May 23, 1961

PC

Louis Fortin

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Louis Fortin (Monimagny-L'Islet):

Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly not delay the passing of the bill, but I shall point out to the hon. member for Levis that, if the bill were amended so as to provide also for the building of a tunnel, the Three Rivers bridge corporation would also have to amend its charter, and from then on, call itself the Three Rivers bridge or tunnel corporation.

Anyway, this is not what I proposed to say when I took the floor. I simply want to point out to the hon. member for Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) and the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Lahaye) that, even if we represent ridings which are at some distance from their own, and if the construction of a bridge at Three Rivers may only be more or less interesting for us, we want to assure them that we entirely approve their plan. We approve it the more that, if the Three Rivers bridge is ever built, we hope this construction will give the present provincial government the sound idea of building another bridge connecting Quebec and Levis. Indeed, as the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), pointed out a few moments ago, the present government of Quebec should build a bridge between Quebec and Levis. The hon. member for Levis said earlier that he crossed every day from Levis over to Quebec. I wonder whether he travels that way only since there has been a change of government in Quebec, or whether he did it as frequently before.

Anyway, and even if we do not live in the said area, we know the difficulties which face the people on the south shore who want to go to Three Rivers. I do not think that anybody could reasonably oppose such a bill, and I want to assure hon. members from the Three Rivers area, as well as my hon. friend, the representative of Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), that we wholeheartedly agree with them. If the project is carried out within two years, it will, as I say, invite the provincial government of Quebec to build another bridge between Quebec and Levis.

Moreover, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska who said

a few moments ago that the former provincial government unfortunately lost the election before being able to carry out its project. He did say "unfortunately". Let me tell him that, if that bridge is not built within two years, the former government, which most probably will be carried back to power, will see that it is built.

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Chairman, if I said "unfortunately" it was meant for Union Nationale members.

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

I do not think there has been any misinterpretation of the words used by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
PC

Rémi Paul

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Paul:

Mr. Chairman, in answer to questions-

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

1 must inform the house- (Text):

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
PC

Jacques Flynn (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) speaks now, he will close the debate. I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
CCF

Harold Edward Winch

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) and of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). From what they have had to say, particularly the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, it is quite obvious that there is a matter of importance and urgency in connection with the construction of this bridge and therefore in connection with the passage of Bill No. S-15.

I may be some 3,000 miles away from this spot in question but I have a keen interest in it. Anything which is of importance to Canada or to any section of Canada and which is correct will have my support. However, irrespective of the statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and the hon. member for Timiskaming I must say that I cannot quite fathom what is behind this bill in view of what is of importance and urgency. Why do I say that?

I must, of course, refer to clauses of the bill but I do so only as to principle. I think that the sponsor of this bill owes an explanation to this House of Commons because one of the principles of the bill contained in clause 3 is this. It states:

3. The construction of the said bridge shall be commenced within three years after the plans therefor have been approved by the governor in council-

I direct attention to the words "three years after the plans therefor have been approved". As a matter of principle in this bill it is stated not only that shall there be

Private Bills

three years after the governor in council has approved the plans but that there shall be then a period of four years before the bridge must be completed.

So after what we heard this afternoon, that this is a matter of urgency, we are now asked to support in principle a bill which provides that construction of this bridge shall not commence until three years after the approval of the governor in council, and it does not have to be finished until four years thereafter. In other words, despite all the urgency we have heard, the bill before us provides that this bridge does not have to be completed for a matter of seven years. I would also point out that these seven years do not refer to the period after the passage of the bill, but after commencement of construction.

May I also draw something else to the attention of hon. members because I think this is a matter of absolute principle. Canada is a developing country and the St. Lawrence and Three Rivers, of course, are sharing in that development. Yet right in Bill No. S-15, in the schedule on page 3, we find in paragraph 22 something upon which I wish to comment. I am now referring to strictly a matter of principle. This is something which I cannot remember ever being passed or agreed to by parliament.

What is the principle here, sir? According to the principle of this bill a period of approximately eight years may elapse before the bridge is completed. Yet we now have before us in Bill No. S-15-I hope I have your permission, sir, to speak to this principle-these words:

During a period of eight years as from the sanction of this act and afterwards during the whole period of the utilization of the proposed bridge, no other person shall construct or operate a bridge, tunnel or ferry service over or under the St. Lawrence river between the north shore and the south shore and this, within a radius of 25 miles above and 25 miles below the site of the said bridge, subject however, to the rights of the corporation of the city of Trois-Rivieres in the ferry service operated by it.

I think hon. members will understand the reason why I am speaking on this matter. Under this bill as we now have it, with all due respect to the urgency of the matter about which we have been told, it is laid down that they do not even have to start construction until three years after the governor in council approves the plans, and they then have four years in which to build it. In addition to this, it is said that as long as it is held open, be it five, ten or 100 years, no matter what is the development on the St. Lawrence in the area, 25 miles above and 25 miles below the site of this bridge nobody can build a bridge, tunnel, ferry or anything.

Criminal Code

That is how this bill reads. I say that we need a factual explanation of this. Is it not something that may hold back the development of the area?

(Translation) :

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
PC
PC

Jacques Flynn (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.

(Translation):

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink
PC

Rémi Paul

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Paul:

Mr. Speaker, since it is nearly six o'clock, I cannot deal with the few points raised by hon. members in this house, but I shall simply and briefly express my appreciation to hon. members who supported the bill.

(Text):

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink

Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


?

Some hon. Members:

Six o'clock.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Topic:   THREE RIVERS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.


CRIMINAL CODE

REVISION OF PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEATH PENALTY


The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill C-92, to amend the Criminal Code (capital murder).


PC

Paul Raymond Martineau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Paul Martineau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was citing certain figures which had been placed before the royal commission on capital punishment in the United Kingdom, which tended to establish certain things, such as the deterrent value of capital punishment to the crime of murder. I hasten to acknowledge that these figures were taken from an article published by the Rev. E. L. H. Taylor, M.A., Canterbury, who was chaplain to the Canadian Legion, formerly of the parish of Temiscamingue, which is in my riding. He presented a very learned discourse on the whole question of capital punishment. His article was entitled "Should Capital Punishment be Retained". This article was widely circulated and, moreover, was published in the Canadian Bar Review.

Those figures are applicable, I suggest, to the countries and those years for which they are quoted, but are they applicable to present day conditions? I do not know. Can we

establish by statistics, absolutely and in a scientific manner, that capital punishment is, in certain cases, a deterrent? This is most difficult to establish because there is no valid basis for comparison. It is all right to say that one country has retained capital punishment and another has abolished it, yet there seems to be no difference in the rate of murders committed in each.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   REVISION OF PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEATH PENALTY
Permalink
CCF

Harold Edward Winch

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Winch:

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   REVISION OF PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEATH PENALTY
Permalink
PC

Paul Raymond Martineau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Martineau:

Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   REVISION OF PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEATH PENALTY
Permalink
CCF

Harold Edward Winch

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Winch:

Does the hon. member accept the figures of the United Nations in this regard?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   REVISION OF PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEATH PENALTY
Permalink

May 23, 1961