1987-06-25

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege of which I gave you notice earlier this morning.
I was surprised this morning when listening to the CBC Radio-News to learn that three Members of Parliament, the Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), the Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), and the Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) had received and made comment on a Bill not yet tabled in the House and therefore not available to all Members of Parliament for similar comment. I refer to a Bill to amend the Official Languages Act.
I would like from you clarification on this practice. It is my recollection that it is against the rules and customs of the House for the Government to make available to one group of Members a Bill for comment that is not made available to others. I think that requires some clarification and direction on your part.
I can understand the Government discussing the principles of a Bill that it will table with some Members of Parliament, including its own caucus, but not giving those Members the final Bill for comment publicly. I can also understand the Government providing Bills and documents to the official critics in the Opposition, but again under the obligation that they shall not make those Bills or proposals public, and not comment on them until the Bill has been tabled in the House.
In this case, the Member for Charlevoix said that according to the Bill Anglo-Quebecers would have no reason to worry. Perhaps he is right, but I, as a Member representing a Quebec riding with a majority of Anglophones, have no way of responding or commenting on his comments.
I would appreciate your clarification on this rule and custom of the House. If you feel that 1 have a prima facie case of privilege I will move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be permitted to comment on the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I simply want to assure the Hon. Member, the Speaker, and the House, that no Member, with the exception that I will explain, received a copy of the Bill.
Indeed, the printing of the Bill was only completed last night, and I only now received the Bill which is to be tabled in the House of Commons. It is true that I have given copies of the legislation to the Hon. Member's colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the critic for the Official Opposition, and to the critic of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). I also had breakfast with them to discuss the provisions of the Bill.
I have discussed with members of my caucus the general principles of the legislation which, as indicated by the Hon. Member, is the usual case with caucus members in order to obtain their guidance and direction concerning the ultimate provisions.
There has been no breach of the long established tradition of having copies of any legislation that is to be tabled delivered to any Member, except for the exception that there has been a lock-up in this case. There have been interest groups, as well as the Commissioner of Official Languages, who have been briefed this morning and provided with a copy of the Bill, with the usual embargo.
There was one final courtesy that I thought I would extend and which would not breach the traditions of the House. Due to their particular interest in this area, this morning at ten o'clock 1 delivered copies of the Bill with a covering letter of an embargo to the chairpersons of the Standing Joint Committee Official Languages. 1 hope that will explain the matter satisfactorily to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wants to ensure there are no other Members wishing to rise on the question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) wishes to comment.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, if the situation is as described by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), I accept that. However, I think the rules should be clarified because it appeared from the very specific comments made by the three Members to whom I referred that they had very explicit knowledge of what was in the Bill. As I say, one can understand discussing the principles of a Bill with one's caucus, and

June 25, 1987
Tabling of Documents
giving advance copies under embargo to critics, the Language Commissioner and so on.
I hope the Speaker and the House would agree that it is not fair to all Members if only some Members of the House have complete access to a Bill and make comments publicly before all Members can make those same comments. It leaves many of us in a position where we cannot properly defend the interests of our constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any Members rising on this Question of privilege?
I think the Chair can dispose of it appropriately by reminding Hon. Members that this matter has come up before and I have ruled there is not a prima facie case. I would so rule in this particular matter, especially having listened to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and hearing the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who, of course, accepts the explanation of the Minister of Justice.
Having said this, Hon. Members can understand the difficulty in which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East finds himself, along with other Members, no doubt, if statements are made in advance of a Bill being introduced into the House, and if those statements are made, giving the impression-even though it may not be the fact-that someone else has a copy of the document itself.
However, in this case the Hon. Minister of Justice made it quite clear that that was not the situation. He has also made it quite clear that a copy of the Bill was given in the usual and traditional ways to the interested members of the Opposition.
While I understand the complaint and concern of the Hon. Member, this is not a question of privilege. I thank the Hon. Member for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair and to this Chamber, and 1 thank the Hon. Minister of Justice for his very frank presentation which has been helpful to the Chair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2) of the House of Commons, I am tabling in both official languages the code of conduct of employees of Canadian corporations operating in South Africa.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) of the House of Commons, the committee asks the Government to table a response to this report within 150 days.

The report makes recommendation for necessary changes to official languages policy and programs within the federal jurisdiction as a result of testimony received from 16 government departments and agencies.

The committee firmly believes the Treasury Board must play to a greater degree its key role in the co-ordination of official languages programs for the whole Public Service, and it recommends that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) present Parliament with a report on the status of official languages at the time the Main Estimates are tabled.
The committee further recommends that a plan regarding official languages be submitted each year by all federal departments and agencies to the Treasury Board.

Also included are recommendations that the minimum language knowledge level of positions offering a service to the public be eliminated in favour of an intermediate knowledge level and that managers and supervisors be required to possess a superior knowledge of the second official language.

Finally, the report recommends an efficient control system be established for the payment of the bilingualism bonus.
June 25, 1987


PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-21
Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-21, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Competition Act, to repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1979 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, I have the honour to report the Bill with an amendment.
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank all members of the committee for their participation and their interest in that matter, specially the technical staff, and the clerk of the committee whose work is so valuable yet often away from the limelight.


FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to Bill C-56, an Act to amend certain Acts relating to financial institutions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the Official Languages of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Hees (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-73, an Act to provide for the implementation of an agreement respecting Indian lands in Ontario.
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have suggested this before to four of Your Honour's predecessors, and I will now suggest it to you. Is there not some way to avoid the Chair having to read off a lengthy list every day and just say something to the effect, "Shall all the motions as shown on today's Order Paper stand?" and let it go at that?


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I agree whole-heartedly with my friend. It would seem to me that, perhaps over the summer, some consideration could be given to this matter to incorporate exactly what the Hon. Member has said into our procedures. In this way business would flow more smoothly. It would not look as if Hon. Members were being dilatory by not being here to present their motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I very much appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the comments of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I take it that there is a general disposition in the House at this time that the Speaker should proceed to find a more expeditious way of carrying out this item of Routine Proceedings. I am very grateful to Hon. Members, and I will do that.


PETITIONS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present two petitions. The first is from citizens of Thunder Bay who hope that it is not too late.
They state in their petition that Bill C-18 will create unnecessary chaos in the transportation industry leading to unacceptable reductions in safety standards as well as a deterioration in the quality, type and frequency of service. They request that the Parliament of Canada withdraw Bill C-18 and retain public convenience and necessity as a fundamental factor in the development of public transportation policy.

June 25, 1987
Petitions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition for which I know the Hon. Member from the Northwest Territories will renew his support. It has to do with the bankruptcy of Fred Turner, Turnair and the decision of the CTC to cancel his licence to operate an airline in 1983.
The petitioners call upon the House to assign an independent arbitrator to this matter in order to investigate the details of the case and to review and negotiate the offer from the federal Government with Fred Turner in order to reach an equitable settlement which better reflects the true nature of his loss.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a petition from the parishioners of Saint-Louis-de-France in my constituency who object to the reinstatement of capital punishment. They believe that the right to life is a sacred principle and that God alone is entitled to take it away, that a civilized people cannot approve revenge and that a judicial mistake can definitely seal the fate of an innocent individual.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners from Kaslo, Silverton, and Nelson, British Columbia, as well as a number of petitioners from the Province of Ontario who are drawing to the attention of the House of Commons the fact that increasing numbers of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides have been proved to have harmful effects on human health. They list a whole number of concerns which I will not go into since we will have an opportunity to look at this matter later.
They ask the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides, suggesting that we examine alternative ways of controlling pests by such methods as biological control and plant-derived pesticides.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present some 65 petitions from citizens from a wide range of locations in Canada all of whom petition and pray that it should be in the best interest of good order in society that the capital punishment motion should go forward and that the return of capital punishment should be given consideration by this Parliament.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions to present. In order to save the time of the House of Commons I will present all 16 petitions now and list off the communities from which they come. They are: Elliot Lake, Ontario; Blind River, Ontario; Moncton, New Brunswick; Riverview, New Brunswick; Hillsborough, New Brunswick; Thunder Bay, Ontario; Fort St. John, B.C.; Dawson Creek, B.C.; Vancouver, B.C.; Toronto, Ontario; Scarborough, Ontario; New Glasgow, Pictou, Trenton and Stellarton, Nova Scotia; Mississauga, Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, Sudbury and London, Ontario; St. Thomas, Kitchener, Huron Park, Aylmer, Keewatin, Windsor, Tecumseh, Elgin, and Nipigon, Ontario; and Fredericton, New Brunswick.
In these petitions hundreds of Canadians express their concern with respect to the Government's intention to pass Bill C-22 into legislation. They believe that it will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They believe that the federal Government's proposal will result in higher costs to provincial government drug plans. They also believe that this is another example of the Canadian Government making concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from all parts of Canada containing some 8,978 signatures. The petition, following the new rules, is commendably brief.
To the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled; whereas the United States Strategic Defense Initiative, or star wars, is a dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race and over 50 Nobel Prize winning scientists have condemned it as economically disastrous and strategically destabilizing, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to firmly guarantee that there will be no testing, development, manufacture or deployment of SDI systems or components in Canada; end all Canadian political support for SDI and actively support positive alternatives to SDI, including; strengthening the 1972 AntiBallistic Missile Treaty, the establishment of an international satellite-monitoring agency and a ban on all nuclear weapon testing.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of citizens of the Province of Ontario and other Canadians from all across the country 2,000 signatures calling upon this Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment. These signatures, which now total over 24,000, represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this important issue.
June 25, 1987

Capital Punishment


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister [Translation] of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to	QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
present to the House of Commons today on behalf of the
citizens of Scarborough and other locations across Ontario Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime and, indeed, from citizens in towns and villages right across Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I Canada, 2,081 signatures of people who are calling upon ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Parliament to pass a motion for the return of capital punish- Mr s ker. js ;t agree(j? ment for certain acts of planned and deliberate murder and the
killing of police officers and prison guards.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The signatures now total nearly 25,000 and represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this very important issue.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of the citizens of the City of Mississauga and, indeed, Canadians from all across the country, over 1,000 signatures of people who are calling upon this Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment.
The signatures now total almost 30,000 and represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this important issue.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of the citizens of the City of Hamilton in the Province of Ontario and Canadians from all across our country 2,015 signatures of petitioners, who are calling upon this Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada.
The signatures, which now total well over 30,000, represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this important issue.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to present on behalf of literally hundreds of my constituents petitions calling on the Government to maintain Canada's postal service, especially in rural areas, where it is under attack and where there is great uncertainty.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Next, I have a petition signed by several hundred of my constituents concerning the Patent Act as it relates to drugs. This petition calls on the Government to maintain the place of generic drugs in the market-place, given the adverse effect the loss of these generic pharmaceuticals would have on the price of drugs generally.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what
circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of
death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and
[Stage Direction]
June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
And on the amendment of Mr. Nystrom (p. 7307).
Nelson Andrew Riis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Kaplan:: A point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall hear first from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, followed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and then the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have reconsidered. I shall proceed in a different fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, before we resume the ongoing debate on capital punishment, taking into consideration that we are holding discussions in an effort to expedite the business of the House and make the House of Commons as productive as possible, I wonder if I might ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader whether there would be a disposition on the part of those on the government benches not to call for extended hours later today.
If he were to so indicate, we would reciprocate by saying that it would not be our intention through the day to be calling for a quorum.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was intending to refer to that in my remarks. I can assure all Members of the House that the Government feels that the debate on capital punishment is progressing in an orderly manner. There has been a great deal of participation by Members from all sides of the House, representing both sides of the issue. Under that circumstance, the Government has no intention of extending the hours for debate either through the lunch hour or at ten o'clock this evening.
I should point out that Private Members' Hour has disappeared today, with the result that the debate will continue right through. As well, there will not be a dinner break at 6.00 p.m.
I appreciate the Hon. Member's suggestion that, in return for my assurance that extended hours will not be called for, a quorum will not be called at any time during the day.
I am sure that all Members realize that we are all in the position of trying to complete whatever we can with regard to
constituency work and committee work and that it is not possible for all who are on duty to be in the House at all times. I appreciate the assurance given by my colleague in that respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) rising?


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I was not, Mr. Speaker; however, I dare not rise when you invite me to do so.
I think it reasonable, Mr. Speaker, that we undertake not to call for a quorum in light of the Government's undertaking not to move a motion calling for extended hours. However, I should point out that under the rules recently adopted by the House, it does take 15 Members to block a motion for extended hours. So, we will attempt to be vigilant about that possibility, in any event.


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-and it is just a technicality. In calling the business of the day, I appreciate that it is often done in an abbreviated fashion. I would ask that the next time business of the day is called, it be done in a more complete form.
Given the manner in which this order was called today, there is in fact no motion on the floor. The next time it is called, I would appreciate it being done in a very complete manner, enabling a full disclosure as to the precise terms of the motion before the House. In that way, there will be no confusion.


Mr. Speaker:: That seems to be a reasonable request. I shall ensure that something is done to satisfy it.
The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) on debate.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome this opportunity to participate in the capital punishment debate. I support the re-establishment of capital punishment in Canada. However, I think it would be worthwhile to narrow the issues we are discussing today to those contained in the motion.
In order to bring about focus on the real issues, let me start by disposing of some of the arguments which have received some attention thus far in the debate.
It is often asserted that before capital punishment was officially eliminated in 1976 the law had ceased to be effective and, therefore, restoring the status quo ante-1976 will accomplish nothing. Let me state that I agree with this argument.
The second emotive argument which is raised is that somehow those of us who wish to reinstate capital punishment want to bring back the noose. This is not what I want, nor what the vast majority of Canadians want.
The third argument which is raised is that society has progressed beyond the "eye for an eye" mentality; that is, that
June 25, 1987

vengeance should not be the principal thrust of a modern judicial system. I also agree with this concept, as do the vast majority of MPs and the public.
The fourth argument which is raised is that if capital punishment is reinstated it will become more difficult to convict murderers. I personally consider this a strong argument in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment. The implicit assumption underlying it is that somehow jurors are convicting people of murder now notwithstanding that they have genuine doubt as to guilt. With capital punishment in place, jurors would be more reluctant to convict in the absence of resolving all doubt.
I personally feel that juries should not be handing down guilty verdicts in circumstances where they have some doubt as to guilt. If the availability of capital punishment will cause jurors to take the extra time for consideration before bringing in a guilty verdict, I would consider that to be an argument in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment.
The question then which is relevant to the capital punishment debate is this. Does one favour taking a human life under any circumstances and, if so, on what basis? If so, the matter of which crimes should be potentially subject to capital punishment and who should impose the sentence, as well as the method of execution to be used, must also be considered.
When I first entered politics nine years ago I decided it would be prudent to ask myself, in the privacy of my own home, what my beliefs and convictions were, so that when I appeared in a public forum or gave interviews to the press, I would not be left to wing it; that rather, I would have a comprehensive philosophical and political basis on which to respond.
I must admit that until I sat down and wrote a list of the questions that I could be asked, I had not given the issue of capital punishment much time or thought. What thought I had given it led me to believe that capital punishment should not be imposed in the majority of first degree murder cases, since most first degree murders were committed by close family members, and murderers falling into this category show a remarkable degree of rehabilitation. Nor did I believe that an accomplice who was waiting in the get-away vehicle should be equally liable for the death penalty as the person who went into a bank and shot a teller.
However, as I considered that decision, my mind turned to individuals such as those who killed the Portuguese shoe-shine boy, Emanuel Jaques. After holding the boy for several days and assaulting him, they then drowned him.
I also began to think of cases involving young children, particularly girls, who were murdered following violent rape or sexual molestation, as well as, of course, serial killers, of whom there are all too many, who principally abduct, assault and kill young women.
In these situations, it seems to me that there is a valid case for capital punishment. The rationale, of course, is primarily
Capital Punishment
one of public safety, although there is a substantial element of deterrence. For example, questions asked of the killers of Emanuel Jaques elicited the response that had there been capital punishment, they would not likely have proceeded to kill the boy. Similarly, there are examples of lifers, particularly those guilty of multiple murders, who have nothing to lose in trying to escape and as a consequence inflict serious or deadly assaults upon prison guards.
In these situations of serial murders and murders which involve rape or child assault, in the case of murders involving any violent crime, or in the case of murders done for ideological reasons, particularly the so-called executions of innocent hostages, I found, in closely examining myself, that I believed the public safety was best served by reinstating capital punishment. Having reached this conclusion, the questions were these. What sort of system should be brought into being, how would this differ from the old system, and how could a structure best be set up to achieve the desired results?
Over the last nine years I have had many discussions with constituents and participated in well over 100 all-candidate debates in which the issue of capital punishment has often arisen. By and large I found that most of the population had not thought out the issue thoroughly. They tended initially to engage in a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. However, after prolonged discussions, I found that the vast majority of Canadians seem to have similar views to my own.
With this in mind, I ran a referendum in my riding early this year. In my referendum I did not simply ask a black and white question such as, "Are you in favour of capital punishment?" I took steps to explain the issues to my constituents and to use open-ended questions to seek their views.
I indicated that I would treat the referendum seriously, that I genuinely desired to know the views of my constituents, and that I would reflect their thinking in my speech in the House of Commons.
The response was overwhelming. Over 16,300 ballots were returned; by far the largest response ever received by any Member of Parliament on any issue up to that time. About 10 per cent of these ballots either included lengthy comments in the section provided on the ballot or contained letters. The ballot of course was conducted completely anonymously, but many individuals took the opportunity to sign their names to the letters.
I was interested to find out that my constituents' views closely coincided with my own. First, there was no support whatsoever for an automatic death sentence for any crime. However, the vast majority of my constituents believe that capital punishment can be justified under one or more circumstances.
Almost two-thirds of the respondents felt that capital punishment should potentially be available to any person who

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
commits first degree murder. Almost one-quarter of respondents feel that this is too widespread and that capital punishment should only be potentially available for some first degree murders. Of this minority, more than three-quarters cited murders of police and jail guards, and just over one-half cited murder in the act of committing another violent crime as potential capital offences.
However, the psyche of my constituents was much more interestingly revealed in respect of a question about serious terrorist acts which did not involve taking a human life. The hypothetical example I cited was drawn from real life and dealt with a terrorist who intended to blow up an airliner by planting a bomb in the hand luggage of his fiance. The fact that he did not succeed in committing murder was not due to his efforts but due to the diligence of the airline inspection system. Astoundingly, more people favour capital punishment for terrorism of this type even though no life was taken than favour capital punishment for first degree murder.
These results and many notes and letters which I received indicated quite clearly that the public's desire to see capital punishment reinstated was first and foremost based on a concern for public safety. Some people who have committed the vilest and most violent type of murder were judged simply too dangerous to have around. In addition, there was and is a steely determination to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the type of terrorism against innocent people now prevalent in Europe or in the Middle East does not spread to Canada. It was for these reasons that people overwhelmingly supported the resurrection of the death penalty.
The second question I asked was, "Who should impose the sentence"? Once again the public's view coincided closely with my own and represented a complete rejection of the previous system. The public simply does not want the very serious decision to take a life to rest in the hands of any one individual such as the judge. Over 85 per cent of the respondents felt that the jury should first vote whether the individual was guilty or innocent of a potentially capital offence and then, immediately after returning this decision, the jury should be asked for its recommendation on whether the sentence should be a capital one. Some 27 per cent of respondents felt that the jury alone should be society's surrogates and should determine whether capital punishment is imposed, while over 58 per cent felt the jury should express its opinion to the judge directly and that the judge should bear its views in mind before imposing the sentence.
It is quite clear that the public does not wish to delegate this authority to any one individual who may be a so-called "hanging judge" that automatically imposes the sentence or who may have, on the other hand, a philosophical opposition to imposing capital punishment. The public wants any decision to take a life to be based on an extremely wide forum-those jurors who have heard all the evidence.
I was very interested to learn that such a double jury vote system exists in other parts of the world and that in practice
results very similar to those I intuitively felt should be obtained were obtained. Only rarely is capital punishment imposed in cases of murder involving close family members, the area with the greatest likelihood of rehabilitation. However, for serial killers, killers of hostages, and killers caught in the act of committing another crime such as rape or child molestation, the death penalty is frequently imposed.
Finally, I asked what method of execution should be selected. The restitution of the noose received only 9 per cent support. Overwhelmingly, by their votes and in their comments, people indicated that if they found the taking of a human life necessary, it should only be done in the most humane method possible.
Older people of both sexes, particularly those likely to have encountered serious operations, strongly supported lethal injection. They, as I, have experience with general anaesthesia and know that within 20 seconds a person can be rendered unconscious and that a lethal injection can then be administered.
Younger voters were more apt to favour allowing the condemned to have the choice. However, once again they clearly indicated that they desired the most humane method possible. Consistently, almost three-quarters of the respondents chose these two options for both sexes and at all ages. The public does not believe in an "eye for an eye" or in revenge, and neither do I. If the deed is to be done, we want it to be done using the most humane method possible.
Some people might believe that capital punishment is in some way playing God and no one has the right to decide when a life should be taken, that this is a decision that should be left to God. Certainly I respect this view, and the more consistently it is espoused, the more respect I have for it. The people who are most consistent in terms of this view are those who in wartime are conscientious objectors even when the fabric of society itself is threatened.
For example, even with Hitler threatening in the Second World War, these people were consistent and refused to accept that taking a life could be justified by bearing arms. I have the highest respect for those who hold this view. However, I do not share it. I believe society can justify taking a life when public safety is involved.
When society has identified individuals who pose such a threat to public safety, who have committed crimes such as serial killing or murders after torture or brutalization, society, in the form of the jury, has the right to judge that they represent a threat to society's safety and that society has the right to protect itself by taking a human life.
In my mind there is no consistent philosophical basis for accepting the right to take a life in defence of one's country because public safety is threatened or self-defence is threatened, and yet hold out the philosophical argument that taking a life can never be justified.
June 25, 1987

The vast majority of Canadians feel that when individual or public safety is threatened, killing of individuals in self-defence or through declaration of war is justified. It is my contention that the views of society in respect of capital punishment have exactly the same philosophical basis of the right to public safety, and it is for this reason that they and I support the reinstatement of capital punishment.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons to speak to my fellow Members of Parliament and to my constituents, many of whom have written to me here in Ottawa, have called me, have spoken with me on the streets in Vancouver-Kingsway, or have met me on the doorsteps of their houses.
I want to begin by saying that on this extremely complex moral issue 1 owe my constituents my own judgment. This is in accordance with a long parliamentary tradition going back to the British Member of Parliament, Edmund Burke, who, speaking to the electors of Bristol on November 13, 1774, said:
Your representative owes you, not his industry alone, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
While my own Party has a policy on capital punishment, I am here exercising my own judgment on this issue. That is not to say that I do not respect or consider the views of my constituents, or indeed the views of other Members like the one who has just spoken, who take a view different from the one I take. I have read their letters carefully and I have listened to their views carefully and sincerely, and I respect them all.
This debate is really a life and death debate. If we restore capital punishment, people will be executed by the state. It would be foolish to assume otherwise. That is why I take this debate very seriously.
I am concerned that many Canadians may think there is an easy way for the state to kill, in a sanitized way, if you like. The Hon. Member who just spoke talked about lethal injections. Maybe we will not have the noose, the electric chair or the kind of circus atmosphere that accompanies American state executions, but I remind Canadians and fellow Members that the state will be taking the life of a fellow human being whether it be in a sanitized way through the lethal injection or through a more public and circus like way of the noose or the electric chair.
Members of Parliament all have different ways of coming at this question. In the period before I entered the House of Commons, I practised criminal law. I think I have the unique situation among Members of this House that as a former Crown attorney and former defence counsel I prosecuted someone charged with murder and I defended someone charged with murder. I will never forget-it is one of these incidents that stands out in one's memory-the murder case that I handled in Prince Rupert when I was a young lawyer. It was my first murder case and I defended a young native woman who was charged with murdering her husband.
Capital Punishment
I practised law in a period in which the death penalty was abolished but I recall the older lawyers telling me how often juries would refuse to convict even in fairly strong cases because they could see the accused before them. They knew that they were personally sentencing a human being to death. In many cases they simply could not do this. Often people who normally would have been convicted were acquitted, and studies bear this out. To me, this is a more accurate reflection of the real views of the ordinary Canadian than the mere answering of a phone call from a polling organization.
During my practice as a criminal lawyer I came to have a deep respect for our criminal justice system. I think it is one of the best and the fairest in the world. I also saw first hand, because it is a system that functions through human beings, that mistakes can happen. When the state hangs an innocent person, and that has happened in the United States, in Britain and perhaps in Canada, there is no correcting that mistake. You cannot bring the person back. Indeed, along with other kinds of sentences, I feel the application of the death penalty will be, and has been, discriminatory and will fall on those least able to get a good lawyer, the poor, the under-educated, the inarticulate, the mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed and minorities, and studies in the United States bear this out.
As a criminal lawyer, I also got the opportunity to see criminals as human beings, often pathetic, desperate, sometimes sick human beings, usually inadequate in some way, people who did not fit into society and people who belonged to a minority. More often than not they were poor. That is why I am not surprised to find that studies clearly show that capital punishment is no deterrent to murder.
Why then, I ask myself, this demand to restore capital punishment, given that there has been no real change in murder rates since we abolished the death penalty. Is it a religious demand? The Christian Bible says in the Old Testament, "Thou shalt not kill. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot". But Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible says:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I say unto you, that ye resist no evil: But whoever shall smite thee on thy cheek, turn to him the other also.
Most churches have written to me against the death penalty. In 1983 the Pope himself spoke out against capital punishment. Therefore, I do not think the argument for the return of the death penalty is based on religious grounds.
I have a letter from a woman whose daughter was murdered. She tells us that capital punishment will not bring back her daughter; nor indeed, even if restored, will it deter murders of other daughters. Unfortunately, that will be a fact of life.
Why then the demand for restoration of capital punishment, Mr. Speaker? I think it is based on revenge, which is still a natural part of the human make-up, a part that we still have not yet conquered, together with the frustrations of modern life which come from the feeling that in the modern world we

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
cannot control what goes on in our lives. The Hon. Member who spoke last spoke of terrorism. Capital punishment is still, and really is, state vengeance and I think it comes down to being part of our penal philosophy. To restore capital punishment abandons hope in our ability to cope with violence, whether it be criminal or otherwise, except with more violence.
John Donne, the great English poet, many years ago said:
Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind.
I conclude that to restore the death penalty no matter how it is done would be a step backward for Canada. It would place us among the more barbaric and violent states of the world. The death penalty is out of place in a modern, peaceful, humane society, which is my vision of Canada. Therefore, I will vote against the motion.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak, not only to those who, like myself, are against a return to capital punishment but especially to those who today still believe that reinstatement of this ultimate penalty is truly justified.
During the few minutes I am allowed, I would like to explain my reasons for opposing capital punishment today, as I did in 1976.
Before I go any further, I would like to express very briefly my profound dismay, which I am sure is shared by many of my colleagues, at the way the Government put this question before the House and the way it intends to conduct the debate.
During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that once elected, his Government would hold a free vote on capital punishment. We thought this would involve a clear and straight forward process and that the House would decide the issue with all the moral and political consequences that would entail, both for the individual Member and for the Government.
Instead, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government have decided to play hide and seek. They have decided to hide their true colours behind a quite perilous procedure, considering the nature of the debate and what is at stake.
On tabling his motion in the House on February 13 this year, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said the tabling of the motion did not mean the Government approved or disapproved of reinstating capital punishment.
However, the motion he tabled on behalf of the Government and on which we will be asked to vote is crystal-clear in this respect, and I quote:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment-
And the Government would have us believe it is not taking sides!
This manoeuvre would let the Government take its distance from a debate that will not enhance any reputations or produce any winners.
I suggest we take a closer look at the content of the motion. Briefly, the motion tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister asks the House to support reinstatement of capital punishment and orders the appointment of a special committee consisting of 15 members, a committee that is to hold hearings for three months across the country and make recommendations, on the basis of the testimony received, regarding:
(1)	the offences that should carry the death penalty;
(2)	the methods by which the sentence should be carried out; and finally,
(3)	the same committee will be responsible for preparing and bringing in a Bill.
We have here the three basic elements of what normally should have been the Government's responsibility: the crimes that should be punishable by capital punishment, the methods used and the requisite drafting of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, when the previous Liberal Government tabled Bill C-84 in 1976, it did so frankly and forthrightly. It did not seek every kind of excuse to shirk its reponsibilities. It fully recognized its responsibilities, and it did so after a free vote in which the Prime Minister at the time and his Cabinet voted in favour of Bill C-84, to adopt the motion taking capital punishment out of the Criminal Code.
This Government is trying to to eat its cake and have it too. Government Members are divided on the issue, that we know. The Cabinet seems to be as well. And so they do not want to have the responsibility for this motion. Once the debate is concluded, they want to be able to tell proponents of capital punishment that they kept their word. They want to be able to tell the others, the people who are against capital punishment: Well, what can we do? The decision was made by a committee of the House with Members from all three Parties.
The motion is a highly regrettable one. I am also concerned that some Members, instead of acting as responsible Members, prefer to bow to the majority views of some Canadians. Members who want to shirk their responsibilities tell us: in the final instance, it doesn't really matter whether I'm for or against capital punishment since the majority of my constituents are in favour, and that is why I intend to vote for the motion.
Personally, I think that in the final instance, a Member should be accountable for his actions to his constituents. I believe a Member must answer for his actions to the people who elected him, but this does not imply that he can shirk that same political responsibility by giving up his freedom to speak, and especially his freedom to think and his freedom to vote in this House. Were he to act this way, I do not think he would be doing a service to his constituents, nor would he be enhancing
June 25, 1987

the quality of our system of Government, and indeed the quality of our democratic life.
This debate borders on the realm of unreality for those who, like myself, had the privilege of being here when Parliament voted to abolish capital punishment in 1976, convinced as we were at the time that, after a long and difficult debate, our country had finished a very significant and historic journey.
We thought at the time that as parliamentarians and, more fundamentally, as Canadians, we had turned a page of our collective history. We thought that we had clearly signified to the world our deep commitment to human values. We thought that we had signified our commitment to justice and to life in voting for the abolition of the death penalty. We thought that we had expressed in 1976, collectively and individually, our fundamental belief in the primacy of human life, and that in doing so we had joined the family of enlightened peoples.

So we are wondering today how we ever got to the point where again we would want to change everything and move backwards.
Admittedly our country has been witness to sordid crimes in recent years, often involving children. Our television screens at home have often shown scenes of horror and suffering.
The same television has enabled us to see-and feel, to a certain extent-the sufferings of parents who had just lost a child, or the sufferings of a wife who had just lost her policeman husband coldly shot dead while on duty. Undoubtedly such incidents have stirred emotions and raised fear and indignation among many Canadians.

But that same television has also magnified tenfold the tales of human suffering. It has magnified our horror and indignation by feeding us a steady diet of violent programming. Indeed, every night on prime time, we see murder, robbery, assault, rape and kidnapping. Unfortunately, very often these are American programs.
All of this makes us believe that somehow we have in the last 10 years changed fundamentally as a society and become more violent, more brutal than we were when we had the death penalty. I think this is not the real fact. Rather than numbing us to the real violence, it makes us feel weak and defenceless and leads us to believe that our penal system is faulty, that we need to protect ourselves because the state no longer can protect us from a violence which is nevertheless more often perceived than real. We began to advocate capital punishment, and as things went on some Conservative Members of Parliament decided to press on, and here now we have the Government presenting a motion to reinstate capital punishment. I think this is a very sad situation.
Capital Punishment

I am very sincere when I suggest that the quality of our judicial system will not be enhanced if we vote to restore capital punishment. Nor will it be an accomplishment for those who advocate the repeal of the existing statute in favour of the reinstatement of the death penalty. A man like Clifford Olson will be the real winner because he will thus bring us down to his own lowly common denominator. As I see it, such a move would make our society less humane from the outset, and we will certainly be less tolerant, less avid of freedom.
In conclusion, I should like to quote from a statement released by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops entitled "The Escalation of Violence", which I recommend to all my colleagues:
A society which so respects the right to life that it cannot resort to capital punishment to protect itself creates an atmosphere which commands respect for other human rights. The death penalty is acceptable only in a society which is not well organized enough to find another way to defend itself against elements which would threaten the lifes of its citizens, and such is not the case in Canada. Violence begets violence, and capital punishment is a violent measure. Today still, ten years after capital punishment was abolished, we harbour the same conviction: a society which respects the sacred and intangible character of human life and which gives top priority to human rights definitely promotes its own social progress, even though this may seem to be a slow and not immediately apparent process, besides contributing to the development of mankind. This conviction, confirmed in the message of Jean-Paul II when he visited our country, is based on the evangelical project where guilty mankind is reconciled with God thanks to the pardon of Jesus. Innocent, but convicted and sentenced to death, Jesus himself advocates total forgiveness: "Forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they are doing."
I think we can admit that a society such as ours has the right to punish a criminal, the right to inflict a sanction which is proportional to the crime, but I maintain that killing a man to punish him is tantamount to vengeange, and nothing else.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau:
As members of society, do we have so little respect for ourselves, so little hope of bettering human condition, are we so near social bankruptcy that we accept the principle of State vengeance as the cornerstone of our penal philosophy?
Finally, I would ask all Members in this House, whether you support or oppose reinstating capital punishment, to vote according to your conscience. Discuss this with your constituents, of course, discuss it also with your families, but by all means do not vote because a majority of voters in your constituency want capital punishment back, and want society to be brought back to a state of barbary. On the contrary, vote according to your conscience, and above all vote in a manner where liberty will prevail, rather than vengeance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I have two short observations to make and a question to ask of the Hon. Member.

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
Tie referred to the 1976 vote and how he thought that would resolve the issue for all time. I beg to differ. If that vote had reflected the wish of the majority of the Canadian people, I suggest it might have helped resolve the problem. However, we had a so-called free vote in 1976, and he knows as well as anyone in this country that there was a solid cabinet vote opposing the retention of capital punishment. Yet many of the cabinet Ministers in that Liberal Government spoke out in support of capital punishment prior to the vote.
We have today a parallel with 1976. According to a recent Maclean's magazine poll, 68 per cent of members of the PC Party support capital punishment in one form or other; in the Liberal Party it is 61 per cent, and in the NDP it is 55 per cent. If the Government and elected representatives in Parliament ignore the vast majority who support capital punishment, the same thing will happen as happened in 1976.
How does the Hon. Member propose to deal with this desire of the Canadian people; by ignoring them time after time after time? How does he expect the issue to ever go away if Parliament does not pay at least some attention to the majority?


André Ouellet: I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member by reminding him that capital punishment was abolished in Canada in 1976 by the Canadian Parliament, with the knowledge that such was basically the case in most western- industrialized nations- France, Belgium, Britain and so forth, and at the time Canadian parliamentarians wanted thereby to ensure that we express our deep respect for human rights, and what we did in fact was put an end to an experience that dated back to barbaric, archaic customs.
The fact was that both the then Liberal Government and the previous Conservative Government had refused to hang those who had been sentenced to death. It will be remembered that in a systematic way, both the Diefenbaker Government and the Pearson Government, as well as the Trudeau Government, when a death sentence was sent to Cabinet for commuting to life imprisonment, those successive Cabinets in a systematic way commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment.
The reality therefore in Canada was that already the Government, inspired by that modern spirit of treating prisoners, criminals in a modern rather than archaic way, had decided no longer to hang criminals.
The legislation passed by Parliament in 1976 was therefore confirming a tradition that had been well anchored into Canadian usage by various Cabinets, both Liberal and Conservative.
Capital punishment proved a punitive act rather than a reforming move. Clearly, those who claim that capital punishment will prevent a criminal from killing are mistaken. It never was and never will be a rehabilitating action, a sentence that will bring someone, with the thought that if he goes ahead and kills someone he will be hanged, along the
road, to decide not to commit his crime, knowing he will be hanged. Reality is quite different.
Therefore, we are assuming it would be much more important to have a correctional and judicial system based on administrative reform and a more modern way of operating our judicial system, than going backwards with that punitive form that in my view should have no place in modern society.


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask deals with this rubbish of a free vote the last time this measure came before the House. I say rubbish because it was not a free vote and everyone knows it. I was told by a Liberal Member of Parliament, one who still sits in this House today, that the Prime Minister of the day put pressure on his caucus to vote in favour of abolition. If they did not he would call an election and the Liberals were down about 20 per cent in the polls at that time. I would like the Hon. Member to please comment on that.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member listened to my speech a while ago, but I clearly indicated that there is a fundamental difference in approach between the steps taken in 1976 and those of the current Government.
Walking both sides of the fence at once, this Conservative Government is trying to keep everybody happy. While some are for abolishing capital punishment, others insist on reinstating it. So, instead of moving a clear and definite motion, it uses this shaw of creating a parliamentary committee.
In 1976, with the support of his full Cabinet, the Prime Minister of the time had opted for abolishing capital punishment, and the motion moved by the Government of the time had made it possible for all Hon. Members from both sides of the House to vote freely on this issue.
But the Government, I mean the Prime Minister and his Ministers were all of the same view, namely, that the time had come to end this barbarous practice and abolish capital punishment. All back-benchers had an opportunity to vote according to their conscience.
I must say that some of my hon. colleagues did not try to justify their position with Gallup or other polls. They voted clearly for or against abolishing capital punishment. It was a free vote. Quite evidently, the Liberal Cabinet of the day was fully behind abolishing capital punishment and so was the Prime Minister. It is a clear situation which does not exist now, something I deplore enormously.


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege for me to rise in this House on this most important debate, perhaps one of the most important, talked
June 25, 1987

about, controversial, and possibly agonizing debates that we have had in this Parliament. This debate deserves the full attention of this House. No matter what side a Member may take on this issue, this is indeed an ultimate test for each Member in decision-making. We might even ask for the wisdom of Solomon to help us make a decision.
In making a decision none is 100 per cent right. We may be 80 per cent or 90 per cent right, and that is how decisions are made. We have to make our decisions reflecting generally the views of our constituents. We are talking about whether we oppose or support capital punishment.
The views of each Member will, of course, be at odds with those of some constituents, because in every constituency there will be a certain number of people in favour and a certain number against. How can a Member of Parliament reflect everyone's view? This is the decision that we as parliamentarians have to take in order to reflect what we, in our wisdom, after consultation not only with our constituents but with other Members of Parliament and groups of people, believe is in the best interests of the people of Canada.
This issue appeals to emotion as well as logic. Hopefully we will not rely on emotions only. We must use our hearts and our minds and they must always be open to the arguments, thoughts and beliefs of others. We must make our decision with care, thought and responsibility.
I will be voting in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment. I would like to explain to you why I believe that capital punishment should be reinstated in Canada. I believe that the state not only has the right but the responsibility to protect itself and its citizens from harm. We are waging a war of sorts against crime in its most barbarous form, that is, murder in first degree, the taking of innocent lives. We as a state must protect our citizens from those who would seek to destroy life within our country.
If a foreign country were to invade our borders we; individuals, soldiers, sailors, men and women, would not hesitate to fight back, to punish the invaders, especially those who may have killed our citizens in the process of the invasion. By fighting back we would most likely take the lives of the invaders. This is the role of the state to protect its inhabitants. It must provide a safe haven for its citizens. In a way, to kill the invaders is capital punishment and is part of the protection which the state must provide. It must punish the enemy for having taken a life within our country.
Within Canada the enemy is the individual who deliberately plans and kills innocent members of our society. The state must have the power to exercise its strength as protector and must have within its jurisdiction the power to choose the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime, for example, that of murder in the first degree or high treason.
Canadian citizens are starting to live in fear in their own homes. Seniors are frightened to walk alone at night. Many people expect us to accept that as part of the changing times,
Capital Punishment
part of the 80s and 90s-the reality of life. Well, this is not right and we must not stand for it. Canadians should feel safe, not only in their own homes but throughout the country. It is up to us as legislators to ensure that safety, with our police forces and other protectionist forces.
We must become more sensitive to the rights of victims. They did not choose to become victims but were chosen by the perpetrators of violent crimes. Many people have forfeited their lives in senseless, brutal murders. It is becoming obvious that the state is not responding to their basic need and want, that being to live a safe and secure life.
I share the same view as the majority of my constituents. Last year I conducted a survey of my constituents to learn their views on the issue of capital punishment. At that time 81 per cent supported the return of capital punishment for first degree murder and the murder of police and prison guards. The majority of comments which I read in the questionnaires expressed fear and outrage at the tragedy which befell the victims. They also expressed the perception that our judicial system was possibly somewhat impotent.
In my town hall meetings I have heard many views on the issue of capital punishment. I have never hesitated to ask those who have gathered for their thoughts. The general view that I hear again and again is that the judicial system is not working in favour of law-abiding citizens but rather against them and that we should have capital punishment. The ratio is usually three or four to one in favour of capital punishment.
I have had conversations with members of the clergy who have supported the reinstatement of the death penalty. When I visit community groups and schools and knock on the doors of my constituents I invariably ask them what they think of capital punishment. The views I hear reinforce my belief. Not everyone is in favour of capital punishment, but the vast majority is.
In one high school which I visited this spring we talked of many things including capital punishment. When I asked for a straw vote the result was two to one in favour of capital punishment, this from 16 and 17-year old students.
People do not want to live their lives in fear. It is not a prevailing fear but rather a sense of disquiet that all is not quite right. Part of this disquiet comes from the fact that men and women who have not been rehabilitated are roaming the streets. At a time when the quality of our lives should be at its highest it is actually at one of its lowest points. Some people are starting to develop a bunker mentality due to their weakened sense of security.
I spoke earlier of the sense of the general public that our judicial system is impotent. I highly respect lawyers, judges, and our judiciary. One of the main points that I hear again and again is that our laws and punishments for crimes are not only lax but seem, in the eyes of the public to be inconsistent. I am told that the parole system procedures need to be tightened. Prison sentences should be made longer and violent

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
criminals should be kept off the streets. Yet rehabilitation is necessary. A life sentence should be just that, a life sentence. Currently within our parole system, a 10-year sentence could actually mean six years or seven years, and even less in certain extenuating circumstances.
Furthermore; the public is often threatened by criminals once they are sentenced. I have been in a court where the criminal who was convicted has pointed a finger at the victim saying, "I will get you when I get out". These families who have been threatened are quaking in their boots in a few years, keeping their doors locked and staying inside. Repeat offenders are often released earlier than their sentence required and go back on the street to commit crimes. This is entirely unacceptable.
Our criminal justice system is in serious need of reform. The average Canadian citizen is not provided with the necessary protection to live a safe and healthy life, while criminals and murderers are allowed to remain on the streets often after serving a minimal sentence. We are often told that they are rehabilitated, but one should ask the family of a murder victim or a victim who has been badly molested, raped or grievously harmed. There are hundreds of such victims.
We as citizens and legislators must reassess what is happening in society and become sensitive to the needs and wants of our citizens. For years, many Canadians have been asking for the reinstatement of the death penalty. Legislators have not always responded to those demands.
Let us examine why the public is expressing such strong views on capital punishment. Perhaps it is the exasperation they feel with the justice system. Maybe they believe that the state should do something to protect them and give them a sense of fairness and that they have a right to live in peace and quiet.
Many representations on all sides of the issue have been made to each Member. For example, I have an open letter from a father of a first degree murder victim. Fie is Mr. Donald Sullivan of Ajax, Ontario. He wrote concerning the brutal and senseless murder of his daughter Pamela on October 22, 1980.
Pam was sexually assaulted and murdered on her way home from work one evening, right in front of her family home. She was murdered by a complete stranger who had been released by the Collins Bay Penitentiary just a week earlier, on mandatory supervision release. The theory is correct; the practice is not. This man was found guilty of first degree murder in 1981 and sentenced to imprisonment in Kingston Penitentiary. It is ironic that he became a homicide victim himself when he was killed in prison in July, 1986. He was another murder victim, but this time within the walls of our prisons. We often hear other Members say that we may be executing an innocent person, but no one seems to pay
attention to the fact that this woman was an innocent victim. She is a statistic, he had been made an anti-hero.
Mr. Sullivan writes:
I am asking you to try and wade through the rhetoric, the confusing jumble of statistics, all the graphs, numbers and try to remember that each number, each statistic, represents one who was a loved family member, a son, daughter, a wife, a mom, a husband, a dad. Numbers do not bleed; rates per thousand do not die; justice centre statistics do not have to be buried.
Mr. Sullivan, and his family, is as much a victim as his murdered daughter, Pamela.
In Edmonton we have the organization "Victims of Violence" which was founded by Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt. The Rosenfeldts became victims of violence when their son was one of the children brutally murdered by Clifford Olson. Mr. Rosenfeldt has been to my office several times in the last two years asking for help and for us to do something to prevent crimes like this, preventing the potential of someone like Mr. Olson being released again. There are many others like Clifford Olson.
The Rosenfeldts have been lobbying legislators to become more aware and more sensitive to the plight of victims of violence. I cannot help but feel that it is wrong for Canadians to believe they must lobby for the basic right to feel secure. I am not calling for revenge or retribution, but just the right to feel safe. We as legislators must keep this in mind at all times and work to ensure that the state has the strength and the power to protect its citizens. Otherwise, we as a nation fail in our duty to protect Canadians.
Capital punishment should be an option made available in the sentencing process. There is nothing wrong with it being an option. It is the ultimate and often times the greatest and only protection that potential victims may have.
It is believed that there is a deterrence factor in having the death penalty. We have heard debate about this issue, but the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in Great Britain heard evidence concerning criminal cases which indicated in some instances that the threat of the death penalty had acted as a deterrent to murder. In 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States considered capital punishment a significant deterrent in a number of cases.
Law enforcement authorities have contended that abolition of the death penalty increases the risk for police and prison staff. It would be reasonable to assume that in seeking to avoid arrest, a criminal would be less likely to shoot a police officer if there were a death penalty.
Growing numbers of inmates serving life sentences for first degree murder seem to increase prison violence and murder. They have nothing to lose and perhaps something small to gain. Murder rates within the penitentiary population almost doubled between 1976 and 1981, with most occurrences taking place in maximum security institutions. That is a plain fact for all to see. In 1983, participation in major security incidents was higher among first degree murderers than among the rest
June 25, 1987

of the penitentiary population. Again, it is because they have nothing to lose.
Who is in the greatest danger? First, it is prison inmates. I referred earlier to the inmate who was killed, as have many others. Prison guards and police officers are also in danger. First degree murderers have nothing to lose and can go on to participate again, raise a bit of hell to see what they can do. The logical conclusion is capital punishment.
Deterrence does not show up in statistics. By preventing a killing, the potential victim is alive and well. We never consider that this is a person who might have been killed under certain circumstances by a convicted murderer who was released. However, since we know nothing about it, it cannot be a statistic. That is something we should all consider.
Very few convicted killers will kill again after being allowed to go free. Most of them do not. Most of them are rehabilitated. But we must protect every citizen to the best of our ability. An innocent Canadian, neighbour, member of family, once killed is gone forever. It is very important that we as a country have the ability to protect our citizens.
More than 20 such innocent Canadian victims have lost their lives. I would like to read to the House a letter to the editor which appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen. It is entitled "Vile Murder", and states:
I believe in capital punishment. I always have and always will. Our Sheryl, age 20, was a successful fashion model in Toronto. She was violently murdered, her face destroyed by a hammer. Ralph Powers, a stranger to Sheryl, was on mandatory supervision, having served seven of 10 years of his sentence. Powers had stalked 15 beautiful young women before he saw Sheryl. He posed as a Bell Telephone repairman to gain entry to her apartment.
Powers gave my daughter a life sentence with no chance of parole. Perhaps Powers will be released in 15 or 25 years. Is that really a life sentence for first-degree murder? I believe that Powers will kill again, as he confessed after his second attack (she escaped) that he had chosen his third and fourth victims in August 1981.
I would not want another family to go through what our family has. The pain of the violent murder of my daughter will never leave me. It is a life sentence for me and for my family and friends-with no chance of parole.
It is signed "Sally Gardner, Ottawa".
The death penalty must be returned. I thank the House for the privilege of speaking on this most important debate and look forward to a favourable response to the reinstatement of capital punishment.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment in support of my colleague's position and his concern about the justice system as it pertains to persons in prison and on parole. I would like to read into the record the most recent information from StatsCan, the Solicitor General's office, and from the Correctional Institutional report.
Since the abolition of capital punishment in 1976, there has been a 400 per cent increase in murders within our prisons. Prior to 1976, on average, there were two victims of murder in our prisons per year, that is, from 1962 through until 1976.
Capital Punishment
When we officially abolished capital punishment in 1976, the rate jumped to 28 murders in 1977, eight murders in 1978, 10 murders in 1979 and as high as 15 murders in 1984. When we average it out we find there were 100 persons murdered in our prison societies of less than 1000 in population, making an average of 11 murders per year.
That is not to mention the recent report in support of my colleague, dealing with persons on parole. The Solicitor General of the former Liberal Government has stated, "There have been a total of seven cases of repeat murderers committing the second offence while on parole".
If that is not bad enough, since that statement the Parole Board has advised me that since February of 1987, the cut-off date for the last report, there have been two more murders in Canada by murderers on parole. One of those murderers has been convicted very recently and the other has been charged with murder. His conviction is pending.
Therefore, I think not only has the parole system been an abysmal failure but it needs, as reiterated by the Chairman of our current Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, a pretty close look at. For that reason the committee initiated a study into the parole system for the need of change. While doing so, I suggest that the justice committee take a pretty good look at our plea bargaining system within the justice system.
A lot of these people who are charged with first degree murder, plead a lesser offence of second-degree murder, receive a quick conviction and are out in 10 years after serving two-thirds of their 15-year sentence rather than going the route on the first degree charge as laid by the authorities on the basis of their investigation.
I think this liberal attitude of the justice system, the plea bargaining system, the parole system and all of these various factors, need to be closely looked at. That is not to say that by addressing those systems only we will deal effectively with the psychopathic repeat murderer who shows no remorse or regret and would willingly do it again without hesitation.
What we are looking for is capital punishment, as is my colleague, for only certain acts, the most heinous acts of planned, deliberate, premeditated murder. That is what the Canadian people want. That is what this House of Commons must respond to.
As Members of Parliament, in the interests of the protection of society, we must listen to our constituents on what they consider to be a reasonable form of justice befitting the most heinous crimes. We are not looking to execute 400 or 500 persons a year, but only those who commit murders of the most heinous nature. Robert Shantz of Vancouver who defended Clifford Olson said, "There is only one answer for Clifford Olson and that is execution". That was said by the criminal lawyer who defended Clifford Olson.
A prematurely retired criminal lawyer in British Columbia by name of Les Bewley resigned because he said one of the

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
most contributing factors to his displeasure with the judicial system today is the plea bargaining system between Crown prosecutors and defending lawyers. They gleefully sit behind closed doors and bargain down the most serious offences in order for a quick conviction and early release. Adjusting that system is long overdue. Mr. Les Bewley, a former criminal court judge, handed in his resignation to the Attorney General because, he said, "Plea bargaining is the venereal disease of our justice system here in Canada today".


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Hon. Member with whose position I also agree. I also want to share some information with him. The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) was talking about our justice system. I would like to point out to the House that 1 had an opportunity, which perhaps other Members of the House have not, that is, the honour of serving on a jury in a trial on a murder case. There are always those people who will worry about convicting an innocent person. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that when one is serving on a jury in a trial for murder, one wants to be 150 per cent sure. If the Hon. Member sat on a jury in similar circumstances I think he would agree that if there was any doubt in his mind, he would find that person innocent. Many people will use as that reason for doubt that chance of convicting an innocent person. Having been on a jury, I can tell the House that it is the most excruciating experience one could possibly go through, and if there is any doubt in one's mind, the person certainly would not be convicted.
I am sure the Hon. Member's constituents will say to him that they are opposed to capital punishment in general, but in specific cases, yes, they would agree to capital punishment. How does the Hon. Member answer that? Can we have a partial bringing back of capital punishment only for those specific cases? How do we bring it back on the books so it would apply to those heinous crimes talked about by the Hon. Member himself and the Hon. Member for Peterborough? We are in a bit of a dilemma in that situation in which many people oppose the death penalty. However, there are those who are in favour, in particular cases. How would the Hon. Member answer constituents concerns in this particular area?


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to respond to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell). This is indeed a dilemma. I appreciate that the Hon. Member has asked me about it. I appreciate the dilemma of our constituents, the people outside this House. Nothing is perfect. We cannot guarantee anything. For that matter, we might walk out of the House and be run over by a vehicle and become an accident victim. So life is gone.
However, my contention is, and I believe it is the contention of most citizens with whom I have spoken, that the state should have the prerogative, in the wisdom of the judge and jury, to mete out the ultimate penalty. If that terrible crime is committed then the state must have capital punishment on its
books. The person will receive the death penalty and that will be the end of the case.
There is nothing wrong with the state having this prerogative, or to carry it out for the protection of its citizens. As my colleague from Peterborough has mentioned, there are many areas which we should consider, including the judiciary, the parole system, and capital punishment in the over-all context of what is the best and most fair for our citizens.
Of course, citizens will always ask, "What about this particular case", or "What about that particular case?" It is up to the judiciary in its wisdom, with or without a jury, to make a decision. A decision is made and we will have to live with it. We must be strong and firm. We must also be compassionate.
This is why I believe that the state has to have this prerogative, so that we can proceed with it rather than appear as impotent legislators, or impotent judges or impotent police. This is why the people are out there screaming, "Do something". This is one step, and it is a positive one. It is what I believe to be the right step.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Since it is already quite late and because this is a very important issue, I wonder if I could start my remarks following the Oral Question Period and call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a request from the Hon. Member for York Centre to call it one o'clock. Is there unanimous consent?


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly do not want to deprive the Hon. Member of having an opportunity to speak. However, there are seven minutes remaining until the luncheon adjournment. I know that there are many members on the government side who would like to express their opinions. I would ask that the hon. gentleman begin his speech and finish it after Question Period. I know it is not the best way to give a speech, but there is limited time in this debate and there are many Members who would like to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The other alternative the Hon. Member has would be for me to recognize the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) and then the next speaker would be the Hon. Member for York Centre.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would prefer that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) has the floor.
June 25, 1987


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall be able to continue my speech and use the rest of my 20 minutes after the Oral Question Period.
It is with a great deal of interest that I take part in the debate on capital punishment. I would like to touch on several points. First, I wish to speak about the reasons for which this Government decided to hold this debate. Second, if I may, I would like to review some of the speeches we have heard in this House on the death penalty, and finally, to express my own views on reinstatement of the death penalty.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that the Member for Temiscamingue is against the death penalty, and I know that most of my colleagues already know where I stand on this issue.
We have been strongly criticized by the opposition Parties for holding a debate on the death penalty during this Parliament. However, it should be pointed out that the Progressive Conservative Party had made a commitment to hold such a debate during the 1984 campaign. In passing, Mr. Speaker, while I am speaking about the commitments made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the 1984 election campaign, I would like to say that we have a quite enviable record as far as respecting those commitments is concerned. On which themes did the Progressive Conservative Party base its campaign during the summer of 1984? There were three major themes in our campaign. The first was national reconciliation, and with the constitutional agreement signed recently by the 11 first ministers of Canada, I believe that we can say that national reconciliation is now a fact. Another major theme of our campaign was reduction of our enormous national deficit, which severely restricts the freedom of movement of the federal Government. In this regard, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government have done a remarkable job. A third major theme of our campaign was economic recovery, and I believe that, objectively, everyone will have to admit that our economy is now definitely in better shape, with nearly 800,000 jobs created, a very active economic sector and prosperous businesses. I have the feeling that, within a few months, we shall be able to say that one million jobs have been created.
What was said about the death penalty issue during the 1984 electoral campaign? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had promised that there would be a free debate in the House during our mandate. Saying that such a debate was unwarranted would be completely inaccurate since the death penalty issue has aroused the interest of Canadians for decades and has already been discussed in this House. Parliament has had to examine the death penalty issue on many occasions, as have many other Parliaments, for instance in Great Britain, where this issue has also been discussed many times, including few months ago when Parliament voted against reinstatement of the death penalty in Great Britain.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Government was justified in reopening this debate as many Canadians wanted to discuss the issue of the death penalty and as such a debate can bring new light on this issue. Whatever the solution chosen by this Government, it will have been worthwhile having an open and enlightened debate in this House. Naturally, I must say that I sincerely hope that this Government and this Parliament will vote against reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada. If they do, Mr. Speaker, the debate will still have been useful as it will have been carried out in an enlightened manner and the Canadian public will perhaps be better informed about the issues involved.
In my opinion, it is extremely important in such a debate to respect the opinion of others. The debate should remain objective, and it is essential to respect the views of others even though they might not be our own. Mr. Speaker, how is Canadian public opinion represented in the House in the debate on the death penalty?
From the views I have heard expressed in this House, I believe that the Progressive Conservative Party is truly representative of public opinion on the death penalty. You would have to be blind to say that public opinion is not very divided on whether to reinstate the death penalty or not, and it is our own party which best represents this plurality of opinions.
As you are about to interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I shall perhaps be back after the Oral Question Period to conclude my speech and explain to the House the basic reasons why I am personally vigourously opposed to reinstatement of the death penalty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have previously asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to condemn the American-backed Contras as terrorists. Their destruction of a Canadian-aid project in the small village of Macotol, Nicaragua, was a crime ending in the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. The Secretary of State for External Affairs assured me that he would raise the matter with U.S. Secretary of State

June 25, 1987
George Shultz when he met with him, in either Venice or Reykajavik.
The Minister's response is of great concern to Canadian non-governmental organizations in light of the fact that the U.S.-backed rebels, on June 19, attacked a state supervised farming community in Los Millones, Nicaragua, killing eight and robbing the community of food and medical supplies.
Indeed, this was not a Canadian-aid project but the Contras' track record of attacking innocent villagers is bound to happen again and again.
Canadians are aware that they are working in a hostile environment in Nicaragua, but they do not need the extra burden that comes with our American neighbours backing rebels to attack, kill and destroy the lives and property of noncombatant people who already face a daily struggle to survive.
I am calling upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to inform the House publicly and the Canadian people of his meeting with Secretary of State George Shultz regarding the action, if any, the U.S. proposes to undertake to prevent this slaughter of innocent peasants.
Also, will the Minister tell the House whether he informed the Reagan administration that Canada will pursue its own course of action through the United Nations if the U.S. does not improve the situation?



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the Special Committee on Acid Rain returned home from Washington last night after discussions with members of the U.S. Congress and environmental officials.
Time and again committee members were assured that Canada's persistence toward achieving acid rain controls is playing a crucial role in the United States.
Senator George Mitchell of Maine, who has an acid rain control Bill before Congress, said that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is directly responsible for changing President Reagan's attitude on this important issue.
The Senator pointed out, as did other Congressmen, that the only times the President has spoken in favour of acid rain abatement were in the presence of the Prime Minister.
For this reason, acid rain control proponents in the U.S. are urging Canada to keep the pressure on.
Our fears were confirmed in meetings with the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Coal Association, whose representatives are less than enthusiastic about controls.
On the other hand, Canadians can rest assured that the efforts put forth by the Prime Minister are echoing through the halls of Capitol Hill.
The appearance of the special committee, showing political solidarity among all federal Parties, is yet another indication that Canada expects real action in the form of U.S. acid rain controls.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT PLANNING


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise concerning job planning projects for seriously underprivileged people in respect to employment.
Many agencies are rightly wondering why the Department of Employment and Immigration continues publicizing such a program when in fact, as confirmed by the Minister's office, no monies are now available to support new initiatives for job integration of seriously underprivileged persons.
What right has the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to so mislead the people and agencies involved by making available to them literature pubicizing on programs they will never be able to access because the funds needed are not there, unless an already committed agency withdraws?
We are faced with an unacceptable situation, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking the Minister to correct that gap as soon as possible and inject extra money to meet the needs of agencies that had applications turned down for that reason, after having their appetite whetted by enticing literature.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I made a statement in the House regarding the reduction of 102 employee positions in Saskatoon and Melville by the Canadian National Railways.
In response to my statement a meeting was held last week, in Saskatoon, with a Vice-President of CN. However, we unfortunately could not reach a decision that satisfied all parties involved in the discussions.
I clearly understand CN's need to down-size its operations and encourage early retirement to make its rail service more
June 25, 1987

cost efficient, but I must let the facts speak for themselves. Over 14 per cent of CN's revenues come from Saskatchewan. That contribution is more than the combined revenues of all of the maritime provinces, the Northwest Territories, and the Province of Manitoba.
Wheat will continue to be a major export out of the province, and an increase in the production of potash and coal, as shown in economic forecasts, promises a wider use of CN facilities in the future.
It may carry out the down-sizing of its labour force. However, I insist that CN not transfer those employees to Winnipeg and close up repair shops that will be increasingly important to CN and Saskatchewan's future.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in 1980 residents in northwest British Columbia were shocked to hear that Alcan allowed little more than a trickle of water to be released over its Skins Lake Spillway into the salmon-rich Nechako and Fraser rivers.
Under public pressure from farmers, communities, recrea-tionalists, Indian bands, and commercial and sports fishermen, a Supreme Court injunction forced Alcan to provide minimal water flows.
The injunction was renewed annually until 1985, when Alcan sought exclusive jurisdiction over a publicly-owned river. With private profits to be made from the export of raw power, Alcan wants to hoard the water for its own hidden agenda.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has now sold out to Alcan with a private deal on water flows at only one-half of what his own scientists filed in court as the minimum required.
One cannot adequately convey the level of betrayal ordinary British Columbians feel upon hearing that the Minister of Fisheries has sold out the public trust.
The salmon industry is worth over $500 million a year. The Minister has failed to exercise the responsibility granted to him under Section 29(10) of the Fisheries Act and to ensure that proper water flows are maintained. The Minister must immediately hold public hearings into the required flow regime and ensure that no green light be given to Kemano 2 without a public approval process.
No such initiative has been forthcoming from the Minister who must now resign. He is allowing our salmon resource to be ruined.
It is totally unacceptable and irresponsible for the Minister to stand in the House under the charade of representing the fisheries ministry while he ignores his legal mandate, neglects his responsibilities to the fisheries resource, and guts the Canadian public trust.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, after considering the CN's application to abandon the line in the Chapais-Franquet subdivision in Abitibi, the CTC's Committee, further to a decision dated January 22, 1979, concluded:
"Railways may file grant applications in respect of branch lines, provided that a line not covered by an application would not in effect be isolated from the remaining system, were the line covered by the application to be abandoned".
That Chapais subdivision would be rerouted to a longer haul through via the CN's Cran subdivision in Lac Saint-Jean. It appears this would be a case of unacceptable line division as specified by the CTC. The CN was to file with the CTC on June 22, 1987, further argument concerning their application.
The long distances between Canadian regions are for us Abitibians an enormous challenge to knowing and understanding one another, and we cannot legislate geography. The railway system has helped Abitibi overcome that difficulty.
Mr. Speaker, this is a first victory for the CN's workers, people in Senneterre, all economic partners in the Abitibi- Temiscamingue economy and for myself. We are proud to be Abitibians.



DAY TRIPPERS' PURCHASES OF MILK FROM UNITED STATES- EFFECT ON DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, "Welcome to the Land of Milk and Honey and Cheap Gas", that is the 20-foot billboard which greets British Columbians as they near the Douglas border crossing into the United States.
The price of American milk is attractive to budget-minded shoppers, but B.C. dairymen cannot compete with the current

June 25, 1987
heavy subsidies within the U.S. industry. Canadians pay 90 per cent of the true cost of milk at the dairy case, while American shoppers only contribute two-thirds.
Using the Customs count of 12,000 border crossings every day, the B.C. dairy industry estimates that it loses about $70 million every year in lost sales. The New Brunswick dairy industry has similar problems because of its geography.
Dairy producers in British Columbia and New Brunswick want Customs and Excise to enforce the 17.5 per cent duty on goods purchased in the United States when travellers have been out of the country for less than 24 hours, in order to keep our farm producers on an equal footing with American dairy farmers.



SPACE DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's lead in space will be maintained. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is in Toronto today announcing a 10-year support program for the Canadian Radarsat.
Based on the immense and diverse geography in Canada, our scientists have continuously developed remote sensing technologies to the point where Radarsat is recognized as the leading edge in this field for the monitoring of ice floes, the assessment of environmental developments, the forecasting of our weather, and the evaluation of our natural resources.
This is a collective and collaborative achievement on the part of many federal government Departments, the provinces, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Let us salute the Minister and the Government as Canada continues its lead in space with Radarsat.



FRANCO-ONTARIANS REGULATION 17-HISTORIC CONSEQUENCES

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, today, as the House of Commons is making itself acquainted with a new legislation on official languages, it is important to remember that June 25, 1987 marks another important anniversary in the history of Franco-Ontarians.
Regulation 17, announced to the Ontario legislature on April 13, 1912, we implemented on June 25 of that same year. Unfortunately, that regulation prohibited for all practical purposes French education in Ontario.
Many Franco-Ontarians no doubt remember the period that followed the implementation of that legislation. Indeed, more
than 200,000 French-speaking citizens of Ontario were deprived during almost 15 years of French instruction.
1 am sure that all Members of this House will want to join me in paying tribute to all those who fought against the implementation of that rule and especially one of my predecessors, the late Aurelien Belanger, provincial Member for the riding of Prescott.
I would like to mention the historian, Mr. Paul-Franqois Sylvestre who underlined recently the 75th anniversary of that infamous regulation 17.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Almost three weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bob White, a Vice-President of the Socialist Party, had accepted to appear on The Journal to speak out against the Meech Lake Accord. He was summoned by his Leader and ordered immediately to keep his mouth shut. This means that the Leader of the Socialist Party has two standards of discipline, one for English Canada, and the other for French Canada. Otherwise, he would have also muzzled the VicePresident of the Socialist Party in Quebec, Mr. Jean-Paul Harney. His attitude is all the more curious, since the Socialist Leader is gagging his own source of funds and unaccounted free service, while failing to impose his discipline on the Socialist Vice-President in Quebec who, for his part, brings in a lot less money to the Socialist Party of Canada. Against the Meech Lake Accord in Quebec and for the Meech Lake Accord in Ottawa. For Socialists, political expediency ranks above clearness and frankness.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Since the letter carriers' strike began two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the general public has been able to watch on television and read in the papers about the great many acts of provocation, confrontation and violence.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation asked the Government to help end the conflict by appointing a mediator who would be mandated to try to bring the parties back to the negotiating table and end this violence.
Unfortunately, because of a stupid and irresponsible decision of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the postal conflict continues and violence will continue to exist on the picket lines.
June 25, 1987

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Hon. Members to ask the Prime Minister to review the Minister of Labour's decision and to appoint a mediator to end this conflict.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: As Member for Beauce, Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to see that my Government has delivered the goods to the Canadian people concerning the Bill on the official languages. Here are some of the highlights:
-measures to ensure better access to justice in the two official languages;
-ready availability and visibility of bilingual federal services and communications;
-recognition of the right of Canadians to work in their own official language in federal institutions, in accordance with the linguistic responsibilities of those institutions;
-recognition of the principle of full participation of Englishspeaking and French-speaking Canadians in federal institutions;
-a commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and to promote the official languages in Canadian society; also
-federal cooperation with the provinces, and the private and voluntary sectors, to provide and extend bilingual services;
-a legislative framework setting out the powers and coordinating role of the Secretary of State in promoting official languages and providing support to official language minority communities; and also
-enhancement of the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages;
Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation Canadians could expect from a responsible Mulroney Government.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on May 15, 1985, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development signed an order finally recognizing as Indian bands six communities of the Nisnawbe-Aski nation; namely, Aroland, Kee-Way-Win, Wawakapewin, New Slate Falls, McDowell Lake and Saugeen.
Today the chiefs of these bands have come to Ottawa to demonstrate publicly their extreme disappointment at the recent cabinet committee decision to deny their communities lands for reserves and to reject their funding requests. To symbolize their total rejection of the Government's breach of Treaties 9 and 5, the chiefs have asked me to return their annual treaty monies to the Government, together with a statement of their deep grievance and hurt.
In fulfilment of and support of that gesture, and with a deep sadness that it is necessary, I will now duly return these treaty monies.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the National Energy Board to reject Hydro Quebec's application to sell electricity was well timed for the acid rain committee's visit to Washington, D.C. this week. Some American legislators have charged in the past that Canada wants tough acid rain controls in the United States to shut down U.S. dirty coal plants and open up a larger market for Canadian electricity exports. The ruling of the National Energy Board has helped to put that ludicrous conspiracy theory to rest.
The NEB ruling has implications in Canada too. Increased sales of Hydro Quebec power to Canadian provinces would reduce reliance on coal-fired power plants in Ontario and in the Maritimes thus helping to reduce acid rain pollution. Larger sales of hydro electricity in Canada would reduce pressure for more nuclear power plants now being considered in New Brunswick and Ontario.
Quebec's Energy Minister is to be congratulated for announcing that Quebec hydro-power will be offered to Canadian provinces first. He would best protect the environment and the national interest if Quebec Hydro offers electricity to the provinces at the same price as it offers it to American clients.

June 25, 1987
Oral Questions



ACID RAIN


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, the Special Committee on Acid Rain has just returned from Washington, where, during two days of intensive sessions, the Committee met with major U.S., environmental groups and with senators and members of the House of Representatives who are involved in the fight against acid rain.
The message brought by our delegation was very clear: Stop polluting us, act on your promises and reduce pollution-causing emissions.
Mr. Speaker, everyone the Committee met insisted that the pressure put by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) on the President of the United States was to have encouraging results. In fact, a number of Bills are now on the table, and if any of these were to be passed, it would be a great victory for Canada.
However, much remains to be done, and the Americans gave us a very clear message that our Government and Canadians should continue to put strong pressure on the U.S. Administration.
Mr. Speaker, why do we not take advantage of the summer holidays to urge all the Americans we meet to put pressure on their elected representatives? That is the only way we are going to win.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Special Committee on Acid Rain learned while in Washington was that those who were least in favour of the Canadian view that acid rain control legislation should be put in place by the United States Congress are the ones who are most in favour of the agreement signed between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan with respect to the funding of clean coal technologies. 1 think this irony should be pointed out to the House and particularly to the Prime Minister.
It is the enemies of acid rain control legislation who are the greatest fans of what the Prime Minister and the President agreed to in April. It is those who are in favour of acid rain control legislation in the United States Congress who are the greatest critics of the clean coal technology program and that
which the Prime Minister and the Government are in the habit of lauding.
I would ask the Prime Minister and Members on the government side to rethink the enthusiasm with which they often portray what has been achieved between the Prime Minister and the President and to be willing to go beyond that and be critical of their own agreement so that they can be the real allies of our real allies in the Congress.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians want their mail delivered. Instead, the Prime Minister has provoked a strike of the letter carriers and has done nothing to resolve it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Hon. Members might not like the truth, but by limiting the manoeuvrability of Canada Post to negotiate in terms of what it can settle for, he has provoked this strike.
Since the two sides are now talking and since both sides have called for a mediator, will the Prime Minister reverse the decision of the Minister of Labour and appoint a mediator immediately before the crisis and the violence get out of hand?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out last Tuesday, it was decided not to appoint a mediator because the parties had not shown enough flexibility at that time. I am delighted to see that, today, the parties are back to the negotiating table, and I strongly urge them to reach a settlement.


HIRING OF UNEMPLOYED AS STRIKE-BREAKERS
John Napier Turner: That is not sufficient, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the Prime Minister once again that he is playing politics with the Post Office.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I warn him he is playing with fire because the Post Office is using the unemployed in an attempt to break the strike. If this matter worsens the Prime Minister will be responsible for what happens.
June 25, 1987

Will the Government stop taking advantage of and manipulating unemployed workers by using them as strike-breakers, thereby fueling confrontation and the possibility of violence?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the process which has been unfolding over the last 10 days in these labour negotiations is perfectly normal. It is foreseen in the structure. As the conciliation commissioner pointed out in his report, which I commend to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Post Office has no alternative but to try to fulfil its social responsibility for delivering the mail. I have asked the Post Office and it has indicated it is trying to avoid situations which lead to violence. It is supervisors and managers who in fact are driving vehicles across picket lines.
I ask the Hon. Member to use the moral suasion he has with other parties to encourage everyone to avoid violence because it serves no one's purpose.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, by limiting the mandate of the Post Office the Minister has provoked the strike. By using, manoeuvring and manipulating the unemployed to act as strike-breakers he is increasing the possibility of violence, and it is happening today right in the national capital.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are blaming the Prime Minister for this crisis. His Government provoked the crisis. His Government watched it get worse. Could the Minister use his talents as a negotiator so as to guarantee Canadians a summer without violence, without confrontation, without conflict and without interruption of their postal service?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the best thing we can do right now, particularly in this House, is to let the parties negotiate at the table because they are the ones who know exactly what is good for them.


HIRING OF STRIKE-BREAKERS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Voices from ministerial benches may well try to blame violence on the people who are doing the fighting in the streets but they will not fool Canadians who know who is causing the strikebreakers to be hired. Everyone knows that is at the root of the problem.
I am going to try to smoke out the Prime Minister. Maybe he will stand up and answer what I consider basic policy questions. Is it the official policy of his Government to hire strike-breakers to break a legal strike? Is that now the policy in this country?
Oral Questions


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about a legal strike and it is a legal strike. It is also legal for the Post Office to try to deliver the mail with replacement workers. Both sides have the responsibility to act legally. If the Hon. Member has any evidence that the Post Office is acting illegally, please bring it to my attention and appropriate action will be taken.
In the meantime I remind him, as I reminded his Leader, that the Post Office is fulfilling its social responsibility of trying to deliver the mail. The conciliation commissioner pointed out it has no alternative.


EMPLOYMENT OF STRIKE-BREAKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians want the mail to be delivered, but at what price? Are we, as a society, prepared to watch the violence that is taking place and to accept that violence? That is the question Canadians are asking today.
1 want to ask the Prime Minister, who refuses to rise, I want to ask him again to do so. After all, there is such a thing as tacit agreement! I want to ask him whether it is his Government's official policy to hire strike-breakers to break a strike that is perfectly legal. Is that this Government's policy?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Post Office is acting legally and in accordance with the mandate given it by this House and is fulfilling its responsibility.


Jacques Guilbault: So it's the policy.


Harvie Andre: If it is the position of the Liberal Party that the Post Office should cease operations and not try to deliver the mail, let it take that position publicly and defend it.


STRIKE-APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The letter carriers want a mediator. Management wants a mediator. The Canadian public wants service. Why can the Government and the Prime Minister not appoint a mediator right away, to smooth the way towards a settlement?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often I will have to repeat this answer. The parties are sitting around the table today and they are negotiating. Let them negotiate.

June 25, 1987
Oral Questions


PICKET LINE VIOLENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spoke on this yesterday outside the House. I wish he would show his concern for the issue by answering questions in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Everyone knows that we have violence on the line because those who are on strike are, understandably, deeply concerned about the potential loss of their jobs to strikebreakers. Since the Post Office has made it clear that it will stop hiring strike-breakers as soon as a mediator is appointed, why does the Prime Minister not get on the phone, appoint a mediator, and end the violence now?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I have also indicated before, violence is not part of the collective bargaining process. No party should resort to violence. The parties are at the table right now. Let them negotiate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, while the parties are negotiating violence continues and the Government of Canada does nothing. The people of Canada will notice that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question to the Prime Minister. The Post Office has said that it will stop hiring strike-breakers as soon as a mediator is appointed. Since the postal workers want a mediator and the public wants service, why is the Government not acting to give us a mediator to get the two sides together?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the two sides are together. They are at the table negotiating now.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ORDER CORPORATION NOT TO EMPLOY STRIKE-BREAKERS DURING NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation is a Crown corporation. If today, the Government and the Prime Minister refuse to answer a question about hiring strike-breakers, it is a signal to Canada Post that from now on, strike-breakers may be hired in a labour dispute.
Is that the Government's policy? The union and the Canada Post Corporation have been meeting since this morning. They have started talking to each other. Is the Prime Minister now
prepared to order Canada Post not to hire strike-breakers while discussions are taking place?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question with regard to the Post Office acting legally. I repeat that I think all Members in the House should fulfil their responsibilities and ask all parties to act legally in this circumstance. The union is putting considerable pressure on Canada Post by these rotating strikes. Management is trying to fulfil its social mandate by delivering the mail. It is an escalation of the economic warfare that is part of the collective bargaining.
[DOT] (M30)
In the meantime they are at the table trying to negotiate a settlement. It does no good for the Member to stand up in the House and make wild accusations when he knows everyone on the Post Office side is acting legally.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister responsible for the Post Office said that he was in favour of having a mediator. Why does he not take his responsibility as Minister, if he is in favour of appointing a mediator, and convince his colleagues, the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister, who said yesterday that a mediator is not needed, to appoint a mediator and maybe avoid some deaths on the picket line?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for appointing or not appointing a mediator is mine. I made my decision last week. I am following the events right now and 1 am pleased to see the parties at the table, assuming their responsibilities and negotiating. They do not need any disruption from that side of the House right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPOINT MEDIATOR
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. He just said that the parties do not need disruption from this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: That is right.


Cyril Keeper: Will he acknowledge that the Post Office said it would find a mediator helpful? Why does he choose to substitute his own judgment for those who are at the table? Both the union and the Post Office are saying that a mediator would be helpful. Why substitute your own judgment? Appoint a mediator.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Because it is my responsibility, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 25, 1987


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT APPOINT MEDIATOR
Cyril Keeper: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. That is the whole point. The Government is a responsible party in these negotiations.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Will the Government respond responsibly in this situation and appoint a mediator as was called for by both parties? Will it improve the climate for negotiations and appoint a mediator? What possible reason can there be in the present situation for not appointing a mediator?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the Government, through this Minister, has already acted responsibly because we appointed a conciliator and we have appointed a commissioner. I have taken the decision not to appoint a mediator and the parties are back at the table negotiating.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works or, in his absence, the Parliamentary Secretary.
Pursuant to the draft agreement pertaining to the resale of expropriated land at Mirabel, the federal Government was going to spend $5 million to redevelop this land, and a reassessment of eligibility criteria was to take place one year after the beginning of this program.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that agricultural producers and farmers do not redevelop their land during winter.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the exact date of the land redevelopment program at Mirabel, Phase III will be confirmed? When?


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, city dweller at heart though I may be, I do suspect that now is a better time than winter to prepare for cultivation.
However, Mr. Speaker, a technical problem did crop up, but we can tell the House now that this measure will be adopted at the earliest opportunity. In other words, given the dispatch with which the business of the House of Commons is proceeding now, one might say it will take place in the next few days.
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-INVESTMENT ISSUE-NEGOTIATOR'S MANDATE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I must say that I am first tempted to ask him, in light of the way in which Winnipegers are being good sports in replacing the football team from his home town, whether it means we will get the CF-18 contract back in return.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You are an easterner now.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have to go through these identity crises sometimes.
1 will go on to another topic with which I think the Government is badly fumbling at the best of times. It was only the end of May when Ambassador Reisman indicated that in his negotiations with the United States he lacked a mandate to deal with the broad area of investment and therefore could not proceed to negotiate in that area.
Yesterday Mr. Reisman was reported as saying that he is now totally comfortable with his mandate and feels that he is in a position to proceed with those negotiations. Is it the case that the Government has given Ambassador Reisman a broader mandate for negotiating the issue of investment? Does it go beyond the very narrow question of trade related investment to include a much broader range of the kinds of investment priorities we have in this country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentions problems with football in my home town. I want him to know that Baie Comeau is still very much a member of the CFL. We will see you in the Grey Cup.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The mandate given to Ambassador Reisman in this and all other areas is appropriate. I think he exercises it prudently and effectively, with a reporting mechanism to the Minister and Cabinet Committee. We monitor it carefully. Matters progress as I know my hon. friend would want them to do.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that Baie Comeau will get a football team in addition to the prison and everything else the Government has to give away?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: When is enough, enough, Mr. Prime Minister? When does the stadium come?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 25, 1987
Oral Questions SCOPE OF MANDATE


Lloyd Axworthy: The Prime Minister said that Ambassador Reisman has the appropriate mandate. Will he be a little more forthcoming and indicate if that mandate goes beyond what the Minister for International Trade defined as narrowly circumscribed to only trade related investment?
Does Ambassador Reisman now have the right to negotiate investment matters relating to the monitoring function of Investment Canada, investment practices in culture and the financial securities industries? Does Ambassador Reisman now have the right to negotiate what the Americans want him to negotiate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was asking about the possibility of a stadium for Baie Comeau. I am going down there next week. I would be happy to say something on behalf of my hon. friend.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With respect to Ambassador Reisman's mandate, the negotiations are progressing. As my hon. friend who has some experience in negotiation realizes, matters of this complexity require appropriate mandates. These are given to Ambassador Reisman, having been fully considered and refined by the Cabinet, so that he can give appropriate responses. That is what is taking place.
My hon. friend would not want me to go beyond that in these circumstances, except to give him the assurance that the Canadian national interest is being fully maintained and defended by Ambassador Reisman's mandate having been given to him by Cabinet.


INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE CHANGE IN MANDATE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, when this question last came before the House, the Minister for International Trade said that no change in mandate had taken place. Since the Prime Minister has not provided an answer to this question, will he say whether there has, in fact, been a change in the mandate with respect to investment, which Mr. Reisman is carrying into these free trade negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has answered that question. The Hon. Member would know that a negotiation, and the authority a negotiator receives, are fluid things. The negotiator has, as he has had for some time, the authority to receive recommendations or proposals the Americans might make respecting investment at the table, but any decision as to the response to those proposals the Americans might make rests at this time with the Cabinet.


Steven W. Langdon: It may be a question of fluidity. It may be a question of stupidity as well.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: I want to put to the Minister that there is a pointed and important question here which he should answer. I ask him to give us a clear straight forward answer to the question. Is there a change, which, for instance, would permit a company like Gulf and Western to have a different relationship in terms of takeover than has been the case in the past? Is there a change in the mandate? Answer the question, please, yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade answered that question. As to the preamble of the Hon. Member, I will speak for fluidity, he can speak for stupidity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TAX REFORM
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns his decision, as reported by the press today, to discipline his colleague, the chairman of the finance committee of this House, who has severely criticized the Government's tax reform package as being "unfair and inequitable" by saying, for example, and I quote the Hon. Member for Mississauga South: "It just seems to me you're really socking it to the middle class". Why should the Minister "shoot the messenger" for telling the truth, rather than making major changes which will bring more fairness to tax reform for the middle class?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do know whether the chairman of the finance committee looks disciplined. He looks like he has a big smile on his face down there. I think he and I have always been on very good terms and I hope we will always continue to be on very good terms because I admire very much the fine work which is done by the Hon. Member and his committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is not reciprocated.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: To get to the point the Hon. Member raises, I have made it very clear that those people who are earning between $30,000 and $50,000 will receive an income tax reduction as a result of tax reform of anywhere between $400, $500 or $600. I think that is a good reduction in tax for these people.
June 25, 1987

In the second stage of tax reform, when we bring in the federal sales tax, I have indicated there will be further reductions in the income taxes for middle-income people.


EQUITY-MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggests that his tax reform is fair to the middle classes. In saying so, he is contradicting his colleague from Mississauga South. If, as he suggests, his tax reform is fair to the middle classes, how can he explain that, according to the figures of his own department, in the case of someone over 65 whose entire income is made up of dividends from Canadian companies, such a person will pay $1,000 more in taxes if his income amounts to $40,000, while his taxes will be $40,874 less if he has an income of $1 million? Is it fair for middle-income Canadians that someone with an income of $40,000 in dividends from Canadian companies will pay $1,000 more in taxes while he would be paying $40,000 less if he had an income of $1 million? Where is the equity in this?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can play around with figures all he wants-


Raymond Garneau: Look at the figures.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but the facts of the matter are that eight out of 10 Canadians are going to be better off after tax reform. They will be paying less income tax. Nine out of 10 senior citizens will be paying less income tax after tax reform. After tax reform 850,000 Canadians will not be paying any tax whereas they are now.
These are the fundamental differences that we have proposed in tax reform that deal with many of the problems that are there in the tax system. Corporations will be paying $5 billion more income tax after tax reform. The people in upper-income brackets, corporations which have been taking full advantage of tax preferences, will pay more.


SALES TAX PROPOSALS-QUERY CONCERNING APPLICATION TO FOOD
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. On May 28 my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, asked the Government a very simple question. He asked if the Finance Minister intended to impose a national sales tax on food. The Minister of State for Finance assured my colleague that he and the country would get an unequivocal answer on June 18. That day has come and gone and Canadians are still waiting for an honest and frank answer to that important question.
When will the Minister of Finance finally assure Canadians that there will never be a national sales tax on food?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 answered that question in the House, I believe to the Hon.
Oral Questions
Member who is just making a-no, I had better not say it. I did respond to that question to the Hon. Member. I said there is nothing in the tax reform White Paper that calls for a tax on food.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has told the House and Canadians that the White Paper does not include a tax on food. What it does do, and he cannot deny this, is make a clear case for a tax on food.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: This Minister, Mr. Speaker, had an option. He could have simply said that food was exempt from a national sales tax, whatever its form. Why did he not have the courage and guts to tell Canadians that there never will be a tax on food?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to answer to the Hon. Member about whether or not I have guts or courage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FILM INDUSTRY-CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians would like to have a chance to watch, listen to and see their own authors, their stories and themselves reflected on their TV screens and in the movie theatres. After a slow start we now have a young and dynamic budding Canadian film industry which is producing exciting options at the corner movie theatre and in the video stores.
At this critical time and juncture in the Canadian movie and TV series development, at a time when we are on the verge of developing an internationally famous and recognized film industry, why has the Minister nipped it in the bud by imposing dramatic cuts from 100 per cent to 30 per cent on the capital cost allowance for this industry? How does the Minister expect film producers to go out and find the risk capital they need to produce the kind of films which are making us very important persons in this whole industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I should make it clear to the Hon. Member that there are two elements of tax reform as it relates to films. There is a tax benefit being given to the film industry by the increase from 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the capital cost allowance against film income.
There is another element of tax reform. We have restricted the application of losses from the capital cost allowance against other forms of income. It is consistent with the over-all policy of tax reform to reduce or restrict the number of tax shelters.

June 25, 1987
Oral Questions
My colleague, the Minister of Communications and I, and my officials met with representatives of the industry in recent days. We are explaining to them what we are trying to achieve through tax reform. They are telling us their point of view as well. Those conversations are continuing.


CONSULTATIONS WITH INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is not how the film industry hears the Minister. What it hears is a drastic, dramatic epic disaster.
I would like to understand something-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: When will the Government stop sending out contradictory signals to the film industry? Only last winter the Minister of Communications wrapped herself in a Canadian cultural flag and developed a film distribution policy. The Minister of Finance is now sending out an entirely different story. He will cut potential risk capital which is needed to develop the industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could conclude her question.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister realize the devastating effect his capital cost allowance policy will have? Will he delay the implication or the application until he has had a chance to consult with the industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are consulting with the industry now, as I indicated to the Hon. Member. In addition to that, there are grandfathering provisions that provide for the continuation of activity. That is in the mill right now.
As I have indicated, the intention of the White Paper is not to do the things that the Hon. Member's rhetoric would suggest we are doing to the film industry. If she thinks further about what we are saying in the paper, by allowing a 100 per cent deduction of the capital cost allowance-


Sheila Finestone: There is no incentive.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -without the half-year rule, there is an incentive to investors to build a portfolio of film investments and thus provide a continuity of investment capital to the film industry so that it can plan to a greater extent into the future.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It involves the withdrawal of our CAST commitment to northern Norway.
I met recently with our NATO colleagues, in particular our Norwegian friends, who are naturally still apprehensive. Will the Minister clarify for the House the timing of the actual beginning of the withdrawal of the commitment? More important, can he assure the House that adequate defence alternate provisions will be put into place for northern Norway before the beginning of our withdrawal takes place?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, NATO has given to Canada its consent for the shifting of our commitments in north Norway to the central theatre in Germany. It is our intention to shift the commitment to send two rapid reinforcement fighter squadrons to north Norway, to shift that to the central theatre next year when the CF-18s become available. It does not make sense for us to build new facilities in Norway for them and then shift them within a few months.
In the case of the CAST commitment, that would not happen before 1989. NATO has appointed a committee to make recommendations on who would replace us by the end of this year. That should give plenty of time for a smooth transition.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Meech Lake Accord has accomplished much in that it has brought Quebec into the constitutional agreement. I hope that the Prime Minister will agree with me that there is much yet to be done, particularly with respect to those Canadians whose forbears were neither British nor French.
Does the Prime Minister think that a Constitution in which the equality rights in Section 15, the section which accords equality rights to all Canadians regardless of race or national origin, and is subject to the override as it presently is in Section 33 of the Charter, is adequate for all Canadians?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. I think that the Constitution of our country is quite clear, as reiterated most eloquently last week by the Prime Minister. In the Meech Lake Accord there is a reaffirmation with respect to that very important part of
June 25, 1987

our community that consists of people who are neither of English nor French background.
I cannot think of any Government which is more committed to equality than this Government, which has demonstrated that with a new spirit of co-operation between the provinces, between all peoples in the country, as manifested by the Meech Lake Accord.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. It is simply this. Will the Prime Minister take the initiative in future constitutional negotiations to see that the equality rights in Section 15 are removed from the notwithstanding clause, Section 33, as was done with women's equality rights during the constitutional discussions in 1982?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, any representations for improvement that my friend would like to make in regard to the Constitution are very helpful.
The First Ministers indicated that after the agreement on Meech Lake there would be a second constitutional round. Indeed, I suppose constitutional rounds will go on for some time. The First Ministers and parliamentarians can meet to consider the suggestion of my hon. friend and others designed to improve the Constitution.
The fact that the First Ministers specifically met pursuant to an agreement in Edmonton to deal with the issue of trying to get Quebec back into the Constitution, which I think is a pretty noble objective in itself, does not preclude consideration of other matters in the future.
As other constitutions are amended, for example south of the border, from time to time, I suppose that there will be improvements brought in the future to our Constitution designed and based on the premise of equality, tolerance, and fairness for all citizens. But I think my hon. friend will agree that the objective of bringing Quebec back into the Constitution was one that warranted the attention of all First Ministers. This was done without in any way doing anything other than enhance the multicultural contribution to Canada.


QUEBEC GAMES
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For several years, the government of Canada has been lending beds to the Quebec Games Corporation for Quebec athletes during the provincial games. This summer, the Quebec Games will be
Oral Questions
held in Val-d'Or from August 7th to 16th. My question is this: Can the Minister tell us today whether or not young Quebecers will have beds for these events? The Quebec Games Corporation and the Val-d'Or organizing committees are anxiously awaiting the Minister's decision.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I want to say to the Hon. Member, who has worked very hard at hosting the Junior Games in Quebec and in his home community of Val d'Or, that the Government of Canada has put together a package whereby the requests that he has put forward on behalf of the games for Quebec and for his home community can be met. I am pleased to be able to confirm that in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the Prime Minister on a line of questioning raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville. Granted the primordial importance of bringing Quebec into the constitutional process and granted also the desirability that there be future rounds of constitutional evolution, the question which was asked and which I want to repeat is about this round of evolution, the Meech Lake Accord which is now being presented to Parliament and to the legislatures.
I would ask the Prime Minister precisely what his attitude is toward amendments that are brought forward.
This Party will be bringing forward amendments. The Canadian people will be appearing before a joint parliamentary committee and a committee of the Senate. Ideas will be brought forward.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister to indicate that this is a welcomed process and that the door is not shut now on this round for additional improvements to the Accord.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend from the NDP was asking questions in regard to future constitutional rounds, subsequent rounds, as opposed to the consideration that will be given, shortly, to the Meech Lake Accord.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I understood that to be the question.

June 25, 1987
Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987
With respect to the Meech Lake Accord, I have responded in regard to my undertaking as Prime Minister of Canada to bring forward that document for consideration by Parliament.
The Premiers of all of the provinces undertook to do exactly the same thing.
The Premier of Quebec brought it forward in the National Assembly and it has been ratified by the National Assembly of Quebec. I suppose it will be by other provinces as well.
In my judgment the document is capable, I believe- because it is a good document, one that is good for Canada- of being ratified by Parliament, and I so recommend. But there will be a committee of the House that will consider this matter and make its own judgment. I give you my judgment in regard to a fundamental document that I believe is good for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AMENDMENTS TO IMPROVE MEECH LAKE ACCORD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is only about the terms of the existing Accord. We shall have a large majority in the Senate while the Conservatives have a majority in the Commons. Will the Government accept amendments which could improve the Accord or keep strictly to the existing terms of the Accord, without any possibility of amendment? This party would prefer the Government to keep an open mind as concerns amendments which could improve the Accord.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, is it the position of the Liberal Party of Canada that the Meech Lake Accord is flawed right from the start and requires amendments? If such is the case, you should have warned the Quebec Premier, who has agreed to the existing document. As for me, I have already expressed my opinion. If any Member of Parliament has questions to ask, whether he be a Conservative, a Liberal or a New Democrat, I imagine that he will ask these questions at the proper moment. I cannot answer for the committee. I am answering only for myself. I have given my views and made the same commitment as all the Premiers as concerns their own legislatures. My own commitment is to the House of Commons and I shall try to keep it.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise Hon. Members that it is after three o'clock. I should bring to the attention of the House that there will, shortly, be a vote on the deferred division. Before that, I would ask the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) whether he wishes to rise now to put the usual "Thursday afternoon" question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again I have to obey your summons to rise, as I did this morning when the House was discussing a point of order.
I know that we are going to have our weekly House Leaders' meeting today, yesterday having been the Fete de la Saint-Jean Baptiste, and it will not be until 4.30 this afternoon.
I am delighted to ask the Government House Leader the usual question on House business, but it may be that I will have to have the indulgence of the occupant of the Chair to ask the question again later in the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). It would seem that some further discussions must take place.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on a point of order.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the deferred division, I have a point of order to raise that will be of interest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as it concerns, among others, his desk mate. It concerns, as well, the following Hon. Members; for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), Joliette (Mr. La Salle), Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), Davenport (Mr. Caccia), Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), Algoma (Mr. Foster), Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), and myself, the Hon. Member for Regina West. It has to do with the nineteenth birthday of the survivors of the Class of '68, plus one recidivist, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who is a repeater.
1 thought I would draw that to the attention of the House. We are all only 19 years old today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 3 p.m. pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 23, 1987, the House will now proceed to the
June 25, 1987

taking of the deferred division on the motion of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie):
Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.
*
* *


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what
circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of
death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendation on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business", and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
[Stage Direction]
June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members from any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meeting to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
And on the amendment of Mr. Nystrom (p. 7307).
Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to finish the speech on capital punishment I started this morning. Since taking up where 1 left off a little before 1 p.m. requires some introduction, I would like to recall some points I made this morning in connection with the debate on the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House were criticized by the opposition Parties for actually bringing this debate before Parliament. This morning 1 pointed out that we did so because we, as a Party, want to keep our promises. I said this morning that during the 1984 election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party made certain commitments regarding national reconciliation, reducing the deficit and bringing about economic renewal in this country, all of which have now been met. The Progressive Conservative Party also made a commitment to hold a free vote on the important issue of reinstating capital punishment in this country, and that is what we are doing today.


An Hon. Member:: It takes guts.


Gabriel Desjardins: through a resolution adopted by most golden age clubs in my riding, that they had changed their position and were now against capital punishment in this country. Their resolution really pleased me.
Three weeks ago in Rouyn-Noranda, I met with 500 of these people from senior citizens' clubs of my own constituency, and when I told them that I would reflect their own stand against reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada, they gave me a standing ovation.
Mr. Speaker, this means that the more people talk about the death penalty, the more they are against its reinstatement, and the more people think about it, the more convinced they are that the death penalty is not an answer to the crime rate in this country.
When I was consulting various people, I certainly heard all the classic arguments in favour of reinstating the death penalty in this country. The one we hear most often concerns the deterrent effect. This is the argument which the supporters of reinstatement use most often: the deterrent effect.
The second argument we hear, Mr. Speaker, is that the state should react to certain crimes in a spirit of retribution. A third argument which we often hear is the economic argument.
I would like to examine each of these arguments and explain why it is difficult to find them convincing in 1987, in such a civilized and modern country as Canada.
It seems immoral to me to demand retribution for any crime committed in Canada. This is only applying the old law of an eye for an eye, and I find it unacceptable in principle, in a country which has the greatest Charter of Rights and Freedoms and which recognizes the basic right to life, that we should go back to the past and consider reinstating the death penalty.
As for the deterrence factor, I would like to refer to the comments made by the Chief of Police of the Urban Community of Montreal on April 5, 1987. I think that the views of such a man should be taken into account. Mr. Bourget, the Chief of Police of the UCM said on April 5, 1987: "I find it inhuman to keep people in prison for five or six years waiting to be executed." A bit farther in the same article, we find this: "After some 30 years of police work, the UCM Chief of Police, Mr. Roland Bourget, remains opposed to reinstatement of the death penalty."


Mr. Rossi:: He is not alone.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, this is an opinion which should be taken into account in this debate. Still in the same article, we find this: "Contrary to the majority opinion shown by polls carried out in the general public and especially in police forces, Mr. Bourget does not believe that this extreme measure can reduce the number of murders, and even less the general crime rate. His readings, observations and especially his many years with the police lead him to believe that the
Capital Punishment
death penalty will not have any deterrent effect as 70 per cent of murders are committed on impulse by ordinary citizens."
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is an important argument against the deterrence factor.
As far as the economics of the question is concerned, we have often been told that keeping a prisoner or a criminal in prison costs the State between $60,000 and $65,000. That may be. But what price should we put on the entire process, on the various avenues that would be open to someone who has been convicted of a capital offence? According to some figures, the total would be nearly one million dollars, and this includes the endless process of appeals and recourse to which a criminal sentenced to be hanged or to any other death penalty is entitled. When we talk about the economics of the issue, I think this is a red herring. And I would like to expand on this, Mr. Speaker, because in my own riding as in the rest of the province, we have institutions for the chronically-ill and institutions for psychiatric patients. How much do these people cost the province and the country in terms of social costs? Enormous amounts are involved. Should we get rid of these people because they cost too much? I think the economic argument does not hold water and that it is an argument we must reject outright.
Mr. Speaker, although this particular Member is against capital punishment, I still think the Canadian people should be better protected against crime and real criminals. And in this connection, I would like to recall that we had a royal commission of inquiry that, a few months ago, produced a very thick report on sentence reform.
Are you telling me I have about one minute left, Mr. Speaker?
So what I wanted to say is, we should review the Criminal Code and have far stricter sentences for the truly unscrupulous criminal.
In concluding, I would like to say a few words to the undecided. I would advise the undecided to vote against restoring capital punishment because there is always a possibility that an innocent man might be executed. The dead cannot be resurrected, Mr. Speaker. And I would not want to live with that on my conscience for the rest of my days. It constitutes an irrepairable injustice and this is why I urge the undecided, if they are really undecided, to vote against reinstating capital punishment.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) for his eloquent speech. During his remarks I noticed that he wanted-and 1 would certainly have given more time-to refer to sentence reform, so I commend him for that, perhaps he had in mind more severe sentences! Well, I might tell the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue that by more severe sentences we should mean sentences served in full. Do you mean to say . . . with respect to

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
more severe sentences I would refer to the word "rehabilitation" which is, in my humble opinion, a joke in some cases. When you say more severe sentences, do you mean sentences which should be maintained, like when a judge tells the accused: For a hold-up you must stay in 10 years. Instead of 10 years, the guy is out on the street after three years. Is that what you mean?


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) for his questions. I take this opportunity to tell him how much I appreciated his contribution. He admits he voted for capital punishment in 1976, but that in this debate he is against the death penalty, an opinion which I think he has expressed many times here.
In answer to his question, the royal inquiry commission recommended that a criminal convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison cannot apply for parole before serving at least two-thirds of his time, that is at least 15 years before filing an application with the National Parole Board. I believe that this would be a major improvement since it is now very easy for criminals to be put on parole. After serving one third of his sentence, a criminal is eligible for parole. What the royal commission recommended was that a criminal sentenced to life imprisonment, that is to 25 years in prison, would have to spend at least 15 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. As for rehabilitation in the penal system, I would like to tell the Hon. Member for Bourassa that I am convinced that a criminal remains a human being and is entitled to receive training in prison, to learn a trade, to prepare him for the day when he will be asked to rejoin society. However, I also believe that keeping certain types of criminals in prison for at least 15 years is a form of protection which Canadian society wants and to which it is entitled.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate my colleague from Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) for his very courageous stand in this debate. I would like to know whether he has read carefully the motion under consideration on which we shall be voting. This motion says:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of death, and in what circumstances;
As an abolitionist like myself, I would like to know what his feelings would be sitting on a 15 member committee responsible for choosing the type of sentence or the type of execution which should be used and under which circumstances it would apply. Does he not feel that this fifteen member committee will represent only one side of the issue, namely those who favour reinstatement of the death penalty?


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, as I did earlier for the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) because I know he took part in this debate, that he is on the abolitionists' side and that he made a remarkable speech in this House.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the plumbing, mechanics and setting up of this committee are concerned, all I can say is, I find this extremely repugnant and I will have no part of it. I would never agree to sit on a committee that had the task of listing the various actions that can lead to the death penalty and the actual machine that will kill someone.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Temiscamingue would of course refuse to sit on such a committee, and as far as I am concerned, I do not think we will need the plumbing.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Member for his speech and for the position he has taken on this very important issue facing the House. As he knows, the Government intends to invoke closure on this debate. As he probably knows as well, I share his views but I may not have the opportunity to present my views to the House of Commons because of his Government's decision to invoke closure, thereby precluding some Members who wish to speak on this very important issue from having the opportunity to do so.
What are the Hon. Member's thoughts on the Government's intention to invoke closure? Does he consider it appropriate that in the circumstances of dealing with probably the most important issue facing this Parliament there are those of us duly elected Members of Parliament who will not have the opportunity to express our point of view?


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I may remind him that a few months ago, the British Parliament dealt with a debate on the same issue in five hours, and they had a very intelligent vote on this issue, a vote in which the majority rejected reinstatement of the death penalty.
As far as this Parliament is concerned, we have been debating the subject for more than 50 hours, if I am not mistaken. 1 think that in 50 hours, every Member of this House has been able to make up his or her own mind about reinstating or not reinstating the death penalty in this country. Personally, I have nothing against having a vote at 6 p.m. this evening or at some time in the next few days, because I believe that most of the Members of this House have now made up their minds and that Members will be able to express their positions when they rise to vote.
It would not bother me in the slightest if we had a motion of closure, because I feel that since we have been debating this
June 25, 1987

issue in the House for more than 50 hours, the minds of Hon. Members must be made up by this time.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, again I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), after the question of my colleague ... it is because we are debating an issue relating to human life. As I see it, human life is just about the most important consideration on our mind and conscience. But we are debating capital punishment, and I listened very attentively to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland). Let me tell you that I congratulated him publicly, again I do so, and I urge you to read his remarks again because he has touched on all points which probably lead a young man to become a killer. And this is where we must act, not when a man gets to the point where society has made him a killer.
In his remarks the Hon. Member for Portneuf mentioned the young man who goes before the courts and who should be given a chance. Nobody cares about this young man, so finally the judge tells him: 1 sentence you to two years in jail. And so he goes to the university of crime.
This is the point I stress because during my career as a policeman-I was a lieutenant detective in charge of armed robberies, in charge of murders, I saw gunfire, I had to live with criminals-I always say that is where the young man must be seen. You will tell me that we are debating capital punishment. But when we are debating tax reform, when we are talking about rehabilitation I would like to have your views. You will tell me it has nothing to do with the death penalty. But as the Hon. Member for Portneuf so ably put it- I greatly appreciated his speech, he spoke like an expert- should we not, as members of society, act right then instead of waiting until he becomes a killer? I too believe that perhaps most Canadians would change their mind. If a man sentenced to ten years is not on the street after two or three years, because we must not forget the word "rehabilitation", when the prisoner is released they tell him: You had been given 10 years. You are out after three years but if you are caught committing another crime you will have to serve the rest of those 10 years, plus whatever time you get for the second crime. So is that not what we certainly want to correct, is that not what we as Members of this House want to show the people of Canada, that we want the sentences to be served in full, that when we talk about rehabilitation we mean investing money to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents?


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) once again for his comments. I think that this debate is particularly useful, in that it gives Canadians a chance to know the views of every Member of this House and this Government.
Of course, what we want, as I said earlier, is to ensure that unscrupulous criminals remain incarcerated as long as possible and that people who shouldn't be in prison at all are released. In fact I think the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) said as much in his speech. Prison should not be used for minor
Capital Punishment
offences. It costs money. Prisons should exist only to punish serious offences.
The Hon. Member made some reference to the time that would be allowed for this debate. I think that speeches like the one made by the Hon. Member for Portneuf, and of course we must not forget that the speeches made by the party leaders were learned discourses, and I include the speech made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The speeches by the opposition Leaders were excellent. I think that we have now touched all bases and that Hon. Members should now be able to say they are for or against this issue. I think we have had a healthy debate and that it was good for this country. But personally, I would be ready to vote. And I think most of my colleagues will be ready as well, because the debate was an open one, addressing most of the issues.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we are not often called upon to debate a fundamental question of life and death. The question of the restoration of capital punishment is exactly that question. This House will be deciding whether there are circumstances in which the state is justified, in the criminal justice system, in taking a human life.
I want to disagree strongly with the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) who has just indicated that he believes 50 hours of debate is enough and that all Members who would want to speak should have done so within 50 hours. We on our side know that that is not the case. We have a very long list. Ministers have made three attempts now to prevent all Members who want to speak from doing so. We seem to be in a hiatus now between their plots of one kind and another to bring this debate to a close.
If the Hon. Member favours abolition, I urge him to support the continuation of this debate as long as possible because the effect of it seems to be to encourage a number of Members who thought otherwise to have second thoughts and begin to see that capital punishment is not the solution which many believe it is.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, you may find it ironic that the Member for York Centre, that is myself, am what I like to call an abolitionist, but an abolitionist with one exception in which I feel that capital punishment is justified. I hope in my remarks today to be able to indicate the circumstances in which I support capital punishment. They are exactly the same circumstances in which I supported it in 1976. In the intervening time I had the opportunity to be the Solicitor General of Canada responsible for Canada's penitentiaries. That which I learned in that job, about which I want to speak soon, has confirmed my feelings that capital punishment, in one narrow area of the law, would actually save lives. I believe that with due respect to human life the use of capital punishment is not justified except where it can be shown that it will actually save lives.

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
Before I turn to my own views on capital punishment, I want to make some comments about this debate in general. I do not favour this debate. I am voting against the resolution because I believe the debate has been used to distract attention from very important areas of public policy, not only the performance of the Government but even ways of improving our criminal justice system.
1 think the effect that capital punishment will have in the criminal justice system is small compared to all the other things we can do to make our criminal justice system better. I condemn the Government for focusing on this one issue, particularly under the administration of a Prime Minister who is an admitted abolitionist and is taking a position before the country which may well see capital punishment restored.
I will deal with my concern about the debate of the issue by dealing with the two sides of the issue. First, among those who support capital punishment-and I refer to many millions of Canadians-I find that in their position is a sense of desperation, that while they are not confident that capital punishment will work in reducing the murder rate, it will have a beneficial effect on law and order in society. I sympathize very much with that view, but I think it is wrong.
I do not believe that restoring capital punishment will do very much outside the area of murder, yet I have heard Members say in the House that having capital punishment is the corner-stone of an effective criminal justice system. It is as if to say there would be less other crimes if capital punishment were on the books, and there would be more law and order in society. Because people have that view about capital punishment, I think it gets the support of people who, when they look at it as a remedy, fundamentally do not really believe that it will do a significant job in the criminal justice system.
I have heard others say that the reason they support capital punishment is a fear that people who are sentenced to life imprisonment for murder will get out on parole and be back on the streets in a few years, ready to murder again. I want to tell those people something that I do not think they will believe but is absolutely true. We have on the statute books of Canada today a penalty for murder which is as effective as capital punishment. It is the life sentence.
I know that people say they have read about criminals who get out, but I want to state categorically to those who support capital punishment on this ground that no one in Canada who has ever been sentenced to the stiffest penalty that was added to our law in 1976 has been released from penitentiary. All of them, except those who have died since 1976, are still in prison. We read about people who committed murders getting out of jail, but if one checks into it, one will see that these are people who are not sentenced to the maximum penalty.
The Member for Temiscamingue was wrong about that as well. He said that the 25-year sentence means that people may
apply for parole after seven years, and argued that it should be increased to 16 or 17 years. That is not a 25-year sentence. It is a full life sentence, except that after 25 years one has the right to go before a judge and ask for permission to apply for parole. It does not mean that parole will be granted by the judge or a parole board. None of those people will even be eligible to apply until the year 2001. None of them have done so. The idea that people who get the maximum sentence known to the law now are getting out and committing other murders is absolutely wrong.
I say to those who support capital punishment on that ground that they should look again. There is a very good, equal deterrent in the law in the form of the full life sentence that was introduced by my colleague, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), when he was Solicitor General in 1976.
I want to say something to the abolitionists because I find something peculiar in their position as well. Abolitionist after abolitionist will stand up and say that while they are an abolitionist, they believe our criminal justice system is lousy and needs to be fundamentally changed. They seem to want to defend their support for abolition in the face of the retentionist by agreeing somehow or other that we have a lousy system of criminal justice that is not working. I think they are also wrong.
1 speak as one who knows something about the criminal justice system. I am not saying that it cannot be improved, but it is not correct to say that it is fundamentally wrong, that sentences are too low and making changes to the criminal justice system will produce much less crime in society.
I have ideas for improving the criminal justice system. I introduced some, in the area of crime prevention for example, while 1 was Solicitor General. I believe crime can be reduced much more easily by preventing it from happening than by the way we handle criminals, whether it is putting them in prison or diverting them. I tried to encourage the movement of the criminal justice system into crime prevention. There is not much room to make our criminal justice system do a very much better job for us. While we read about those things that go wrong, let me suggest that they are as much a function of the human condition as they are of the criminal justice system. Unlike some other countries, such as the United States, we have control of our criminal justice system.
I suggest to those abolitionists who are telling people that there is a magic solution to making the criminal justice system prevent all crime that they are wrong and misleading people in trying to convince them that capital punishment is not the answer and that there is some magic key when the fact is that crime is related to the human condition. We are making our best efforts to try to fight crime.
If there was a key to tremendous reductions and great improvements in running our prisons, dealing with criminals or altering sentences, I think we would have found it years ago.
June 25, 1987

There is a very strong will in Canadian society to improve the criminal justice system.
While I do not mean to sound like a Conservative by saying we have to defend what exists, I believe steps can be taken to improve it but not enough to deliver on the commitments of some abolitionists who are saying that we must scrap this system and start again. It is a good system that serves the Canadian people rather well, even though I think it can be improved a lot.
One of the reasons I condemn the Government for bringing this resolution forward is that I feel so strongly that we should be looking at the criminal justice system. We should be studying the report of the Sentencing Commission. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says that he is against capital punishment, but instead of dealing with the report of the Sentencing Commission, which makes some sensible recommendations for improving the system, he is giving the House a capital punishment debate that is detached from any inspection of alternatives to capital punishment which might help people make up their minds as to whether or not they are in favour of capital punishment.
I have indicated that I am voting against the resolution and have given my reasons. Now I want to explain the reason I support capital punishment in the area in which I believe it will be effective.
I stated my belief that a full life sentence as already established in our law is as effective as capital punishment. However, there is a growing number of murders committed by people who are not deterred by a full life sentence. The reason they are not deterred is that they are already serving a full life sentence. These are people who have been sentenced since 1976 to spending their natural life in prison. The statistics which were released in a summary form a few weeks ago by the Ministry of Solicitor General show that the murder rate in our penitentiaries is astronomical. It is the duty of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to protect inmates from being killed by other inmates during their sentence, and to protect guards and officials from being killed by inmates during the time they are in prison. That protection is not being afforded now.
While I may be criticized for saying this, the officials do not even try to solve most of the murders that take place in prisons because everyone knows who is responsible for a murder when it is committed. The prison is too small that the knowledge of the identity of the killer is not known. Yet, the philosophy must be: "Why bother trying to solve this murder?"
Why bother singling out an inmate, charging him again, having an expensive police investigation, a trial, putting the inmate up in a hotel, eating in restaurants, getting his picture in the papers, and all this, including his lawyer, paid for by the taxpayers, and then at the end, after the conviction-and I could actually name a few inmates who have gone through this process-back he goes to prison to continue the sentence he
Capital Punishment
was serving before he committed the murder. I think we have a responsibility within the criminal justice system to deal with that problem.
I know there are those who feel they are not convinced that capital punishment is a deterrent but who say that if they could be convinced, they would support it. I want to urge those people to reflect on this situation and on the problem of dealing with the offender already sentenced to serving life.
We hear people say from time to time that capital punishment in their view is not a deterrent. I think that is a very foolish thing to say. Certainly, it is true to a point. Capital punishment is not a deterrent to the 99.9 per cent of Canadians who would never think of killing anyone, even if it was not a crime. Those people are not deterred by the idea of capital punishment. They are deterred by the respect they have for life and by the feeling of horror they have against killing anyone.
Among those people who have a potential under some circumstances to commit a murder, I think capital punishment is a deterrent. The knowledge they have that they could be caught and, if caught, their life would be taken, must surely figure into their calculations. Common sense tells us it does. Therefore, it is a deterrent.
The point I make, though, is that I do not see how one could consider it to be a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment. I think they are equal, especially when "life" is, as I said, full life. Capital punishment is a deterrent, one which involves taking a human life, but comparing it to the equally effective deterrent which does not involve taking a human life, I think one has to choose the latter. That is why I support full life imprisonment for the kinds of murders which are defined in the Criminal Code, with one exception.
I want to close by suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think I can characterize myself as an abolitionist, as one who would oppose capital punishment except that I am convinced, from my knowledge of prisons and from my experience with the violent murders which take place there on an increasing basis, that capital punishment is justified in those circumstances.
I want to say another word on a subject which perhaps many have not thought about. I think if we introduce capital punishment, it would be unacceptable to the Canadian people if it resulted in a great number of executions. If there are 700 murders a year and if there were 500 or so people convicted of murder, anyone who wants to suggest there should be 500 executions a year in Canada would be putting an appalling proposition forward. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has ever taken a pencil to his theory to see how many executions there would be if capital punishment was reinstated? I think there would be something abhorrent to me of several executions taking place a year. I would find that appalling in a civilized country such as ours.
On the other hand, if the Members who favour capital punishment were content to see it applied only in the area

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
where I have suggested it is logical, because there is no other alternative, then the number of executions which would occur would be very small. I think if there were one in five years, or seven years, it would be as much as one could possibly expect. I think that is a factor. 1 know that those who favour capital punishment, if the statistics are right as this debate has proceeded, are having some second thoughts about it.
I think one of the calculations must surely be what is happening in the United States where recent hurdles have been cleared with respect to cases before the Supreme Court and where 1,400 convicted murderers may be executed in the next several months. The prospect of that appalling number of executions taking place in a democratic country is in itself a great deterrent to the restoration of capital punishment. If this resolution carries, I would urge all of those who are going to sit on the committee to bear in mind that Canadians, even those who have supported capital punishment, would be tremendously disturbed to see anymore than a very, very small number of executions take place.
With those thoughts, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate and look forward to the Government changing its mind about its agenda. If this resolution is not to be withdrawn, and frankly I would prefer to see it withdrawn, I hope all of those who wish to speak to it would be given the opportunity to do so.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to put a question to the Hon Member. Much of what he has said in the House today one can find in similar terms in the speech he gave to this House on May 19, 1976, the last time there was such a debate on the question of capital punishment. My question will be along two lines. I find there is a bit of a contrast in what the Hon. Member has said this afternoon. In 1976 the Hon. Member said:
I suggest that public opinion is an extremely important factor in the determination of an issue like capital punishment.
He went on to say:
I do not see how any Member of this House can escape the undeniable fact that the majority of the people of Canada are of the opinion-however you want to measure or count it-that there is a place for capital punishment in our system of justice. I insist that this House must respond to that concern.
The Hon. Member has just said he would prefer to see this resolution withdrawn. Is he today feeling differently from the way he felt on May 19, 1976 when he stated: "I insist that this House must respond to the public concern that there should be capital punishment in our system"?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Hon. Member listened to the whole of my speech, but at the beginning I made some points about what I thought might be done to improve our war against crime in Canadian society. I suggested that capital punishment was not a large part of the solution, it was a very small part, and that time would be better spent on other things. I visualized a capital punishment debate being a very lengthy one. That is the reason I would
prefer to see the resolution withdrawn than continue in order that we could deal with crime in other ways.
I also think that public opinion is volatile and I invite the Hon. Member to notice that just in the last few months public opinion in support of capital punishment is beginning to decline. As I suggested, I think it will continue to decline as a great number of executions begin to take place in the United States and Canadians get to see who gets executed when a society introduces capital punishment and when it is applied on a very large scale.
Fundamentally, I agree with what I said in 1976. I am glad to have it read. I have not looked at it myself for awhile. What I would have to say is that in a final analysis in a democracy, the population is entitled to the kind of criminal justice system they want.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member on this subject. I preface my question by saying that I have taken part in a debate on capital punishment in this House on two previous occasions. I expressed my reservations about what we were doing on both those occasions. The first time in 1973 was with regard to the fact that we were entering into another five-year-trial period and I did not feel that we should have an additional trial period, that we should move to abolition right away. The second time in 1976 was with regard to the fact that in compensation for the removal of the death penalty, the Government was introducing a maximum penalty of 25 years before parole, or life.
I would like to focus on what the Hon. Member said in his comments since the reservation I expressed in 1976 was that that 25-year period as a minimum was the wrong move to take. In fact, at that time I said:
-two specific findings of criminal research-shows first, that convicted murderers have low recidivism rates, and second, the longer the imprisonment, the slimmer the chances of rehabilitation.
If the Hon. Member is saying that in the ensuing years since capital punishment was abolished he has seen a larger number of murders within the prison system, I want to ask him whether or not he figures that this lengthy penalty which was imposed at that time was wrong. Should it have been imposed and should we be moving today to re-examine the sentencing procedure so that that act which was taken at that time is reduced? Should we go back to the previous situation so that we do not escalate the difficulties within the prison system, about which I appreciate he knows, and which I know, by continuing this minimum sentence of 25 years for first-degree murder?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the proposition that the minimum of 25 years should be reduced. I know it works terrible hardship for some of the people who are sentenced to it, but they have committed a very grievous offence. I think that life imprisonment is a reasonable penalty
June 25, 1987

for someone who commits a murder as defined by that section of the Act and where that penalty is invoked.
The Eton. Member wants to draw some conclusions from the fact with which I concede that the longer a person stays in prison the more likely they are to become recidivists. But what does that mean? Who gets long sentences? It is people who have committed more serious crimes. I would say that people who have committed more serious crimes are more likely to become recidivists. Murder is an exception, and I would like to say a word about that.
However, when we take the run of criminals going through the courts receiving their sentences, the longer the sentence they receive is a reflection of their character and the kind of crime they have committed. I think the resulting fact that there is a higher rate of recidivism among those people is not necessarily as a result of the time that they spend in prison but the kind of person they were and the kind of crimes they committed for which they were sentenced.
Murderers include two very different categories of person. Most of the murders that are committed in Canada are committed by people who have not committed other kinds of crimes, people who are not in the criminal culture. They are people who commit crimes of passion, although deliberately, or they would not be convicted. They are people who are responsible for what they did but who are of a sort who have not been involved in criminal activity before. Those individuals have a low rate of recidivism. They are very easy offenders to look after in prison. They are sentenced to low-level security institutions. They lead useful lives behind bars. I would not reduce the length of time they have to spend in prison because of what they did and because of the deterrent that I think ought to apply to them.
There is another category of murderer, the remorseless contract killer who is driven to it. In our maximum security prisons these are the individuals who create the problems. These are the ones who are frequently responsible for other murders. If they can be charged and properly convicted of committing a second murder in prison, then their removal from the maximum security institution will have a beneficial effect on that institution. It will reduce the jeopardy of guards, many of whom are constituents of the Hon. Member. It will remove the jeopardy of other inmates being killed. I think we owe it to them to reflect on the effect that capital punishment will have if imposed on those in prison who kill again.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has been in prisons more times than I have been in prisons, although I was in a great number of them during the time I was Solicitor General. I had a lot of time to talk to offenders, guards and officials. She will know, while perhaps most Canadians do not, that in a maximum security institution these are the toughest offenders in Canada. Most of them are trying to stay out of trouble. Some of them go through the day tense, trying to avoid getting into situations in which they will do anything but easy time with the possibility
Capital Punishment
of being paroled and getting out on good behaviour and so on. The trouble with them is that in the maximum security institutions they do not have the ability to stay out of trouble. They have been raised or directed in a way in which they respond with violence to any kind of provocation or harassment or aggression, the kind of things that a Member of Parliament, when they happen to him or her, can turn into a positive direction. Inmates in maximum security prisons cannot. They blow up. That is why, after having been convicted, they are in maximum security instead of being at lower levels. But they are provoked by this smaller group of trouble-makers in each of the maximum security institutions.
I would urge the Hon. Member, for all the respect that I have for her commitment to abolition, to recognize that where capital punishment is a deterrent, where it will have the effect of saving lives, that however distasteful she may find it, and I find it distasteful as well, I think one has to recognize that there is a place for it. If it were here, as distasteful as it is, other people would be alive who are innocent in that circumstance and who deserve the protection of the law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform Hon. Members that the time for questions and comments is over.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, when the last person was hung in Canada, and I believe there were two of them at the same time, in 1962,1 was 11 years old. In the intervening quarter of a century I feel that I have had the privilege of growing up in, becoming an adult in and becoming a Member of Parliament in one of the most nonviolent societies in the world.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The murder rate has doubled!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The murder rate has not doubled, despite what the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) says. I hope he will give me the courtesy of hearing me out. The fact remains that Canada is one of the most non-violent societies in the world. I am proud of that. I think all Members of the House should keep it in mind when we are talking about what kind of Canada we might be embarking upon if this resolution were to pass. I am of the view that the passage of this resolution would be a step toward not a less violent society but a more violent society.
I think it is ironic that as we move toward the end of this debate, whether it be tomorrow, Monday or Tuesday, or whatever the case may be, that what is shaping up is that this resolution which people once thought would carry by a significant majority may either be defeated or may pass by an insignificant margin, by a very small margin, and even then unenthusiastically.
I sense that there are Members of Parliament who feel cornered by their past statements on capital punishment and who feel cornered by various arguments as to how they ought to respond to the wishes of their constituents. Having listened

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
to the debate and having been a party to the public debate which has been ongoing since this resolution came before the House, they are no longer as sure of their position as they once were. Those are the Members to whom I am addressing my remarks.
I appeal to those Members to think very carefully about their responsibility as Members of Parliament.
1 know there are some who have said to themselves: "Well, I will vote for this motion now, because it is not a motion that actually reinstates capital punishment. I will vote for this motion now and, in doing so, will be consistent with what I have said before, and privately hope that the time for actually reinstating capital punishment will not come to pass; that somehow in the course of things a Bill proposing the reinstatement of capital punishment will not come before the House."
In that way, they will not actually have to vote on the reinstatement of capital punishment but will still be able to live up to some of the political commitments they have made-and some people in this House have made political commitments in that respect going back more than a decade, to the time of the last vote on capital punishment.
I ask those Members who feel that way to vote against this motion now, thus preventing what I would consider to be the possibility of a very grim road show, where a committee of this Parliament would be travelling around the country debating the relative merits of hanging people as opposed to electrocuting them, as opposed to lethal injection, or whatever other methods may be considered-something which I think would be degrading in terms of the public discourse and the general level of political and public debate in this country.
The argument for capital punishment, for the return of the death penalty, is a classic example of false expectations. There will be no decrease in violence in our society as a result of the return of the death penalty. The roots of violence and disrespect for human life are deep and complicated, and hanging a few people every year will not help. While it may make some of us feel better when a particularly vicious and obviously guilty murderer is executed, it will not stop violence in our society. It will in fact increase it, as people lose the example of a state that is not prepared to condone killing as a solution to the problem of violence in society.
The Canadian Coalition Opposed to the Death Penalty puts the question starkly and powerfully: Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
In 1975, the year prior to the total abolition of capital punishment in Canada, there were 701 homicides in Canada, for a rate of 3.09 per 100,000; in 1985, there were 686 homicides in Canada, for a rate of 2.78. Between those dates, Canada reported a low of 593 homicides in 1980, for a rate of 2.47.
I have read some of the speeches that have been made during the course of this debate and I am aware of the distinction that needs to be made between first degree murder
and second degree murder and the fact that there may have been a slight increase in the number of first degree murders. But, it is the second degree murders which tend to be reported in such a way that people are left with the sense that violence is on the increase, thus bringing about an increased sense of insecurity. Therefore, these figures are relevant, despite that distinction, as it is in response to the sense that there is an over-all increase in violence that many people take a position in favour of capital punishment.
The argument that the death penalty deters murder is certainly true, in the strict sense that those who are executed will certainly never murder again. I am not going to argue against that one, Mr. Speaker. Yet, this fact has to be weighed against the fact that repeat murderers constitute a very small minority of those convicted. Most murders are still committed by those who are too angry, too insane, or otherwise caught up in the moment to care whether or not they get caught and are subject to execution, or by people who do not intend to get caught, in any event.
There is also the fact that bringing back capital punishment may actually cause some murderers to go free, as judges and juries become more reluctant to convict if there is any doubt at all, or sometimes even if there is not any doubt at all, when they know that their decision will lead to the taking of a human life.
Our criminal justice system, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said the other day, is an imperfect and fallible process, like everything else run by human beings. Yet, the decision to punish an individual with death is one of an absolute nature. Not only is there the possibility of punishing the wrong person in this absolute and irretrievable way, but there is also the fact that the death penalty cannot be distributed, even among the surely guilty, in a perfect way. The poor, for instance, will almost certainly hang for their crimes more often than the rich, who can afford the brightest and best lawyers in the country. Visible minorities may also be more vulnerable in this respect, as blacks have been in those American states that have reinstated the death penalty. And those who are clearly insane-and it is these who commit some of the crimes which get the most publicity-will not be hanged in any event as the defence of not guilty by reason of insanity will continue to be available.
In recent years, Donald Marshall of Nova Scotia and John Wildman of Ontario were convicted of murder and later found to be innocent. In 1984, Senator Metzenbaum tabled in the U.S. Congress a list of 48 persons who were convicted of murder in the U.S. and later found to be innocent.
It also interesting to observe that, despite suggestions to the contrary, jurisdictions with capital punishment spend far more money than do those which have abolished such punishment. Trial and lengthy appeal costs are all borne by the taxpayer. A 1982 study showed that if the death penalty were reintroduced in the State of New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.
June 25, 1987

While that is something to think about, in the final analysis,
I think we have to reject arguments for or against capital punishment based on a dollars and cents calculation. Let us be clear that the money argument cuts both ways.
The case for doing something to protect the lives of prison guards and police officers is, to many, probably the most appealing argument for capital punishment. Might I say personally that I come from a long line of big Irish cops. I am no stranger to policemen, either among my family or among my friends. My grandfather was the Chief of Police in the community which I represent here in this Parliament, and I have an uncle who has served 25 years in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I know the compelling nature of this argument, particularly for families whose members serve in these capacities.
Yet, this argument also has its limits. Prison guards are often the victims of tensions that could have been prevented through better management of the prison system; and police are often vulnerable because they are forced to work alone or under unnecessarily dangerous conditions.
Politicians who call for capital punishment but who refuse to properly finance our police departments and our prisons should not be so easily let off the hook on these issues. The question of what to do about repeat offenders who are already in prison and who already have received the maximum possible penalty under the law is a difficult one. However, that is not the motion that we have before us. I remind Hon. Members, with respect to the matter of the killing of police, that the greatest number of police killed on duty in one year was in 1962, when there were 11 police officers murdered in Canada. In that year, capital punishment existed and there were two hangings for the killing of police officers.
Since abolition in 1976, the worst years were 1984 when six police were murdered and 1985 when five police were murdered, and the number of police has doubled since 1962.
Mining is still a more dangerous profession than police work. Many miners are killed every year and many more have died over the years, not just from accidents but from diseases related to the conditions in which they work. I mention this not to make any easy or simplistic comparison between the death of a miner by accident or by neglect and the death of a policeman by gun-fire. Obviously there are significant differences. However, it raises the question of what calls for the highest degree of moral outrage.
I guess my problem is that I am just as outraged by mine owners who have knowingly endangered the lives of their employees and by factory owners who have knowingly poisoned the environment of neighbourhoods and surrounding areas. I am just as outraged by the people who allow others to die, either quickly or slowly, or to be damaged just so they can make bigger profits. These people are just as high on my list of undesirables as many of the people convicted of murder.
Capital Punishment
If we could come to see these kinds of acts as equally criminal, maybe I would not be so anxious about the fact that the present furore about capital punishment deflects and diverts us from other areas of concern. At this point we do not even prosecute, let alone punish, those who make death-dealing decisions all the time. This is not to mention, when we talk about premeditated murder, the premeditated mass murder of the entire human race which is being premeditated every day in the Pentagon, the Kremlin, and many other places around the world.
I would like to see some of the moral outrage which we get from government back-benchers about premeditated murder of individual Canadians expressed against the premeditated murder of the entire human prospect, the premeditated destruction of all creation which is being premeditated here and now, every day that we sit in the House. I would like to see some moral outrage about that for a change. I would like to see that expressed by the same people who argue that they have so much respect for their constituents' views on this issue.
I would like them to show respect for their constituents' views on that issue. The next time we have an opportunity in the House on a free vote, as we have had, to vote against the testing of the cruise missile and other death-dealing weapons, I would like to see them have the same respect for their constituents' opinions, have the same outrage as they have about premeditated murder, get up and vote against cruise missile testing. When that day comes, I will know that moral outrage has been reclaimed in a constructive, not just a destructive way.
Self-righteousness must be guarded against on all sides of the debate. Pro-capital punishment people should avoid thinking that they are the only ones who care. Those of us who are against capital punishment experience anguish and gut-rending pain when we read of children being abused and murdered. It is every bit as real for us as it is for those who are for capital punishment.
Like many people, I sometimes think what I might do if I got my hands on some of these guys, but I am still against capital punishment. It should be clearly understood that pro capital punishment people have no monopoly on the emotion which many murders generate. The debate is not about how we feel or even what as individuals we might want to do or take individual responsibility for. The debate is about the proper role of the state and society and whether there should be state directed killings.
Anti-capital punishment people should guard against the self-righteousness of pretending that they are somehow more morally advanced or civilized than those who argue for it. This is not necessarily true. Many people of goodwill feel capital punishment is a tragic necessity of life which they wish was not necessary, or they experience the cry for capital punishment as a cry for limits, for a sign that there are some things which just will not be tolerated. Even if I do not agree with it, this is understandable in a world where we are too cool by half about many life denying solutions, from nuclear war at the level of

June 25, 1987
Message from the Senate
collective morality to abortion at the level of social and individual morality.
I view it as a mistake to single out this issue as the place to reclaim moral outrage as a social good. I also regard it as a mistake or a form of self-righteousness for various small "1" liberals to pat themselves on the back for being against capital punishment, as if it is all we have to do or be to become a "civilized" society, while social, economic, and military decisions which condemn millions to suffering and death are regarded as "political realities".
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to address the question about whether I should vote according to my own view or according to what the majority view in my riding might be, particularly if it is true that a majority might favour capital punishment. So far I have more letters of opposition to capital punishment than letters for it. I have run three times-in 1979, in 1980, and in 1984-each time against someone who wanted the return of capital punishment and who tried to make a big deal out of it. Each time I made it perfectly clear where I stood on capital punishment. I therefore believe that I can vote against capital punishment with a clear political as well as moral conscience in this regard.
I say two things to Members of Parliament here who might be feeling queasy about going against the will of their constituents in this regard. First, the will of their constituents is not as clear as they think it is. Let us look at what happens when we push someone who is in favour of capital punishment as I have.
I know many who were in favour of it, but when asked the second, the third, and the fourth question beyond just the general question, I found that they were not as in favour of it as they really sounded. Second, I ask Members to remember that because people are basically decent, they tend to respect people who are willing to put themselves on the line and to vote according to what they think is right, in spite of the fact that their constituents might disagree with them. 1 have never found that to be politically debilitating in my years in this place and in three elections.
I subscribe to the traditional Tory view of the responsibility of a Member of Parliament put forward by Edmund Burke in 1774, that a Member of Parliament owes constituents the exercise of his or her judgment and must be held accountable for that judgment at election time. He said:
Your representative owes you, not his industry alone, but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Surely no one would want to argue seriously although it may be tempting when one disagrees with one's Member of Parliament, that as a rule MPs should vote in mechanical obedience to the majority view in their constituencies. Such a view overlooks the fact that part of what we are paid for as
Members of Parliament is to take the time which others do not always have to study the evidence, to hear the witnesses, to read the reports, to meet the various lobby groups, to participate in the debate, to consult with our colleagues, and to vote according to our best judgment. Indeed, if Members of Parliament are only delegates doing what they are told, maybe all we need is for them to have a computer hook-up in their homes by which they can vote on everything as it comes up, without the benefit of the process which Members of Parliament now go through when they vote. I imagine that some might see this as not a bad idea, given the quality of some of the decisions we make here. However, I am not ready to declare the work I do here in Ottawa as redundant.
A final word, Mr. Speaker. This is a free vote. A free vote does not mean that we all receive the freedom to become Pontius Pilate. It does not mean that we all receive the freedom to do simply what the crowd wants, to ask the question what is truth and let the mob answer. A free vote means that we are given an opportunity, rare in this place, to exercise our own best judgment according to our conscience. That is what I hope all Members will do when it comes down to the vote, whenever that may be.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed, without amendment, Bill C-13, respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
25 June 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of June, 1987, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General
June 25, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what
circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of
death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
And on the amendment of Mr. Nystrom (p. 7307).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).
Capital Punishment


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). The first one deals with the former speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). He made the statement that he supports capital punishment and always has supported it and has considered it for certain offences. He mentioned specifically today, if my memory serves me correctly, the repeat or serial killer, the person who kills over and over again. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill said that he feels that each Member of Parliament has the responsibility of voting on this issue as he or she feels on his or her conscience. Does the Hon. Member support the idea where a Member of this House supports capital punishment for certain acts of planned, deliberate murder and then votes against the motion that would allow it to be considered-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Chair whether the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) can ask a Member for the New Democratic Party questions about a comment or speech by a Liberal Member who just spoke.
I would appreciate your advice because I doubt the Hon. Member could very well ask an NDP Member for his opinion on-

We did not say we are untouchable. I am talking about rules. Do not get aggressive. Just cool down. The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) will not do what he is not allowed to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments should be related to the speech of the Member who spoke. I am sure the Hon. Member for Peterborough will do that when he puts his question to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


Carlo Rossi: That is what I was trying to drive at. The Member knows that, too.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member who rose on a point of order, I was referring to a statement that was made and I was drawing the analogy between the statement of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill that each Member should vote on how he or she feels and whether the question would support the idea that a person can be in support of capital punishment yet vote against the motion. How can he have it both ways?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that he had two questions for me. Maybe he should give me the second one and I will have a crack at both of them.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned in his remarks that the homicide rate in Canada had not doubled since the last executions in 1962, which were the last occasions

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
for executions in Canada. According to the Statistics Canada reports and the Justice Department, the homicide rate in Canada in 1962 was 1.43 per 100,000 of population. There were 265 homicides in 1962. Homicides have gone on up on a computerized graph since then and in 1985, the last complete year for which statistics are available and reported, 704 homicides were committed, giving a rate of 2.78 per 100,000 population. Is it not correct to say that homicides in Canada have doubled since the last people were executed in 1962?


Finlay MacDonald: Since the abolition of capital punishment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I know this statistical debate has been going on between the Hon. Member for Peterborough and almost all the rest of the world since the beginning of this debate. I do not think we are going to sort that out here this afternoon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is evading the question. The facts are on the records. Statistics Canada, as the Hon. Member for Peterborough has indicated, states that the rate per 100,000 was 1.43 when the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill was 11 years old. Now he is an old man of 36. Will he not agree with figures from Statistics Canada which show the rate currently at 2.78 in 1985? That is double the rate. Admit it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the rate has gone down since capital punishment was abolished. I would like to answer the question which the Hon. Member for Peterborough asked me concerning the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).
The Hon. Member for Peterborough has been involved in politics for some time. He knows that people are often put in the position where they have to choose to vote for or against something in a way that they would prefer not to because they feel the question could be more aptly or comprehensively put, which is what the Hon. Member for York Centre said with respect to his position. Even as one who does not take the view that the Hon. Member took, I was satisfied with his explanation why he intended to vote against the motion.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed listening to the Hon. Member. His remarks statistically reminded me of something I read in The Economist just the other week, commenting on the British election. Spokespersons can use statistics to prove whichever case they want. Mrs. Thatcher could use statistics to prove that the British economy had never been better and Mr. Kinnock could use statistics to prove that it had never been worse. It seemed to hinge on which year either of them chose. I suggest that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is an example of the same process. He chose statistics from the year when capital punishment was fully, formally and legally abolished but not the year when executions ceased.
If we take the figures from the year when the last execution took place and compare the murder rate in that year with the murder rate of last year, then we find that there has been an
increase of almost 100 per cent in the homicide rate. We have had an example here of selective statistics.
May I take the time of the House to add another example of selectivity in the Member's remarks? He was very selective regarding causes for moral outrage when he cited the enormity of it on top of murder itself. I agree with him entirely. However, I noticed, unless I did not hear him correctly, the omission of one significant cause for moral outrage when it comes to human life, and that is the taking of the lives of the unborn.
I wish there had been some of that passion and some of that crescendo of emphasis on behalf of the unborn, especially those whose lives have been taken when their bodies are fully formed. Of the 65,000 abortions which occur per year, something like 15 per cent occur when the body of the foetus is fully formed. That comes to about 10,000 such abortions. I hope that the Hon. Member's moral outrage would include some concern for those human lives. The next time he has an opportunity to rise in his place and cast a vote on their behalf, I hope that he will do it as a free person, not as a person following the lead of his Party's policy.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to his last point, the Hon. Member did not listen very carefully to my speech. If he has a chance to read Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I did mention that and I hope I will hear from him then as to the appropriateness of what he just said.
I think if one were to examine my argument, one would find that it was largely non-statistical.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You referred to 1962.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, most of my argument was not based on statistics at all. I stand by what I said with respect to statistics and which statistics are relevant. I do not accept that 1962 must be taken as the benchmark, as the Hon. Member argues that it must. That is a difference the Hon. Member and I have.
With respect to the Hon. Member's comment about abortion, I would hope that the Hon. Member would give me the credit of attributing to me independent judgment when voting on that matter even though I voted differently than he did, I presume, a couple of weeks ago when we had an opportunity to vote on that matter. I voted according to my own judgment and not according to any other dictum whatsoever. It is well known in my constituency and elsewhere that I am a critic of both the pro-life position and the pro-choice position.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House on the motion before us dealing with whether or not to reinstate capital punishment. I know that many Hon. Members on both sides of the House have already or will utilize this chance to express their views on this very important and highly volatile subject.
June 25, 1987

I would like to thank all those who have written to me and who have taken the time to make a concerted effort to write or talk to me on this matter. When the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) announced the motion in the House on February 13, he stated:
I would expect all Canadians to make their views known through letters, briefs or meetings ... to Members on all sides of the House.
Each of us on this side of the House may vote according to our own individual wish and not be bound by Party discipline. We appreciate this opportunity. I applaud the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, despite his own personal opinion on the matter of capital punishment, promised this free vote and is fulfilling this promise.
In 1774, more than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke, a British MP, said:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement: and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
He was speaking to his constituents at the time. No one here today would dare to compare himself or herself to this great philosopher, but the intention of his message is valuable to us in this debate.
When elected, a Member of Parliament's duty lies in representing the best interests of all his constituents. At the same time, we were elected for what we ourselves believed and for what we stood for. My beliefs are not a secret to my constituents.
In April 1984 when I stood for the nomination meeting for the Progressive Conservative Party in Fraser Valley East, I stated that capital punishment should be reinstated for first degree murder. My belief in that has not changed to this date.
A questionnaire that I sent to every household in my riding in December of 1984 asked this question: "Do you support capital punishment for premeditated first degree murder?" Indications were that 95 per cent of the 4,387 people who returned it voted yes.
Capital punishment is perhaps one of the most thought-provoking issues that each of us have had to face. I believe I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that I have wrestled with the pros and cons of abolishing or reinstating the penalty for some time now. I still come to the same conclusion. Capital punishment is the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.
Underlying all the theories which explain the purpose of criminal law is the basic premise that criminal law is the means by which society reaffirms its values and denounces its violators. These values develop to some extent in response to changing social values. Society abhors murder and anyone who intentionally, with forethought and total disregard for another individual's life, murders a person is abhorred to the same degree.
We live in a world in which at times we must make some difficult choices. The choice of reinstating capital punishment
Capital Punishment
for the crime of first degree premeditated murder is a last resort and is the choice we must make with reluctance.
Abolitionists who try to use the argument that capital punishment merely perpetuates violence are incorrect and are misleading Canadians. When a person on the street takes it into his own hands to be judge, jury and executioner and murders another person intentionally, he has denied that other person the right to be tried before an independent, impartial jury. This is murder. If society gives that murderer the right to counsel, to the safeguards inherent in our criminal law system, including an impartial, objective jury and the best legal protection and then finds him guilty without doubt of that murder, that in my opinion is justice. The difference between the two is obvious.
It is fine for those opposing capital punishment to say that no system is perfect and mistakes happen. How cavalier of them to say this and in the same breath say that we cannot have capital punishment because we may kill an innocent person.
Our laws prohibit anti-social behaviour. We must count on our criminal justice system to be objective enough to deal equally with everyone. Whatever the seriousness of the crime, the protections guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply. Maximum penalties are a statement by Parliament and thus by society that the conduct of the criminal is seriously anti-social.
It is interesting to note that the offence of murder has not changed much since 1955 when the last complete revision of the Criminal Code took place. However, its classifications and related punishments have changed. I would like to outline the changes that have occurred since 1961.
In 1961, murder was classified for the first time. Distinctions were made between capital and non-capital murder, with the former being punishable by death. The clear intent at the time was to reserve the death penalty for the most calculated and direct forms of murder. These fell into three categories: planned and deliberate, death caused by own act or otherwise directly participating in the killing and finally when the victim was a peace officer, guard or similar official, whether the murder was intentional or not. In 1961, the death sentence could be commuted to nothing less than life imprisonment.
In 1967, the Act to amend the Criminal Code changed the qualification of capital murder to apply only to those who had murdered peace officers, prison guards and similar officials who were acting in the course of their duties. Every other form was delegated to non-capital and was punishable by life imprisonment.
When this amendment expired in 1972, the law reverted to the 1961 formula. In 1974 the capital and non-capital categories were changed to murder punishable by death, reserved for those who killed peace officers and prison guards; and murder punishable by life imprisonment. This lasted three years. Capital punishment was abolished in 1976 in a narrow

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
vote in the House. It was at that time we adopted the categories of first and second degree murder. The difference between the two is in the sentencing. First degree murder, which includes planned and deliberate murder, contracted murder, and murder of a peace officer or prison guard, is punishable by life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. Since then there have been numerous Private Members' motions and Bills in favour of the reinstatement of the death penalty, but none have come to a free vote until now.
We must remember that this motion, if passed, will require a parliamentary committee to examine the issues relating to capital punishment and subsequently draft legislation to be debated in the House. The constitutional Act of 1867 gave the federal Government jurisdiction to legislate criminal law, with minor exceptions. This is what we are doing here today and have been doing for the past several days.
We should be careful with some of the information we have been hearing in this House from those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment. The year 1962 seems to be the time many are using to indicate that capital punishment does not deter or prevent murders. However, it is clear that year ends a period of time when little comprehensive data was kept. From 1956 to 1961 inclusive, 10 on-duty police officers were murdered. Unfortunately the data does not show how many cases were solved. However, it does show one of the killers committed suicide. Another was declared insane. Four more were convicted of murder.
It can be said, after examining the information available, that in the six years before 1962 two police killers were executed. In the supposed watershed year of 1962, 11 officers were killed out of a total of eight incidents involving 10 killers. Of those 10 persons charged, two were declared insane and the death penalty is not likely to deter those who are mentally ill. A third committed suicide and spent time in a mental institution. A fourth, who was responsible for killing three officers in B.C. in one incident, was shot and killed by police. He also had spent time in a mental institution. Four of the 10 killers who were responsible for six of the police officer murders in 1962 were mentally ill and probably would not have been deterred in any event. This information weakens the abolitionists' argument. No conclusion can be made against capital punishment as a deterrent factor for murder by using 1962 as the example.
Our society is not going to the dogs. We have not reached a stage where the call to reinstate capital punishment is the result of mass hysteria or hype. Canadians are looking at our criminal law and asking why rehabilitation is not working. Why are mass murderers such as Clifford Olson being allowed to receive special protection in the Kingston Penitentiary? Because the system fears for his life if he was incarcerated in the regular stream of a different maximum security prison. It has been reported that Mr. Olson himself, after confessing to
his crimes, said he would not have killed those innocent children if the death penalty was in effect and enforced.
Retribution means recompense for evil done. The German philosopher Kant, in the 1800s, believed that the only proper reason for punishment was the service of strict justice. The only just punishment for the unpardonable crime of murder is proportionate to that crime. Using that philosophical framework, I reiterate that with our system of criminal law, the person charged with and proven to be guilty of first degree murder, planned and deliberate or contracted, should be eligible for the maximum penalty, death.
It seems remarkable to me that the NDP, which calls for abortion on demand, turns around and righteously states that we should not reinstate capital punishment for first degree murder. The message members of the NDP are sending out is that it is all right to destroy the life of an unborn child but do not consider putting to death someone who has been convicted of intentionally murdering an innocent person. What hypocrisy.
In closing, I must say that my conscience demands that I vote in favour of this motion. I anxiously await the rest of the debate and hopefully the upcoming legislation from the parliamentary committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a couple of questions based on his closing remarks in which he drew on the philosophy of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. This relates to the concept of the appropriateness of punishment.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would feel his view that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for first degree murder is extendible to other degrees of criminal offences? If they are not, I would like him to explain clearly why he is prepared to tolerate this inconsistency in his own views? Is the Hon. Member then in favour of such things as amputations for those who wound or physically hurt another person? Is he in favour of stealing from the thief? Does he not appreciate the inconsistency of applying that rigorous logic to one category of offence and not to any other of a number of offences?
In addition, I would like the Hon. Member to address the question of the company of nations which the reintroduction of capital punishment in Canada would put us in. Does he have any particular admiration or feeling of solidarity with regimes such as those of Iraq, the Soviet Union, Albania, China and Iran, as well as numerous states in the United States, where capital punishment is in effect? Does he really feel that is appropriate international company for this country to be counted with?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, we have degrees of punishment for degrees of crime. I said that for planning and carrying out the taking of someone's life, the person who did so would have
June 25, 1987

to forfeit his or her own life. 1 do not see any inconsistency there with the rest of our laws.
As to whether or not we should be comparing ourselves to other countries, I find in passing strange that the very Party which seems to take great delight in supporting the Socialist Soviet Union-


John Edmund Parry: Rubbish.


Carlo Rossi: Talk about capital punishment.


Ross Belsher: He asked a question and 1 will answer it. He finds that part of their law repugnant. Nevertheless, we do not base our laws on what other countries are doing. We have to shape our laws for the situation we have here in Canada.
I find it very strange that when you ask many abolitionists if there are any crimes for which they would be in favour of having capital punishment as the penalty, many of them will say, yes, if it was just for that crime. Just a few minutes ago we heard an Hon. Member say that he could see capital punishment being brought back for repeat offenders. However, he was planning to vote against the motion the way it is.
I for one want to see it brought back for a very limited number of crimes. Many people have used the argument of the sanctity of life and therefore they cannot vote for capital punishment. I, too, value the sanctity of life but the sanctity of life can be demonstrated in no better way than putting on the books the penalty for those convicted of premeditated murder. It is very difficult to prove that murder is premeditated. I do not believe there will be many people executed if capital punishment is put back on the books, but it should be on the books as a deterrent in order to save lives.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on two previous occasions in this House, in 1973 and again in 1976, I voted for the abolition of the death penalty. This time I decided not to rely merely on my past point of view but to rethink and reconsider my position carefully and seriously. I decided to do so to see whether there were any good and substantial reasons to justify changing my mind.
I stand for effective law and order in our society. I abhor all acts of violence and, most especially, I am repulsed and angered by violent and criminal acts against children, women, elderly people, and all other peaceful, non-violent persons who have done nothing to provoke or invite acts of terror or horror upon themselves.
I am for law and order. I believe that our police forces should be sufficiently strong in numbers and effective in the enforcement of law to prevent as much violence as possible. Our nation must have a system of justice, including punishment, which while always protecting the innocent does not allow the guilty to laugh in our faces, to be set free on technicalities or after serving only token periods of time in prison. I believe these things, especially with reference to those
Capital Punishment
who think that their problems or their way of life can be resolved or eased by way of violent acts.
During the debate on capital punishment in June of 1976 the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, said:
It is clear that the protection of innocent people against assaults on their lives and liberty is one of the highest duties of the state. It is equally clear that this duty requires the aggressive and effective prevention, prosecution and punishment of criminal violence.
It is essential that people have confidence in the law, essential that they have confidence in the ability of the legal process to protect them against the lawless.
I ask the House, however, whether reinstatement of the death penalty will help in any way to give us a better and a safer society. Will it accomplish what its advocates claim it will, that is, bring down the murder rate and make the streets safer? Will it reduce the number of violent acts in our nation?
There is a widespread belief among Canadians that a very high percentage of all crimes committed are violent. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, violent crime comprises only about 8 per cent of all crimes and homicides less than 1 per cent of all violent crime. More than one-third of all murders occur within a domestic situation in the victim's very own home. These statistics do not in any way lessen the seriousness of the problem of violence in general or murder in particular, but they do place the problem in some reasonable perspective.
It distresses me that so many who advocate the death penalty as the answer to violence in society seem, at the same time, to place so little emphasis on prevention. For example, in the constituency which I represent, there are two young people who have developed an excellent school program on violence in the home and in interpersonal relationships. Programs such as these can help so much to avoid violent acts. However, the two young people in question are experiencing great difficulty getting the funding they need to take their program to more schools and present it to a larger number of students.
Is it not curious, Sir, that if we are concerned about violence there are no resources available for a program such as this which can prevent acts of violence in the home and among those who interrelate one with the other? Dr. Nora Volkow, a Texas psychiatrist, recently told a medical conference that one-half of all violent crimes are committed by people who may have brain defects that are treatable with medicine. Murder committed by someone with a mental disorder is not culpable homicide. In the past, when the death penalty was in effect, our Criminal Code described capital murder as being planned and deliberate. Even with the death penalty, then, we do not execute sick people. Is it not entirely possible that a serious brain defect, a mental disorder of one kind or another, could go undetected and such a person could be executed?
Our system of justice is not established on the principle of vengeance. Capital punishment was generally accepted throughout the world for many centuries mainly because of the desire for vengeance as well as the recognition of the sovereign right to inflict death in the name of society. At one time many crimes were punishable by death but gradually in most western

June 25, 1987
Capital Punishment
democratic societies there came to be only one capital offence, that is, deliberate, planned homicide.
Following World War II, with its shocking record of the holocaust, its bombing of civilian populations, the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was a strong reaction throughout the western world to officially-sanctioned death. The universal declarations of human rights of 1948 recognized the rights and the dignity of man.
So, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that while our system of justice is not established on the principle of vengeance, neither is it built on the Christian ideal of turning the other cheek. Punishments are meant to be deterrents and there is no doubt in my mind that capital punishment is a deterrent. Most forms of punishment are deterrents, even fines for parking violations. Have you ever witnessed someone rushing out of a meeting in order to put another quarter in the meter?
The question then becomes whether such a drastic form of punishment as the death penalty is an effective deterrent-not whether it is a deterrent alone, but whether it is effective. Is it, for example, more effective than life imprisonment? Studies to date lead one to the conclusion that the death penalty does not have any demonstrable deterrent effect greater than that of life imprisonment. United Nations data confirm the view that abolition of the death penalty does not appreciably increase the incidence of crime.
I have heard the argument, of course, that using the death penalty is more economical than keeping people in prison. That being so, it is entirely logical to ask why not then increase the number of capital crimes and save not only a little money but a great deal. Obviously, even to pose such a question is absurd. Capital punishment can never be reintroduced on the basis of being part of any Government's program of economic restraint. In fact, executions can be extremely costly when all of the different aspects are factored in, including trials, appeals, seeking pardons and so on. At least one U.S. District Attorney has acknowledged for the record that it would be cheaper to send the killers to jail than to execute them. But then he went on to say: "But with some horrible violent crimes even if it costs more, it is worth it to put them to death". That surely is the question for this House: Is it worth it to put them to death?
Some of those who have witnessed executions think otherwise. Recently 1 took part in a panel discussion on capital punishment which was held in the City of Yellowknife. One woman there told the group that her father, an RCMP officer, once had to witness a hanging as part of his duty. He was ill for many weeks thereafter and he became a strong abolitionist as a result.
A U.S. journalist who won the draw to witness an execution said later:
Until you see it, you don't understand how gruesome it is, what tremendous responsibility it is .. . you have to block out the fact that this was a killing, not a
death. What it said was people are junk, and if you don't believe it, just watch this.
Professor Ken L. Avio of the University of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia, in a study entitled "The Quality of Mercy: Exercise of the Royal Prerogative in Canada", has noted that those who actually did hang in Canada when capital punishment existed tended to be a limited group, more likely to be male, more likely to be an aboriginal person. Other groups which were more likely than others to die if convicted of murder were a labourer, a French Canadian, or a person whose origins were eastern European.
As well, whether clemency was granted or not depended on the number of homicides committed while one's case was being considered. If one was on death row when a number of murders took place, one would more likely hang than if one's case was being examined during a more quiescent period.
The Assembly of First Nations has written to all Members of Parliament, opposing the death penalty. The letter, signed by the National Chief, George Erasmus, says in part:
The death penalty is uncivilized, heathen, barbaric and unworthy of-a reasonable people. There is evidence all over the world that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to the heinous offences upon which it follows. The legal system is not without failure and innocent persons have been put to death by the state.
There is further evidence that First Nations' citizens have been and are being punished by the Canadian state in disproportionate numbers and could be the most victims of a restored death penalty.
Former U.K. Speaker George Thomas, in his book Mr. Speaker tells of two murders which were committed on the same night in the Aberavon constituency at a time when Great Britain still had capital punishment. One murder was brutal, unprovoked and involved an innocent young girl. The other murder was by a young man of his girl-friend. The latter confessed and pleaded that it had been entirely accidental, having taken place on a lonely mountain road during a lovemaking encounter.
One of these young men was Roman Catholic and the other was Protestant. Both were found guilty and sentenced to death. A request for clemency was made on behalf of the young man who pleaded that an accident occurred. The British Home Secretary refused to exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy in the one case where there was justification because he feared offending one of the two major religions in the United Kingdom. If one was Protestant and the other was Roman Catholic, then both must hang and they both did.
Speaker George Thomas writes:
When Chuter Ede left the Home Office he told the Commons that he had changed his mind about capital punishment. As I listened to him say that the case of Timothy Evans, whose innocence was proved after he had been hanged, had made him opposed to the death penalty, 1 recalled my own unhappy dealing with him and wondered if the boy from Aberavon was also on his conscience.
I have faced some criticism at home because I did not take a straw vote on capital punishment. However, one newspaper in my riding did and there was a 1 per cent return and a near split decision. I want to say that I am not opposed in any way
June 25, 1987

to a measure of direct democracy in our country. If we wish to use referendums more often, I am not against that. However, I ask Members who do not usually poll their constituents about other matters such as tax increases, free trade, or constitutional amendments why they choose the single issue of capital punishment and ask their constituents to become involved in this process?
Even if I were to take a straw vote in the constituency I represent, how valid would the results really be? A satisfactory referendum involves using full election apparatus, not merely mailing out a householder with a tear-off card which is no more than a pseudo-ballot. The results are entirely and completely inconclusive, proving nothing about the attitude of the people who live in that region or constituency.
No, I tell you that our system of democracy is to the greater degree representative in nature and it is I who must stand here in my place soon and make a decision regarding life and regarding death. It is a matter of conscience. Since I myself could never be an executioner, and since I would never want to witness a hanging which my vote, in part, may cause, I must therefore oppose the death penalty and I will vote against this motion.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting listening to the Hon. Member. I respect him because he has convictions.
Does he believe that the state has a responsibility to defend the security and liberty of an individual? For instance, does the state have an obligation to defend the nation from outside invasion?
Does the Hon. Member believe that we must have armed forces that defend liberty and security of the individual? If he agrees, can he explain why he does not agree that the state has the obligation to protect the liberty and security of an individual inside the country, when the threat comes from within, whether it is terrorism or hired killers? In each instance, the state has to kill.
When there is war, the state has the obligation to defend the liberty and security of the individual. There is killing. Similarly, when someone takes an innocent life, or there is terrorism, does the state have the right to protect its citizens?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that is an entirely reasonable and fair question. I gather from the question that the Member was not here to listen to the first part of my speech.
In the first part of my speech I placed emphasis on the need for law and order in society, for an effective system of justice and for punishments in order that the number of violent acts could be reduced.
Then I asked the question about whether or not something as drastic as capital punishment would in fact achieve what its advocates said it would, namely a safer, better society with less violence? I used all the evidence I could muster to show that, in fact, the death penalty does not do that.
Capital Punishment
The Hon. Member asks me if I believe that we need a standing army to protect our society in the event of a war? I say of course. However, I return that question to my hon. friend and ask him: Do we go to war if we do not examine first all the other alternatives? Before we go to war do we not examine the possibility of negotiating a peace, some kind of compromise which would prevent us from a head-on conflict, death and destruction? Of course we do. We try to avoid war at all cost because we know the results are so drastic and irreversible in many instances.
I say it is the same thing within our society. Do we need something so drastic as the death penalty when there are other alternatives which are equally effective and yet do not carry all the dangers and consequences which the death penalty has upon our society?


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Hon. Member says, but on the other hand, if we compromise to get peace at all costs, what will happen? We had this type of compromise in the 1930s. Mr. Chamberlain tried to compromise with Hitler. The result was that 30 million people were killed. So we cannot compromise on principle because we can be pushed too far. Does the Hon. Member believe there is too much of a compromise on that one point?


B. Keith Penner: The Hon. Member talks about the need to compromise to avoid war and sometimes it does not work, but surely the Hon. Member is not saying that matters ought never to be taken before the Security Council of the United Nations Organization to see whether a confrontation between two sovereign states can somehow be avoided, that somehow the United Nations can intervene and prevent war? That is a kind of compromise, a kind of peace-making operation which every Hon. Member would encourage.
I say that within our own society there are other ways of dealing with violence. We should have more programs to prevent violence in the home and among people who know each other-where most of the violence takes place, by the way- and we can have a more effective justice system to ensure that people who commit violent acts do not laugh in the face of society, thinking they can do it again and again. There are many, many alternatives before we, as the representatives of the people of this country, would have to say that we have exhausted all possibilities in dealing with crime in our society, that we have no more answers and, therefore, we must reintroduce the death penalty.
If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) came to this House and said: "There is nothing more we can do. Nothing works. We still have violence in our society, therefore, we must use execution", then they would have a convincing case and a person like myself would have to reconsider. But I suggest to the Hon. Member and to the House that we have not exhausted all the alternatives. There is so much more we can do. We have not even begun to

June 25, 1987
Business of the House
seriously deal with violence in a civilized society. Until we have exhausted every single alternative, why would we turn to something as drastic, dramatic and final as the death penalty as an answer to this problem?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader what business he intends to call for the next several days.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, again I can advise my hon. friend that, as he is aware, we have had a very productive House Leaders' meeting. We have reached agreement on the order of business for the next couple of days. Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-60, the Copyright Act, followed by Bill C-21, the Shippers Conference Exemption Act, followed by Bill C-42, the Finance Bill, followed by Bill C-56, another Financial Institutions Bill, followed by Bill C-66, the Veterans Affairs Bill, followed by Bill C-64, the Income Tax Act and Bill C-63 the Small Business Act. If that is finished, we will go on to Bill C-70.
On Monday we will call the capital punishment debate again. On Tuesday we will call Bill C-71, that is the amendment to the Criminal Code flowing out of the Deschenes Report, Bill C-70, WHMS Bill, that is the Workmans Hazardous Materials Bill, Bill C-69, the Customs Tariff Bill.
A Bill will be introduced with respect to the farm improvement loans, I believe, tomorrow. That will be considered. It will be followed, hopefully, by Bill C-62. I understand there may be some problems with that, but if we can work those out, we would like to deal with that Bill. Then Bill C-62, which is a debt relief Bill, and Bill C-61 and Bill C-51. Bill C-61 is on proceeds from crime and we would like to move that into committee if possible, and Bill C-51, the Tobacco Bill.
It is a fairly light agenda and with co-operation, tolerance and understanding, I am sure we can get through all this and perhaps adjourn before the regular hour of ten o'clock.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. House Leader that if tomorrow we go through Bill C-60, Bill C-21, Bill C-42, Bill C-56, Bill C-66, Bill C-64 and Bill C-70, do we understand that if they were not to be passed, they would be taking their place on Tuesday next week, or will they be eliminated and we would start next Tuesday with Bill C-71? If such was the case, I would like to know to prepare myself accordingly to speak on some of these very important Bills. Will there be a legislative committee for some? Will they be dealt with here? What exactly are we saying yes to today? I would like to know the rules.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member is saying yes to nothing. I am simply outlining the order of business and it is subject to change. The details have been worked out with the House Leaders and perhaps the Hon. Member may want to consult with his House Leader.
We would hope that we would be able to dispose of those pieces of legislation. If we do not complete all the agenda I proposed for Friday, it will obviously be carried over until Tuesday. I would hope that we might be able to conclude the capital punishment debate on Monday.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-50, an Act respecting the treatment of pension payments in determining certain unemployment insurance benefit entitlements and to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Chapter No. 17.
Bill C-59, an Act to provide for payments in respect of exploration for or development of lands for the production of hydrocarbons in Canada other than coal-Chapter No. 18.
Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada-Chapter No. 19.
Bill C-65, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988- Chapter No. 20.