Obstruction.

Mr. Macquarrie:

I am disturbed, also, at the tone this debate has been taking. People who are getting to their feet are being told to sit down. I resent the suggestion that giving my views is in any way obstruction. We are not responsible for this measure having been brought before us, and I will not be accused of obstruction because I am giving my views on it. Let those who have brought this measure before us take that into consideration. The other night I heard several members being told to sit down. We are not going to sit down until we have expressed our honest views. We did not bring this measure before the house and do not take responsibility for its being on the order paper at the present time.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry that the Prime Minister spoke as he did the other night. Believing that true greatness in any man requires a measure of humility, I hope that the Prime Minister regrets his reference to mental barbarism. I certainly

regretted hearing him make it. We differ on this important question, but nothing is gained by the intellectual arrogance which casts condescending opprobrium upon the views of those who differ.

I was disturbed also by the suggestion that it is up to the retentionists to prove their case. In a matter of this kind you do not advance proof. 1 have consulted and have been consulting for years the findings, facts and figures of the sociologists and criminologists. We know that there is nothing that leads clearly to proof. You do not, in dealing with questions of human behaviour, come up with one answer which is totally right and another which is totally wrong. Indeed, some cynics say that sociology is all data and no conclusions, and yet much of our knowledge in this field is sociological.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

I should also like to say that many highly civilized communities have had second thoughts about the death penalty. I do not think the people of the United Kingdom are a group of mental barbarians. Many of the people there are disturbed about the effects of abolition.

I was impressed by the suggestion that the death penalty is invoked for punishment and revenge. I cannot believe that it is there merely for punishment, and I hope it is never there for revenge. It is there because some people, applying their best mind and their best heart to the question, believe that it offers a greater measure of protection for society. I presume that the bill itself is offering a better measure of protection to a portion of society, namely those who are police guards and wardens.

I wonder how we can find proof of the validity of the argument when we seek to evaluate the deterrent value of life imprisonment as against the death penalty. If the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) would consult the great files down through the years of those unfortunate and tragic individuals who pleaded with the persons who had the authority to commute their death sentence, he would see the difference they discerned between continuing imprisonment and the termination of life by the state. If that were not sufficient, I would think that on grounds of logic the Solicitor General might consult his own bill because, as many speakers have mentioned, if the punishment for the killing of police guards does not enhance the deterrent force, I see no reason for its being there. Otherwise, if the deterrent force were equal,

November 22, 1967 COMMONS

the thing to do would be to sentence murderers of police guards and wardens once again, to life imprisonment. This seems to me to be the logical conclusion.

I am also concerned that the public is not receiving an adequate report of this debate. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) holds views, many of which I oppose very strongly. My attitude on many public questions is diametrically opposed to his. However, the other day he placed on the record some very disturbing statistics. I have been scanning the newspapers of this country and have found that very few Canadians who depend on the newspapers for their information will realize what in fact and in practice the expression "life imprisonment" has meant, and this is extremely important.

The matter of the state taking the life of an innocent man is what troubles the reten-tionists most, and is their tenderest point. This is something which would cause any thoughtful person the greatest pangs of conscience. We know that it has happened and it is something which brings sorrow to the heart of any decent person. But we also know, as Lord Justice Darling once said, that while perhaps an innocent man may hang, many guilty ones escape. I would say to those on the other side of the argument that an equally disturbing crisis in conscience faces them, and it is this: What happens to society after the individual who has killed one or more of his fellows is released into society and again takes the life of one or more of those to whom the state should give protection.

Who has a conscience problem then? I would not call anyone who allowed this to happen a mental barbarian. I would extend to him my greatest sympathy because he would bear a terrible burden. If in this debate we entertain for a moment the idea that life imprisonment in fact means life imprisonment, we deal with a delusion which could indeed be extremely dangerous. It is extremely dangerous in this country because we know that the facilities within our institutions for any sort of mental health reform are shockingly and pitifully inadequate. So the placing of a person in one of our institutions is not a sure-fire recipe for the reorientation of that man's attitude toward society. This is a very serious problem. When the Solicitor General will move to act in that field he will have the support of all of us because it is tremendously important.

The agonizing part of the problem is the protection of our society. We live in a per-

DEBATES 4577

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence missive age. Sometimes I have the feeling that the motto for our time might be: Nothing is anybody's fault. Sometimes it is the Oedipus complex that is blamed, or the fact that one is a fourth child and the other three were preferred, or else that at Sunday school one had an incompetent teacher. Of course we know there are all sorts of environmental factors, but have we yet reached the stage of viewing man as having no individual responsibility? Do we not consider that when a man takes arms against society he is never responsible for it? This is the question we must ask ourselves, and we must look inward for the answer. I think it is degrading to suggest that the human species is nothing more than something which responds to external stimuli. Psychologists say that man in all his actions and reactions is just a little higher than the ape. One can produce predictable patterns of behaviour. But some of us believe also that man is a little lower than the angels and that he wants to be given responsibility. This is not to say that when we force men to uphold the law we should accept the terribly condescending label of mental barbarians. But surely sometimes we must ask the individual to accept responsibility for his action.

I am concerned that this bill may be passed in a feeling of euphoria because it is contemporary. I have never thought that being contemporary is one of the cardinal virtues, that it is the thing to do and that you are on the side of the angels when you are progressive. I have read editorials which say that men with conscience have to vote for abolition. It is said that thoughtful people are abolitionists, and that it is only the poor, insensitive, hardhearted people and the barbaric die-hards who, when they search their conscience, come up with an answer different from that of the Solicitor General.

This is the element that is creeping into this debate, and I do not like it. I place people like the former minister of justice on a par with any member of this house in so far as sensitivity to human problems is concerned. There is no room for this kind of condemnation. We are looking for an answer, and I must confess, in all humility, that I am not yet sure of my own answer.

[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)

I do not like the bill. I am afraid it does not take into consideration the protection of society, which is surely a fundamental of law. However I hate to be so narrow minded that I would not say that, perhaps for five

November 22, 1967

4578 COMMONS

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence years, let the matter be tried. So I may end up, not being an abolitionist nor a retention-ist but an abstentionist. I do feel that it would have been better in many ways for this measure to have been brought up at a later date in a new parliament after it had been tested a little more by public opinion. We are in an age where we are reacting against what went on in earlier days. I heard the Prime Minister talk about the barbaric practices of the 18th and 19th centuries. Nobody wants them back. Nobody wants to hang a pickpocket, although sometimes we are disturbed when a bright young man who steals a boat gets a sentence which is longer than the man who murders.

There is a law of motion known as Newton's law which says that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. I wonder if that is not a law that applies equally to public emotion. We are perhaps reacting rather too strenuously against some of the viciousness and the callousness of earlier days. But humans are still free, and we are moving a little further on the way toward dismantling society's basic protection. For all of these reasons, and they are only some of the ones in my mind, I find it impossible to support this measure. I regret its introduction at this time because I feel there are other ways in which this house could be more gainfully, more usefully employed.

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):

Mr. Speaker, the day the government moves to introduce into this house a measure to help the victims of murder will be the day I shall become an abolitionist. This will be the day when the abolitionists achieve a balanced sense of the values of human life, and show those feelings in a practical measure. Until that day, and it certainly is not today, sir, I shall be a retentionist. We are only being asked to expand our consciences for murders, and not their victims. The question really rests on the sense of justice of the people at large. The punishment of the taker of human life on the basis of eight years, ten months and one day in jail, even if it leads to his rehabilitation, does not satisfy the community desire for justice. The public acceptance of the idea that justice is being done in all criminal cases is surely the foundation of our society. We do not satisfy that basic appetite by considering a measure whose sponsor says that hanging is wrong in principle, but applies it anyway in certain cases.

[Mr. Macquarrle.l

I am making these very brief remarks, sir, despite the experience I have had of actually seeing a hanging.

Question.

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):

It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that members on both sides of this question find it necessary, for the second time in a short period, to face the same problem. It is regrettable also that members presently sitting opposite are so impatient they are now asking for the question to be decided, when only a few short days ago it was that side of the house which refused to face the issue. But refusing to face an issue is something this government has been doing continually for a number of years. The fact this measure has been introduced for a second time is made quite evident by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Pearson) approach on Thursday last, his indication that he will get on with the job of giving leadership on this particular question, and that the government will settle the question of capital punishment if parliament will make their job somewhat easier. I believe his statement amounts to exactly that.

Parliament made a decision on this matter, but the Prime Minister and his government have not had the intestinal fortitude to carry out that decision, despite all their pronouncements about respect for parliament. This government has absolutely refused to carry out a decision made by this house, but comes back with the appeal: We will see that your decisions are carried out, provided you make our decisions easy enough. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) has made a most eloquent speech and one to which I think the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) should have paid close attention. No doubt the Solicitor General recalls that he showed the nation how emotionally upset he was when the decision went against his wishes last time. After listening to the remarks by the hon. member for Queens he must realize that this emotion is not only on one side of the question, but on both sides. I have every respect for the minister. However, there was no real need for him to show emotion. The government has complete control of this situation and have been exercising that control for a number of years. It would be a different matter if the Solicitor General were placed in a position where the decision of parliament had to be carried out.

When I say the government has complete control of this situation, I mean they have

November 22, 1967

the power to commute sentences and have been commuting sentences. There was absolutely no need for the government to introduce this subject for the second time. According to the polls I have seen, the most recent of which being the one conducted at Expo, the people of Canada favour retention of the death penalty. As I have said, the government has complete control of this situation. The Prime Minister described as barbaric those people who favour retaining the death penalty. While I cannot do so with the eloquence of the hon. member for Queens, I should like to say this attitude on the part of the Prime Minister is most unfair.

I believe it is unfair, too, to those judges in the country who have been properly carrying out the law of this country over a period of years by imposing the death sentence on those convicted of murder.

Since this subject has been introduced for a second time, it is very difficult to avoid repetition. I should like to refer for a moment to one strong abolitionist in the house who has quoted the Bible to illustrate that capital punishment should be abolished.

I would remind him that we can point to many passages in the Bible which support the imposition of the death sentence upon a murderer. I must say this same member- and this struck me as rather strange-said there are people who are too cowardly to commit suicide, so they murder someone, realizing that they will be put to death for it. This is the way they choose to commit suicide. This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard, and it was put forward by a member of this house in favour of abolition. What makes the argument even more ridiculous is the fact that anyone contemplating suicide who adopts this method is going to wait a long while before achieving his desired result under this government, because it has commuted every sentence. I ask the Solicitor General to consider that so that he does not get emotionally upset if the vote goes the way it should go and we retain capital punishment.

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

I have many friends in police forces whom I respect greatly, though I do not know any prison guards. In Cape Breton we are not interested in prisons and do not have much use for them. However, I do not know how the government can bring in a measure to protect two classes in our community, yet completely disregard other people about whom the Solicitor General might become far more emotional should they be the victims of

DEBATES 4579

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence a murderer. Such cases touch the emotions much more than the murder of policemen or prison guards. I submit that if we are retaining capital punishment in cases of murders of policemen or prison guards, we should also include, as other members of the house have indicated, friends and relatives.

The hon. member for Queens also referred to the charge of obstruction; and there was a bit of obstruction this afternoon. Because members are on one side of the argument they are asked to sit down, to shut up, and there are cries of "Question". I will accept the charge of obstruction from the other side of the house for the very reason that I am going to throw it right back at the government.

This government has been obstructing parliament ever since it reintroduced this issue. This government has been delaying important matters while parliament debates a matter it has already decided. This is the most obvious form of obstruction the house has ever been faced with. While the government saddles the House of Commons with this issue, on other questions it charges obstruction.

The government has been concerning itself with convicted murderers, at the expense of many innocent and law abiding citizens who today are faced with problems requiring prompt attention. Time and again the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown remind us of the value of the time of the house. I am using the time of the house now to point out to the government that this is the most blatant case of obstruction in the house that I have ever witnessed. As I have said, repetition in this matter is inevitable; yet the government refuses to deal with the problems facing our law abiding citizens.

I could take up the time of the house to give the minister many reasons why this particular issue should never have been allowed to come before parliament. The government talk of their concern about this question, but I suggest that the greatest concern the government could have shown was in connection with an event that occurred in the city of Sydney last week end, when over 20,000 people gathered to express their anxiety over a problem that the government could and should be dealing with, instead of devoting time to convicted murderers. This issue has been decided, yet the government has not in any way, shape or form carried out the wishes of this parliament or the law of the country.

November 22, 1967

4580 COMMONS

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence

Hon. members opposite say that capital punishment is barbaric. What is barbaric about it? What have the retentionists accomplished by voting in favour of retaining capital punishment? The matter is out of their hands completely; it is within the control of a government which to my knowledge has commuted every death sentence. There may be some still awaiting the death penalty, but not one hanging has taken place since this government came into office.

No one on that side of the house can claim the retentionists have any control over capital punishment. The government has absolutely refused to exercise the law. By introducing this measure to amend the Criminal Code it is dividing the country into two classes of citizens-policemen and prison guards, and others-and I submit the measure is a complete waste of time. It is an illustration of what obstruction really is.

To bring in a measure which suggests suspending the death penalty on a five year trial basis is ridiculous. Britain legislated for a five year trial period and to date not half of the period has elapsed. After only two years the people in Britain are hollering and screaming for the death penalty to be brought back and carried out. This government goes on its merry way, ignoring the previous decision of parliament, and making decisions which suit their own need about the fate of convicted murderers.

Granted, Mr. Speaker, the life expectancy of the government is not long and perhaps it wants to put something on the record to which hon. members opposite can point in some election pamphlet, and say the Liberals did this and that. In this particular case what they want to do is unacceptable to the Canadian people. The government should concern itself with every-day problems facing the country and should keep in mind at all times the welfare of the relatives of the victims, not the murderer. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Queens, who spoke on this subject with far more ability and knowledge than I, these are matters that should be considered by the minister.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

The fate of convicted murderers is in the hands of the government. The government is doing exactly the opposite of what parliament decided on a previous occasion. There is nothing that I or any other retentionist in the house can do to change the approach of the government. It has complete control over

the situation and has not carried out the law or the wishes of parliament. If the government is concerned about the matter, why could it not continue to do what it has been doing in the past. No members on this side of the house who are in favour of retention have, during the question period, asked the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice why certain men who have been sentenced to death have not been hanged. The government is in control. It should not saddle this house with a bill that obstructs other legitimate business which is of vital concern to the law abiding citizens of our country, those citizens who look to this government for guidance.

Emotional.

Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):

Yes, my argument may be emotional, but emotions run high on both sides of the argument.

I ask the government to direct its energies toward bringing economic stability to the country. Let us look after the law abiding Canadian citizen; let us look after those who suffer as a result of murder. Let us do something constructive for a change.

Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):

Mr. Speaker, I have followed all the speeches and listened attentively to all the speakers who were for abolition or retention of capital punishment.

Since the last free vote we had the opportunity to give hardly a few months ago, my attitude on this most important question has not changed, Mr. Speaker.

Let me refer to an article published in L'Action on October 23 under the title:

Let us become police officers or prison guards.

I quote:

Such an argument is probably put forward in Ottawa, as it was in other countries, but it is absolutely inconsistent. Let us think it over. If it is true that by maintaining the death penalty against murderers of police officers and prison guards, these persons are protected and this provides for the utmost limitation in the number of victims, why is it that the same argument could not apply to murders in general. If it is admitted that the death penalty can be effective in these two cases, how does one conclude that it is not in all other cases?

By introducing in the commons this legislation which is as inconsistent as it is dangerous, the federal cabinet by implication recognizes that capital punishment represents a protection for a group of society, so that it constitutes also a protection for all society; thus, it should be maintained completely in all cases.

November 22. 19S7 COMMONS

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does the Criminal Code provide in the circumstances?

"202a (1) Murder is capital murder or noncapital murder.

(2) Murder is capital murder, in respect of any person, where

(a) it is planned and deliberate on the part of such person,

(b) it is within section 202 and such person

(i) by his own act caused or assisted in causing the bodily harm from which the death ensued,

(ii) by his own act administered or assisted in administering the stupefying or over-powering thing from which the death ensued,

(iii) by his own act stopped or assisted in the stopping of the breath from which the death ensued,

(iv) himself used or had upon his person the weapon as a consequence of which the death ensued, or

(v) counselled or procured another person to do any act mentioned in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) or to use any weapon mentioned in subparagraph (iv), or

(c) such person by his own act caused or assisted in causing the death of

(i) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties, or

(ii) a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, gaoler, guard or other officer or permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties, or counselled or procured another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing the death.

All murder other than capital murder is noncapital murder.

Every one who commits capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to death.

Every one who commits non-capital murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who appears to the court to have been under the age of eighteen years at the time he committed a capital murder shall not be sentenced to death upon conviction therefor but shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouras-ka (Mr. Dionne):

That Bill No. C-168 be not read for the second time now, but that all further consideration of the said bill be deferred until the Canadian people approve its principle by a referendum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):

I shall read the amendment while waiting for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Simard, seconded by Mr. Dionne, moves:

That Bill No. C-168 be not read for the second time now, but that all further consideration of the said bill be deferred until the Canadian people approve its principle by a referendum.

DEBATES 4581

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

Mr. Pennell:

Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to study this amendment. I wonder if debate could be continued and I would reserve the right to study the amendment and voice an argument on it to the house at a later date.

Mr. Knowles:

Same here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):

Actually this amendment was read on a provisional basis.

Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):

On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker, do the remarks of the minister mean that the debate is going to continue today and will go into another day? Is he not anticipating a vote?

Mr. Pennell:

I am in the hands of the house. If hon. members wish to express their views I am certainly willing to listen to them with respect. It is not for me to determine whether debate should continue or not. That is in the hands of the house.

Mr. Mac T. McCulcheon (Lamblon-Kent):

Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago I supported the amendment of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). I suppose therefore I might be classed as an abolitionist. However, I must point out that I cannot support this bill in its present form. I cannot make a value judgment on human life. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) suggested in his remarks the other night that those who voted for retention were mental barbarians, I think he was cynically imputing unfair motives to many of us who feel we must vote against this bill in its present form. I say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell): Make it total abolition and I will support it.

Question.

Mr. Cowan:

Mr. Speaker-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):

I think the hon. member for York-Humber has already spoken on this question.

Mr. Cowan:

I wish to ask if I can speak on the amendment? You have stated that the amendment is provisionally accepted and I am quite prepared to speak on the amendment at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):

Actually I do not know whether the amendment is

4582 COMMONS

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence acceptable. The Speaker will be in the chamber in a tew minutes and will make the decision.