the murder rate was equal to 17 per cent.
Let me interject because I want to speculate without being able to demonstrate. 1 hope that an analysis will be able to show that the tough gun control legislation we introduced a
Capital Punishment
few years ago, and which is now in its second year of operation, had something to do with that rapid decline in the murder rate last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I know that gun control law is hard to live with, that it has a lot of red tape associated with it, and that it has a lot of nuisance associated with it, but even with that 1 hope the trend we are seeing toward less lives being lost will be taken by hon. members to justify it.
This trend toward reduced homicides can be seen everywhere. In our three major metropolitan centres, for example, between 1975 and 1978 the murder rate fell from five to 2.4 in Montreal, from 2.2 to 1.8 in Toronto, and from 4 to 3.2 per 100,000 in Vancouver. In every single province except British Columbia both the 1980 homicide rate and the 1980 murder rate were below 1975 levels. These figures are encouraging signs and they are good news for all Canadians. They stand in stark contrast to many of the intemperate predictions that were made in this House five years ago.
The Canadian experience over the past few years argues eloquently against the reintroduction of capital punishment in the absence of any decisive evidence. Given that deterrence is a moot point, is there anyone who, in the face of this data, can stand and state unequivocally that the law as it now stands has served Canada badly? What so many feared has not happened; what so many predicted has not taken place. Even if we only focus on murders of policemen, where numbers are so small that the statistics are unsteady, the average rate over the past five years is lower than in the preceding five-year period. The facts tell us that in all categories of homicide, not only have the rates of the crime fallen, but the absolute number of incidents has dropped as well.
I do not want to leave the members of this House with the impression that there are no problems related to the status quo. There are problems relating to the managing of the 25-year "lifer" population who refer to themselves, recognizing the statute of 1976, as the "C-84s". We currently have 148 prisoners serving first degree sentences and an additional seven with second degree convictions with a minimum parole eligibility term of 25 years. At this point, after a year as Solicitor General, I have met most of these individuals and I have had an opportunity to talk with them. There are 20 who are women, and in the male population, as well as the women, it is settled that they are far from necessarily being the most dangerous inmates. The problems guards have in maintaining order and security are directed to some of this group, but certainly not to all of them, and their elimination from the prison population would not significantly alter the problems of security and order that exist in our penitentiaries. They include some of the most dangerous, but they are not all the most dangerous and far from it. Many of them, nearly half, are individuals who have had no association with crime before having committed their murders. Their murders involved individuals they loved, hated or worked with, and their appear-

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
ance in the criminal community in prison for that very significant number was the first association with a criminal lifestyle.
Among the first degree group, all but six of whom are still being held in maximum security, there has been a relatively small number of incidents. Of 51 hostage-takings since July, 1976, first degree murderers have been involved in fewer than ten. There has been only one single report of an assault on a staff member by a "C-84" inmate, and four assaults on other prisoners. Four have escaped, of whom all but one have been recaptured, while there have been four escape attempts, three others involved in a plot to escape with violence, and another involved in a separate escape plot. Other relatively minor incidents have included two offences of contraband possession, a cell fire, one brief hunger strike, and five found to be participants in a minor disturbance. There has been less manifestation of severe psychological stress due to the length of sentences than some had expected. We have had a single incident each of attempted suicide self-inflicted injury, but there have been no suicides.
This population does present program problems to the correctional service of Canada. Despair is an issue. They are matters which concern my department and they are getting attention in the context of the over-all management of our penitentiary system and the maintenance of a satisfactory prison environment; but this experience of these inmates and the problems we have with them should not, in my view, since we can handle those problems, bear heavily on the subject of the debate before us.
I am conscious of public opinion, and some members opposite have referred to it more than once while 1 have been speaking. I think public opinion is important. But on this important subject of capital punishment I would only observe that public opinion is very much more influenced by sensational incidents, by a tragic killing which I would speculate is inevitable in any society or in any community, than by the underlying trends which I have described, trends which indicate that we are coping well in the criminal justice system with the problems of crime.
1 challenge members who support this motion to come up with anything new in the experience of the last five years, with any argument that was not put forward, that was not answered or that was not considered which would justify a reconsideration of capital punishment. In all, I agree with the spokesman for the NDP who indicated that there are better ways the House could have spent this day, and better ways that the justice committee could spend six months.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into some of the reasons I am pleased to have this motion before the House today, I would first like to say how pleased I am personally to be able to have this opportunity to second the motion presented by the leader of our party.
I would also like to remind the previous speaker, the minister responsible, that he has a very short memory. Just a few
months ago-I have a copy of Hansard here for October 14, 1980-I asked this very minister:
Will the minister give the opportunity to members of this House to vote on capital punishment?
And what was the minister's answer? He said:
I could remind hon. members opposite that this is an opposition day and they could have chosen any subject-
Including capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: Hypocrisy.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I was asking at that time for a free vote, a vote free from political pressure, free from having a leader telling his frontbenchers how to vote.
I asked if he would allow a private member's bill to come to a free vote in the House. His response was that it was none of his business, that it was the House leader's business. I went to the House leader and I got jockeyed back to the minister. So what we are getting is a deferral, a postponement, a failure for every member in this House to at least be honest with the people of Canada and to give them the opportunity to respond to a committee on how they feel about capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, we had some 30,000 signatures presented to this House today. Is that not indication enough to the members opposite? What problem creates more of an issue in the province of Quebec than the issue of capital punishment? What province has a higher percentage of people who would like to have a free vote in this House than the province of Quebec? Where are the 75 members of the backbenches? I do not see them in the House. Are they going to stand up here and give the people of the province of Quebec the opportunity to come before the committee?
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) stands up in this House today and has the gall to tell us that gun control has caused a reduction in the murder rate-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I said I hope it has.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -or there has been a reduction in the number of homicides. He is defeating his own argument. He has new information that might give strength to us to abolish capital punishment if we were convinced as retentionists that there is some justification. He flies that in the face of statistics showing that never in the history of this country have we had more homicides caused during the act of committing a criminal offence than we have had in the past year. Does this minister realize that 14.5 per cent of homicides today occur during the - commission of a criminal offence? That is in Statistics Canada records. That is proof to me that there is a reason to review his facts in comparison with some facts from police associations who are involved in this process on a daily basis. Do they not have something to contribute? Do members to my left not have constituents who feel there is a need to review capital punishment?
June 11, 1981

I challenge the members of the NDP. There is not one NDP member in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Here comes one lone abolitionist. In 1976 11 NDP members voted for abolition. How many Liberals voted for retention in 1976? Thirty-seven. Where are they now? Have they betrayed their constituents?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Have they flown off to their ridings? They are not in the House; where are they?


An hon. Member:: Shame.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: What about the front bench over here? One minister is in the front row and the other one has just spoken.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I am stating facts that can go into Hansard. This is an issue. Whether you realize it or not, since 1953- just listen. You do not want to hear the facts.


An hon. Member:: Here come the ministers.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The ministers are flocking in now. I am surprised their leader is not in front of them.


An hon. Member:: You are putting on a show for the gallery.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: How many ministers in 1976, Mr. Speaker, are on the record in Hansard as supporting retention of capital punishment when they campaigned in their ridings? They are not in the House today because they lost their seats. The whole Liberal front row voted for abolition in 1976, and we considered that a free vote! Six votes made the difference. Had three votes gone the other way on the government side or in the NDP, we would still have capital punishment today.


An hon. Member:: Eighteen Tories voted for abolition, including Joe.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), our leader, made it plain-


An hon. Member:: Are you sure he is your leader?


An hon. Member:: You bet he is our leader.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They do not want to face up to responsible parliamentary government.


An hon. Member:: Eighteen Tories.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that your I.Q.?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I would remind this House that leadership involves the quality of directing by example. I would think that putting Parliament above the decisions of any one man is an example that many in this House could well profit from. Let
Capital Punishment
me repeat, whether a society endorsing the abolition of capital punishment is a valid barometer of civilized behaviour or not is beside the point. What is to the point is whether the government and members of this House are willing to accept in practice the democratic principle of truly reflecting the wishes of the people to whom they are ultimately responsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Every capital punishment opinion poll taken in Canada since 1953 has demonstrated that the majority support is for capital punishment. Let us examine what the public have said since 1953 on capital punishment, keeping this point in mind. In 1953, 71 per cent of Canadians believed in the death penalty. In 1975, according to Gallup, virtually the same number of people felt the same way. Since 1966, according to four separate surveys, a growing number of Canadians-72 per cent in 1975, up from 43 per cent in 1966-feel that we do not deal harshly enough with criminals.
As to what we are doing today about it, to the question asked in April, 1978, "Would you be in favour or opposed to a vote being held on the issue of capital punishment?", 82 per cent of Canadians surveyed nationally favoured such a vote. My own constituents were polled. There were 7,000 responses to the question: "Would you support capital punishment for first-degree murder?"; 87.2 per cent responded in favour, and those responses were tabled in this House.
Another revealing figure from the StatsCan report shows that the number of murders committed during the course of another crime, which I mentioned earlier, has remarkably increased since the abolition of capital punishment. Perhaps the most crucial statistic is the murder rate as a proportion of population. In 1961, the year before the last person was hanged in Canada, the murder rate per 100,000 people was 0.94. Since then, as I have pointed out, it has increased two and a half times, and murder is increasing everywhere.
Canada's homicide rate is far worse than that of France, Germany, Japan, England, Sweden and Italy, to name but a few countries. There is far less chance of citizens being murdered in those countries where, in some cases, they have retained capital punishment, than there is here in Canada.
In conclusion, I would say that the principle of democratic representation is a much greater principle than that of any single cause-whether or not, for the best of reasons, members are convinced of the rightness of their action which is contrary to the clear opinion of their constituents. What I seek to defend is the right of the people to exert their will, which I feel should supersede the right of government-within the limits of order-to exert its will if that is contrary to the people's.
Finally, the principle of a free vote is far preferable to the muzzle which has been imposed upon certain sections of seats in the House when it suits the purpose of certain interests. I view the free vote practice as serving democracy, the best interests of the people and the country, and endorsing a leadership which is flexible, honest and sensitive. I urge the

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
House to subscribe to those principles and refer this matter to committee in order that Canadians will have some say in the actions of the government.
We will not settle, as members of the opposition, for the point made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), that this is a non-confidence motion. This is a motion requesting the opportunity for the majority of Canadians to have some say in the decisions of members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is both as a member of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and, of course, as a citizen and elected representative from Quebec that I welcome this opportunity to rise in this House this afternoon on the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). For the benefit of my constituents, I would like to recall some facts that led to the free vote held on July 14, 1976, when Bill C-84, to abolish capital punishment, was approved by 134 yeas to 124 nays.
In support of the government bill, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Clark, had this to say at the time on capital punishment, and I quote:
... it has been my judgment that capital punishment does not function as a deterrent in the case of those peculiar people who commit murder.
This, Mr. Speaker, is taken from Hansard for June 7, 1976, page 14215. He went on to say:
... What we have to do is determine whether the threat of capital punishment would stop those people who are likely to take human life, or likely to commit murder, from undertaking that act. I have seen no firm evidence to suggest that the threat of capital punishment is a deterrent.
This is on the same page, Mr. Speaker.
A week later, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) Leader of the New Democratic Party, stated the following, as reported on pages 14496 and 14498 of Hansard:
... 1 am not persuaded that capital punishment can be supported by reason or moral argument. .. the solicitor general and others have shown that the evidence-and I shall not put it stronger than this-is simply not persuasive.
Capital punishment therefore was abolished for all offences in the Criminal Code, with the support of the leaders of the three major political parties in this House.
Historically, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we should look back on the past in order to find out what types of crimes, according to the tradition of our British law, of course, deserved capital punishment. In the 18th century, England dealt out capital punishment for 250 offences. However, there is no evidence that so many executions had any incidence on the crime rate at that time. Quite the opposite, a study of offences committed in Britain three years after executions were suspended for a number of property crimes shows that their number had significantly decreased.
Mr. Speaker, at the time it was abolished capital punishment applied to a specific type of murder, namely the first degree murder of police officers or of people working inside prisons. I contend that murder will always be murder and that we cannot consider the death of one individual as having a greater significance than that of another. In this regard, if we had to reconsider this issue, we would have to examine what other types of murders could be subject to this penalty. I must say that I am really shocked when I think that thousands of deaths in car accidents each year will never be subject to this kind of penalty, nor will the numerous deaths occurring through neglect because companies or business owners decide to reduce safety measures on work sites or in the manufacture of certain appliances. 1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot put a price on any life and that it is not by reinstating capital punishment that we shall bring back to life those who will die because of the carelessness of other people.
The paradox that should be noted concerning the death penalty is that if it is dealt out too often, it forgoes its frightful nature, and if it is seldom applied, the risk of being sentenced to death gets blurred in the minds of criminals. I believe that this was the conclusion arrived at when Bill C-84 was passed in 1976. Its proponents have never shown that it can be a deterrent or that it is more of a deterrent than life imprisonment. In Canada, capital punishment seems to have been a deterrent less for the murderers than for jury members, Crown attorneys, judges and members of the Privy Council. Thus, many of the accused have been acquitted, or found guilty of lesser crimes, or have been declared temporarily insane or had their sentence commuted.
According to available data, the annual rate of convictions for murder has varied in Canada between 33 per cent and 46 per cent during the period extending from 1880 to 1960. Between 1960 and 1974, the total rate of convictions following an original indictment for first degree murder has been less than 10 per cent. However, the percentage of murderers tried under the original indictment for first degree murder and sentenced for a lesser crime has been 64.5 per cent, and this brings the total rate of convictions to 74.2 per cent. We can therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian jurors are reluctant to indict an accused for first degree murder, but will rather find him guilty of a lesser crime which does not put his life in jeopardy.
Statistics also show that shortly before 1962, a murderer had one chance in ten of being hanged in Canada because many jurors were reluctant to bring in verdicts of guilty for fear of seeing the death penalty imposed. Therefore, before that year, not only were murderers not condemned to death, but they had also a better chance of being sentenced only to a short prison term or of being acquitted. After the last hanging in Canada on December 11, 1962, successive governments, both Liberal and Progressive Conservative, on the basis of the evidence including minutes of proceedings, commuted death
June 11, 1981

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
my mind, that reflects very well indeed the reasons and motivations of the new French government.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that when an attempt was made on the life of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, he certainly did not call for either the death penalty or severe punishment against his assailant. Instead, he asked forgiveness for the culprit in whom he saw a poor, unfortunate and despondent creature who could not possibly have been very happy.
Mr. Speaker, the same can be said of President Reagan who was also the victim of an attempt on his life. Had it succeeded, it would have meant that a president of the United States had been murdered once again. I believe President Reagan's first reaction was one of sympathy for the family of his assailant, the parents of the young man who, to put it briefly, committed a senseless act.
The abolition of capital punishment is actively sought by the United Nations. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, may I say that, last September, I took part in the international conference on the treatment of prisoners, held in Caracas, and this subject was fully discussed at that time. Most Western countries agree that the death penalty should be abolished, but I must say that, internationally, some countries have not yet reached that stage of social maturity where they can face the question of collective violence versus individual violence. Capital punishment was abolished in Great Britain in 1969. In Italy, recent legislation passed to repress terrorist activity does not, however, go so far as to impose the death penalty. Finally, I trust that through the United Nations social development committee, we can do away with the death penalty worldwide.
Even though, according to the official report, the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of the abolition of capital punishment, he said recently that if he were elected leader of the next government, he would let members introduce a bill on hanging. Not only would the Leader of the Opposition not follow the example of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who launched the debate by introducing a government bill and making sure that he had the support of all his ministers on the matter, but he would also proceed by a roundabout way and let one of his members carry on the fight. We can only question the new style of leadership the Leader of the Opposition intends to adopt, even though he claims it is a new form of leadership. It is especially hard for us not to believe that the Leader of the Opposition takes that approach because he is afraid of not being able to get the support of his cabinet, if he had one, to introduce such a bill.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I think it is completely useless and inappropriate to discuss this matter, since the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as indicated by the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan), has many other pieces of legislation and important bills to deal with, such as the access to information bill and the Young Offenders Act, instead of
considering a bill which does not require any study in the short term.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate as a convinced and unrepentant opponent of capital punishment. Five years ago, after a lengthy debate, the Parliament of Canada voted to abolish capital punishment from the Criminal Code. During the debate at that time Gordon Fairweather, who is now Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and who sat then as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, in a truly eloquent speech in the House of Commons, stated:
I want capital punishment removed from the national agenda. I believe that for far too long it has absorbed the mind, the heart and the spirit of this place.
Mr. Fairweather went on to say:
The discussion has gone on endlessly. Surely it is time for Canada to take its place among the civilized nations of the world which possess certain intrinsic values which tell us that the time has come to abolish capital punishment.
Canada did abolish capital punishment in 1976, a half decade ago. But, despite Mr. Fairweather's plea, the issue has not been removed from the national agenda. Nor, in my mind, will the issue be put to rest until a majority of members of Parliament on all sides of the House and most Canadians are satisfied that Parliament has disposed of the question, not only with thoroughness, but also with total freedom from the shackles of party discipline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Members of Parliament were not free to vote as they wanted when capital punishment was finally abolished in Canada in 1976 following a partial ban on a trial basis in 1967 and, I think, 1973. In 1976, the government of the day, a predecessor government to this one, insisted that all members of Parliament were at liberty to follow their consciences in voting on its abolition legislation, Bill C-84. But in a manner as dishonest as it was hypocritical, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used the full force of his office to whip into line dissenters in his own party, including ministers of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Can any reasonable person in this House or in the country believe that in a 32-member cabinet there was not a single retentionist? Certainly there were. In fact, there were several. I knew one or two personally. Yet they were browbeaten into submission by a prime minister hell-bent on getting his own way; and the bill passed with only six votes to spare. Is it, then, any wonder that many members of Parliament and many other Canadians still question the legitimacy of the process which led to the abolition of capital punishment, and therefore, the law itself?
Speaking as an abolitionist and as a Canadian who strongly believes that the subject has long occupied too high a place on the national agenda, I think we must rid Parliament and the
June 11, 1981

country of this obsession with capital punishment as a panacea for every evil in society. I wish the matter were already well behind us. However, I know the thinking of many of my colleagues on all sides of the House, not just my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative party but colleagues on the government side and in the NDP as well. For them, the issue will not go away until they have been allowed to deal with it in an unfettered manner. Only then will everyone be content to live with the decision, whatever it might be.
Let us, as the motion suggests, refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Let that committee discuss all sides of the question. Let that committee investigate every available piece of evidence. Let us have a short debate in Parliament; a short one, I stress that, based on the committee's consensus. Let us have a free vote on an all-party bill or motion, whatever may be the procedure, and then forever hold our peace.
Since Canada's last hanging in 1962, there have been at least four full-scale debates in Parliament on the question of capital punishment. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) said there were four. I defer to his good judgment in that respect. There have been dozens of private members' bills. There have been private members' motions, questions in the oral question period day after day, and other motions. To my mind, there will be many more until both Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, finally have the one debate to end all debates on the issue.
I am hopeful that this motion today will give rise to just such a final debate. Surely, with interest rates at 20 per cent, inflation near 13 per cent-12.6 to be exact, I think-with at least one million Canadians unemployed, with the country torn asunder over energy and the Constitution, we could then turn to such urgent matters unencumbered by consideration as to whether capital punishment should be restored. As much as many Canadians would recoil at the prospect of hearing the same old tired and hackneyed arguments rehashed to a crisp, the alternative of allowing the question to simmer indefinitely would doubtless be even more repugnant.
Frankly, in any such free investigation and free vote on the matter of capital punishment, I am confident that reasonable men and women in Parliament will again repudiate the death penalty as a barbarous instrument of public policy for a civilized society like our own.
A few moments ago, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that he was prepared to take his chances with the evidence, with the truth and with the facts. I share that view. I, too, am prepared to take my chances with the facts.
I myself can lay no claim to original arguments for opposing capital punishment other than a deeply-held conviction that it is morally wrong. The taking of human life by the state betrays everything I know to be right and just by the standards of Judeo-Christian civilization.
Is there a shred of evidence that capital punishment has ever deterred or will ever deter a single person, anywhere in Canada, from committing a single crime? In those jurisdic-
Capital Punishment
tions where capital punishment has been abolished, including Canada, Belgium, Holland, England and other countries which could be mentioned, there has been no discernible impact whatsoever on the crime rate. Indeed, experts have demonstrated that capital punishment may actually encourage violent crimes by triggering brutal tendencies in some people, including psychopaths in society who may subconsciously desire to be arrested and punished at the hands of the hangman.
In any event, capital punishment can only serve to further brutalize our society, which is already too inured to brutality, partly because of violence in the mass media. If we are genuinely concerned about the prevention of crime, and I think everyone in this House is, let us deal with the root causes of crime. These include poverty, ignorance, economic inequality and social injustice. As a maritimer, I would also stress regional disparity.
Lately, a lot has been said about public opinion polls. Already today a number of speakers have mentioned public opinion sampling with respect to capital punishment. It may well be that two thirds of people questioned do favour the death penalty, at least for some offences. However, I personally doubt that many who express support for capital punishment hold strongly to their views. Some do, but speaking as a political scientist, rather than as a parliamentarian, I suspect that very few hold strongly to the views which they express to public opinion samplers. When asked, in separate polls, to list the issues of major concern to them, most people do not even mention capital punishment, let alone put it at the top of the list.
Whatever may be public opinion on the subject, surely we members of Parliament have an obligation not to delegate to our constituents our duty to employ personal judgment on a moral issue of such basic importance. Edmund Burke's advice is perhaps too often quoted, but it is wise nevertheless and remains relevant to this debate. He said:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices to your opinion.
I think we politicians place too much stress on public opinion polls. Certainly the present government stresses them beyond what is reasonable. If we paid as much attention to serving the public as we do to courting their favour, we would likely be more successful on both counts.
Forgive me for concluding on a personal note, Mr. Speaker. My father was a medical doctor who devoted his life to enhancing and often saving the life of others. Although he was a surgeon and a specialist, few people on Prince Edward Island, the province I have the honour and privilege to represent, had not, at one time or another, received his medical attention, frequently following emergency calls to our home in the middle of the night. A marathon nine-hour operation to save the life of one such patient probably provoked the heart attack that killed him nine years ago at the still young age of 63.

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
He was affectionately known by everyone as "Dr. Joe". But there are hundreds, even thousands, of Dr. Joes in our society-men and women, doctors and nurses and paramedics, as well as individuals in walks of life entirely different from medicine-passionately devoted to the enhancement and preservation of human life. That is because deep in the soul of every civilized person is a belief in the fundamental sanctity of human life. Seen in that light, the death penalty is a dehumanizing punishment that does violence not only to the life of the offender but, indeed, to the sacredness of human life itself.
The eloquent Irish voice, now stilled, of the late Grattan O'Leary said it best shortly before he died. He said:
Capital punishment is a moral wrong-A crime against humanity-Nearing Jordan myself, I frankly do not want to face my God with the sin on my soul of having been a party to condemning a fellow human being to facing the throne of God's judgment.
Unless every one of us in this Chamber could, with a good conscience, prepare the scaffold, tighten the noose or, as some would have it, inject the needle or dispense the pill to end the life of a fellow human being, let us put an end, instead, to this odious preoccupation with capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to read the motion presented by hon. members opposite. It reads as follows:
That this House calls on the government to send a reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs authorizing it to hear arguments for and against the reintroduction of capital punishment as the penalty for some classes of murder, and, requiring the committee to report its conclusions by December 18, 1981; and
That this House further expresses its view that a free vote should be permitted by all parties on a motion to concur in the report of the committee.
This motion is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who, as we heard earlier, is an avowed abolitionist. Although we have had some very strange motions from the official opposition, in my opinion this is the most ridiculous they have ever put forward.
In 1976, Parliament decided this question on a free vote although hon. members of the official opposition have declared it was not a free vote. We are dealing with something that they make extremely subjective. They say it was not a free vote in 1976 but, if it happens again, it will be a free vote. They do not say, however, that we should vote on it now; they say we should refer it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for debate, so that the views of all Canadians may be had by December 18. This is the same committee that at the present time is dealing with the bill relating to freedom of information and which will be dealing with the bill relating to young offenders, yet they want it to deal with this question as well.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is not present. He is a strong proponent of the bill relating to freedom of information and I wonder if he would be prepared to put that aside in order to have this question debated.
If this motion were brought before the committee and debated until December 18, what would be accomplished even if all the witnesses who appeared were in favour of bringing back the death penalty? Would that be the end of the matter? It would not, because it would have to come back to Parliament and we would be back where we were when the question was presented to Parliament in 1976.
Members of the official opposition claim that they want to find out what the people of Canada think about this question, yet they say they have a petition with 30,000 signatures giving the point of view of some people of Canada. This is nothing more than a cop-out. It is a ridiculous point of view and it is a waste of the time of Parliament.
This is not to say that I do not sympathize with the point of view of people who are struggling with the question of life and death and capital offences. It is a very serious question for anyone; it is an emotional question and a moral question, a question which bothers many people.
Personally, I am not in favour of bringing back the death penalty, but that is my own opinion. I do not think it would serve any particular purpose.
I feel very sympathetic and understand the tragedy which affects people when a member of their family or a neighbour dies as the result of a violent crime. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, if I thought that bringing back the death penalty would have any effect or would reduce those crimes, I would have to think about it very conscientiously, particularly in regard to police officers and prison guards. Usually the men in these occupations who die violently are not older men, but young men. The older men are likely the sergeants and corporals and not in the position that the younger ones are. It may be that by being more experienced they avoid putting themselves in the predicament of having to deal with a crazed mind.
The people the victims leave behind are in a very difficult situation-the young mothers, the young children and, in some cases, the parents who are still alive. I am sure members on both sides of the House can relate to them with a great deal of sympathy and regret.
Would it help to bring back the death penalty? The hon. Leader of the Opposition put it as well as any of us could when, using the statistics, he said that homicides and murders have been reduced in each year successively, for the last four years. This year, as compared to the year before, murder decreased 17 per cent. This has occurred since Parliament abolished the death penalty in 1976.
We could get into the question of capital punishment and why there should not be capital punishment. However, these points have been debated over and over again. Of course, we must consider that the wrong person could be executed for the crime with which he or she has been charged. This is not a moot point; it has happened. Each of us who deals with this question and debates this point of view has to decide how important it is to him or to her that one person or more has died unjustly for a crime.
June 11, 1981

There is also the point of view that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. I think the statistics speak for themselves. The number of people who have died through violent crime has decreased each year successively over the last four years. Why do we say that bringing back the death penalty would be a deterrent? The problem seems to be the social instability which this country and to a greater extent our friends south of the border face at the present time. This is true of all countries in the western world who advocate a free society. If we are to hold up people who carry guns, who run their cars across gorges, who brutalize and assault people with whom they come in contact as fashionable, we are going to have a much higher homicide rate in this society than we would like.
There are other points. Suppose someone is in death row awaiting execution. We have read countless articles of situations like that in the United States. They have not happened all that much, but each case seems to bring with it an avalanche of literature and editorials. One would think after reading these editorials for a few days that the person concerned really deserved an order of merit rather than to be facing the death penalty. There is no way we can challenge what people are going to write about concerning those who are sentenced to death for violent crimes. However, we do not have to accentuate it by bringing back the death penalty and allowing this to go on unfettered.
There are cases within the criminal justice system itself. Undoubtedly there are juries who have brought in verdicts of manslaughter because they did not want to see the death penalty imposed. We can say to juries that they must be completely objective in these specific cases, but human beings are human beings and because they are serving on juries cannot divorce themselves from their personal feelings. There are judges who supposedly have not tried a case involving first degree murder because they did not feel they could in good conscience sentence that particular person to death.
Are these particular incidents-the reluctance of judges and juries to bring back the stiffest penalty in cases of violent crime and people who are waiting execution being exalted for what they are going through-things that promote a strong retribution to someone who has just committed a violent crime? I suggest they are not. The death penalty primarily does one thing above all others, and that is it prevents the reforms necessary to increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Certainly the question of capital punishment is the most glamorous and easily debated one. It has been debated for years from the time that students are old enough to know what debates are. Why are we just debating the question of capital punishment? Our criminal justice system is not perfect; it never will be. We try to make it as good as possible, but it will never be perfect.
There are many things on which we could be concentrating rather than concentrating on the question of capital punishment. The best social defence and hope for general respect of the law and for law enforcement in our society is to proceed with the reforms necessary to increase the effectiveness of the
Capital Punishment
criminal justice system. We should not be dealing with questions upon which we cannot have an answer which will satisfy the proponents. These people, including those in the official opposition, will not be satisfied with another free vote because the next free vote cannot be any different from the last free vote.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I am sure that any fair-minded, rational human being would agree with that point of view.
I want to deal with one of the points raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), that of treason. The penalty for treason has been left on the books for a very good reason. Treason is a crime against the state. It is something about which we have no knowledge as to its seriousness or its frequency in the future. International terrorism in the western world in recent years has been extracting a very serious price. People who commit acts of terrorism and treason against their own country and other countries have to be dealt with in a way completely different from the justice system.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Because of the safety of other people who are not involved in the particular action. If we do not deal with this type of crime in an unique way, then we may be faced with the problem of having terrorism spread. The experience of recent years is that other terrorists commit other acts of terrorism in order to get the release of the first group. This is a problem with tremendous international ramifications. Hopefully this type of crime is on the wane, but at this early juncture I am not that confident. There are other problems concerning early trials, which we are not discussing here today.
I personally do not feel that bringing back the death penalty will have any merit in our criminal justice system. In fact, I think it will only cloud other things that we should be looking at. Bringing back the death penalty will be a step backward in time. It will be a regression as far as society is concerned. It will be a regression that is needless and which will be harmful and will push us back from what we have all been trying to accomplish, namely a better and more just society.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, previous speakers, but particularly the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) and the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) have called for evidence on this subject. Later I will present some of the evidence which is not being presented by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) or by the officials who prepare his speeches.
Mr. Speaker, citizens in a free society must accept responsibility for their actions. Canadians also believe that society and Parliament have a responsibility to implement laws and set penalties which provide some deterrent against crimes perpetrated against humanity. During the Trudeau reign, the "just society" that was just referred to, the incidence of violent

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
crimes has multiplied astronomically. Later I will give some proof of that and the reasons for it. The crimes of theft, murder, rape, particularly drug related crimes, parenting of unwanted children and a number of lesser problems of family decay, have all been initiated with the coming of the "just society" and the advent of the Trudeau government.
Just as humans in society must account for their actions, governments also must account for theirs. I charge here today that the government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has perpetrated a major crime against Canadian society. Be that as it may, if in its wisdom a government chooses to disregard the wishes of the majority, that government at least has the responsibility to persuade public opinion to accept that wisdom which contradicts the views of the majority. It is not only a responsibility but an obligation.
In the case of abolition of the death penalty, the Liberal government has suppressed public debate. Instead of using the power of public persuasion to convince people that the Liberal caucus is right and over 80 per cent of Canadians are wrong, this government hides behind cabinet decrees and denies the opportunity to Canadians within their democratic institutions to discuss this important subject. I will come to these statistics and to the evidence upon which I charge this government and the Solicitor General of being intellectually dishonest with Canadians. I can produce the facts to prove that.
Getting back to the democratic accountability aspect for a moment, we have all sent out questionnaires. My questionnaire produced several thousand returns and indicated that over 86 per cent of the people in my constituency favour a return to capital punishment in cases of premeditated murder in the first degree. That statistic is reflected in all constituencies across Canada of which I am aware. Where is the democratic accountability or at least the responsibility to persuade public opinion to conform to the wisdom that the government follows on capital punishment? I have always taken the position on this question that privately I hate to see us dispensing with human life as a means of punishment. But on the moral question, we owe society a moral obligation to do what is right, for the whole population, not merely the murderers.
I now want to give some statistics to which the Solicitor General and the government never refer. They were obtained from historical statistics of Canada and show the incidence of murder for the census years 1921, 1931, 1941, 1951 and 1961, and how that ties in with current murder statistics. In 1921 there were 77 murders in Canada. There were 49 in 1931, 40 in 1941, and 52 in 1951. By 1961, with a doubling of the population, there were only 172 instances of first degree murder in Canada.
The rate of murder per 100,000 population all through the twenties, thirties, forties and fifties was less than one murder per 100,000. In fact, the murder incidence rate was .5 in 1931, .4 in 1941, .35 in 1951 and, as my colleague noted earlier, .94 in 1961. With the coming of the "just society" and the Trudeau era, the rate of murder in 1966 was 1.03 persons murdered per 100,000. By 1971 it had jumped to 1.66. By 1972, after the Le Dain ruling, it had jumped to 1.9 murders
per 100,000 population. After that ruling, the Prime Minister told the young people he would relax the drug laws in this country. They were going to create a whole new Liberal society and be more permissive toward our young people. However, the laws were left as tough as they were before, and so they should have been.
We tell young people they can get involved with drugs, and that the law will be changed one day. Therefore, in 1972 with 1.9 murders per 100,000, we found that many of those crimes were drug related. By 1976 the rate had increased to 2.43 and our most recent statistics show about 2.5 murders per 100,000. Crimes of murder have increased by a factor of ten to one compared with the thirties and forties. Compared with the pre-Trudeau era, murders have increased by a factor of three per 100,000.
When the Solicitor General tries to confuse Canadians by saying there have been marginal declines in the murder rate since 1976, he is dishonestly telling Canadians that the only thing that is reducing the incidence of murder is the abolition of the death penalty. That is dishonest because there are a number of other factors which have contributed to the slight reduction in the murder rate. The minister even admits as much in a letter of which I have a copy.
He says:
-it is not a nationally applicable law-or its absence-that is the primary factor in determining homicide rates-
In other words, he has admitted that it is not the absence or presence of capital punishment which is the primary factor in determining homicide rates. But in the previous paragraph of the same letter the minister alleges that the decline since 1976 is due solely to the abolition of capital punishment. He is in absolute contradiction with himself.
I contend that the implementation of gun control legislation probably has a lot more to do with the marginal decline in the incidence of murder since 1976, and it is only a marginal decline. Any significant decline did not occur until 1978. The minister can contest me on that, but it is in the statistics. The significant decline from 2.7 to 2.5 per 100,000 did not occur until after the implementation of gun control legislation.
If we want to look analytically at the statistics, we can argue that since the advent of the "just society" our moral standards in this society have been in a continual state of deterioration. It is not the abolition of the death penalty that has created the marginal improvement in the last two to three years, it is a combination of several factors. In fact, it is morally and intellectually dishonest to try and persuade the Canadian people otherwise.
Had we retained the death penalty in this country today, I would go so far as to suggest that the rate of crimes of murder might be as low as two per 100,000 or less because of the impact of gun control legislation since 1977. You cannot take the simplistic point of view and suggest that only the abolition of capital punishment influenced the statistics, as the minister implies. In that regard, he and the government are misleading Canadians. This is the reason why it is so important to have a
June 11, 1981

full public airing of the real import of these statistics. It is just not a simplistic one to one relationship. As the minister has admitted, there is a complex of factors which affects the incidence of murder and violent crime in our society.
A government which passes laws against the wishes of the demonstrated majority of the electorate, yet fails to persuade public attitudes to change, is not a democratic government. Such a government is tyrannical. That is what this government is if it chooses to vote against this motion. They would deny Parliament access to all of the statistics and a complete historical interpretation of those statistics. We would not have the opportunity to summon witnesses, hear expert testimony from people around the world and then make a decision in the forum of Parliament in the setting of democracy. If such a decision does not reflect the wishes of the people, then the government must produce the evidence to persuade the people to change their minds.
This government is taking a dishonest approach because it is fiddling with the figures. The minister will have to admit to that sooner or later. I just hope the government will accept that this is such an important and crucial problem for Canada, that it relates to the whole quesiton of the just society, moral decay, trauma and tragedy imposed on our people, particularly the people of my riding where the rate was six murders per 100,000 people last year.
Of those numbers there were two separate cases of young girls, one 15 and one 12, were left naked, raped and stabbed one of whom was found on a dike a few days before Christmas morning. I could tell many stories involving circumstances of that nature in my riding. The facts prove that 20 years ago we had only 50 murders a year and we now have 500. It is a crime against humanity and society that 450 additional people are being killed each year in this country because of the policies of this government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mir. Chas. L. Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, on a Conservative motion, as is the case today, we notice at this point in the debate that there are about 14 Tory members present out of 112 in the House. That is a remarkable show of support for-


An hon. Member:: You can't even count.


Mr. Caccia:: I am glad to stand corrected. It is about 14 out of 102 in the House, so 10 per cent of the Tory party members have had the time and conviction to show up this afternoon in support of what I would call this phoney cop-out, the joke of the nation.


An hon. Member:: There are only 13 Liberals present.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, today is an opposition day. This is a Tory motion, and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had better learn what an opposition motion is all about on a day which is allocated to the opposition. Such a day is one on which the official opposition has the responsibility of show-
Capital Punishment
ing it has support for the motion it puts forward. Today we see present in the House less than 12 per cent of the Tory membership.
In a speech earlier this evening the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) implied that the last vote on this matter in the House was not a democratic vote.


An hon. Member:: It was rigged.


Charles L. Caccia: I will address myself for a moment to that issue because it has been picked up by other members of the official opposition who said it was not democratic; or, to quote from the fine speech by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), he referred to the "shackles of discipline having been imposed". I can understand that hon. member making that allegation because he was not here in the House; but the Leader of the Official Opposition was in the House when we held that vote, and he must have seen, unless he is blind, that on that day we had members of the Conservative party who voted for abolition and members of the Liberal party who voted for retention. So much for the lack of democracy!


An hon. Member:: Speak to the motion.


Charles L. Caccia: I am on the motion. The claim of the opposition is that the vote we took in 1976 was not democratic. How does he then explain that members of the Conservative party voted for abolition and members of the Liberal party voted for retention? There was a display of something I would call democracy. Members may want to call it something different, but that, in my book at least, was a free vote. I do not have precise figures before me, but vaguely from recollection there were some 30 Liberal members or more who voted for retention that day, perhaps even as many as 40, while on the Conservative side some ten, 15 or even 18 Conservative members voted for abolition. You will see, Mr. Speaker, that the whips were not on; it was a free vote and everybody voted according to his own judgment in that very historic vote on second reading.
The Leader of the Official Opposition-and this is the second issue to which I would like to address myself this afternoon-said a couple of hours ago, and I paraphrase him since I do not have the blues, that to vote against this motion is to vote against the right of Parliament to inquire into this matter. If this is not the joke of the month, it is a cop-out, as another colleague of mine said earlier. It is perhaps the phoniest reason I have ever heard during many years in this House for moving such a motion. I will explain why. It is a phony excuse because the leader of the Tory party simply does not have the guts needed to give leadership to his own caucus. He is simply caving in to pressures from his own backbenchers in allowing this kind of motion to come forward here today. That is why the motion is before us today. He trots along a phoney reason in relation to democracy, asking for the right of Parliament to vote on something which has been voted upon. He does not have the strength or the honesty to resist the pressure from his own backbenchers, or the strength to give leadership to his own caucus. What a shame, what a disaster, when we have at this point-

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment


An hon. Member:: You are getting more ridiculous all the time; keep going.


Charles L. Caccia: Will you please call the House to order, Mr. Speaker. It is the time of the opposition that is being wasted anyway, Mr. Speaker.
For those reasons, inevitably members on this side of the House and the Canadian public have to come to the conclusion that what is before us is a caving in on the part of the Leader of the Official Opposition to pressures within his caucus. He does not believe in this motion and he has said that himself. He does not believe in capital punishment, but he cannot resist the pressures from the Neanderthals in his own backbenches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: That is a fact. It is a reality.


An hon. Member:: He is doing it for the gallery.


Charles L. Caccia: As I listened to the speeches this afternoon-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) on a point of order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the mover and seconder of the motion, it is totally in error for a speaker on the government side to say that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) does not believe in his own motion. That is in error.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) for realizing that the position of his party is so frail that a remark by a Liberal backbencher must provoke his intervention to demonstrate to us that his leader really means this.
Let me get on with my remarks. When listening to the speeches this afternoon I was making some quick notes on what would have been an alternative subject for an opposition day of the official opposition. I recall the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) writing a very fine article which appeared in The Globe and Mail a few days ago in which he complained about the fact that somehow this Parliament has denied him, and most of us who are interested in international affairs and foreign matters, a debate of several days on the issue. Evidently he was sitting in his seat looking not very enthusiastic or excited about the choice of topic for today's debate. Evidently he would prefer to have another topic for debate, judging from what he wrote in The Globe and Mail the other day. We know the hon. member for Edmonton South would prefer to have had a debate on North-South issues, in which he as well as some other of his colleagues and members of all parties in this House are interested. I jotted down the names of a number of other members who would like to have a debate on East-West relations. There are members who would
like, for the benefit of Canadians watching us on television, to have a debate on the devastating effect of Washington's monetary policy on Canada and western European nations. Why not have a debate on urea-formaldehyde foam which is affecting the lives of many Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Bring it in.


Charles L. Caccia: I will go on, Mr. Speaker, with a few more quick draft proposals for the official opposition. Why not have a debate on jobs and the consistent and chronic vacancies in certain industries in this country? Why not have a debate, for the benefit of the official opposition, on nuclear armament and the need to get a handle on this tough issue? Why not have a debate on labour management and government and the desirability of intensifying consultations between these three sectors so as to achieve certain national goals? Why not, Mr. Speaker, have a debate on acid rain, or on food additives and artificial colours and what they do in the long run to the health of Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Ask your own caucus.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, why not have a debate on propane and methanol and other substitutes that would help reduce our dependance on costly imported oil? Why not have a debate on the spread between interest rates on loans and the rates paid on non-chequing deposits? Why not have a debate on the desirability of covering under social security programs Canadians who have part-time jobs? Why not have a debate on the performance of multinationals in Canada whose policies on world product manufacturing leads to unemployment among our workers who have given, in some cases, over 20 years of their life to their company, as is the case with employees of CGE in Toronto, and that company's decision to stop production of transformers?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: This is quite a condemnation of the government.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, why not have a debate on where we are on multiculturalism ten years after the announcement of this policy? Why not have a debate on marketing boards and whether they serve public interests? Mr. Speaker, why does the opposition not choose a debate on the long-term effect on the health of Canadians of the use of pesticides in agriculture? Why not have a debate on the improvement of ground transportation services in Canada, or a debate on how parliamentary reform would help to better serve the interests of Canadians, or a debate on quotas on imports, whether they help the industries concerned and the consumer? How about having a debate on a reduction in the spending on arms, which amounts to something like $500 billion a year?


An hon. Member:: Speak to the Russians first.


Charles L. Caccia: This would lead to greater development aid to needy countries. Mr. Speaker, why did I make this list?
June 11, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Because you cannot think of any arguments.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to answer yourself too?


Charles L. Caccia: I made this list, Mr. Speaker, to prove a very simple point, that-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The government is a lousy government.


Charles L. Caccia: -the official opposition is bankrupt of ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: And the second point is, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Official Opposition has lost his grip on his caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am-


An hon. Member:: Smile, John, you are on TV.


John Albert Gamble: -pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this important motion, a motion which-


An hon. Member:: You want to hang Joe Clark.


John Albert Gamble: -requires, if accepted, the submission of the issue of the reinstitution of capital punishment to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where, between the time it is referred and December 18 of this year, a determination may be made and a decision taken which would then be referred back to this House for further debate and vote. In that process it is recommended that members of this House be free to vote on that issue without being chained by party links and party discipline.
The substance of the motion itself, Mr. Speaker, ought to be a topic near and dear to the hearts of every member of this House provided they are prepared to speak their minds freely, because I doubt there is any issue that affects more deeply a new member of Parliament who is still confident that it is within our individual right and power to decide how we should speak and vote on an issue. The issue as to how we should vote is accepted as being fundamental, I should think, in examining and scrutinizing the democratic process with which we are all so familiar. But the fundamental principles behind the motion, if closely examined, are that, given the practice in the House and the freedom of the individual member to debate and vote on this issue, there may well be a direct correlation between what the individual member says and does and what his constituents believe he should do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that correlation is fundamental to the principles of representative democracy which hold as their basic tenet the concept that members of Parliament represent someone other than themselves. Curiously enough, those "someones" are the people who reside in the riding and who send him or her here for the purpose of reflecting, they believe, their will in this place so that the laws of Canada may be in
Capital Punishment
accord with the desires of Canadians. While that law may be viewed differently in different parts of the country, I doubt that there is a single issue which has had such universal acceptance among Canadians as have their views with respect to the issue of capital punishment for some classes of first-degree murder.
We have had an opportunity to examine the polls and studies on this issue and not one of them has indicated at any time that the majority of Canadians have ever viewed as being acceptable the action of this government and its predecessor of eliminating capital punishment for first-degree murder. Shortly after my election in 1979 I had an opportunity to canvass my constituents with respect to this issue. Of the 2,461 responses from every region of my riding, which consists of the three towns of Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan and various small communities therein, a full 82.6 per cent of those responding wished this government-at that time the Conservative government-to reinstate capital punishment. My question was: "Do you favour capital punishment for those who commit premeditated murder or take a life during the commission of an indictable offence?" That is a far more extensive and all embracing question than the usual question simply with respect to premeditated murder. Of those who responded, 14.7 per cent rejected the concept and would have voted in opposition, while a full 2.7 per cent had no opinion.
Surely the issue is not whether it is right or wrong but whether the basic and fundamental principles of democracy are to apply. Everyone of us has varying views. Those views have already been expressed within our party; and it is to our party's credit that within its framework there is enough freedom so that men and women can stand and declare their position.
I know there is a terrible temptation from the outset to say that the motion has built within it the framework of an immediate reimposition of capital punishment and that those who are opposed should vote against it because, in so doing, they stop the first step toward the reimposition of the death penalty. Well, that is true, if indeed members of Parliament respond to the demands of their constituents. Unfortunately we have seen in the past that there is certainly no direct response, no relationship between what the public wants and demands and what it gets. It is not a matter of dealing with a revenue bill where one may say, "If we ask the public whether it wants income taxes reduced, how will it respond?" This is a moral issue with respect to which every Canadian from coast to coast has an equal right to a view.
Let me ask those who would vote in opposition to this motion and who oppose capital punishment: what is your justification? Do you know best? Are you wiser? Are you more prudent? Let me see your IQ qualifications, if it is decided on the basis of wisdom and knowledge-wisdom and knowledge, is that why you say, "I know best"?
I suggest it is appropriate for all those people to tell their constituents: "I, indeed, am better informed than you. I pro-

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
pose to lead you around by the nose because that is my prerogative. You have elected me, and until the next election you take your chances". This is not the way representative democracy is intended to function. I reject out of hand the "divine right of kings" concept of rulers who adopted it in the belief they could do no wrong. That concept vanished into history, to be resurrected by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the country who directs his caucus as to how its members should respond.
I heard the statistics which were given by the last speaker for the government. He did not mention that there was not one cabinet minister of the entire 30 who would step out of line from under the control of the Prime Minister and, in fact, vote as he or she desired. It is well-known that some of them would have preferred to do so. That is not a free vote, but regardless of whether it is free or shackled, the real issue is whether this House is to be responsive to the public will.
We know the answer. The House has not been responsive in the past, and it will not be again. There is nothing wrong with our party, despite the fact that the views of some of its members vary with respect to this matter. They have the courage to bring it forward, hoping that hon. members over there and to my extreme left may in fact be people who feel similarly and recognize that their fundamental responsibility is to the people of Canada. It is that responsibility we intend to discharge.
We heard some illuminating statistics today which indicate how, since 1976, there has been an apparent decline in the number of murders in Canada. Of course we have not been advised of the rate of murders before the withdrawal of capital punishment as a penalty for first degree murder. The reason is that the statistics show that before capital punishment was removed from the provisions of the Criminal Code, the rate of murder in Canada, per hundred thousand persons, was lower than it is today. In 1963 it was approximately one per hundred thousand, approximately one murderer for every 100,000 people.
All these figures disclose nothing but the people who were not deterred; these are the murderers. The murderers who committed those offences were not deterred either by capital punishment or by a 25-year prison sentence. We need an analysis of those people who might have committed murder but were deterred by either capital punishment or by the fact that they would spend 25 years in jail. From where do we get those statistics? Do we go out and ask the general public, "Sir, have you ever in your lifetime contemplated the commission of first degree murder, and were you ever in fact deterred by the prospect of the grim reaper standing in the shadows with a scythe raised?" Who would respond honestly to such a question; who in fact will? Those are the questions which should be asked if we seek evidence of deterrence.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: The Conservatives.


John Albert Gamble: Well, it just so happens that we have a man who, in fact, has given some testimony with respect to that issue. I was rather intrigued by the comments of the Solicitor
General (Mr. Kaplan) who said, "There are fully 148 criminals incarcerated in our prisons who are there as a consequence of the commission of first degree murder, and I visited some of them."
Did the Solicitor General have occasion to speak to Mr. Saul Betesh, the gentleman who, together with another by the name of Robert Kribs, was convicted of first degree murder, having raped, drugged, strangled and then drowned a certain Emanuel Jacques in Toronto on July 31, 1977? After having been convicted, Mr. Betesh said that in the event there had been capital punishment, he might well not have committed the offence.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is your expert testimony!


John Albert Gamble: He is a man who in fact committed the offence.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He has a low regard for human life, including his own.


John Albert Gamble: We desire some further clarification of the half-truths given by the Solicitor General this afternoon. He indicated that some of the 148 criminals had been involved in attempted prison escapes. He did not specifically mention a hostage-taking in the British Columbia penitentiary in June, 1975, or the participation therein of three gentlemen, a certain Andrew Bruce and Douglas Lucas, two of the group of three, who held hostage 15 individuals, one of whom was a certain Mary Steinhauser.
Mary Steinhauser was an employee of the prison. In the process of stopping her attempt to assist in that prison escape, she was killed by a guard who rushed the inmates holding the hostages. What significance does this have? Well, Andrew Bruce was convicted in 1970 as a hired killer of a dancer and sent to prison for 25 years. With him was a certain Douglas Lucas, two of the three gentlemen to whom I made reference, who was one of two men sentenced in Winnipeg to life imprisonment on June 27, 1974, for the axe killing of Michael Ray Hurd. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Had both these gentlemen been subject to capital punishment, the prison break would not have occurred and Mary Steinhauser would not have been killed in an effort to relieve the hostage-taking.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: How do you
know?


John Albert Gamble: She might well have fallen and broken her neck the day after, but the issue here is whether or not it is the responsibility of the government and of Parliament to protect the innocent.
This is the purpose of the Criminal Code. It is not to punish the guilty; it is to protect the innocent. Unless we assume that a human being is like a tree in the forest that does not think, there is absolutely no doubt that anyone confronted with the prospect of losing his own life will give serious second thoughts to the perpetration of the offence of murder. Anyone who
June 11, 1981

would suggest otherwise is denying the right and ability of the human being to think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Albert Gamble: Indeed, this may be the reason why we have such opposition on the other side of the House, because the government party assumes the people of Canada cannot think. It assumes that murderers do not think. But its assumption extends to those people who might have, but did not, commit murder because they were deterred, and more deterred in the years gone by when they themselves might have lost their lives.
I submit it is absolutely essential in the interest of furthering the democratic process, as it is absolutely essential in discharging the obligation of this House in protecting the innocent, that regard be given to this definite cause of retarding the growth and development of the mind of man directed toward the commission of these heinous offences. I submit that the discharge of that obligation can only occur in the event that this resolution is passed and the matter is properly dealt with in committee and then referred to the House for further study and vote in the fashion which we hope would occur.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, in my seven years of sitting in this House seldom have I heard such a piece of absolute sophistry as the one we have just heard. The hon. member who preceded me said that it is not a question of right or wrong but a moral issue. What the hell is he talking about? If it is not a question of right or wrong how can it be a moral issue? He asks whether we are wiser or more prudent than the voters. Of course we are not. But we must study the issue, while the voter does not. The general public does not have to go into the details. When we are elected as representatives of the people, the public expects us to know what the issues are and to vote according to our judgment. That is what they expect. This may be foreign to the minds of hon. members opposite who are out today, as the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) said, to hang their own leader. That does not seem to me to be a very good reason for bringing about this debate today.
The hon. member also referred to there being an apparent decline in the number of murders. He obviously does not believe the figures. But, Mr. Speaker, the figures are there. He would rather make a judgment on what a convicted killer has said he might not have done had some other system prevailed at the time. He wants to have the people who might have committed murder interviewed. Well, who will find those people who might have committed murder? If I had to listen to much more of the garbage which we have just heard, I might be tempted to commit the act myself.


Mr. Taylor:: Why not sit down?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) says, "Why not sit
Capital Punishment
down?" We have just heard a lecture from the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) in which he told us that we do not have any freedom over here and that his is the only party in this House which has freedom. Yet as soon as one of the members on this side stands up to express his views, the hon. member for Bow River says, "Why not sit down?" The hon. member for Bow River cannot bear to hear a reasoned argument. He only wants to hear the garbage which we just heard.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You said it was useless, not me.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, following the lead of the hon. member who preceded me, I think it would be fruitful for all of us, since the hon. member said it is a moral issue, if we again reviewed some of the moral issues and arguments which surround the question of capital punishment.
First, I want to refer to the caprice with which the law was applied when capital punishment was on the statute books of Canada. In any given year there are about 450 killings in Canada. The last year in which capital punishment was actually applied there were two convicted killers who were executed. There were approximately 448 killers that same year who were not executed. Where is the justice in that system? Where is the justice in a system in which the wealthy can afford to hire the best lawyers available but the poor must rely on legal counsel whose competence is not known, who are appointed by the court?


Gordon Edward Taylor: You would rather let them all off.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Where is the justice in a law which says that the poor can hang but the rich, who can hire the right lawyers, can go free? That is not the kind of justice for which my constituents elected me to vote.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why don't you change the law? You are the government. What are you complaining to us about?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if you know what the hon. member opposite is babbling about, I would appreciate it if you would inform me. It is certainly beyond my comprehension.
In this country we have a principle known as the right to life. It seems to me that that right is one of our basic premises. For that reason I think that those who are in favour of capital punishment have the burden of proving that this form of killing by the state is justified. I personally do not think that capital punishment can be justified by moral arguments.
The retentionist will argue that society needs a sanction which adequately expresses its moral outrage against both the act of murder itself and the perpetrator of that act. It is argued that capital punishment is the only just or fitting response which society can make to that most awful of crimes-murder. But this supposed just and morally endorsed sanction carries with it the seeds of severing justice through its unequal application on the poor, the ignorant, the uneducated and through the possibility that it might be applied in error. I

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
wonder how those great proponents of capital punishment opposite can justify the hanging of an innocent person. These seeds of injustice cannot be eliminated, despite the elaborate safeguards which have been built into our system of criminal justice.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What about the innocent victim?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Bow River is squawking again. He wants me to tell him about the innocent victim. Let him tell me about the innocent victim of capital punishment. Let him tell me how hanging someone will bring back the life which has already been taken. Where is his sense of justice? It must be in the backwoods someplace.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I would like to tell you that they will never do it again. They will not be killing three and four like they are now.


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy for the speakers this afternoon, I refrained from shouting or interfering otherwise. I listened very carefully to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) and would also like to hear my hon. friend, if only the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would shut his trap.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell the hon. member not to ask questions, then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. First, any hon. member seeking the floor and who wishes to be recognized by the Chair should wait until he is recognized before he speaks. Second, heckling is not going to disappear and I know of no way to reduce it. Third, it is six o'clock and the House is adjourned until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for the dinner hour I was trying to discuss some of the moral issues involved in capital punishment and the uneven application of the law. I will continue by saying that punishment which carries with it such possibilities of injustice in terms of its actual application cannot possibly be defended on principles of justice or morality.
One commonly heard argument is that the punishment must fit the crime, and that the most serious and heinous crime in our society merits the most serious punishment. On the surface, this principle seems logical. It also suits very well as criminological or penological principle. The more serious the crime, the more serious the punishment. However, that principle is not the same as saying that one must punish in exactly
the same way the crime was committed, which is the issue before us in terms of capital punishment.
Those in favour of capital punishment say that murder by an individual requires, as punishment, murder by the state. That is erroneous reasoning. The fact that it is erroneous is demonstrated easily enough. For example, there are many instances of assaults and woundings in this country in which the victims are injured, to a greater or lesser extent. If, for example, a victim receives a stab wound, does it necessarily imply that the state must inflict a stab wound on the perpetrator of that crime? Does it mean that if someone commits a robbery, he must, be robbed; or that if he commits rape, he must, in turn, be raped? Of course, it does not. We would think the person who would suggest such a thing to be ridiculous or uncivilized. That kind of reasoning smacks of revenge more than justice.
In this country in the western world, we have evolved a complex system of justice to deal with these matters. It is the purpose of the courts to decide upon the appropriate penalties within the law which are tolerated within Canadian society. Generally speaking, the more serious an offence, the more likely it is that the offender will be given a term of imprisonment, deprivation of freedom being considered a very serious penalty by Canadians. Proponents of capital punishment do not argue that for crimes other than murder the offender must receive the same degree of injury or damage that he inflicted on his victim. Why do they then do so for murder?
I repeat, it is not logical to conclude that murder must be recompensed in kind by a murder by the state. If the state is involved in violence, it seems to me that the state is, in fact, encouraging violence. I think of that old quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "Violence does in the truth recoil upon the violent, and the schemer falls into the pit he digs for another."
A second type of moral argument which is put forward is that the majority of Canadians want capital punishment, and therefore the government must respect their wishes. I am also sure that a majority of Canadians do not want to pay taxes and they do not want regulations; but no one has suggested that we stop paying taxes or that we stop regulating the activities of the people at large.


An hon. Member:: We suggest you reduce them.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is a totally different argument. The hon. member says, "We are suggesting that you reduce regulations and taxes." That is a totally different argument. However, every town and city in this country has zoning regulations. No one likes them particularly when they run afoul of them, but everyone likes them when someone wants to put a tract beside their houses.
The argument appears to be that if one has a head count on a certain issue, representatives in Parliament must carry out that issue. The hon. member who spoke previously made that very point. This is, in fact, a rather tenuous moral argument but one which is based more on a view of what government is, on what democracy means and what the role of a member of Parliament is. I contend that because polls, seemingly, show
June 11, 1981

opinion to be in a certain direction, it is not necessarily incumbent upon a member of Parliament to pursue that direction. Decisions must be based on reason and evidence. If a community is small enough, then all may participate in a discussion of an issue. When the community is too large, and now we are talking about Canada, it is the role of the elected representative of the people who elected him to engage in that discussion based on reason and evidence. That is what representative democracy is about. My constituents know my stand on this issue; and I, for one, am quite prepared to defend my position before my constituents and to take the consequences of whatever decision they make when the next election comes.
A third type of moral argument contends that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. People use the word "deterrence" in two senses.


An hon. Member:: Look at the statistics.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member says to look at the statistics. I would commend him to his own advice.
We speak of general deterrence; that is, to execute a person will prevent other people in society from committing murder. Second, we talk of specific deterrence; that is, executing the murderer will prevent him from committing further murders. That is patently obvious. There is no doubt of the specific deterrence aspect. Once dead, a person cannot commit another murder. However, the line of reasoning for specific deterrence is that a murderer, having once murdered, will murder again. The evidence does not show this. Murderers are the most unlikely group of offenders to repeat their crimes. The general deterrence argument is a much more difficult one; its validity depends in large part on the results of statistical analysis.
If it is not clear that capital punishment is a deterrent, and if it cannot be argued on moral grounds, using moral reasoning, that the killing of a human being can be justified, how do we reach the conclusion that capital punishment is permissible? It is a brutal act of killing. It is wrong to kill, wrong to take a human life, whether it is taken by the individual or by the state. Execution does not erase the crime of murder. It does not bring back the one who has been murdered. It simply repeats it. I do not see how states are exempted from that clear statement which declares the sanctity of human life.
Killing is certainly abhorrent at all times; but when the state sets out to deliberately destroy a human life, perhaps that is one of the most heinous acts of all. When the state indulges in murder, the result is the weakening of the moral fabric of the society, for by such a cruel and vengeful act, the state contributes to the brutalization of society as a whole. If the state demands that its citizens act with moderation and tolerance, it would seem to me that the state cannot sanction the deliberate destruction of life. The state must set the clear example of respect for human life through the tolerant and patient advocation of law which looks to other more effective means of protecting society and discouraging crime.
Capital Punishment


An hon. Member:: What about the 450 extra murders each year?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member opposite asks, "What about the 450 murders each year?"


An hon. Member:: Extra murders.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I do not know what is meant by extra murders. I did not know that any murder was ever an extra one.


An hon. Member:: It is extra compared with 50.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The fact is that if 450 people committed murders in Canada in any given year, even when we had capital punishment there were never more than five or six who were executed in any given year. What happened to the other 444 or 445?
Where is the justice in such a system which applies severe punishment with such caprice? How are we going to solve the problem by having the state commit an additional 450 killings? If the state demands that its citizens act with moderation and tolerance, it must exercise some self-control and it must avoid the destruction of life. It is my belief that we are only justified in taking another life when it is the last resort in self-defence, personal self-defence, or national self-defence, as in wartime. To my mind it is very clear that capital punishment is not the last resort in self-defence. Each time the state executes a person, it admits failure, a failure of its family system, a failure of its education system, a failure of its social and economic programs, a failure of its moral and religious institutions, and above all, a failure to cope humanely and optimistically with anti-social behaviour. An execution is an act of despair toward the value of the human person.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a word or two to the discussion of the means of execution. There has been much debate over the years as to the "cleanest" and "quickest", most humane method for the state to employ in killing a condemned person. It would appear that as in all things there is a margin for error in the conduct of executions. Time magazine has written:
Even the cleanest execution, and an appalling number are not, is so revolting to see that witnesses commonly vomit and faint. Electrocution is relatively swift, though the victim's flesh sometimes burns while his eyes strain out their sockets. With cyanide and the rope, it sometimes takes five minutes for the dying man to fall totally unconscious, and usually fifteen minutes before he is pronounced dead.
Many people seek to avoid the terrible reality of an execution by concentrating on the supposed swiftness or painlessness of the process. I am very much afraid that the history of executions in Canada, as in all other countries, is filled with grisly tales of botched hangings which have led to decapitation, double hangings and a ghastly host of other suffering inflicted upon the condemned. One should not try to gloss over this fundamental reality, no matter how distasteful it is. I too

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
find it distasteful that those who propose the various methods of execution always propose them for someone else to carry out. They want someone else to do their dirty work.
If there are no logical, moral reasons why society should execute a person, then it seems to me that there is only one reason that remains why proponents of capital punishment continuously pursue this issue. They are interested in vengeance and retribution. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot have laws based on vengeance and retribution. 1 do not think Canadians want laws based on those two qualities. They want reason, and laws that will lead to the ultimate protection of society.
In 1976, Mr. Speaker, I voted against the death penalty. I think this is an unnecessary and wasteful debate and I shall vote against the motion this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) whether he was the author of the document he read to us because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a tradition in this House that hon. members not read speeches that were obviously prepared elsewhere. I studiously observed the hon. member. He tore away page after page which had been stapled to the previous page. I just ask him, quite honourably, whether this is a speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I could not care less what the hon. member from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I appreciate the hon. member's point of order and he has made it, but the Chair faces two difficulties. The first is that I know of no regulation, rule or Standing Order which relates to members dealing with or reading speeches prepared by themselves or prepared by anybody else.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The only reference that I know of that is made is that by tradition, members are not expected to read a speech verbatim, but, rather, to use notes.
I simply want to assure the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that if the Chair is to begin to enforce the rule that members may not read verbatim, then the axe will fall everywhere equally in the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi simply on the basis of equity but the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, you are blind. I would just- No, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Apologize.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. member. I will disregard that comment and recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -disgrace.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In answer to the rather facetious remarks of the hon. member, I want to tell him that when I make a speech in this House I usually prepare some notes. I happen to have a stapler in my office, so it is not very difficult to staple the pages together. The notes 1 used make up about half of my total remarks. In the final analysis, I resorted to reading from my notes because when I departed from my notes, the heckling from the opposite side was so intense that it was virtually impossible to speak and be heard.


An hon. Member:: You deserved it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Edmonton West on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will simply say, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member and in deference to some of the several catcalls from some of the backbenchers-


An hon. Member:: Apologize, you have no respect for the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -on the government side whose usual retort and operation in this House is to yell from their seats with little or no participation in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will make my point. This House has proceeded for many years on the basis of hon. members making their contributions, not from prepared texts, not piled up on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -yet we see a continuing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.
June 11, 1981


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -an absolute increase in this with the absolute consent from the Chair, which is an abuse of the principles of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I think there are a number of abuses in the House at this point. First of all, it seems to me there is a standing tradition that when the person occupying the chair stands, then it is expected of hon. members that they will seat themselves. That is the first thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 am not here to defend my particular ego on the subject; I am here rather to express what I think is the necessary respect due to the Chair.
The second thing is that it is understood that the person occupying the chair and an hon. member do not speak at the same time. I find myself disturbed in that I have to address an hon. member who is a former Speaker and to remind him of that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -disgrace. The rule is a disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member continues in this fashion, I will have very little choice but to look to the rules and apply them. I am embarrassed that they should have to be applied to a former Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That's fine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). I indicated to him earlier that he would be the next speaker. This is an opposition motion, however, so I would have to ask him if he would not mind waiting and I will recognize the hon. mefnber for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley).


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: I rise to speak on this motion, Mr. Speaker, in respect of my own views and in respect of the views of my constituents. I personally favour some form of capital punishment. I feel in my heart that it is a deterrent. However, I was also elected by the constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk to represent them and their views in this House.
In a recent questionnaire to my constituents, one of eleven varied questions read:
Do you feel that capital punishment should be reinstated? Yes; No; Undecided.
In response to that questionnaire, 85.6 per cent indicated yes, 5 per cent were undecided and only 9.4 per cent indicated no. I doubt if my constituency varies greatly from others in this country.
Capital Punishment
People in Haldimand-Norfolk have the same concerns as others across this land: concern for their children, concern for their friends and relations, and that concern is growing.
There has been much talk this evening about statistics on murder. In fact, the number of attempted murders has increased tremendously. There are other factors affecting the number of murders committed. Consider such things as improved equipment and improved skills of medical personnel such as those the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) possesses. I am sure he is well aware that countless lives of attempted murder victims can now be saved which possibly could not have been saved 20 years ago. That is evidence we must consider.
We live in a democratic society where the majority should rule. I suggest that the people's voice should be heard. Abolition has failed to convince them. People are demanding a return to capital punishment. We must be a responsible government. We must be mindful of the wishes of our people or we will have failed.
Is capital punishment a deterrent? What is a deterrent? If you are found guilty of impaired driving, you lose your licence. That is a deterrent. When I went to school many years ago if a child was found guilty of an infraction by a teacher, that child was strapped. That was a deterrent. Our society has been built on deterrents. We are a society of rewards and punishments. If the punishments are reduced, it is only natural that people reap the rewards legally and illegally. Too many of our deterrents are being removed from society today.
Is it not time that we started replacing our deterrents and re-educating ourselves toward respect, respect for ourselves, respect for others and respect for the standards expected of mankind?
Individuals in our society today still hold the belief that crime must be punished. The question is to what degree? Society once held that the greater the crime, the greater the punishment; the ultimate crime, the ultimate punishment. Should we not return to that belief? Should the punishment not match the crime?
Certainly one has the right to life, but should he not also forfeit that right if he wantonly denies another of his right?
What was wrong when capital murder drew the death penalty and non-capital murder drew life in prison? One major fear was that of errors by the jury.
In reality, if any doubt was in the judge's mind, not a reasonable doubt but any doubt, he would withdraw the capital charge, convert it to a non-capital charge, and the only charge on the jury was to decide guilt or innocence. We have a great judiciary in Canada. Let us give it the trust, the respect and the support it should have.
Other protections are provided. The courts provide protection for insanity, which is not knowing that what was done was wrong, and they provide protection from provocation.
I am not asking you today to agree with my views. I am only asking that you agree that changes in society have taken place,

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
that our constituents are asking us to reconsider the capital punishment issue.
I dislike the thought of taking a human life as much as anyone else, but I have become concerned over the drift toward almost casual murder.
What do we do with a person who takes another's life, be it deliberately, planned, through passion, hatred, jealousy, greed, emotion or just for a thrill? That is a very serious question. I tell you Canadians want us to reconsider our answer.
How can we ignore the petition which was presented today by wives of OPP officers from the Huntsville detachment? This petition contains 30,000 names of concerned Canadians, concerned about the answer which this House has given to them on capital punishment. I ask members of the Liberal party and members of the New Democratic Party to put their party lines aside-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They are aside.


T.A. Bud Bradley: -and help the people of this country by taking another look at this issue. New evidence has been presented tonight from both sides of the House, both pro and con. That evidence should be studied.
In my constituency last year a young OPP constable, happily married, with two children, was called at home and told that if he met the caller at a certain spot he would be given important evidence regarding drugs. The officer went to the designated spot, recognized the caller and approached the man's truck. As the constable reached the truck, the caller emptied a hand gun into the officer. As the officer fell to the ground, the man drove over him numerous times to ensure he was dead. This murder was committed because the constable, as a result of an accident, had charged the man with impaired driving about a year previously. This man was judged insane at the time of the crime. However, it could be said this murder might have been premeditated by as much as a year, and with a proper deterrent it may have been avoided at some sane point along that path.
I grant you, situations and conditions have changed since the 1960s. Statistics have changed, people have changed, morals have changed. Society as a whole has changed since capital punishment was abolished.
I do not feel we can apply today's statistics as valid benchmarks for comparison against those of the 1960s any more than we can compare today's society to that of the 1960s.
We have taken great steps as a government in the last 20 years toward seriously damaging our judiciary system, and indeed our society. Let us pause a moment and reflect. Let us review the pros and cons of capital punishment as a deterrent. The committee report could well prove me wrong. If so, I shall accept it. But let us at least have a look.
It is like a sign on a road warning you about a curve and telling you to slow down to 50 kilometres an hour in order to navigate the curve safely. Statistics tell us how many did not slow down and thus did not make it. But there are no statistics to tell us how many heeded the warning, slowed down and
safely rounded the curve. Statistics tell us how many were not deterred by capital punishment, but there are no statistics available to tell us how many were slowed down by the deterrent of the death penalty.
Perhaps we could relate to that dangerous curve in the road. That warning sign is very necessary. I feel the time has come to return to that curve to take another look at that warning sign.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I will not go into the arguments against capital punishment. I think they have been made and made well during the course of the debate today in the House. Instead 1 would like to do something else. I invite all members of this House to reflect along with me on the continuing desire of many Canadians for the reinstatement of capital punishment. Why, in spite of the fact that the murder rate has actually gone down since capital punishment was abolished, do some people still have the feeling that restoring capital punishment would somehow be a good thing? Obviously we have here more than just a practical opinion about the deterrent effect of executing murderers. Something else is going on.
It appears that people are particularly inspired to argue for the restoration of capital punishment when either the innocent, such as children, are murdered or when law enforcement officers are killed in the course of their duties. The pain and anger which such deaths create in all sensitive human beings is not to be ridiculed. It is a legitimate response to the finality and brutality of murder.
People feel that the moral order has been transgressed, as it has, and that something must be done to show that these are not mundane events but rather events which, if permitted or regarded lightly, would eventually call into question the very basis of civilized society. They are morally outraged that such things can happen. It is moral outrage we are dealing with when we talk about the call for a return to capital punishment, moral outrage and powerlessness.
I add powerlessness because, as we encounter the mystery of death and our powerlessness to bring the dead back to life, we are tempted to turn away from the mystery and imagine that there is something we can do to make things all right again, something we can do that will atone for things already done. This is a temptation that must be resisted.
In the case of moral outrage about individual acts of murder, it is particularly tempting because there is an easily identifiable agent of our distress, the murderer. In an age when everything seems to be permitted, there is a desire among people to say that there is indeed a limit, that there are things which shall not be tolerated. In my view, the restoration of capital punishment has become a symbol for many Canadians of that need to show that there are limits.
The desire to restore capital punishment is also a response to the increasing confusion and impotence we all feel as we look around us and notice the increasing breakdown of private and
June 11, 1981

public morality, the victory of greed and self-interest brought on by far too many years of living by the philosophy that individual material success is the goal of human life. The values of the modern marketplace and the goal of the healthy and whole human community cannot be held together. Yet, rather than admit this, there are many among us, including many in this House, who fall for the temptation of looking for scapegoats, of imagining that if we could execute a few murderers, and reduce government spending, of course, all our problems would somehow go away. This is simply not the case.
One is reminded of the moral majority in the United States of America, a movement not without its supporters, I am sure, in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. There is nothing in the view of the moral majority which demonstrates that they understand that individuals, though they are ultimately responsible for their actions, do not act in isolation, and that what changes are needed, whatever they are, will have to be structural in nature, that is to say, social and economic, and not just, or even legal, in nature.
Therefore, one of the most basic and important insights of the old but ever valid social gospel, that we cannot expect to improve individual morality apart from improving objective conditions and human relationships and that conditions as well as persons can be said to be good, is missing from the analysis of this movement. We are relational beings, not just isolated moral agents.
The outcome of this missing link is a self-righteousness in which we hear no self-criticism, nor any encouragement to collective and social self-criticism by the American or Canadian people. It is all somebody else's fault the way we are, and the role of the state, which otherwise is a sore upon the body politic and should keep off the backs of the people, particularly as it pertains to commercial matters, is to hammer these recalcitrant individuals into shape. There is no sense of community responsibility for the present state of affairs.
It is in this sense that the moral majority is a classic case of false prophecy. It does not call the nation to repentance. It does not criticize the fundamental values of our civilization. It does not see nor even suspect that the current state of affairs is the natural outcome of our values. Instead, they can only see the present as a distortion, an aberration which needs to be forcibly corrected. There is a complete lack of social and economic analysis.
They rail against the disappearance of the family farm, but would not question the freedom of business imperatives to destroy the family farm. They rail against the destruction of the family, but would not consider guaranteeing families enough to live on or paying single parents to look after their children. That would be too liberal. For that they work to defeat you.
They rail against abortion, but would abandon the child to the marketplace the minute it is born. They rail against modern sexuality, but would not counsel the idea of publicly subsidized TV without the blatantly seductive and sexist advertising characteristic of free enterprise. That would be state propaganda. They rail against the lack of sense of community,
Capital Punishment and cannot see that 200 years of teaching individual success as the goal of human life is bound to come to evil, once the residual sense of community from days gone by has eroded. They, in effect, lament the total victory of the ideology that they otherwise espouse.
The moral majority is an ideological package, and an incoherent one at that, and the Gerry Falwell's of the world are either charlatans or suckers for their part in taking the legitimate concern of decent, suburban Christian women about the number of abortions, and making them soldiers in a political campaign to restore America's pride and military power for the purposes of holding down the poor of the world and eventually-one can only hope that will not be so-of fighting a so-called limited nuclear war in which the number of deaths and the extent of suffering associated with the problems the moral majority would like to solve through their own kind of moral and intellectual fascism, would seem insignificant.
We are all in need of a conversion to a new appreciation of the value of human life. We all participate in the radical devaluation of human life which is characteristic of the modern world. Life is cheap, and even its basic form, such as the family, is expendable. But this is not the cumulative effect of many individual acts. We do not contend with flesh and blood alone, but with powers and principalities. Persecution of singled-out groups like welfare mothers, prisoners, or even bureaucrats, will not do. Life has always been cheap, but it is only in the last few hundred years that the cheapness of life has been rationalized and sanctified by an economic system that reduces persons to things. Thus if we wish to fight for the sanctity of life, we must fight for it on all fronts, by fighting it at the root, at the source of all current exemplifications, which is the basic and economic world view of our civilization.
This is the problem, Mr. Speaker. This is what the moral majority cannot do. This is what the loud, strained voices to my right cannot do, because they are not willing to be Jeremiah to their people. Instead, they prefer to play the false prophet Hananiah, assuring the people that God is on their side and that all will be well soon if only these few changes are made. Movements which challenge the basic world view of a society are not likely to be as successful as the moral majority, but they are likely to be more faithful to the truth.
This is why the motion today is worthy of opposition, not because the concern of people about the murder of innocents and the murder of policemen is illegitimate-not at all. This motion is worthy of opposition because the perceptions of those who moved the motion are out of focus, and this is the kindest way of putting it, but I say it in this way because I believe there are people who are supporting this motion who are sincere. But there are others in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada who could not care less about murder and who simply wish to play upon the fears of the Canadian people. They are the hate mongers who poison and pollute all political debate in this country with their mealy-mouthed, paranoid, self-righteous rhetoric about everything that comes

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
up. They are a scourge, a plague upon the political culture of our country, and I hope that someday they will receive the obscurity and derogation which they so richly deserve.
It is only when I perceive that members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada are as morally outraged by the death through poverty and starvation of millions of children throughout the world as they are about the homicide statistics, that I will listen to them. They could not even permit a debate on the North-South dialogue. That is how cheap they are. Only when I perceive that members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada are as outraged about the damage that is being done to future generations through the laissez-faire introduction of chemicals, toxins and radioactive wastes into our environment for commercial purposes, will I listen. When I perceive that they are genuinely morally outraged about the thousands of people who have been tortured, maimed and murdered by military regimes which they support for the barefaced, disgusting reason that these regimes are friendly to their rapacious friends, the multinational corporations, only then will I listen to them, but not before. But in the continued absence of such outrage on their part, I can only regard this motion as an act of political deflection or hypocrisy, or both.
What of the Liberal Party? They pride themselves in the fact that they abolished capital punishment. This is one of their few claims to fame as a party of humane and progressive values. They often hang their whole self-image on this one hook, with a kind of intellectual snobbery that many, quite rightly, find irritating. The Tories seem conceptually unable to graduate from seeing morality as anything other than individual in nature. Talking about collective political morality, about social and economic justice, about exploitation and oppression, just rebounds off their thick skulls. But the Liberals seem at times, and I say this in all sincerity, to have lost the ability to be outraged about anything anymore. They are the cool trippers. They are in charge, and they are, for the most part, protected from the consequences of their indifference to human suffering, whether it be the James Bay Cree, children dying in Northern Quebec, the poor of El Salvador, the consumers who are victimized by dangerous products on the market, or the generations to come who will have to live with the folly of their nuclear program. It is not cool around here to really care about anything.
Setting up a committee to look at capital punishment will not get to the heart of the matter, but neither will the defeat of this motion in and of itself. That will take more courage and more clarity than I at this point have come to expect of the present government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the argument that those of us who oppose the restoration of capital punishment, in spite of public opinion, are somehow violating the spirit of democracy. Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of this charge, given the fact that the same people from the PCs who spoke today would not change their minds about PetroCan if the whole world was for it, there is the irony of hearing these arguments from members of a party who would like to be
thought of, and who parade themselves, as defenders of parliamentary democracy, the kind of democracy in which the representatives of the people are elected to use their best judgment and to be answerable for that at the next election, which I am quite prepared to do. I have answered twice already. As Edmund Burke, that great Conservative thinker, said so clearly, MPs owe their constituents many things, but their good judgment and their conscience are their own, and so it should be.
The so-called defenders of parliamentary democracy are arguing for the politics of the public opinion polls and for referendums, which incidentally they oppose when it comes to constitutional matters. I am prepared to discuss with my constituents those areas where I am at variance with the majority of opinion, and, indeed, I do because I respect their views, and I have found that they also respect my views even when they disagree. If the politics of the Conservative spokesmen today prevailed and if they were to have their way, we might just as well pack up the House of Commons and instal a computer which would assess public opinion at any given time and make decisions accordingly. Of course, in many respects, this is what the Liberal party is already doing to destroy democracy. In this we now seem to have once again Conservative agreement.
I have little more to say except to apologize to the remnant, the minority within the Progressive Conservative party which does oppose capital punishment. I extend to those members my sympathy this evening for the embarrassment which many of their colleagues must have caused them up to this point in time. Thank you.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by referring to the specifics of the motion which I can summarize very briefly in this way. What we are asking the House to approve is a reference of the subject of capital punishment to a committee of this House, nothing more than that. As the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) explained when he addressed this House, this is an exercise in parliamentary democracy. But it has become much more than that. It has become an exercise in democracy because, while we in Parliament ought to have the opportunity and chance to express our views on this subject, the people of Canada ought to have their opportunity to express their views on this subject, and they ought to be able to do that before a parliamentary committee so their views can be recorded and recognized by this House of Commons and by this Parliament of Canada. We should not sweep the matter under the table and let it go on the vote that took place years ago. This is 1981 and we have to face the problems of 1981. We cannot hide behind something that was done four or five years ago.
I am ashamed, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is ashamed, because I would have thought the point made in this debate would be: I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for
June 11, 1981

your right to say it. And that is not the attitude of those armchair socialists to my left in the New Democratic Party. The hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) rose in a throe of smug pomposity, and told us that we do not know about these things. He knows about them, he has talked to people, he has been there and understands the situation.


An hon. Member:: You sound a bit agitated.


Howard Edward Crosby: Well, I can tell that smug and pompous member of parliament that I have been there too. Five years in legal aid, the defence of murder case after murder case-


An hon. Member:: All of which you lost.


Howard Edward Crosby: I walked through the jails, Mr. Speaker, where the guards were afraid to go in the cell with the accused person. So I walked the walk and I can talk the talk, and I can tell you that I am in favour of this matter going to a committee, 1 am in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment, and 1 defy anyone to deny my right to say that in this House or anywhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Who is denying your right to speak? You are speaking now.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in Canada it is one man, one vote, and every Canadian has a right to their view on capital punishment. Be they smug clergymen, be they dishwashers in the lowest restaurant, they have their right to their view on capital punishment. It has been proved time and time again that the majority of Canadians support the reinstatement of capital punishment. To deny the expression of that view in this House is to deny our democracy, and I am not listening to any empty rhetoric-


An hon. Member:: Who is denying anything?


Howard Edward Crosby: -in this House that places it on some other basis, that says a man or a woman does not have the right to hold a view, the right to express that view and to have it recognized in this House.


An hon. Member:: Have you been in some other debate?


Howard Edward Crosby: We have heard talk about the Third World, and I am interested in that. I am concerned with the plight of the children in the Third World, about those who do not receive enough to eat, who are starving and dying every day. We know about that, but in Canada we have starvation, we have problems. If you do not believe that, come with me and I will show them to you in the heart of the city of Halifax, and I suspect in the heart of Saskatoon as well. There are these problems, but we cannot deal with every problem in the world. If we were to pray to the Almighty, we would pray for the knowledge, wisdom and capacity to allow us to change what we can change and not waste our time attempting to change what cannot be changed by us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Capital Punishment


Howard Edward Crosby: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things we can change is the law with respect to capital punishment, if that is the desire of the people of Canada. We have heard statistics throughout this debate. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), whom I would otherwise admire, has said that there is evidence that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. Well, I can tell him through you, Mr. Speaker, that he does not know that. You do not count it on just the-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I did not say that.


Howard Edward Crosby: -simple statistics of the murders that have occurred. We do not know what evil lurks in the hearts of men.


An hon. Member:: The Shadow knows.


Howard Edward Crosby: We do not know who is deterred from what action. No one can stand in this House and say, "Look, I have the answer", I can tell the Solicitor General that he does not have the answer. I do not want to be mean to him, but several months ago in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the Solicitor General described the prison population. I asked him at that time to remove from the prison population those offenders-those convicted criminals-who were beyond rehabilitation, who were dangerous even in the confines of the prison, to other inmates and to the guards. I said that in Dorchester penitentiary that situation existed then. In the same smug, arrogant way that he is telling this House about capital punishment and the fact it is not a deterrent to murder, he told me that that was not necessary, that the best course of action was to keep those prisoners in the prison population and that this would lead to their rehabilitation. Several months and one murder later he was back in this House saying that they are making a list of the most dangerous offenders in our prison population and they are going to isolate them. The trouble is, Mr. Speaker, that was one murder later.
Having said that, I recognize, as I think all members do, that there are many views on this subject. There are people who are opposed and there are people who support the restoration of capital punishment. I think something that has been totally lacking in this debate, particularly among the members of the New Democratic Party who have spoken, is respect for the different views on the subject. I would have thought that that would prevail in this House during the debate-respect for different views.
I have here a memorandum from the Canadian Council of Churches referring to the work of the task force on capital punishment that involved a great many societies in Canada. I respect their view. I understand what they mean. I understand their concern. I can see why they want capital punishment to remain abolished in Canada. I respect their view. But I expect them to respect my view, and my view is that, as a member of Parliament, I must represent the people who elected me. I intend to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment


Howard Edward Crosby: The purpose of this exercise is to make sure that, as members of Parliament, knowing what our constituents feel about this subject, we do something to ensure that they have the opportunity to express those views. How can anybody argue against that?


An hon. Member:: Nobody is.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, punishment in our system should have three elements: retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. When I talk about capital punishment, I am talking about people beyond rehabilitation who, by any test, cannot be allowed to exist and go free in society. I am not talking about a 16-year-old boy who commits murder in almost accidental circumstances. I am not talking about a person whose mind is so diseased or disordered that he or she cannot be expected to account for their actions. I am talking about terrorists, the worst kind of murderers, and the planned and deliberate murders that I have seen in my own career. I defended ten men during my career because it was my duty to do so, and 1 performed my duty. But right now I have a different duty. My duty is to represent the people of Halifax West, to listen to the people there and the people across Nova Scotia and Canada, and to present their views in this chamber. That is exactly what I am doing and that is what all the members here are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: To come into this chamber and impute motives to us of the kind and character suggested in this House today is despicable, in my opinion, and I will not tolerate it. I am certainly not in any way, shape or form in fear of the public or anyone else because of my view of how I should represent my community. But I do reject, and I hope all members on this and the government side reject, the idea and philosophy-this holier than thou attitude-that certain members know certain things which allow them to dictate a certain course of action. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do not know. They cannot solve the problems in El Salvador, and right now it appears they cannot even solve a crucial problem in Canada because they will not allow it to come forward for discussion. They will not allow the democratic right of the people to be exercised through this chamber. They want to spin it off and deal with it on some higher basis. Well, I do not know what higher basis there is in political life in Canada than the people of Canada. Their views and our ability to represent those views in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, any murder anywhere in Canada is a horrible act and should be condemned, and communities where these horrible murders take place have every right to be outraged and upset when a murder takes place in their midst. But it is completely false and misleading and, 1 maintain, phony, to suggest that any community or individual will be protected from murder by the reintroduction of capital punishment. The evidence is overwhelming, not only in Canada but
around the world, that capital punishment does not protect communities or individuals from murder. It does not protect policemen; it does not protect children; it does not protect old people; it does not protect prison guards. Generally the lowest murder rates exist in states without capital punishment. As a matter of fact, the highest rate exists in countries with capital punishment. In western Europe, the highest murder rate exists in France where they officially have capital punishment and have applied the guillotine several times in the last few years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, that is not true.


Mr. Allmand:: It is true.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They have applied it twice.


William Warren Allmand: It has been used four times. In Canada, since the abolition of capital punishment in 1976, there has been a continual decline of the murder rate. Because some hon. members opposite have disputed that, I want to put the figures on the record once more. In 1975, there were 701 murders in Canada; in 1976, the year of abolition, there were 668; in the year 1977, there were 710, which was a slight increase; in 1978, there were 658; in 1979, there were 631; in 1980, there were 593.
In the city of Montreal, which had a reputation for horrible and serious murders several years ago, in 1975, the year before abolition, there were 112 murders. In 1976, there were 83; in 1977, there were 100; in 1978, there were 70; in 1979, there were 68, in 1980, there were 45. The most recent statistics are for the end of March this year when there were 24 murders. If that trend continued for the rest of the year, there would be approximately 60 murders, which is a considerable decline from the 112 in 1975.
Some people believe that capital punishment should only apply for the murder of policemen. The highest number of policemen ever killed in Canada was 11 in 1962 when capital punishment was in force. At that time, two people were hanged in this country for killing policemen. Since that time, the number has always been lower. I must say that any number of policemen who are killed is too high, but to suggest that capital punishment will protect policemen is false, misleading and phony. There is no relationship between murder rates and capital punishment.
The only real reason behind the wish to bring back capital punishment is vengeance. Unfortunately, vengeance is not a sound basis upon which to build a criminal justice system. Some people say to me that if someone in my family were murdered, then I would change my mind. There is no doubt that if a person were murdered in anyone's family, the family would be considerably upset and the first reaction would be against the killer. However, this is no basis upon which to build a criminal justice system.
In the Kennedy family in the United States, two sons were murdered. We did not hear Mrs. Kennedy or the rest of the family clamouring for the return of capital punishment. When
June 11, 1981

Martin Luther King was assassinated, we did not hear Mrs. King clamouring for the return of capital punishment or for capital punishment to be applied. In the last capital punishment debate in the House, I was the minister putting through that bill. In the middle of the debate, a young policeman was murdered in Toronto-it was a horrible killing. Of course it affected the debate, but what was significant was that the widow of that murdered policeman wrote to me and to Mr. Brewin, who was then a member of the New Democratic Party, and pointed out that although she regretted and grieved the loss of her husband, she did not want to see the killing repeated and she did not want us to vote in favour of capital punishment. In fact, she said that her policeman husband who was murdered would not have wanted it to be brought back.
If we were really interested in lowering murder rates and protecting the public, we would try to determine the causes of murder and violent crime, and we would go to work on those causes. Some of the causes which have been suggested are the rise in violence due to the use of alcohol and drugs, the ready availability of guns, our poor education system, poverty, injustice, poor housing, weak and inadequate recreational programs, weak family life, poor systems of juvenile corrections, poor psychiatric services and inadequate support for our policemen. If we want to support policemen, let us give them the support they need so that they can do their jobs properly- the training, manpower, equipment and so on. But let us not fool them by going along with the myth that they will be protected if we reinstate capital punishment. This is the real solution.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member on the government side will want to correct his statement wherein he corrected us by saying that we gave wrong figures concerning France versus Canada. If the hon. member would relate the number of fatalities in France per 100,000-and they have capital punishment-he will find that our rate is much lower.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is entering into debate.


William Warren Allmand: 1 was not comparing the rate in France to the rate in Canada. I said that France was the only country in western Europe with capital punishment and that its rate of murder, in comparison with its neighbours in Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and West Germany, was higher. I never said that it was higher than the rate in Canada; it is higher than that of its neighbours in western Europe.
If we are really interested in solutions and in protecting the public, we should aim our efforts toward the causes of violent crime and correct them. When we ask the public in a simple poll in a referendum whether they are in favour of capital punishment, of course they will answer yes, because they are outraged by the crimes in their communities and want protection. If we ask them other questions, they may reply in different ways. If we said, "What do you think is the principal cause of violent crime and murder" or "What would be the best way of protecting communities against murder" and listed
Capital Punishment
many options including capital punishment, we would find capital punishment somewhere in the middle of the list.
No one in Canada wants to see a long string of executions. They want protection from violent crimes and murder. We in this House have a responsibility to give them that protection. We should direct our efforts and deliberations into that area.
Capital punishment is not justified for several reasons. First, capital punishment is deliberate killing, and deliberate killing is morally wrong, unless it is done as a last resort in selfdefence. Capital punishment is not a last resort in self-defence.
Second, it does not effectively protect communities and individuals against murder. Since capital punishment involves, by its very definition, the taking of life, the burden of proof is on those who would present it as a solution to show that it will be effective and will do the job they claim it will. I have not heard any argument either tonight or in the other five debates in which I participated on this subject.
Third, capital punishment is not justified because if a mistake is made, it can never be reversed. With all other penalties in the Criminal Code, if one makes a mistake, one can reverse the situation, release the person and give him damages for what he suffered, his wrongful imprisonment.
Fourth, when capital punishment is applied traditionally and historically, It is applied inequitably. It has been applied more often to the poor, to racial minorities, to the uneducated and to immigrants. Those people with means, who are wealthy or have connections, have a much better record of escaping the penalty of capital punishment, of escaping execution.
Finally, it is unjustified because-and this point was made by the head of Scotland Yard in Britain-it is ineffective since it leads to too many acquittals. In countries where there are juries, juries are more likely to acquit when the penalty for murder is capital punishment because they are afraid that they may wrongly send someone to their death. As I said, this argument was made by the head of Scotland Yard in Britain. On the other hand, when juries know that capital punishment is not the penalty for murder, they are more likely to convict, and at least put the person away where he will not be a danger to society.
I can suggest some matters which should be sent to committee for study if the House is really interested in studying the basics of this problem. First, as I suggested before, we can make a reference to committee to study the cause of violent crime and what the responses should be to those causes.
Second, we could examine whether the present sanction for murder is the best one. I am thinking of the life sentence with a minimum term of imprisonment of 25 years before parole for first degree murder and a minimum of ten years' imprisonment before parole for second degree murder. I think it is time to re-evaluate this to see whether it is the most appropriate penalty for murder when there is not capital punishment.
Third, a committee could very well study programs for long-term offenders. How do we deal with offenders when they

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
are sent to prison for a long period of time? How do we change those programs to make them more rehabilitative, more secure and more humane?
Fourth, a committee could very well study how we could better assist the victims of crime. Very often parliamentarians forget that by executing the killer, we do not bring back the murdered person. But there is a great deal we could do to assist the victims of crime. I would certainly support any party in this House which would refer those matters to committee.
There has been some suggestion in this debate that there really was not a free vote in 1976, the last time we dealt with this matter on an official basis.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Right on, it was a fraud.


William Warren Allmand: 1 want to assure members of this House, as the minister who had to pilot that bill, that it was very much a free vote. As a matter of fact, 30 per cent of the members of this party voted against my bill. On the three votes which we had to face in this House, we only won those votes by margins of five to 15 votes. If we had not had the support of the New Democratic Party, of which all members voted for abolition, we would have lost the vote. The whip of my own party, whose views I respect, campaigned against the bill and against me on the issue and persuaded many members of this party to vote against the bill. In a speech I made at that time I can recall stating that the vote on the bill was to be a free one for everyone except the cabinet. I presumed that since the cabinet approved the bill, they would be exempted from the free vote situation. Within a day of having made that speech, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the then House leader, who was Mr. Sharp, stated publicly that I was wrong and that the free vote applied to everyone, including members of the cabinet, despite the fact that they approved the bill.


David Kilgour: Just coincidental.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, members opposite will believe anything they want to believe to suit their purposes. I am telling you, Sir, that the vote caused many of us an awful lot of trouble. I think I was the only minister in at least 25 years who had to go to the House with a serious bill and not know that 1 had my caucus behind me.
We did get the majority in the caucus behind us, but 30 per cent of this caucus voted against the bill. They say that because all the cabinet voted together, therefore it was not a free vote. Yet all the social credit members in the House at that time voted against the bill. Was that not a free vote for them? They all voted against the bill because that is what they believed in. Members of the cabinet decided to support the bill because that is what they believed in.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in principle I am opposed to having free votes on these types of issues. I believe that if a government has to administer a penalty, then it should take the responsibility to see that the penalty is one with which it can live. I do not see how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) can state, as he did when he was prime minister, that
he would allow a free vote on the issue, even though he did not believe in capital punishment. He said he would live with the result. On a question of principle such as this, I do not see how a government which believes in one thing can administer a law which is completely contrary to its beliefs. As far as I am concerned, I think that if a government and a party believe in something they should stand together on an issue and either survive or go down with it. That is the way I feel about this particular situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Some members of the opposition have suggested that a true parliamentary democracy is one in which the members in this House vote on the basis of opinion polls and referendums. One after another members of the opposition have stood up in their places and said "I have conducted a poll in my riding, the results of which are such and such." If parliamentary democracy is to be equivalent to voting on the basis of opinion polls and referenda, then we have descended to a very low level.
As the New Democratic Party spokesman who preceded me pointed out, the Conservatives have certainly not read one of their great philosophers and inspirations, Edmund Burke, who pointed out-and this has been repeated time and time again-that in the British system of parliamentary democracy members are elected to represent their constituencies by studying issues in depth, by considering all arguments and then making a decision which they consider to be best for the country based on all the evidence. They then go back to the electorate the next time around and face the music.
I have voted against capital punishment four times in this House already. Twice I have presented bills to abolish capital punishment. I have gone into six elections, three of them following the bill I presented to abolish capital punishment, and I was re-elected. The issue was raised in every election campaign, as was pointed out in this House in debate. People disagreed with me, and I disagreed with them. But we put our views on the table honestly, and despite that it was felt that this was an issue in which one should see balance. As I said, we were re-elected.


John Albert Gamble: You say you know more than your constituents.


William Warren Allmand: I will be glad to distribute those comments about my constituents at the next election. In fact, I will give a copy to the Conservative candidate.
In conclusion, if the supreme value in this country and in this House is human life, then society should never repeat the act of the criminal. A criminal justice system based on revenge is not appropriate to civilized society. We must look for solutions that are humane, civilized but also effective and that offer security. Capital punishment, Mr. Speaker, is not effective, it does not offer security, it is not humane and it is not civilized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 11, 1981


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, 1 am indebted to my friend, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster (Mr. McKnight) for yielding his position on the Speaker's list to allow me the opportunity to address the House on capital punishment.
This is probably the most important and difficult subject any member of Parliament can deal with during his tenure in the House of Commons. Capital punishment is important to many thousands of constituents in whatever riding a member is honoured to represent and whatever his political persuasion. It is difficult because, while the 75,000 people I represent in my riding of Hamilton-Wentworth expect me to speak on their behalf, I know I will be placing on the parliamentary record views with which many will disagree. I know that there are colleagues around me in this chamber who will strongly disagree with what I am about to say.
I have heard some very reasoned arguments today from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), from my friend from Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)-and a very excellent speech it was-and even from my friends the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) with all his reasoned arguments. Those gentlemen are convinced abolitionists. I know, too, that most of my former colleagues in the parliamentary press gallery will profoundly disagree with my stand on capital punishment. However, my colleagues in this House cannot disagree with my stand on the right of Parliament to debate this issue and to hold a free vote on capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I will leave it to the lawyers and the self-styled criminologists to set down their learned arguments on the benefits to society or otherwise of capital punishment. I am not going to get involved in the statistics game in terms of whether the number of murders in this country since the death penalty was abolished is up or down. In fact, the most recent statistics today show the murder rate is down. But, as my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has just pointed out, no one is talking about the number of attempted murders. Because of science and medical skills, over the last few years many lives have been saved which might otherwise have become a number in murder statistics. Who knows what would have happened to the President of the United States, his press secretary and his bodyguard if they had been shot in the same way ten years ago? I do not believe statistics. I simply observe what is happening. I see international terrorism on the rise. I hear the head of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation say that this is the most violent period in contemporary U.S. or Canadian history.
I read of a man who had been convicted on a previous charge, who telephoned a policeman, asked him to come down to make an appointment, and lay in wait for two or three hours. This was the policeman who had nailed him on the previous charge. Then he gunned him down, leaving a young widow and three children to mourn the death of that policeman who had only been trying to do his job. That one incident
Capital Punishment
in Delhi, described by my colleague, the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley) convinces me, more than any number of statistics which one could cite here, that society can do without that kind of offender.
Is the death penalty a deterrent to murder? It probably is not to the person who, in passion, shoots a girlfriend, or a wife, or the wife's boyfriend, or whoever. I am not arguing the "shoot first, ask questions afterwards" syndrome. I am concerned about premeditated first degree murder. I am zeroing in on the convicted murderer of a young Portuguese shoeshine boy in a homosexual slaying a few years ago in Toronto. The killer was publicly quoted as saying: "If I'd known the death penalty was still in, I'd have thought twice about doing it." I am zeroing in on a known terrorist who almost fulfilled his vow to assassinate the Pope. I am zeroing in on kamikaze terrorists who hold innocent people hostage and keep the world in suspense while trying to force countries to release their terrorist comrades from jail so that this vile network of guerrillas can continue to plunder and pillage a world that is striving for "peace".
In this motion today, we in the official opposition are zeroing in on the question of capital punishment to hear the views of the people of Canada through their elected representatives; because deterrent or not, statistics to the contrary, there is a silent majority out there, and a very sizeable silent majority, that wants a return to capital punishment. The government, the media, surely must ask, why, is this just another part of the sway to the right that we have seen in Great Britain, the United States and in other countries? Can it simply be revenge? Is it a reaction to the increase of violence and terrorism on the international front? Is it a disbelief of statistics, a disbelief of those who say that there really is no deterrent with the death penalty? Is it a combination of all these factors? Or is it something deeper?
You would never know it by reading the papers recently, Mr. Speaker. The surest indication that today's motion has touched a raw nerve with committed abolitionists is to read what the media heavyweights are writing lately. The Toronto Star calls this exercise "inexcusable Tory mischief'. Southam News Services' Christopher Young, under a Montreal Gazette headline, "Tories Grab Own Throats Again", asks, "Why divert attention from (other) valid issues by trying to stir up a new campaign for capital punishment, which could not in any case be successful?" The Toronto Globe and Mail reported: "It is an issue that is charged with emotion, a base emotion in many cases. Capital punishment was permanently abolished by a free vote in the House of Commons in 1976."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I will have a little more to say about that statement in the Globe and Mail editorial in a moment; that 1976 vote was anything but free. Let us not leave without a word from Mr. Allan Fotheringham, who characteristically describes this debate as "grasping at the noose when there are pressing problems before us is not only sleasy, it is super cynical". In his eyes, we on this side are

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
"fang-toothed slobberers after revenge; narrow-eyed yahoos who cannot wait to get back to the rope".


An hon. Member:: Show us your tooth!


An hon. Member:: Show us your fangs!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Well, we media types always did like to feel we were in the vanguard of public opinion. Given real public feeling on this issue, I really think that these media sources speak for themselves.
Let me dispense with the free vote myth that my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) dealt with and that has been mentioned as well by Chris Young. I covered that 1976 debate and the crucial vote in detail as a reporter for many broadcasting outlets across the country. I know for an absolute fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ordered his entire cabinet to vote abolition, that he put his chief government whip, the then hon. member for Hamilton Mountain under excruciating pressure to change his mind on the issue, and then Mr. McFarlane was exhorted to put some pressure on other wavering Liberal colleagues to tow the government line. I have no idea. I do not even want to know.


An hon. Member:: Pure nonsense!


An hon. Member:: Pure garbage!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Do not get too excited over there. This must be touching a nerve.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I do not even want to think about some of the political carrots that were dangled before those Liberal members who were sufficient in numbers to tip the scales and, by a very few votes, succeed in abolishing the death penalty in Canada.
The point I want to leave with the House is that the 1976 roll-call on capital punishment was anything but free. It is clearly the most dramatic example of this government flouting the will of the Canadian people. There are others: unification of the Armed Forces; its force-marching us into metric shopping. But in no area has this government, indeed this Parliament, been more out of tune with Canadian public opinion than on the capital punishment question.
There is one consistently true argument made by the media movers and shakers of public opinion: capital punishment should not be the highest priority issue, either in our ridings or in the Progressive Conservative party at this time. There is absolutely no question that the economy, gas prices, energy pricing arrangements, the uranium cartel, issues before the public these days, are deemed to be more important and more newsworthy by the media.
I want to put on the record today that we have sought for many months the chance to bring the death penalty matter before Parliament. Since 1978, through three federal election campaigns, I have promised the people of Hamilton-Wentworth that I would raise the capital punishment question in the House at the earliest opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The Liberal government has refused to reconsider this controversial issue since I became a member of Parliament. Indeed, the Prime Minister stated during at least one of the election campaigns he would see to it that capital punishment would never again come before Parliament so long as he is in charge. We have therefore been forced to use one of our allotted opposition days to make one simple request of the House; and that is, to refer the capital punishment question to the appropriate standing committee, and to recommend that there be a truly free vote on this issue. This is our one chance. A great many people will be watching what we say here today and how we vote later tonight.
Let me deal with another myth surrounding this debate, namely, that we are merely a bunch of right wing yahoos-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -who have pressured our leader-I figured we would get some reaction-into agreeing to this opposition day subject because he does not dare deny his caucus this opportunity to appeal to a certain segment of society. That is the kind of media bilge people have been reading. If the CBC were not still on strike, we would be hearing a lot more of it.
I want to remind the House and my former media colleagues that it is our leader, the right hon. member for Yellowhead who, through two federal elections, agreed to allowing a truly free vote on capital punishment, and who informed our party's caucus that, as prime minister, he would abide by Parliament's decision. No other party leader has made that commitment. I am proud to have a leader who keeps his promise and who allows members of his party to speak their minds on a fundamentally moral issue on which we and our leader can disagree. The Leader of the Opposition has the guts to listen to his MPs and to bring this intensely personal matter where it belongs, and where the Liberal government has prevented it from coming to the floor of this House of Commons, then to be sent to a parliamentary committee in the glare of a concerned public opinion. That is the way a democratically elected assembly should be able to operate.
I firmly believe that we, as elected representatives in this chamber from whatever party, should do the best we can to accurately reflect the views of the people who sent us here. I do not know how my hon. friends on the Liberal and NDP side of the House can deny their electors the pledge they made during past election campaigns to speak on their behalf? Are we not all honoured to be members of Parliament because the majority of our constituents felt that we would truly represent



June 11, 1981

their sentiments? Surely we are expected to reflect public opinion, not thwart it.
On this issue especially, I know I am speaking for the vast majority of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth when I worry about the fact that we as a society treat the killers better than we do the victims' relatives; certainly we give them more consideration. I also believe that I am speaking for most of my people when I echo the thoughts of an eight-year-old girl who wrote to the Toronto Star on January 24, 1981, as follows:
I am eight years old. I think the OPP, Ontario Provincial Police, should have bullet-proof vests because I want my daddy to stay alive. I think other policemen's children would like their daddies to stay alive too.
That is from Dana Rankin, from Midland, Ontario.
A bullet-proof vest might have saved Duncan McAllesee's life; I do not know. What I do know is that we must face some grim facts. We must discuss those grim facts in committee and decide on those grim facts in a free vote in this House. The world is reeling with blows struck by people who gun down popes and presidents and policemen. We must stop them. That happens to be my own personal view as a parliamentarian. I urge the House to support our resolution to permit all other members of this House of Commons to express their views in a free vote. It is a most difficult issue but one of great importance to a great many Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence) Mr. Speaker, having heard the comments of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) regarding his concern for the tragic violence in the world, and his citation of the fact that there have been attempted assassinations on His Holiness the Pope, the President of the United States and others, I want to say that I do not take second place to him in his concern about terrorism and assassination. I recall that it was on the same day as the attempt was made on the life of the Pope that I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 calling for action in the United Nations and for an international conference and others steps to be taken, to try to find ways to cope with the problems of violence and assassination in the world.
I recall, too, that on a previous occasion, last October I believe, I moved a motion in this House condemning the acts of terrorism in France and the violence which brought about the death of a number of people in Paris. They were the innocent victims of an attempt to kill a lot of Jews who were in a synagogue at the time, who were innocent people and who might have been destroyed as well. So I take no second place to anyone in this House in my concern about acts of violence and terrorism.
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth asked why we are so concerned about looking after the criminals and not the victims of violence. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons has indicated concern only about criminals and their well-being. It seems to me that time after time we have expressed our condemnation of any kind of violence and terrorism. If we say that we should be caring about the innocent victims of crime, then I would be the first to support
Capital Punishment
any motion to discuss what we can do for them. It seems to me that if this subject were brought up, it would advance the cause of those who are suffering, and that we could do something worth while for those innocent victims. It would be deserving of a day of debate to see what more we could do for the victims of crime.
I have to ask myself, Mr. Speaker, what the reason is for this debate. What is the motive for bringing this debate about? It is obviously a problem for many people, not just for those of us on this side of the House or in the New Democratic Party. Is it because there is moral authority for it? Is it because moral forces are calling across the nation for some change in our laws about capital punishment?
If I consider the moral authorities, as they are usually described, they are those who are concerned about international terrorism, those who are concerned about concentration camps behind the iron curtain, those who are concerned about the sudden disappearance of people in foreign countries.
I have received in the mail, as has every member of Parliament today, yesterday or in the past week, a plea from Amnesty International not to support this motion. It sent a leaflet which states as follows: "The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and violates the right to life."
Amnesty International goes on to say that it declares its total and unconditional opposition to the death penalty; that it condemns all executions, in whatever form, committed or condoned by government and that it declares its commitment to work for the universal abolition of the death penalty. That is the studied response of an organization which exists to combat violence and crime, nationally or internationally.
Is this supposed to be some kind of moral crusade? When we look to those we might think give some kind of moral leadership, if it is not Amnesty International, then I have to bring to the attention of all hon. members that the Anglican Church of Canada is opposed to capital punishment; so also is the United Church of Canada; so also is the Canadian Catholic Conference; so also is the Central Conference of American Rabbis; the Presbyterian Church in Canada-


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) on a point of order.


David Kilgour: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) accept a question?


Mr.   de Corneille@: Perhaps at the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to list those which are, presumably, the religious institutions of our nation, those who are the leaders and have given careful study and have set up committees to examine the results, theologically, morally or practically, of the subject of capital punishment. I was citing the major churches, and I think I had reached the last in my list. I was
10532

June 11, 1981
Capital Punishment
bringing out the fact that the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Unitarian Council, the Lutheran Church in America, the Quaker Society of Friends and the Mennonite Central Committee-all of these denominations which probably include the vast majority of those identified as organized religion in this country-oppose the death penalty.
This motion is not before us because of a concern about a moral issue that is being violated by this House in not bringing it forward. Indeed, it would seem that we are being appealed to by all the moral authorities not to raise this subject at this time. If if is not moral authority that is calling for this and if it is not that we are unconcerned, then we have to ask ourselves why the media also seems to regard this question as a rather strange one to raise. The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth has already cited the litany of the names of the various major publications in this country, many of which are customarily prone to support his party, the Tory party.


Stan Darling: Who are you kidding?


Mr.   de Corneille@: Many have done so but are themselves puzzled and are asking why this subject is being raised at this time. He has cited the names of these newspapers. As I have said, many are Tory newspapers. This question is not being raised because of any outcry on the part of the Canadian public. The motion put forward by the Conservatives has made it necessary for us to again debate the issue.
They have tried unsuccessfuly since 1976 by introducing private members bills to have this matter debated again. Now the Conservatives are ready to use their valuable opposition time to debate this matter on an opposition day. That puzzles the media. Why would they use the time when there are concerns about inflation, the rate of interest, the international problems in the world, the grave threat of Soviet intervention in Poland, and the problems in the Middle East? We are debating this issue when there is no moral outcry. The media asks why this subject is being debated. I am at a loss myself.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Sit down then.


Mr.   de Corneille@: More particularly, why should we debate this at this particular time. There has been no call from the public to bring back hanging. We have been monitoring the situation since the abolition of the death penalty.
We have been assessing the facts to see what the Canadian experience has been.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What about the 30,000 signatures today?


Mr.   de Corneille@: The facts are simple and they are worth noting. Again, I have to ask why the Conservatives are asking for this particular debate at this particular time. Since the abolition of capital punishment in this country, there has not been an increase in murders. On the contrary, the incidence of murders has decreased. For the edification of those across the way, I think they should have the facts before them. I know one can distort statistics, but I think these are rather simple.
These are not figures that can be distorted easily. I do not think any hon. member could challenge that.
In 1975, the murder rate was 2.8 per 100,000 population. In 1976 and 1977, the rate decreased to 2.7.


An hon. Member:: What about attempted murders?


Mr.   de Corneille@: In 1978 and 1979, the rate further decreased to 2.5 per 100,000 population. What new evidence or arguments have come to light to justify this debate?
First, there is no outcry on the part of moral authority, nor is the media calling for a debate. No increase has occurred in the rate of murders since capital punishment was eliminated. On the contrary, there has been a decrease in the number of capital murders. What is the motive for the opposition in calling this particular debate, if this is the case?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9:45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every item necessary to dispose of the business of supply in accordance with Standing Order 58(9).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Clark) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 65)
++YEAS
Messrs.
\ndre
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton)
Beatty
Blenkarn
Bradley
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crombie Crosbie
(St. John's West)
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Darling Dinsdale Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Fraser Fretz Friesen Gamble Gass
Greenaway
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Hees
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Jelinek
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Korchinski
Kushner
June II, 1981

Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
MacKay
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Allmand
Althouse
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Beauchamp-N iquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bocks tael
Bossy
Breau
Broadbent
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Messrs.
Capital Punishment
Messrs.
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nowlan
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Roche
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
de Corneille
de Jong
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dion
Shields
Siddon
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Vankoughnet
Wenman
Wise
Wright
Yurko-82.
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dupont Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Francis
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde	Loiselle	Rae(Levis)	Lonsdale	ReganGray	MacBain	ReidGuilbault	MacDonald	(Kenora-Rainy River)Harquail	(Miss)	RiisHenderson	MacEachen	RobertsHerbert	MacGuigan	RobinsonHervieux-Payette	Mackasey	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)(Mrs.)	MacLaren	RompkeyHnatyshyn	MacLellan	RooneyHopkins	Malepart	RoseHudecki	Marceau	RossiIrwin	Masse	RoyIsabelle	Masters	SargeantIttinuar	McCauley	SavardJoyal	McGrath	SchroderKaplan	McLean	SimmonsKelly	McRae	SmithKillens (Mrs.)	Miller	StolleryKnowles	Munro	TardifLachance	(Hamilton East)	TessierLajoie	Nicholson	TobinLalonde	(Miss)	TousignantLanders	Nystrom	TrudeauLang	Ogle	TurnerLaniel	Olivier	VeilletteLapierre	Orlikow	WaddellLapointe	Parent	Watson(Charlevoix)	Pelletier	WeatherheadLapointe	Pepin	Whelan(Beauce)	Peterson	YanakisLeBlanc	Pinard	Young-153.Lefebvre	Prud'homme


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being after ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 12, 1981