Mr. Beri Leboe (Cariboo):

I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. First of all I wish to thank the minister for sending us a copy of the statement so we had an opportunity to look at it.

I have some reservations in connection with the proposal made by the minister. First of all, due to the situation in which Canada finds itself today in connection with the spending of money, the amount of money to be expended in this connection should be a consideration in deciding whether to go ahead with the plan outlined by the minister. Also, I think this proposal encourages what the municipalities call ribbon development.

In other words I believe we are being premature in what we are proposing to do. If we are to develop the north country I think it should be on the basis of a gradual development. If this were done I think the proven oil policies of the provinces would be sufficient to carry out the development and exploration. In that way development would occur in a very, very logical manner, rather than the situation under a policy that is superficially imposed, which I believe will be the case with this one. Therefore I believe we would be wise to take a close look at what we are doing in the way of precedent in connection with the whole question of development of the north country.

Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak tonight, or even at all, on this bill. However, on the invitation of the Prime Minister tonight I rise to defend the position which I will be taking in the vote which is to follow. Someone has asked when it will be. I do not know when it will be. Perhaps the Prime Minister has spoken at the half way mark in the debate, for all I know. The fact remains that previously in debate on this subject the Prime Minister had taken the position which I think was quite correct. That was to refrain from entering a debate on the subject. I say this for the simple reason that there is more power vested in the Prime Minister and in his office than in that of any other individual in Canada. Naturally in a position of this kind, with the power that the Prime Minister's office has the position of those surrounding him becomes somewhat hazy. There is no doubt that the position taken by the Prime Minister is, in my mind, the right one, but I regret very much that he saw fit to enter the debate at this particular time.

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

We are speaking about something that is neither fish nor fowl. Even the Prime Minister spoke as though this was an abolitionist bill. Yet, as we see it tonight, we recognize it as something that indicates that capital punishment is in fact a deterrent, although many of us do not recognize that fact. Many of us believe that capital punishment is in existence for the protection of society, and feel that it should be retained on that basis. The Prime Minister said that three quarters of a loaf was better than none. He also indicated that he hoped the whole matter would soon be disposed of, but it is my understanding that if this bill passes the situation will remain unchanged for five years.

It seems to me that if this government remains in office for very much longer we will be presented with an amendment which will shorten the duration of this bill. We will

DEBATES November 16, 1967

be faced with another bill advocating the complete abolition of capital punishment, sponsored by this same government.

Much has been said about police officers and guards. I feel that in this regard there is great discrimination against others who have suffered at the hands of those who wilfully murder and kill. Let us consider protecting these people, as well as guards and policemen. There are many who are absolutely powerless to avoid their own demise, because of the inability to protect themselves from someone who might become a killer. As a result of this bill these killers will spend their time in prison, for how long no one knows.

Someone suggested that retentionists were here arguing on the basis of revenge and retaliation. I think the Prime Minister used these expressions. Let me deny most emphatically that we are here on the basis of attempting to be revenged. This matter does not concern individuals; it concerns the people of Canada. In our democratic structure we in the House of Commons must make decisions, therefore we cannot argue from the point of view of personal revenge. This whole matter is not viewed from a personal position in any way, but from the point of view of representatives of society.

Surely it is absolutely impossible to be completely just through our penal reform system. A convicted murderer could be 65 or 70 years of age. Time will run out on such an individual. But a convicted murderer 16 to 20 years of age who is sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his life may well spend 60 years in prison. That person would be no more than a vegetable. The man 65 or 70 years of age might be quite content to stay in prison, eat three meals a day, have proper exercise and a warm place to sleep. That individual no longer wants to play baseball or hockey. I point this out to support the argument that we cannot mete out punishment without having differences.

Mr. Leboe:

I certainly cannot, as I am not acquainted with the statistics regarding murderers. I have not made such a study my

November 16, 1967

habit. There are murderers who are over 65 years of age. Murderers can be of all ages, depending upon the circumstances at a given time. I need not refer specifically to age 65. There is still a great deal of difference between an individual between 15 and 20 years of age who is sentenced to life imprisonment and one who is between 55 and 65 years of age.

It is my belief that we should be more concerned about the results of crimes, and I am now thinking of the families and friends of individuals who are brought to trial, convicted and sentenced to life. What happens to the wives and children of such men? What are we doing about looking into the situation surrounding those people who are the innocent sufferers? Something should be done in their behalf, and this is much more important than spending hours and hours in this house trying to save the necks of premeditated murderers.

There is one more point I should like to make. If we believe, as the Prime Minister has suggested, that if we are going to retain hanging we should hang the condemned in the open for all to see, then we should also force our prisoners to live in glass houses on the main streets, where everybody can see them incarcerated.

[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

Before taking any final step we should make certain we have maximum security prisons. No one can stand in this house today and say that we have such in Canada. There is no prison in Canada from which prisoners cannot escape. They have been escaping from all prisons regularly, over the years. We must have maximum security prisons for the protection of society. If this bill should pass, there is nothing facing a convicted murderer other than life imprisonment. Certainly this is no deterrent to an individual who decides to shoot his wife. I believe that many innocent people will die if we pass this bill and abolish the death sentence. I suggest that those who have argued in favour of total capital punishment have been arguing in favour of just that, rather than for this bill, which is neither fish nor fowl. More innocent people would die because we have failed to protect society. Therefore I say we should vote against this bill. I say this because so many people in the house have been arguing the case for the total removal of capital punishment and have not been considering the bill that is before us.

DEBATES 4377

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence

Mr. Leboe:

Surely, we have lots of time.

Mr. Leboe:

Mr. Chairman, can the minister indicate whether or not there will be any change in the lending policy of the bank in respect of designated areas?

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)